El Cid, the legendary hero of Spain was a real person named Don Rodrigo Diaz de Bivar ((c. 1040, Vivar, near Burgos – July 10, 1099, Valencia)). He lived around 1035 A.D. Although he spent much of his time fighting on the side of the Moors, he became identified as the best incarnation of the true Castilian Christian spirit. His name came from the Arabic “sayyid” meaning “lord” or “chief.” He was a nobleman, who was educated in the royal court of Castile, and was one of the leading warriors of Alfonso VI against the Moors. He is considered the national hero of Spain.
As is expected, a movie made on such a hero is always made more romantic than reality, with acts of heroism and valor magnified, and when the movie has such actors such as Charlton Heston and Sophia Loren, the movie seems much more romanticized than the original. The movie was released in 1961 and earned 3 Oscar nominations, but was unable to win any Oscars.

The movie was directed by Anthony Mann, and was shot primarily on location in Spain (including the historic castles of Belmonte (Cuenca) and Peñíscola (Castellón)), with a smaller number of scenes being shot in Rome. The movie used real swords during the shooting, so you would expect that the action scenes needed a much better control and thorough safety measures.
El Cid was part of an aristocratic family, but not very powerful or high in the Spanish royal court. However, he became famous as a man who was a warrior at the same time as he was a peacemaker, willing to spare enemies if they swore their allegiance to his king. This was a time when there were many royals, with many of these royals fighting for power, and fighting for the throne. And this was also a time when the Moors were fighting for gaining space in Spain, in their quest to introduce the power of Islam inside Spain.
He was to fight back charges of treason, and eventually loses favor at the royal court, becoming a mercenary when his king Alfonso abandons him. He even fights on the side of the Moors, but eventually comes back to support his king when he is called back. He also came to command much more influence among the common people, earning their respect, and forming his own army composed of both Christians and Moors, forming his own fiefdom comprising the city of Valencia and its neighboring regions.
The book had some great scenes, such as the fight between two single warriors to get control of the city, which was a great fight. Shooting on location imparted some incredible majesty and splendor to the movie.

Books by Umberto Eco have been praised to an extreme degree, and have also evoked a huge amount of criticism. They can be difficult to read at times, and I have known many friends who shied away from his other books once they read any one of them. My opinion differs in the sense that I like his way of writing, and had previously read his 2 other works of fiction (The Name of the Rose, and Foucault’s Pendulum). I will be honest, reading Pendulum .. was tough in parts, but once I read the book, I could not help admiring. And of course, ‘The Name of the Rose’ was simply superb, and my esteem for Umberto Eco went up pretty high after reading both of them. Next was ‘The Island of the Day Before’. This is a book that has had many more mixed reviews, with many people outrightly condemning the book as too complicated and a lesser work. I do not share the same views; for me, the book was interesting and worth reading.

The tale is complex, being the tale of a person in a shipwreck, as revealed through letters and memoirs. It is not just the tale of the isolation of a ship-wreck, but the tale of the life of 17th century France, of the society, the politics, and through all this, the life of a young man. The book is the story of Roberto della Griva, born into a minor noble family. The story is devoid of many details, such as how the memoirs of Roberto got into the hands of the modern day editor who is writing the book.
Roberto is a complex personality, he believes that all the problems that he suffers is because he has an evil twin called Ferrante (an easy way to blame all the problems that a person suffers); Ferrante is a way out to ascribe the problems that a person may face. As Roberto is growing up, there is a sudden upheaval in his life, his father dies in a siege, in the Siege of Casale, the fortress guarding the frontier between Italy and France. Roberto makes his way to France where he suffers from one-way love (and that too with one of the great ladies of France); the novel also describes the colorful and complex situation in France of that time, this is the time when there is a transfer of power happening between Cardinal Richelieu and Cardinal Mazarin.
However, he is soon forced into booking his passage on a Dutch ship (the Amaryllis) that is on an expedition to find the problems of longitude, and unfortunately for him, he ends up in a shipwreck, and is washed up on another deserted ship, the Daphne. And this is where the title of the book is relevant, since Roberto believes that the ship sits on the International Date Line, and he can look at the previous day from one side of the ship.
The book may seem boring to some, but for others, it is a perfect example of the writings of Umberto Eco. Worth reading, and for many, worth treasuring.

Far more people would have seen the story of the Scot legend, William of Wallace (as depicted by Mel Gibson. Braveheart was a hugely successful film, detailing the efforts of an exceptional man to win the freedom of his country (Scotland) from the oppressive rule of the English royalty. Incidentally, there was a movie released just a month and a half before Braveheart, this one also dealing with the efforts of a Scottish hero who seeks to prove his honesty and bravery while facing incredible odds.
This was the movie Rob Roy, starring Liam Neeson in the title role of the Scottish Chieftain Rob Roy MacGregor, battling intrigue spun by feudal landowners, and how he manages to clear his name. The movie was nominated for a single Oscar (Best Supporting Actor) for the portrayal of the villain Archibald Cunningham (a psychopathic character) – played by Tim Roth.

MacGregor is a chieftain who wants to get into the business of trading Highland cattle, and hence borrows 1,000 pounds from the Marquess of Montrose (John Hurt). He entrusts the money to his sub-chieftain, but is however devastated when the Marquesses’ factor (person tending to his grounds and collecting rents) Killearn (Brian Cox) and his sociopathic protégé Archibald Cunningham (Tim Roth) murder the sub-chieftain for the money. No one knows that they have done this, but the net result is that MacGregor is now in debt to the Marquess for 1,000 pounds (a sizeable amount).
When he wants to try to make a settlement with the Marquess, the Marquess agrees, but wants MacGregor to falsely testify that the Duke of Argyll (Andrew Keir) is involved with a Jacobite plot (an attempt to bring back the Catholic King James to the throne of England and evict the Protestant kings from the throne). MacGregor is not comfortable with perjuring himself and refuses. With this, hopes of clemency from the Marquess vanish and the Marquess orders Cunnigham to take MacGregor to debtors prison. MacGregor runs away, and his house and wife bear the brunt. His house is destroyed, livestock killed, and his wife Mary raped by the psychopathic Cunnigham. This is discovered by MacGregor’s brother Alasdair, but he is sworn to secrecy by Mary.
MacGregor and Mary find out the truth about the stealing of the money from Betty, who is a chambermaid at the residence of Montrose, and who had been having an affair with Cunningham and who is dismissed from service when she becomes pregnant. She however kills herself before she can testify. And so goes a constant battle by MacGregor to prove the complicity of Killearn and Cunningham in the killing and theft, with constant struggles. In the end, a duel is arranged between MacGregor and Cunningham, where MacGregor is on the edge of defeat, but just when he is going to face the final blow, he counter-attacks and kills Cunningham.

I am not a great reader of biographies (or that too from Jacobean or Elizabethan literature) but I just finished a new book by Bill Bryson (and you say – but Bill Bryson is not about bioraphies). Yes, you are true – but this book is about a prominent figure from that era. The book surprisingly is not a travel book (oh thank god, I would not have to laugh-holding-my-stomach-till-I-cry a lot like I do while reading this travel books) but a biography of Shakespeare.

It is a very clean book – it actually does not gives its own theories about many mysterious facts of Shakespeare’s life; but just tries to be itself. It is author’s attempt to decode more of what Shakespeare was as a human being not as a writer. He traces William Shakespeare journey from Startford-upon-Avon to London (in Lord Chamberlain’s Men) and then back to Startford-upon-Avon, where he died in 1616.

Bill Bryson highlights the major feature of Shakespeare’s life (or whatever we know of him) – scant facts as we know. For example, it is rather strange to know that for nearly eight years of his life – nobody knows where Shakespeare was – before he actually surfaced as one of the most prominent play writer in London. Or, that there are hardly a dozen writings of Shakespeare in his own hand writing – and half of them are his signatures – each one different from another. And there is not a single painting of William Shakespeare in which we can say for sure how did he looked like – or even if the guy in the painting is indeed Shakespeare. Few records of Shakespeare’s life survive, and there has been considerable speculation about matters such as his sexuality (just because he wrote a rather risque poem dedicated to an Earl & some sonnets of intense friendship), religious beliefs (just because it was so confusion out there at that time in general) and whether the works attributed to him were written by someone else (this is height of… !!). Bryson documents the efforts of different scholars (some bizarre and others more bizarre) – where each one tried to prove a point about Shakespeare’s life. Consider this, an eccentric Delia Bacon, who developed a firm but ‘unconvincing’ (read “no proof”) conviction that, Francis Bacon, was the true author of Shakespeare’s plays.

Emulating the style of his famous travelogues, Bryson records episodes in his research, including a visit to a bunker like room in Washington, D.C., where the world’s largest collection of First Folios is housed. Bryson celebrates the great era of English literature & London play circuits with facts rather then defining them on speculations. Bryson also points out that we know so little about Shakespeare because till hundred years after his death there was no serious attempt to write about his life – was it because he was not so popular at that time?

Overall, a nice read if
1. You love to read about history.
2. You love to read Bill Bryson, which I do.
3. You can imagine Jacobean or Elizabethan era and its descriptions.