faeriemyst's Reviews > The Other Boleyn Girl
The Other Boleyn Girl (The Tudor Court, #2)
by Philippa Gregory (Goodreads Author)
by Philippa Gregory (Goodreads Author)
faeriemyst's review
bookshelves: historical-fiction, historical-fiction-tudors, historical-fiction-16th-century, historical-fiction-england, own, historically-incorrect
May 17, 11
bookshelves: historical-fiction, historical-fiction-tudors, historical-fiction-16th-century, historical-fiction-england, own, historically-incorrect
Read from May 14 to 17, 2011, read count: 1
Going into The Other Boleyn Girl I already knew that the historical details weren't very factual, but I had this laying around and needed something both light and set in the past, so I figured this would do nicely. The writing itself is perfectly fine, and mostly, I did enjoy the book. Although, for the first half, it seemed as if everyone only wore red and by the end I got so sick of hearing about Anne's "B" for Boleyn necklace I could scream.
Mary Boleyn, the narrator, is a strange character: sympathetic and of reasonable intelligence one minute, a moronic irritant the next. Personality-wise she went up and down and back and forth. First she was fine not being the King's favorite anymore and seeming to want to leave the court life for the country to be with her children, then she was jealous of a title Anne received, years after the affair between Mary and Henry was over. Possibly this was put in as part of the rivalry between the sisters, but it didn't contextually fit. Her development could have used more work and she didn't mature or change much throughout the whole book, especially between the years 1522 to 1533. I seriously got tired of everybody's patronizing and calling her a fool all the time. They should have just named the book, The Foolish Boleyn Girl. I find it hard to believe Mary was so ignorant the king would have continued to have her as mistress for four years, give or take. She had to offer something other than good looks and being great in the bedroom. Anne herself sure was a piece of work, and even though she was pretty much evil throughout the book, I did still feel sorry for her at the end. Jane Parker was a one-dimensional malicious harpy who wasn't given a reason why she was that way; she was just the resident baddy to the Boleyns. To me, it felt like defamation of character.
Politics and the separation of the Church of England from the Catholic Church were merely mentioned in passing as court life and its primary players took center stage. The whole incest plot, I could have done without. Now if it were the absolute truth then it'd be okay, but since it's highly debatable and based on hearsay, I found it unnecessary and gratuitous. Around the two-thirds mark, the pace let up and it became more sluggish and boring, and it wasn't until the last sixty pages that it recaptured my attention again.
As long as readers know going into this book that the history has been twisted around and invented for pure sensation, then it's fine as a fictional read, but take any "facts" with a grain of salt. While it was an okay read, I didn't love it, but it managed to divert my attention for a few days.
One last note dealing with the fourth question in the Q&A with Philippa Gregory in the back of the book:
Obvious? How in the world is that obvious? You cannot be serious, Ms. Gregory. Now I'm far from an expert in Tudor England, but I cannot imagine that being a common practice. Maybe someone more knowledgeable about this time could tell me if that ever happened, because it just boggles my mind that George would be the "obvious choice." Not to mention, who the hell did Anne supposedly kill? I hadn't heard that anywhere. Even my searches are coming up blank.
Mary Boleyn, the narrator, is a strange character: sympathetic and of reasonable intelligence one minute, a moronic irritant the next. Personality-wise she went up and down and back and forth. First she was fine not being the King's favorite anymore and seeming to want to leave the court life for the country to be with her children, then she was jealous of a title Anne received, years after the affair between Mary and Henry was over. Possibly this was put in as part of the rivalry between the sisters, but it didn't contextually fit. Her development could have used more work and she didn't mature or change much throughout the whole book, especially between the years 1522 to 1533. I seriously got tired of everybody's patronizing and calling her a fool all the time. They should have just named the book, The Foolish Boleyn Girl. I find it hard to believe Mary was so ignorant the king would have continued to have her as mistress for four years, give or take. She had to offer something other than good looks and being great in the bedroom. Anne herself sure was a piece of work, and even though she was pretty much evil throughout the book, I did still feel sorry for her at the end. Jane Parker was a one-dimensional malicious harpy who wasn't given a reason why she was that way; she was just the resident baddy to the Boleyns. To me, it felt like defamation of character.
Politics and the separation of the Church of England from the Catholic Church were merely mentioned in passing as court life and its primary players took center stage. The whole incest plot, I could have done without. Now if it were the absolute truth then it'd be okay, but since it's highly debatable and based on hearsay, I found it unnecessary and gratuitous. Around the two-thirds mark, the pace let up and it became more sluggish and boring, and it wasn't until the last sixty pages that it recaptured my attention again.
As long as readers know going into this book that the history has been twisted around and invented for pure sensation, then it's fine as a fictional read, but take any "facts" with a grain of salt. While it was an okay read, I didn't love it, but it managed to divert my attention for a few days.
One last note dealing with the fourth question in the Q&A with Philippa Gregory in the back of the book:
How about Mary and Anne's brother, George? Did he really sleep with his sister so that she could give Henry a son?
Nobody can know the answer to this one. Anne was accused of adultery with George at their trials and his wife gave evidence against them both. Most people think the trial was a show trial, but it is an interesting accusation. Anne had three miscarriages by the time of her trial, and she was not a woman to let something like sin or crime stand in her way--she was clearly guilty of one murder. I think if she had thought that Henry could not bear a son she was quite capable of finding someone to father a child on her. If she thought that, then George would have been the obvious choice.
Obvious? How in the world is that obvious? You cannot be serious, Ms. Gregory. Now I'm far from an expert in Tudor England, but I cannot imagine that being a common practice. Maybe someone more knowledgeable about this time could tell me if that ever happened, because it just boggles my mind that George would be the "obvious choice." Not to mention, who the hell did Anne supposedly kill? I hadn't heard that anywhere. Even my searches are coming up blank.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read The Other Boleyn Girl.
sign in »
Reading Progress
| 05/14/2011 | page 202 |
|
30.0% | "Maybe not a historically factual read, but it's not so bad thus far." 2 comments |
Comments (showing 1-14 of 14) (14 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Misfit
(new)
May 17, 2011 01:58pm
It has been a few years since I've read this. George the obvious choice? Geez.
reply
|
flag
*
Yeah, Gregory has a twisted sense of facts and history; she researches--barely--and then cherry-picks information, twisting it around to fit her idea of what happened. Truthfully, she has it in for Anne Boleyn and enjoys making her out to be an evil witch. Anne's trial was a show trial, there was no factual evidence to back up any of the charges and her statements that Anne "...was not a woman to let something like sin or crime stand in her way--she was clearly guilty of one murder. I think if she had thought that Henry could not bear a son she was quite capable of finding someone to father a child on her. If she thought that, then George would have been the obvious choice." is just pure slander. I have a couple of Gregory's books sitting on my shelf, this title and The Queen's Fool, but honestly, from all the reviews I've read of her work, I am seriously dragging my feet over reading them.
You have my word as an historian - that kind of practice was not common and George certainly was not an "obvious choice".Also - the person who Gregory says that Anne killed. She's referring to either Katherine of Aragon or Bishop Fisher... although Fisher never died. She also makes it clear that she thinks Anne tried to poison Mary too. I'd like to lay this to rest: Anne did not particularly hate Katherine, Princess Mary, or Bishop Fisher – Princess Mary was well known for being sickly all her life, Katherine almost certainly died of a cancer given reports of a black internal growth post-mortem, and there is absolutely no evidence that she poisoned Bishop Fisher. There was a contemporary rumour that Anne sent Fisher a messenger to tell him to avoid Parliament in case he became sick. Far from being evidence that she poisoned him, such a note would seem to suggest that Anne had heard about the frequent summer outbreaks of disease in London and was genuinely politely attempting to warn the bishop, unless one reads such a message as a threat but there is no evidence to suggest that it should be interpreted as a threat, and in any case, this was mere rumour and there is no evidence to even suggest that Anne sent such a message at all.
Laura wrote: "Yeah, Gregory has a twisted sense of facts and history; she researches--barely--and then cherry-picks information, twisting it around to fit her idea of what happened. Truthfully, she has it in fo..."Oh, I could definitely see Gregory's hatred of Anne coming off the pages, yet funnily enough she doesn't mention her dislike in the author's note or Q&A (which you should read if you haven't already. It's unbelievable.). That's what I understood about Anne's trial. I have quite a few more of Gregory's books that I got at the time historical fiction was making a comeback and she was being toted as "Queen" of the genre (ha!), but am unsure if I want to read more as well. Hey, if you do decide, just think of the scathing reviews you can write. ;D
Beth wrote: "You have my word as an historian - that kind of practice was not common and George certainly was not an "obvious choice".Also - the person who Gregory says that Anne killed. She's referring to ei..."
Thank you for the reply and all the facts, Beth. :) As someone who only knows very little of the period, it struck me as off, along with some other moments in the book. To find out the truth I even read articles about Anne, Mary, and a few others at Wiki, which may not be the best source of accurate information, but it gives me a starting off point about the basics. I can't even imagine what else I missed that Gregory twisted to fit her story. The least she could have done is have a longer author's note to list what she changed, although I have the feeling it'd be almost as long as the book. :/
faeriemyst wrote: "Thank you for the reply and all the facts, Beth. :) As someone who only knows very little of the period, it struck me as off, along with some other moments in the book. To find out the truth I even read articles about Anne, Mary, and a few others at Wiki, which may not be the best source of accurate information, but it gives me a starting off point about the basics. I can't even imagine what else I missed that Gregory twisted to fit her story. The least she could have done is have a longer author's note to list what she changed, although I have the feeling it'd be almost as long as the book. :/ "You should read my reviews of Philippa Gregory. She changes so much that it is a strain for me to keep my reviews within a reasonable length. I even edit my reviews of PG before I post them, because I end up writing such long ones and go into the changes in quite a bit of detail.
Lol, I sent Laura my unedited PG reviews a little while ago. I think I may have put her off PG.
If you ask me - PG is biased, plain and simple. I've trained for the past several years to minimise and erase my own biases when writing (as a professional historian) and I know how to spot and analyse bias in other works. I know that for a historical novelist it's not as important to be unbiased as it is for us academic non-fic writers, but even so it's generally considered poor form to defame or villify past figures, and as a picky historian it really turns me off. PG seems to me to hold a big bias against Anne Boleyn and Elizabeth I.
Speaking of PG, and this link is thanks to Jerelyn. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9_IoM...Bwahahahahahaha. Don't miss part II either.
Misfit wrote: "Speaking of PG, and this link is thanks to Jerelyn. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9_IoM...Bwahahahahahaha. Don't miss part II either."
HA! Thanks for sharing
Ooooh, thanks, Misfit! I second everything that was said in that two-parter vid. It gives me rage whenever I hear anyone describing Philippa Gregory as "the queen of historical fiction" or "the best historical fiction writer". No. Just no. There are far more deserving people with FAR more writing skill. And yes, they DO get overlooked. If you check out the Amazon reviews, the reviews for Philippa Gregory's books are usually several hundred each. If you check out the Amazon reviews for Pauline Gedge, who is one of the most fantastic, talented, detailed, accurate, imaginative and scintillating historical fiction writers of all time... you're lucky if you find ONE review. ONE review, you guys. That makes me sad. That makes me really sad.
I was OK with the fictional aspect of TOBG as it was clear up front from the first I opened my copy that it was just a novel. It's when she started spouting off everywhere about her research, etc. that started getting my dander up.
That is the one thing about her that irritates me more than anything else, Misfit. More than all the rest combined.
Hi Beth, I did read your review on TOBG; it's amazing how little history Gregory actually kept for the book. Wow, I can't imagine how long they'd be if you really let loose! LOL
I would hope, even if a novelist is biased, that they would try to keep an open mind towards the person they dislike as (most) historians do. It's only fair to the reader. Since Elizabeth I was only a baby in TOBG, that bias didn't appear, so it much show in one her her other books, I'm guessing.
Misfit wrote: "Speaking of PG, and this link is thanks to Jerelyn. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9_IoM...Bwahahahahahaha. Don't miss part II either."
That sure was something. LOL :D
faeriemyst wrote: "Hi Beth, I did read your review on TOBG; it's amazing how little history Gregory actually kept for the book. Wow, I can't imagine how long they'd be if you really let loose! LOL
I would hope, ev..."
The Virgin's Lover. Don't read it, it's far and away the worst of Gregory's books, and Elizabeth is characterised as a silly airheaded twit who can't make any decision without a man.
A few pages, but sometimes one just has to rant, you know? *shakes head* What gets me is that Gregory tries to hide under terms such as "expert in the Tudor period", "committed to historical accuracy", and "an established historian". And then SO many people like her books and - historical accuracy aside for a moment - they're not even that well written for that. It gets on my wick to hear people praise her as the best, most talented hist fic author ever, and she's just so not. Her novels are like the airport novels of the historical fiction world - they're mildly entertaining enough to keep you distracted on a 5 hour flight, but they're so silly and simplistically written that you know you're going to end up leaving it at the gate when you land.
Hah, well even real historians have biases. I know that I have my favourites ;) , but I try really hard to just set that aside and be objective especially when writing non-fic - I guess fiction isn't as important to do so, but even then I would try not to paint anyone as wholly good or wholly evil, cause for one thing that doesn't make for very good characterisations nevermind the issue of treating the past with respect and not defaming historical people. I also try to keep an open mind about the historical figures I dislike, and over the past few years I've found that I've changed my mind about a lot of historical figures who in my childhood I simply didn't like that much.
