Sign in with FacebookPeter Weissman's Reviews > Mary Boleyn: The Mistress of Kings
Mary Boleyn: The Mistress of Kings
by Alison Weir
by Alison Weir
I read this book because I was asked by the publisher to copyedit it (which I do freelance, for several publishers). More precisely, in this case, to "unanglicize" the English version of Mary Boleyn for the American edition.
Though while editing I'm more involved in the text than the average reader--albeit less than usual on his assignment, which had been edited before and thus called for no "styling" from me--I do actually read the books I edit. (I'm asked about this often.) And as a reader, my guess is that many might find this and other Weir books dry, given their speculations about the motives behind certain decisions (court intrigues, hidden motives, etc.) and whether this or that historical source is more or less believable. Also, there are a ton of footnotes in most Weir books, this one included.
Honestly, I can't say I'd have bought this had it not come my way as an editor. On the other hand, I enjoy the Weir books--this one four stars worth--because I learn things about the period and I do like history and its characters: Mary and Henry VIII in Mary Boleyn.
Though while editing I'm more involved in the text than the average reader--albeit less than usual on his assignment, which had been edited before and thus called for no "styling" from me--I do actually read the books I edit. (I'm asked about this often.) And as a reader, my guess is that many might find this and other Weir books dry, given their speculations about the motives behind certain decisions (court intrigues, hidden motives, etc.) and whether this or that historical source is more or less believable. Also, there are a ton of footnotes in most Weir books, this one included.
Honestly, I can't say I'd have bought this had it not come my way as an editor. On the other hand, I enjoy the Weir books--this one four stars worth--because I learn things about the period and I do like history and its characters: Mary and Henry VIII in Mary Boleyn.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Mary Boleyn.
sign in »
Comments (showing 1-3 of 3) (3 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Carol
(new)
Jun 30, 2012 05:46am
Serious question. Why should the American audience want to read an unanglicized version of a book about English history? Would you expect an English audience to read an American historical book "unamericanised"?
reply
|
flag
*
I've been asked that question before, Carol, and the answer is pedestrian: it's what the publishing house asks me to do with books published in the UK. (Much cheaper for publishers, by the way, to do this, than to publish new books here.) I do see the point of it with punctuation, single quotes instead of double, quotation marks within periods , etc., more than Anglic spelling, such as your "americanised," which I find kind of charming; though a case can be made for changing anglic words and expressions that would otherwise baffle an American reader, like being "seconded" or wearing "plimsolls."As for the flip side--American usage and spelling changed for British readers: simply, the market for readers is bigger in the U.S. than in the UK, so publishers cater to us rather than you. You can blame the Australian Rupert Murdock, among others; I do more "unanglicization" for HarperCollins, his company, than anyone else.
Thanks for your answer. I didn't realise that there were so many differences, particularly in relation to punctuation. I often read a book which changes many words but not all of them and wonder why. The Harry Potter books are good examples of that. I smile when I find some words left which I know my American friends won't understand.I do remember reading "Catcher in the Rye" many years ago as a teenager and finding that I was unable to understand a great deal of it. I am not sure if there were British words for a great deal of that!
