What do you think?
Rate this book
I, Jacqueline
A historical fiction that presents the life and loves of Jacqueline of Hainault, thrice married, thrice imprisoned and ransomed; the extraordinary 15th-century life of a women who endured the power politics of the courts of England, Burgundy, and France.
352 pages, Paperback
First published December 1, 1957
6 people are currently reading
415 people want to read
About the author
Hilda Lewis
48 books40 followersHilda Winifred Lewis (née Maizels, 1896-1974) was a British writer.
She wrote a noted children's book, The Ship that Flew (1939) which concerns Norse mythology and time travel. It was republished in the Oxford Children's Modern Classics series in 1998. Her three YA books, including the well-received The Gentle Falcon, are available for Kindle and iBooks.
Several of her historical novels, e.g. I am Mary Tudor (1972), received attention. Most of her work is now out of print. Wife to Charles II and I, Jacqueline are available in The Book People's historical fiction paperback collection. The Witch and the Priest (1956) about the seventeenth century Lincolnshire witch trials is well worth reading, even second hand in the freely available but lurid Dennis Wheatley paperback Library of the Occult format.
She wrote a noted children's book, The Ship that Flew (1939) which concerns Norse mythology and time travel. It was republished in the Oxford Children's Modern Classics series in 1998. Her three YA books, including the well-received The Gentle Falcon, are available for Kindle and iBooks.
Several of her historical novels, e.g. I am Mary Tudor (1972), received attention. Most of her work is now out of print. Wife to Charles II and I, Jacqueline are available in The Book People's historical fiction paperback collection. The Witch and the Priest (1956) about the seventeenth century Lincolnshire witch trials is well worth reading, even second hand in the freely available but lurid Dennis Wheatley paperback Library of the Occult format.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
June 8, 2017
While reading HF books set during the Hundred Years War, Jacqueline of Brabant was always a peripheral character that I was curious to learn more about.
I, Jacqueline, was a well researched effort by one of my favorite authors Hilda Lewis and richly deserves a 5 star rating.
Jacqueline was heir to her father Duke William VI, hereditary prince of Hainault, Holland, Friesland and Zealand after his death when she was still a young teen.
The rapacious Duke of Burgundy kingdom borders Jacqueline's and he's determined to make them his own. Since her mother was the sister of Duke Phillip of Burgundy she assists him in his efforts to steal Jacqueline's inheritance.
Her father's brother also desires to steal Jacqueline's inheritance and even plots to marry her. Jacqueline is horrified and agrees to marry the degenerate John of Brabant to avoid marriage to her uncle. She had never met her husband prior to their marriage and she was suitably repulsed when first meeting him at their marriage feast.
As if being caught between 2 heartless uncles wasn't bad enough her new husband joins her enemies in persecuting her by selling off her territories for his financial gain.
Although Jacqueline's life was short and filled with sorrows she ultimately played a big part in ending the Hundred Years War.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...
February 23, 2019
Jacqueline’s father is lying on his deathbed and tries to counsel his only child. As his heir, she will have to face down those who want to claim her lands as their own, namely her two uncles, John the Pitiless of Bavaria and John the Fearless of Burgundy. A life of misery is before her: a struggle for her inheritance, four marriages, and three periods of imprisonment.
Hilda Lewis’s 1957 novel is titled I, Jacqueline and focuses on a fascinating fifteenth century woman: Jacqueline, Countess of Holland, Hainault and Zeeland and Duchess of Bavaria-Straubing, as well as briefly Dauphine of France and Duchess of Gloucester. In her efforts to secure her lands, she endured misery and marital strife, but also acted in ways that are suggestive that she was quite a formidable, strong woman.
It’s a shame, then, Lewis’s novel is dire.
The first warning sign is the second chapter, in which Jacqueline’s adoring, beloved father tells who not to marry and why. The thing is, reading this with any knowledge of the history or even just looking over the list of principal characters that precedes the start of the novel, you know who she’s going to marry. Which means you’re barely into the story and you know her father’s bang on the money but she’s going to ignore everything he tells her.
Sure enough, she does. And sure enough, it leads to disaster for her.
By putting Jacqueline in that position, Lewis makes her look like a dumbass. She was warned, she was warned by someone who had no motive but to help her and by someone she had every reason to trust, and she ignored every single thing he said. It also reeks of an author who has foreknowledge of events and wants to make sure her readers are hit over the head with it too.
The second issue I take with the book is the characterisation of Jacqueline. I don’t pretend to know very much about her, I have a vague idea of her life as the wife of Gloucester and that’s all. But what I do know about her is that, for all the misery and difficulty in her life, she comes across as someone quite strong. Someone who resisted and fought back.
This really doesn’t come across in I, Jacqueline. Lewis’s Jacqueline really dwells in her misery, and to be fair, she does have a lot to dwell on. But it’s hard to connect with a character who’s miserable all the time. It’s like hanging out with Eeyore. I might pity her, but I also really want to get away from her. It also doesn’t help that that she seems full of bad judgement, arrogance and rash behaviour, which only worsens her situation. As well as ignoring her father’s advice, her mother also gives her good advice that is roundly ignored (but at least she has some reason to distrust her mother). At times, she behaves in ways that read quite appallingly – she cruelly dismisses an abused pregnant woman who comes to her for help, for instance, or agrees to the execution of a young boy and then has his father executed when he’s upset she didn’t offer a reprieve.
Early chapters push Jacqueline’s victimhood hard. Her second husband, Brabant, is cruel to her and shames her repeatedly – the real Brabant may have been like that, I don’t know enough to say, but I do wonder if he wasn’t and this is just the manipulation of history to make Jacqueline look all the more sinned against. It doesn’t help matters that Brabant is revealed to be gay and thus Jacqueline is even more victimised for being made to marry someone who she repeatedly and derisively calls a “half-man”. It reeks of homophobia. Yes, it’s quite possible the historical Jacqueline would have had the same attitude to a queer man. Yes, I, Jaqueline was published in 1957 and so I can’t expect a sensitive handling of homosexuality. Here’s the thing: it’s still unpleasant and offensive to read. Here’s another thing: I can’t find a reference to the real Brabant being queer, so Lewis has invented his sexuality only to demonise him for it and victimise Jacqueline over it.
Jacqueline has few friends. Those who she does get on with, such as Beatrix van Vliet, her illegitimate half-sister, or Catharine de Valois, Henry V’s queen and a relative, are all easily deposed of. Her friendship with Catharine only lasts as long as Catharine tolerates Jacqueline’s crush on Gloucester, while Beatrix exists purely to be Jacqueline’s loyal aid and is frequently abandoned or ignored by Jacqueline. Jacqueline does fall obsessively in love with Gloucester and deeply misses him after their parting, but we’re given so little of his character that’s actually positive beyond “charming” and “entertaining” and so much of his negative qualities that I wonder why she liked him at all.
In terms of historical accuracy, I feel compelled to offer two disclaimers. One: this book was published in 1957, our understanding of this part of history has changed dramatically, and thus while I can and will talk about what Lewis gets wrong, I don’t know that she could have gotten it right. Two: I know very little about Jacqueline’s life outside of the English connection. I know nothing about medieval Holland, I only have a vague understanding of France in the fifteenth century. So I can’t say with any authority that Lewis “got it right” in her depictions of fifteenth century Holland and France, nor can I upbraid her for getting it wrong, and all my discussion is purely based on the English side of the story.
Firstly, I found the characterisation of Gloucester quite odd. That he was a “knave”, as Jacqueline and Lewis puts it, is entirely possible and indeed likely. That he was inconsistent and ambitious is also likely. What is odd is that in his very first appearance on page, he spends quite a bit of time insulting Henry V.
Historians talk about Gloucester hero-worshipping Henry. His political stance in the years following Henry’s death was about continuing Henry’s policies, much to his own detriment. His death was likely caused by his inability to let go of Henry V’s policy of war with France, where he was arrested for treason to prevent him from speaking out against Henry VI’s peace plan and he either subsequently suffered a stroke brought on by the stress of the situation or was murdered. But Lewis does nothing to indicate their closeness, nothing that suggests that Gloucester liked Henry, nothing that suggests he was affected by Henry’s death, nothing that indicates that Henry once risked his own life to save Gloucester’s. It’s downright weird and wildly wrong to have Gloucester just not care about Henry V, much less spend so long insulting him.
Also odd, the assertion that Thomas, Duke of Clarence, was Henry’s favourite brother. This is very debatable as there is evidence they were in conflict during their father’s reign (Clarence reaped the rewards when Henry fell out of favour with their father) and possibly clashed after the siege of Harfleur (see Juliet Barker’s Agincourt: Henry V and the Battle That Made England on this).
Gloucester’s relationship with his stepmother, Johanne, or Joanne, of Navarre, is yet another oddity. Firstly, there’s the fact that the book’s spelling of her name varies between Johanne and Johann. But the fact that Johanne only appears to crabbily warn Jacqueline off Gloucester is, well, strange, given that there is evidence that there was some fondness between Johanne and Gloucester. She left items in her will to Eleanor Cobham, Gloucester’s second wife, and Gloucester repeatedly visited her.
On the note of Eleanor Cobham… we have no evidence she had any lovers but Gloucester, we have no evidence that they didn’t actually genuinely love each other, and we have evidence they were generally happy together (Gloucester did not seem to have taken a mistress during this marriage, nor in the years after he was forcibly divorced and separated from her). Lewis’s great love of foreshadowing also treats Eleanor awkwardly. As soon as she makes her first appearance, we know she’s more trouble for Jacqueline and when it’s known she’s Gloucester’s mistress, Jacqueline starts calling her a “dark witch” (I could feel Lewis nudging me and going “do you get it? do you get it? Because she’s going to be accused of being a witch! Even though that’s not in my book! Because Jacqueline dies before then! LOL”). Jacqueline also vomits up the sexist claptrap about Eleanor “bewitching” Gloucester away from her, which is the same crap that was said about Katherine Swynford, Elizabeth Woodville and every other woman who married a man higher up than her.
Finally, I really question the “insult” of Catharine de Valois not being named regent for Henry VI. There was no recent, English precedent for it. The closest thing to a queen acting as regent during her son’s minority in England was Isabella of France’s disastrous attempt at holding power during Edward III’s minority and even then, she was not his regent or even part of the council that ruled for him. Like Henry VI, the minority rules of Edward III, Richard II and, later, however brief, Edward V were overseen by a council. There was no regent. Additionally, Catherine was a French princess who had only been married to Henry V for two years at the time of his death – she was “the enemy” who was likely still settling into her role as queen. Neither is there anything to suggest that she wanted the regency nor that she had the skill or ability to be good at ruling a country, either in her past or in her future.
On a purely technical level, I found the writing quite decent. Occasionally, it did seem to wear its 1950s creation quite strongly, the text sometimes feeling dated, but otherwise it felt suitably historical without being too dense. There are a couple of typos and Joanne of Navarre’s name is rendered alternatively as Johanne or Johann, even on the same page. Occasionally, too, the 1950s creation is evidenced by some rather unpleasant attitudes. Please note: if you’re sensitive to slut-shaming, misogyny or homophobia, you might be better off skipping this.
I really wish I had liked this. Jacqueline of Hainault is a fascinating woman living in a fascinating time and interacting with fascinating people. But there’s very little to admire about Lewis’s portrayal of her: invested in her own miseries, uncaring of people outside her bubble.
Hilda Lewis’s 1957 novel is titled I, Jacqueline and focuses on a fascinating fifteenth century woman: Jacqueline, Countess of Holland, Hainault and Zeeland and Duchess of Bavaria-Straubing, as well as briefly Dauphine of France and Duchess of Gloucester. In her efforts to secure her lands, she endured misery and marital strife, but also acted in ways that are suggestive that she was quite a formidable, strong woman.
It’s a shame, then, Lewis’s novel is dire.
The first warning sign is the second chapter, in which Jacqueline’s adoring, beloved father tells who not to marry and why. The thing is, reading this with any knowledge of the history or even just looking over the list of principal characters that precedes the start of the novel, you know who she’s going to marry. Which means you’re barely into the story and you know her father’s bang on the money but she’s going to ignore everything he tells her.
Sure enough, she does. And sure enough, it leads to disaster for her.
By putting Jacqueline in that position, Lewis makes her look like a dumbass. She was warned, she was warned by someone who had no motive but to help her and by someone she had every reason to trust, and she ignored every single thing he said. It also reeks of an author who has foreknowledge of events and wants to make sure her readers are hit over the head with it too.
The second issue I take with the book is the characterisation of Jacqueline. I don’t pretend to know very much about her, I have a vague idea of her life as the wife of Gloucester and that’s all. But what I do know about her is that, for all the misery and difficulty in her life, she comes across as someone quite strong. Someone who resisted and fought back.
This really doesn’t come across in I, Jacqueline. Lewis’s Jacqueline really dwells in her misery, and to be fair, she does have a lot to dwell on. But it’s hard to connect with a character who’s miserable all the time. It’s like hanging out with Eeyore. I might pity her, but I also really want to get away from her. It also doesn’t help that that she seems full of bad judgement, arrogance and rash behaviour, which only worsens her situation. As well as ignoring her father’s advice, her mother also gives her good advice that is roundly ignored (but at least she has some reason to distrust her mother). At times, she behaves in ways that read quite appallingly – she cruelly dismisses an abused pregnant woman who comes to her for help, for instance, or agrees to the execution of a young boy and then has his father executed when he’s upset she didn’t offer a reprieve.
Early chapters push Jacqueline’s victimhood hard. Her second husband, Brabant, is cruel to her and shames her repeatedly – the real Brabant may have been like that, I don’t know enough to say, but I do wonder if he wasn’t and this is just the manipulation of history to make Jacqueline look all the more sinned against. It doesn’t help matters that Brabant is revealed to be gay and thus Jacqueline is even more victimised for being made to marry someone who she repeatedly and derisively calls a “half-man”. It reeks of homophobia. Yes, it’s quite possible the historical Jacqueline would have had the same attitude to a queer man. Yes, I, Jaqueline was published in 1957 and so I can’t expect a sensitive handling of homosexuality. Here’s the thing: it’s still unpleasant and offensive to read. Here’s another thing: I can’t find a reference to the real Brabant being queer, so Lewis has invented his sexuality only to demonise him for it and victimise Jacqueline over it.
Jacqueline has few friends. Those who she does get on with, such as Beatrix van Vliet, her illegitimate half-sister, or Catharine de Valois, Henry V’s queen and a relative, are all easily deposed of. Her friendship with Catharine only lasts as long as Catharine tolerates Jacqueline’s crush on Gloucester, while Beatrix exists purely to be Jacqueline’s loyal aid and is frequently abandoned or ignored by Jacqueline. Jacqueline does fall obsessively in love with Gloucester and deeply misses him after their parting, but we’re given so little of his character that’s actually positive beyond “charming” and “entertaining” and so much of his negative qualities that I wonder why she liked him at all.
In terms of historical accuracy, I feel compelled to offer two disclaimers. One: this book was published in 1957, our understanding of this part of history has changed dramatically, and thus while I can and will talk about what Lewis gets wrong, I don’t know that she could have gotten it right. Two: I know very little about Jacqueline’s life outside of the English connection. I know nothing about medieval Holland, I only have a vague understanding of France in the fifteenth century. So I can’t say with any authority that Lewis “got it right” in her depictions of fifteenth century Holland and France, nor can I upbraid her for getting it wrong, and all my discussion is purely based on the English side of the story.
Firstly, I found the characterisation of Gloucester quite odd. That he was a “knave”, as Jacqueline and Lewis puts it, is entirely possible and indeed likely. That he was inconsistent and ambitious is also likely. What is odd is that in his very first appearance on page, he spends quite a bit of time insulting Henry V.
Historians talk about Gloucester hero-worshipping Henry. His political stance in the years following Henry’s death was about continuing Henry’s policies, much to his own detriment. His death was likely caused by his inability to let go of Henry V’s policy of war with France, where he was arrested for treason to prevent him from speaking out against Henry VI’s peace plan and he either subsequently suffered a stroke brought on by the stress of the situation or was murdered. But Lewis does nothing to indicate their closeness, nothing that suggests that Gloucester liked Henry, nothing that suggests he was affected by Henry’s death, nothing that indicates that Henry once risked his own life to save Gloucester’s. It’s downright weird and wildly wrong to have Gloucester just not care about Henry V, much less spend so long insulting him.
Also odd, the assertion that Thomas, Duke of Clarence, was Henry’s favourite brother. This is very debatable as there is evidence they were in conflict during their father’s reign (Clarence reaped the rewards when Henry fell out of favour with their father) and possibly clashed after the siege of Harfleur (see Juliet Barker’s Agincourt: Henry V and the Battle That Made England on this).
Gloucester’s relationship with his stepmother, Johanne, or Joanne, of Navarre, is yet another oddity. Firstly, there’s the fact that the book’s spelling of her name varies between Johanne and Johann. But the fact that Johanne only appears to crabbily warn Jacqueline off Gloucester is, well, strange, given that there is evidence that there was some fondness between Johanne and Gloucester. She left items in her will to Eleanor Cobham, Gloucester’s second wife, and Gloucester repeatedly visited her.
On the note of Eleanor Cobham… we have no evidence she had any lovers but Gloucester, we have no evidence that they didn’t actually genuinely love each other, and we have evidence they were generally happy together (Gloucester did not seem to have taken a mistress during this marriage, nor in the years after he was forcibly divorced and separated from her). Lewis’s great love of foreshadowing also treats Eleanor awkwardly. As soon as she makes her first appearance, we know she’s more trouble for Jacqueline and when it’s known she’s Gloucester’s mistress, Jacqueline starts calling her a “dark witch” (I could feel Lewis nudging me and going “do you get it? do you get it? Because she’s going to be accused of being a witch! Even though that’s not in my book! Because Jacqueline dies before then! LOL”). Jacqueline also vomits up the sexist claptrap about Eleanor “bewitching” Gloucester away from her, which is the same crap that was said about Katherine Swynford, Elizabeth Woodville and every other woman who married a man higher up than her.
Finally, I really question the “insult” of Catharine de Valois not being named regent for Henry VI. There was no recent, English precedent for it. The closest thing to a queen acting as regent during her son’s minority in England was Isabella of France’s disastrous attempt at holding power during Edward III’s minority and even then, she was not his regent or even part of the council that ruled for him. Like Henry VI, the minority rules of Edward III, Richard II and, later, however brief, Edward V were overseen by a council. There was no regent. Additionally, Catherine was a French princess who had only been married to Henry V for two years at the time of his death – she was “the enemy” who was likely still settling into her role as queen. Neither is there anything to suggest that she wanted the regency nor that she had the skill or ability to be good at ruling a country, either in her past or in her future.
On a purely technical level, I found the writing quite decent. Occasionally, it did seem to wear its 1950s creation quite strongly, the text sometimes feeling dated, but otherwise it felt suitably historical without being too dense. There are a couple of typos and Joanne of Navarre’s name is rendered alternatively as Johanne or Johann, even on the same page. Occasionally, too, the 1950s creation is evidenced by some rather unpleasant attitudes. Please note: if you’re sensitive to slut-shaming, misogyny or homophobia, you might be better off skipping this.
I really wish I had liked this. Jacqueline of Hainault is a fascinating woman living in a fascinating time and interacting with fascinating people. But there’s very little to admire about Lewis’s portrayal of her: invested in her own miseries, uncaring of people outside her bubble.
May 25, 2013
I, Jacqueline centres around the true story of a girl of 16 left to rule parts of what is now The Netherlands and Belgium when her father dies. It is set in the 15th century, a time when Europe seemed to run out of male heirs to their thrones but would not accept autonomous female rulers. The young lady of the title was left with few supporters, even fewer options and many enemies including her mother.
I didn't much like the book. The story itself is one that should have grabbed me as so many of the kind have (most recently C.W. Gortner's The Last Queen). Unfortunately, Jacqueline does not compare too well to Juana of Castille. Jacqueline comes across as a spoilt petulant young lady with no judgement when it comes to politics. She marries again and again contrary to her dead father's advice and reaps the dire consequences. This in itself could have made a cracking story but our 'heroine' is rather dull. It seems she rode at the head of her armies but apart from a cursory mention of this we find out no more about it. I felt sorry for her hardships but in the end I couldn't like her. I can't help feeling that if more had been made of her forays into battle she would have been a more interesting character. On the plus side, I enjoyed the writing style. It was olde worlde enough to give you a feeling of antiquity without it sounding too forced.
All in all, it wasn't a waste of time to read it but I doubt it will make it to my reread list.
I didn't much like the book. The story itself is one that should have grabbed me as so many of the kind have (most recently C.W. Gortner's The Last Queen). Unfortunately, Jacqueline does not compare too well to Juana of Castille. Jacqueline comes across as a spoilt petulant young lady with no judgement when it comes to politics. She marries again and again contrary to her dead father's advice and reaps the dire consequences. This in itself could have made a cracking story but our 'heroine' is rather dull. It seems she rode at the head of her armies but apart from a cursory mention of this we find out no more about it. I felt sorry for her hardships but in the end I couldn't like her. I can't help feeling that if more had been made of her forays into battle she would have been a more interesting character. On the plus side, I enjoyed the writing style. It was olde worlde enough to give you a feeling of antiquity without it sounding too forced.
All in all, it wasn't a waste of time to read it but I doubt it will make it to my reread list.
July 1, 2017
Dutch translation of "I, Jacqueline"
4 - 4.5, perhaps even 5 stars.
Jacoba van Beieren was an awesome lady, and everyone with an interest in history should read her story (it will however help to read up about this period of time a little bit, if you haven't already, before you start reading the book - the French/English situation for instance)
Why does everyone remember Jeanne d'Arc, but is Jacoba far less known, even though she was a woman leading troops into war at the same period of time? (difference being she was a ruler fighting for her own crown and not a peasant girl claiming to have orders from God - but still!)
Captivating read, and nicely translated. My only issue was that in the part of the book describing the 1420's, too many sentences started with "Maar" (english: "But". I don't know if this is an issue with the translation or if the original has the same issue.) Luckily that stopped around the time she moved to Zeeland.
4 - 4.5, perhaps even 5 stars.
Jacoba van Beieren was an awesome lady, and everyone with an interest in history should read her story (it will however help to read up about this period of time a little bit, if you haven't already, before you start reading the book - the French/English situation for instance)
Why does everyone remember Jeanne d'Arc, but is Jacoba far less known, even though she was a woman leading troops into war at the same period of time? (difference being she was a ruler fighting for her own crown and not a peasant girl claiming to have orders from God - but still!)
Captivating read, and nicely translated. My only issue was that in the part of the book describing the 1420's, too many sentences started with "Maar" (english: "But". I don't know if this is an issue with the translation or if the original has the same issue.) Luckily that stopped around the time she moved to Zeeland.
May 21, 2008
The setting - Europe at the time of Henry the 5th, encouraged me to pick up this book. It could have been brilliant, because the eponymous Jacqueline did some amazing things trying to reclaim her crown, and struggling with her love life. The trouble is, there are far too many banal conversations between women that reflect the main plot rather than taking you into the ehart of it, and too many major events either happening out of sight, or being skated over in a few lines. I disliked the portrayal of the heroine until the last quarter or so of the book. Overall, a bit of a let down.
November 13, 2018
Well written, well documented. Would recommend !
May 7, 2020
This took 11 years to finally finish, 2009 started and abandoned, restarted this year finished today. I think the main problem was not knowing anything about Continental politics of this time period, 100 yrs war in England is Agincourt and Joan of Arc - she appears briefly, so most of the plot was over my head.
Jacqueline was another problem, she wasn't a very sympathetic person, I didn't really care if she got her crown back or not.
Jacqueline was another problem, she wasn't a very sympathetic person, I didn't really care if she got her crown back or not.
August 30, 2016
Fictionalised history about an historical figure I'd never heard of, and a period of history I feel I should know more about than I can remember these days. In the 1400s, Jacqueline is a Dutch princess who finds herself mixed up in others' power plays after the early death of her beloved father. She chooses to ignore the advice from his death bed - much that she comes to regret over the years - and makes a couple of very inappropriate marriages. Just before her father's death she had been married to a French prince whom she had grown up with and saw as a brother. He died very young. She was then persuaded by her scheming mother to marry a cousin, who turned out to be an alcoholic drunk and impotent - so there wasn't any love lost there. She then considered that marriage void, and went lusting after the English king's brother, Humphrey Gloucester. Who was a fickle and inconstant lover with little staying power. She fights for her position to rule in Holland and tries, unsuccessfully, to play the politics game. But she doesn't have a great talent for it and this isn't a world that gives women many chances. She eventually marries a Dutchman and finally gets a happy marriage, but by then she is dying of consumption and ends up dead a couple of years into the marriage.
Jacqueline certainly had an eventful short life and there was a lot going on around her. But I don't think this book makes the most of it. I really couldn't get away with Lewis' style of writing. Honestly I feel that she would have been better off with history books and biographies. She bangs through this story at a fair whack, she gives massive events the slightest of mentions and then will spend pages and pages on boring conversations and the same old thoughts going round and round Jacqueline's head (it's told in first person narration) about her worrying about Gloucester. There isn't a sense of place or atmosphere created at all. And Jacqueline comes across as a very arrogant and haughty young woman - maybe she was or maybe Lewis does her a diservice. I don't know. The constant self pitying we have to read is very repetitive and tiresome. And yes, she has a tough life, but by god she didn't have the toughest of lives that were being lived at the same time. It was diffecult to have any sympathy for her at times.
Jacqueline certainly had an eventful short life and there was a lot going on around her. But I don't think this book makes the most of it. I really couldn't get away with Lewis' style of writing. Honestly I feel that she would have been better off with history books and biographies. She bangs through this story at a fair whack, she gives massive events the slightest of mentions and then will spend pages and pages on boring conversations and the same old thoughts going round and round Jacqueline's head (it's told in first person narration) about her worrying about Gloucester. There isn't a sense of place or atmosphere created at all. And Jacqueline comes across as a very arrogant and haughty young woman - maybe she was or maybe Lewis does her a diservice. I don't know. The constant self pitying we have to read is very repetitive and tiresome. And yes, she has a tough life, but by god she didn't have the toughest of lives that were being lived at the same time. It was diffecult to have any sympathy for her at times.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews