Just playing a bit of devil's advocate here but if PG was so intent on ruining Anne's name and everything she failed big time. Cause the only charge that she presents as occurring is incest. And that is only implied though the thoughts of Mary who has jumped to that conclusion based upon her feelings. And no point does the character of Anne or George admit to incest. So really, PG still does not commit to saying the incest charge is real.

And unless I got an edited version, nowhere does PG write that Anne slept with the other 4 men who were found guilty of sleeping with Anne. So from that angle, PG is not saying that those charges were real.

And PG isn't the first person to paint Anne as a bitch. I find The Tudors portrayal of Anne to be very bitchy. And the presentation of Anne in Henry VIII And Hs Six Wives, Anne is very bitchy. In fact, all the presentations I've seen or Anne there have been moments where I can fully understand why Henry VIII wanted to get rid of his wife (not that I condone it for the record) while at the same time feeling sympathy for Anne, for if she only controlled her feelings a little better perhaps she wouldn't have ended up facing the fate that lay before her.

It's not like PG is the first person to write Anne as a bitch. I think the presentation of Anne in TOBG is accurate from the point of view of seeing Anne through the eyes of a sibling, not an outsider with a vast wealth of information or history on their side. Even if Mary loved Anne, I think if she was keeping a diary she would record things perhaps a little out of context due to natural sibling rivalry. I'll admit that if I wrote a biography of my siblings, there would be moments that looked harsh compared to how others viewed the same issues, through simple sibling rivalry. And the way TOBG is written, by the end of the book Mary pretty much regrets having fought with Anne all those ties and if she could have the time over she would think differently of her sister.

As an author, I felt PG did a good job of bringing me around from actively wishing for Anne's beheading to occur to actually dreading it. PG was able to convey, through Mary, that Anne's executition could not be condoned or justified. Therfore, I do struggle to see TOBG as the anti-Anne book some people view it as. If that was PG's mission, she wouldn't have made the author dread Anne's execution and make the reader feel sad for Anne. She would have continued to present Anne as the devil incarnate and make the reader cheer when she got beheaded.

As a work of fiction it is a great read. And a good work of fiction shoild encourage the reader to discover the real facts about the story. TOBG did make me do that, just like how after watching Disney's version of the Pocahontas story I went out to discover the true story. While I discovered there are huge liberties taken with the Pocahontas legend, it still does not stop me from enjoying the movie. Just like knowing the real story about Anne won't stop me from enjoying TOBG for what it is – a fictional historical novel.

Neil Kemp said:

Bill1978 said:

 

As a work of fiction it is a great read. And a good work of fiction shoild encourage the reader to discover the real facts about the story. TOBG did make me do that, just like how after watching Disney's version of the Pocahontas story I went out to discover the true story. While I discovered there are huge liberties taken with the Pocahontas legend, it still does not stop me from enjoying the movie. Just like knowing the real story about Anne won't stop me from enjoying TOBG for what it is – a fictional historical novel.

---

Bill, I think you highlight the main problem people have with PG, that her works are historical fiction. This would be OK if she transparently made this clear in her works, but she doesn't, the casual reader is then encouraged to accept fiction masquerading as fact for the true story. This is why I and many others do not like PG, her aptitude or otherwise for story-telling is irrelevant.

So true, I guess I feel quite mean with some of the jokes I've made on here about PG, as I'd love to be a novelist too & write a piece of historical fiction. However I would make it perfectly clear to readers that I had written a piece of fiction. I can't understand why PG doesn't just say that-then she would face less criticism. I do sometimes wonder if she just likes causing controversy.

Neil Kemp said:

Claire-Louise said:

---

 

So true, I guess I feel quite mean with some of the jokes I've made on here about PG, as I'd love to be a novelist too & write a piece of historical fiction. However I would make it perfectly clear to readers that I had written a piece of fiction. I can't understand why PG doesn't just say that-then she would face less criticism. I do sometimes wonder if she just likes causing controversy.

---

Yes, Claire-Louise, this may well be the case with PG, after all they do say any publicity is good for business. As for feeling mean about making jokes about PG, I wouldn't beat yourself up about it, we've all got to have a hobby, haven't we!

I do think we should actually rename this topic and call it- Who can make the best Phillipa Gregory joke (I think you are winning so far Neil) 

I guess I should be grateful that I have never been exposed to Philippa Gregory the historian through documentaries or news articles. The only thing I know of her is her fiction books. My version of TOBG doesn't have the Q&A sectioin that some of you have mentioned so I haven't had the 'honour' of discovering how her book is all true. But I do understand where you are all coming from with your frustration, especially if she is trotted out for her opinions on documentaries, I can see how TOBG could be seen by the general public as fact as opposed to fiction. Kinda like how The Da Vinci Code is fact to some people, while to me it is a glorious ficitional action thriller. And it seems PG isn't activiely denouncing the thoughts that TOBG is based on fact.

I promise I won't do this often BUT I do feel like defending her on one bit. The whole incest angle and homosexual circle surrounding Anne. At the time of writing the book , there was an academic book out there that suggested those things. Well maybe not the incest as I haven't actually read Ruth's work. I personally do not believe a fiction author should go back and change their novel just because after publication a book used as a resource has had some of their theorires debunked (I am assuming Ruth's wor was debunked AFTER the publication of TOBG). Especially if that academic book was what provoked the thought in the author's head to tell the story. It's similar to a great thriller I read that is now 100% false – The Romanov Phophecy – due to the discovery of the missing children's bones. Doesn't mean I expect Steven Barry to go back and re-write the book OR even ask for the book to stop publication.

At least PG appears to have learnt her lesson though, as from my understanding the novel The White Queen has enough supernatural aspects to it people won't be believing her story as being 100& 'real'.

I totally agree Neil. I read Warnicke once, and was totally disgusted. For goodness sakes, she a educated and learned scholar, a well-known history professor, and she writes that kind of fantasy. I would be more intereted if she called it fiction that passing it off as serious, academic work. Having be in the “Ivory Tower” for sometime (as a student) and no professor I knew would allow me to use conjecture, assumptions, or obvious imagination to support my theories.

However to be fair, it is important to read her book to better understand her arguments, and to understand the spectrum of historical debate. You may not agree, but read, understand, debate, anad leave knowing why you believe what you do, and be better prepared to support your own theories, and avoid the pitfalls of poor research, such as Warnicke.

I think her writing can be a bit pretencious at times. As if she wants it to sound really dramatic and grand, you know. If it really is her intention, she sort of fails in my mind. Or perhaps it's just her style of writing?

She a decent writer, though I think she should take an extra look on a book before she publishes it.

I don't mind that she's not historically accurate, but I don't get why she says she is. My problem with TOBG is that it's about the rivalry between Mary and Anne, though there never was any rivalry between them. As far as I know, Mary was Henry's mistress years before Anne came along.

*lol* That made my day

Although I have to admit…I enjoy Weir's books. Her way of writing is quite easy to follow and entertaining, even though it must be taken with a hugh pinch of salt.

I`m trying to avoid The Painted Caves . I haven`t heard anything good about it. But I was getting bored of Mary-Sue Ayla a few books ago.

The conclusion I've come to regarding Philippa Gregory is that she has a thing for witches, mary-sue type heroines who love the country, and evil ambitious women who like court life.  Admittedly I haven't read many of her books (just the Tudor court and Wars of the Roses ones), but those about people I admire (Anne Boleyn, Elizabeth) just made me angry.  It's like the opposite of feminism really.  These women were strong women, so they must be bad.  And she then claims they're as historically accurate as they can be.  Not as bad as others, but still.  And the White Queen was not just repetitive, but completely lacked any characterisation whatsoever.  I came away from that not understanding any of the characters any better than when I first started.  At least in the others there was some personality, even if I didn't agree with it.  And in the author note at the end of my book, she tried to justify this by saying there isn't much in the historical record.  I could be wrong, but I would have thought that would allow for more scope to create some personality for the characters?  Oh well.  I don't loathe her as much as some people, but I do disagree with how she claims her books are fact.  It's such a shame that there are people out there who are fooled by this.

Dunno, I mean the mere fact Anne wasn't in some of the places where the “incidents” took place should be a small clue as to why there is a heck of a lot of doubt as to IF they happened.