2:03 am
November 18, 2010
I loved her Wildacre books as a teen. You could tell her PhD in literature of that era gave her a solid grounding of the nuances of the period.
However…she just rested on her laurels and wrote trite bland and not researched stuff at all. Her dislike, hatred even of Anne Boleyn and Elizabeth is …just so over the top, it’s frightening..
I was looking at some of her Kindle previews and she’s calling Anne of Cleves The Duchess of Cleves(psc=1&refRID=8WY53PH342KRM7W8VQ8S#reader_B005Z4QSVQ )
I read her book about Bess of Hardwick..(psc=1&refRID=4VJ2S2ABQRWEDS6D58BC).
it was a book. It had words. There was a plot. I had to return it before I finished it. I was not overly impressed.
It's always bunnies.
11:32 am
January 3, 2012
I would say she is a story writer but not a novelist and I certainly don’t think she should have the accolade of being a historian. A true historian accepts the truth whether it agrees with his/her viewpoint or not. As I said in a previous post she has a preconcieved idea of her chosen subject and when she does her digging, she will bend the facts to fit what she has already decided to be the truth.
I did enjoy her Red Queen and White Queen books, but she went beyond the pail with the White Princess and seemed once again to slip into her usual bend the facts to fit her preconcieved ideas.
The Tv Series the White Queen well it was watchable but it’s not something I would go out of my way to watch. The White Princess Tv series (apart from being hysterical) was again along the same lines as the White Queen, so again not something I would go out of my way to watch.
Personally I think she should stick to storywriting and leave history well out of any of her books.
Semper Fidelis, quod sum quod