Smashbomb

Search

Search results

All (5000)

Content

Deborah (162 KP) rated Daughters of Rome (The Empress of Rome, #2) in Books

Dec 21, 2018

This is the second book in Quinn's Rome series, but confusingly the action here takes place chronologically before the first one. The setting for this book is 69AD - the Year of the Four Emperors, so plenty of plotting and back stabbing all round.

Many of the characters in this novel did exist historically. Obviously the further back in time you go, the less information there is generally available about what actually went on, which I suppose is a good thing for the historical novelist! The novel centres around four female cousins; two sisters and their two first cousins to be precise. The sisters really did exist, although more is known about one than the other (this is clear when you have read the book and read the historical note at the end). The cousins are invented to drive the plot along; Lollia starts off almost like a WAG - seemingly a bit empty headed and marrying whoever is in favour that month, but she does develop into a more likeable, rounded character. While Diana is difficult to dislike she is a pretty flat character; she's beautiful and completely obsessed with horses and 'The Reds' chariot racing team - a bit like a football bore today I suppose! The sister-in law, Tullia, is another very one-dimensional character, probably best summed up as 'fishwife'.

Many events are based on historical fact, but there are some bits, like the cousins escaping from Rome, that seems a bit unrealistic.

Overall, I found this quite a quick (for a 400 page novel) and entertaining read, but I suspect that like Quinn's Mistress of Rome, I may well be pushed to remember any plot details in a few months time and I probably wouldn't read it again.

Kudos

Deborah (162 KP) rated The Tudor Rose in Books

Dec 21, 2018

This book was written over 50 years ago, so I suppose we must make some allowances for light that has been shed on past events between now and then, but still, there were a number of silly errors in this book which didn't help its credibility: the pre-contract was with Eleanor Butler (nee Talbot) and for some odd reason the book gives her given name as Joan, and Edmund Tudor died of the plague and not in battle.

Overall the book follows a somewhat traditionalist stance, although Henry Tudor comes across as pretty cold and unlikeable. I wasn't convinced by some of the internal logic and some of the characterisation though. Anne Neville, for example. She is a figure we really don't know that much about, but it's hard to conceive she could be as simple and naive as she is portrayed here! Barnes does try it on a bit with trying to make us wonder if 'Perkin' is really Richard of York (and here the historical novelist has licence, because we really don't know!), despite having Bess keep adamantly stating that she knows her brothers are dead. We're also told that Elizabeth Woodville believes they died, which might lead one to question why she would have a finger in a rebellion against her daughter as queen consort? And if everybody really believed this, why did Sir William Stanley lose his head for saying he wouldn't fight against 'Perkin' if he was really a son of Edward IV - and that is in the historical record as well as this novel. There's an awful lot about Bess believing both Richard and Henry have potentially been culpable in acts of murder, but she herself in this novel is guilty of an act of treachery that is at least as bad!

Not a badly written novel, but I found it frustrating overall!