Search
IT
Innocent Traitor
7.0
Rate It
Book
I am now a condemned traitor . . . I am to die when I have hardly begun to live. Historical...
Rich, detailed, but strange narrative style at times!
I was sooo keen to read this - especially after watching the TV series, which I completely loved. For the most part, I wasn't disappointed. It's such a novel way of exploring Henry VIII's relationship with Anne Boleyn, not to mention the complex divorce proceedings that preceded it - through the eyes of Thomas Cromwell, the man partially responsible for orchestrating the whole thing.
Immediately, I was struck by Hilary Mantel's remarkable ability to capture life of that time - making it seem strangely familiar, despite the fact it was hundreds of years ago. She made it all seem so real, largely due to her richness of detail, not to mention expert knowledge of the era. The little notes of humour throughout are what really bring it to life - so often, history is treated with utmost seriousness, yet Mantel is absolutely correct - I'm sure people were cracking jokes and saying silly things in the Tudor era too!
The relationships were likewise beautifully illustrated, and the death of Cromwell's wife, genuinely moving. For me, this was one of the most impressive moments of the book, as Mantel captures grief so powerfully and yet so simply.
One thing I did find strange though - the way Mantel uses pronouns throughout the book. I pondered for ages about why it jarred on me every so often, and I think it's because the 3rd person narrative is so intimate, it almost feels like a 1st person in places. Then, when she uses 'he' again, rather than 'I', it is momentarily confusing. I found myself wondering what the book would have been like had she just told it in first person through Cromwell's eyes - my personal belief is that it might have worked better.
Also, although the richness of the detail was spectacular, there were times when I felt that it held up the narrative slightly. I appreciate her desire to capture every moment of these tumultuous historic events, but at times, I did find them a wee bit boring.
However, for the most part, I was really into this book, and loved the character of Cromwell to bits. A man from a humble background, unfailingly pragmatic and clever - fabulous stuff!
Immediately, I was struck by Hilary Mantel's remarkable ability to capture life of that time - making it seem strangely familiar, despite the fact it was hundreds of years ago. She made it all seem so real, largely due to her richness of detail, not to mention expert knowledge of the era. The little notes of humour throughout are what really bring it to life - so often, history is treated with utmost seriousness, yet Mantel is absolutely correct - I'm sure people were cracking jokes and saying silly things in the Tudor era too!
The relationships were likewise beautifully illustrated, and the death of Cromwell's wife, genuinely moving. For me, this was one of the most impressive moments of the book, as Mantel captures grief so powerfully and yet so simply.
One thing I did find strange though - the way Mantel uses pronouns throughout the book. I pondered for ages about why it jarred on me every so often, and I think it's because the 3rd person narrative is so intimate, it almost feels like a 1st person in places. Then, when she uses 'he' again, rather than 'I', it is momentarily confusing. I found myself wondering what the book would have been like had she just told it in first person through Cromwell's eyes - my personal belief is that it might have worked better.
Also, although the richness of the detail was spectacular, there were times when I felt that it held up the narrative slightly. I appreciate her desire to capture every moment of these tumultuous historic events, but at times, I did find them a wee bit boring.
However, for the most part, I was really into this book, and loved the character of Cromwell to bits. A man from a humble background, unfailingly pragmatic and clever - fabulous stuff!
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated Green Darkness in Books
May 16, 2018
Having picked <i>Green Darkness</i> up from the local library bookstore sale for only a quarter, I truly had no idea what I was getting myself into. Historical fiction, in any form, is not a genre that I've spent much time with, and coupling that with paranormal romance? Well, we can safely say that I was in for a ride.
<i>Green Darkness</i> shares the harrowing tale of forbidden love in mid-1500s England between an unfortunate peasant girl and a Benedictine monk, betwixt the reigns of King Edward VI, Queen Mary I, and Queen Elizabeth - a time when Catholicism and Protestantism (depending on the ruler) were met with persecution. It doesn't begin in that era, however; rather, the story starts in the 1960s, when Celia and her newly wedded husband, Richard Marsdon, arrive at his family's ancestral estate in Sussex. A baffling illness befalls the Marsdons, leaving the unorthodox physician, Doctor Akananda, to unravel the mysterious past that haunts the pair from hundreds of years before.
The twisting tale that unravels of that love affair is only a small part of what I enjoyed about this book, as romance is not typically my cup of tea. What truly enticed me was [a:Anya Seton|18930|Anya Seton|https://d.gr-assets.com/authors/1224813438p2/18930.jpg]'s faithfulness not only to history, but to location, legend, and use of historical figures. Cowdray House and Ightham Mote are real places, and an unfounded rumor regarding the Mote suggests that a female skeleton was found within its walls - which Seton used as a basis for her story. Through Seton, I discovered an unknown love for Tudor England, and undoubtedly I will read more books set in that time period.
Despite my praise for the book, I was unable to give it a five star rating because of its conclusion: it was as if Seton ran out of fuel. The idea of reincarnation takes a more ridiculous turn when Doctor Akananda hints at more pasts that conveniently interlock the same people. As if that were not enough of an affront, the resolution itself fell flat. With the Marsdon family tragedy conveniently wrapped up, Celia and Stephen seem aloof and their interaction felt a bit too forced. It is for this reason that I gave the book four stars.
<i>Green Darkness</i> shares the harrowing tale of forbidden love in mid-1500s England between an unfortunate peasant girl and a Benedictine monk, betwixt the reigns of King Edward VI, Queen Mary I, and Queen Elizabeth - a time when Catholicism and Protestantism (depending on the ruler) were met with persecution. It doesn't begin in that era, however; rather, the story starts in the 1960s, when Celia and her newly wedded husband, Richard Marsdon, arrive at his family's ancestral estate in Sussex. A baffling illness befalls the Marsdons, leaving the unorthodox physician, Doctor Akananda, to unravel the mysterious past that haunts the pair from hundreds of years before.
The twisting tale that unravels of that love affair is only a small part of what I enjoyed about this book, as romance is not typically my cup of tea. What truly enticed me was [a:Anya Seton|18930|Anya Seton|https://d.gr-assets.com/authors/1224813438p2/18930.jpg]'s faithfulness not only to history, but to location, legend, and use of historical figures. Cowdray House and Ightham Mote are real places, and an unfounded rumor regarding the Mote suggests that a female skeleton was found within its walls - which Seton used as a basis for her story. Through Seton, I discovered an unknown love for Tudor England, and undoubtedly I will read more books set in that time period.
Despite my praise for the book, I was unable to give it a five star rating because of its conclusion: it was as if Seton ran out of fuel. The idea of reincarnation takes a more ridiculous turn when Doctor Akananda hints at more pasts that conveniently interlock the same people. As if that were not enough of an affront, the resolution itself fell flat. With the Marsdon family tragedy conveniently wrapped up, Celia and Stephen seem aloof and their interaction felt a bit too forced. It is for this reason that I gave the book four stars.
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated The Other Countess (The Lacey Chronicles, #1) in Books
Feb 15, 2019
THE OTHER COUNTESS is a sweet and harmless love story set in Tudor England during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, in the year of 1582 to be exact. Lady Eleanor Rodriguez, Countess of San Jaime, is our penniless heroine who is saddled with her absent-minded alchemist father; the roles of child and parent have been long since been reversed. The preface, which takes place in 1578, gives us our first glimpse of William Lacey, the new Earl of Dorset at age fourteen, as he throws a twelve-year-old Ellie and her father off his land.
The story itself isn't exactly original and doesn't go into any unfamiliar territory, but it's ably told and fairly inoffensive, making it suitable for older teens (there are numerous allusions to sexual situations but that's as far as it goes). The dialogue and sensibilities are more modern in nature and don't always ring true to the era, but some liberties are always taken in young adult fiction, therefore making it something I can forgive. Very light on historical content, this is more for the romantics out there who like a historical backdrop to a love story. For the first half, I wasn't very involved into either the characters or their story, and it didn't help that it moved at a slow pace, though at the halfway point it picked up and started charming me. However, the hero and heroine were a little too perfect, more so in Ellie's case, as she didn't seem to really have any negative attributes other than she has a bit of a temper. Maybe if they had a few more rough edges I would have rooted for them to have their happy ending, as it is, I wasn't that invested. I do think that the secondary character, Lady Jane Perceval, has promise on that front since her narrative had a more realistic feel to it, so I may just pick up her story when it comes out ([b:The Queen's Lady|8805112|The Queen's Lady (The Lacey Chronicles, #2)|Eve Edwards|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1327950501s/8805112.jpg|13679272]). The resolution to Will and Ellie's story came far too easily and some more conflict would have made it much better. Still, as I said, it's a sweet story, even if nothing sets it apart from other books. An easy read that should appeal to teenage girls.
The story itself isn't exactly original and doesn't go into any unfamiliar territory, but it's ably told and fairly inoffensive, making it suitable for older teens (there are numerous allusions to sexual situations but that's as far as it goes). The dialogue and sensibilities are more modern in nature and don't always ring true to the era, but some liberties are always taken in young adult fiction, therefore making it something I can forgive. Very light on historical content, this is more for the romantics out there who like a historical backdrop to a love story. For the first half, I wasn't very involved into either the characters or their story, and it didn't help that it moved at a slow pace, though at the halfway point it picked up and started charming me. However, the hero and heroine were a little too perfect, more so in Ellie's case, as she didn't seem to really have any negative attributes other than she has a bit of a temper. Maybe if they had a few more rough edges I would have rooted for them to have their happy ending, as it is, I wasn't that invested. I do think that the secondary character, Lady Jane Perceval, has promise on that front since her narrative had a more realistic feel to it, so I may just pick up her story when it comes out ([b:The Queen's Lady|8805112|The Queen's Lady (The Lacey Chronicles, #2)|Eve Edwards|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1327950501s/8805112.jpg|13679272]). The resolution to Will and Ellie's story came far too easily and some more conflict would have made it much better. Still, as I said, it's a sweet story, even if nothing sets it apart from other books. An easy read that should appeal to teenage girls.
Deborah (162 KP) rated The Mythology of Richard III in Books
Dec 21, 2018
As usual, Ashdown-Hill has given us a well-written and accessible book with an extensive index and bibliography and reasoning well backed up with factual evidence; I find his books are always worth reading an a refreshing change from a lot of the nonsense there is out there. In this particular book he looks at myths and legends, both old and rather worryingly modern, that surround one or our best known monarchs.
Early chapters deal with the mythology perpetuated by Tudor propagandists and blinkered 'traditionalists' despite lack of evidence in many cases and even explicit evidence to the contrary in others! He looks at how some stories, such as the 'body in the river' became perpetuated over time so that they eventually become accepted as 'truth' by the uninformed. Even I had taken rather at face value the story of the White/Blue Boar Inn, but as Ashdown-Hill points out, it would be much more logical for Richard III to have stayed at Leicester Castle, as he had on a previous occasion, and also there is no evidence that an inn with a boar in its name existed at all in Leicester at this time!
The latter part of the book deals with more modern myths and I was really rather saddened and disappointed that it was necessary to have to set the record straight on many aspect of the rediscovery of the king's grave. I completely understand Ashdown-Hill's need to do so. After reading his earlier book 'The Last Days of Richard III' I was thoroughly convinced by his well reasoned arguments and never for a moment did I seriously doubt that that is where Richard III's resting place was. I was almost ready to go and dig the car park up myself! Whatever the rights and wrongs of it, I did find all the arguments over a final resting place to be somewhat distasteful, with some people sinking very low in voicing their opinions. It is disheartening that a British University PR department is less interested in truth than in trying to keep all the kudos for itself and I hope that people will read this and know the truth. With all its apparent misinformation I doubt I will be bothering with the visitor centre in Leicester any more than I have bothered to visit the putative site of Bosworth.
Early chapters deal with the mythology perpetuated by Tudor propagandists and blinkered 'traditionalists' despite lack of evidence in many cases and even explicit evidence to the contrary in others! He looks at how some stories, such as the 'body in the river' became perpetuated over time so that they eventually become accepted as 'truth' by the uninformed. Even I had taken rather at face value the story of the White/Blue Boar Inn, but as Ashdown-Hill points out, it would be much more logical for Richard III to have stayed at Leicester Castle, as he had on a previous occasion, and also there is no evidence that an inn with a boar in its name existed at all in Leicester at this time!
The latter part of the book deals with more modern myths and I was really rather saddened and disappointed that it was necessary to have to set the record straight on many aspect of the rediscovery of the king's grave. I completely understand Ashdown-Hill's need to do so. After reading his earlier book 'The Last Days of Richard III' I was thoroughly convinced by his well reasoned arguments and never for a moment did I seriously doubt that that is where Richard III's resting place was. I was almost ready to go and dig the car park up myself! Whatever the rights and wrongs of it, I did find all the arguments over a final resting place to be somewhat distasteful, with some people sinking very low in voicing their opinions. It is disheartening that a British University PR department is less interested in truth than in trying to keep all the kudos for itself and I hope that people will read this and know the truth. With all its apparent misinformation I doubt I will be bothering with the visitor centre in Leicester any more than I have bothered to visit the putative site of Bosworth.
Mr. Nobody
6.0
Rate It
Book
When a man is found on a Norfolk beach, drifting in and out of consciousness, with no identification...
If you thought a modern retelling of [b:Pride and Prejudice|1885|Pride and Prejudice|Jane Austen|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1320399351s/1885.jpg|3060926]--set mainly in present day Cincinnati--didn't exactly sound like a page-turner, no one could exactly blame you. But, nonetheless, you'd be quite wrong. Sittenfeld's novel imagines the Bennet family in our modern times; Mr. and Mrs. Bennet live in a rambling Tudor home in Cincinnati: broke and somewhat clueless as their house crumbles around them. Mrs. Bennet spends her time clucking around her five unmarried daughters: Jane, Liz, Mary, Kitty, and Lydia. The book revolves mainly around the perspective of Liz, a magazine writer in her upper thirties living in New York City. She and Jane, also in NYC, return home to their parents and younger sisters after Mr. Bennet has a heart attack, only to find the house and the family in a bit of a shambles.
The book is amazing. It's been a while since I read [b:Pride and Prejudice|1885|Pride and Prejudice|Jane Austen|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1320399351s/1885.jpg|3060926], but even I can tell you that the novel does an excellent job of following the original plot without being annoying or cloying. It's [b:Pride and Prejudice|1885|Pride and Prejudice|Jane Austen|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1320399351s/1885.jpg|3060926] with lesbians and hate sex! The book comes across as familiar yet new, allowing you to ache, laugh, and rage at what feels like a group of old friends.
Mr. Bennet is a trip, even while having a heartbreaking sadness and sweetness at his core (though some of his zingers are priceless). The younger sisters are as (nearly) vapid as to be expected--truly awful at times--for much of the book. But seriously, Lydia and Kitty loving CrossFit? It's awesome. And Liz is wonderful; you will adore this surprisingly realistic and modern Liz, with all of her foibles and issues: a truly modern Liz struggling mightily to keep her family together and afloat.
As for Darcy, well he's as Darcy as ever. Somehow Sittenfeld has managed to truly capture the essence of Austen's Darcy and Elizabeth in her new characters. I don't know how, but it's funny and lovely all at the same time. (Side note: As a woman in her early thirties, will I ever be able to read about Darcy without picturing Colin Firth? I now have a desperate need to watch the BBC/A&E mini-series again.)
Overall, I found this book funny, touching, and compulsively readable. The characters are truly characters: they are fully formed within moments of picking up the book. The city of Cincinnati makes a great guest appearance, with the city playing a prominent role in many scenes (hi Skyline Chili!). If you loved the original, you'll find this updated version enjoyable and imaginative, with a surprising depth behind it. If you've never read Austen's work (and you should), you will still discover a funny, sweet yet weighty story of a family trying to make it in this day and age. Highly recommended (4.5 stars).
I received an ARC of this novel from Netgalley (thank you!); it is available for U.S. publication on 4/19/16. You can check out a review of this novel and many others on my <a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">blog</a>;.
The book is amazing. It's been a while since I read [b:Pride and Prejudice|1885|Pride and Prejudice|Jane Austen|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1320399351s/1885.jpg|3060926], but even I can tell you that the novel does an excellent job of following the original plot without being annoying or cloying. It's [b:Pride and Prejudice|1885|Pride and Prejudice|Jane Austen|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1320399351s/1885.jpg|3060926] with lesbians and hate sex! The book comes across as familiar yet new, allowing you to ache, laugh, and rage at what feels like a group of old friends.
Mr. Bennet is a trip, even while having a heartbreaking sadness and sweetness at his core (though some of his zingers are priceless). The younger sisters are as (nearly) vapid as to be expected--truly awful at times--for much of the book. But seriously, Lydia and Kitty loving CrossFit? It's awesome. And Liz is wonderful; you will adore this surprisingly realistic and modern Liz, with all of her foibles and issues: a truly modern Liz struggling mightily to keep her family together and afloat.
As for Darcy, well he's as Darcy as ever. Somehow Sittenfeld has managed to truly capture the essence of Austen's Darcy and Elizabeth in her new characters. I don't know how, but it's funny and lovely all at the same time. (Side note: As a woman in her early thirties, will I ever be able to read about Darcy without picturing Colin Firth? I now have a desperate need to watch the BBC/A&E mini-series again.)
Overall, I found this book funny, touching, and compulsively readable. The characters are truly characters: they are fully formed within moments of picking up the book. The city of Cincinnati makes a great guest appearance, with the city playing a prominent role in many scenes (hi Skyline Chili!). If you loved the original, you'll find this updated version enjoyable and imaginative, with a surprising depth behind it. If you've never read Austen's work (and you should), you will still discover a funny, sweet yet weighty story of a family trying to make it in this day and age. Highly recommended (4.5 stars).
I received an ARC of this novel from Netgalley (thank you!); it is available for U.S. publication on 4/19/16. You can check out a review of this novel and many others on my <a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">blog</a>;.
Metroburbia: The Anatomy of Greater London
Book
London's suburbs are home to many thousands of people who travel into the centre every day to work,...
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated The Other Boleyn Girl in Books
Feb 15, 2019
Going into <b>The Other Boleyn Girl</b> I already knew that the historical details weren't very factual, but I had this laying around and needed something both light and set in the past, so I figured this would do nicely. The writing itself is perfectly fine, and mostly, I did enjoy the book. Although, for the first half, it seemed as if everyone only wore red and by the end I got so sick of hearing about Anne's "B" for Boleyn necklace I could scream.
Mary Boleyn, the narrator, is a strange character: sympathetic and of reasonable intelligence one minute, a moronic irritant the next. Personality-wise she went up and down and back and forth. First she was fine not being the King's favorite anymore and seeming to want to leave the court life for the country to be with her children, then she was jealous of a title Anne received, years after the affair between Mary and Henry was over. Possibly this was put in as part of the rivalry between the sisters, but it didn't contextually fit. Her development could have used more work and she didn't mature or change much throughout the whole book, especially between the years 1522 to 1533. I seriously got tired of everybody's patronizing and calling her a fool all the time. They should have just named the book, <b>The Foolish Boleyn Girl</b>. I find it hard to believe Mary was so ignorant the king would have continued to have her as mistress for four years, give or take. She had to offer something other than good looks and being great in the bedroom. Anne herself sure was a piece of work, and even though she was pretty much evil throughout the book, I did still feel sorry for her at the end. Jane Parker was a one-dimensional malicious harpy who wasn't given a reason why she was that way; she was just the resident baddy to the Boleyns. To me, it felt like defamation of character.
Politics and the separation of the Church of England from the Catholic Church were merely mentioned in passing as court life and its primary players took center stage. The whole incest plot, I could have done without. Now if it were the absolute truth then it'd be okay, but since it's highly debatable and based on hearsay, I found it unnecessary and gratuitous. Around the two-thirds mark, the pace let up and it became more sluggish and boring, and it wasn't until the last sixty pages that it recaptured my attention again.
As long as readers know going into this book that the history has been twisted around and invented for pure sensation, then it's fine as a fictional read, but take any "facts" with a grain of salt. While it was an okay read, I didn't love it, but it managed to divert my attention for a few days.
One last note dealing with the fourth question in the Q&A with Philippa Gregory in the back of the book:
<blockquote>How about Mary and Anne's brother, George? Did he really sleep with his sister so that she could give Henry a son?
<i>Nobody can know the answer to this one. Anne was accused of adultery with George at their trials and his wife gave evidence against them both. Most people think the trial was a show trial, but it is an interesting accusation. Anne had three miscarriages by the time of her trial, and she was not a woman to let something like sin or crime stand in her way--she was clearly guilty of one murder. I think if she had thought that Henry could not bear a son she was quite capable of finding someone to father a child on her. If she thought that, then George would have been the obvious choice.</i></blockquote>
Obvious? How in the world is that obvious? You cannot be serious, Ms. Gregory. Now I'm far from an expert in Tudor England, but I cannot imagine that being a common practice. Maybe someone more knowledgeable about this time could tell me if that ever happened, because it just boggles my mind that George would be the "<i>obvious choice</i>." Not to mention, who the hell did Anne supposedly kill? I hadn't heard that anywhere. Even my searches are coming up blank.
Mary Boleyn, the narrator, is a strange character: sympathetic and of reasonable intelligence one minute, a moronic irritant the next. Personality-wise she went up and down and back and forth. First she was fine not being the King's favorite anymore and seeming to want to leave the court life for the country to be with her children, then she was jealous of a title Anne received, years after the affair between Mary and Henry was over. Possibly this was put in as part of the rivalry between the sisters, but it didn't contextually fit. Her development could have used more work and she didn't mature or change much throughout the whole book, especially between the years 1522 to 1533. I seriously got tired of everybody's patronizing and calling her a fool all the time. They should have just named the book, <b>The Foolish Boleyn Girl</b>. I find it hard to believe Mary was so ignorant the king would have continued to have her as mistress for four years, give or take. She had to offer something other than good looks and being great in the bedroom. Anne herself sure was a piece of work, and even though she was pretty much evil throughout the book, I did still feel sorry for her at the end. Jane Parker was a one-dimensional malicious harpy who wasn't given a reason why she was that way; she was just the resident baddy to the Boleyns. To me, it felt like defamation of character.
Politics and the separation of the Church of England from the Catholic Church were merely mentioned in passing as court life and its primary players took center stage. The whole incest plot, I could have done without. Now if it were the absolute truth then it'd be okay, but since it's highly debatable and based on hearsay, I found it unnecessary and gratuitous. Around the two-thirds mark, the pace let up and it became more sluggish and boring, and it wasn't until the last sixty pages that it recaptured my attention again.
As long as readers know going into this book that the history has been twisted around and invented for pure sensation, then it's fine as a fictional read, but take any "facts" with a grain of salt. While it was an okay read, I didn't love it, but it managed to divert my attention for a few days.
One last note dealing with the fourth question in the Q&A with Philippa Gregory in the back of the book:
<blockquote>How about Mary and Anne's brother, George? Did he really sleep with his sister so that she could give Henry a son?
<i>Nobody can know the answer to this one. Anne was accused of adultery with George at their trials and his wife gave evidence against them both. Most people think the trial was a show trial, but it is an interesting accusation. Anne had three miscarriages by the time of her trial, and she was not a woman to let something like sin or crime stand in her way--she was clearly guilty of one murder. I think if she had thought that Henry could not bear a son she was quite capable of finding someone to father a child on her. If she thought that, then George would have been the obvious choice.</i></blockquote>
Obvious? How in the world is that obvious? You cannot be serious, Ms. Gregory. Now I'm far from an expert in Tudor England, but I cannot imagine that being a common practice. Maybe someone more knowledgeable about this time could tell me if that ever happened, because it just boggles my mind that George would be the "<i>obvious choice</i>." Not to mention, who the hell did Anne supposedly kill? I hadn't heard that anywhere. Even my searches are coming up blank.