Search
Teaching Shakespeare: The Tempest Teacher's Book
8.0
Rate It
Book
Teaching Shakespeare presents over 50 photocopiable worksheets. Different sections of the book cover...
Teaching Shakespeare: Twelfth Night Teacher's Book
Book
Teaching Shakespeare presents over 50 photocopiable worksheets. Different sections of the book cover...
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 Very light on historical content, this is more for the romantics out there who like a historical backdrop to a love story.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.
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.