Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.79 AVERAGE
3.79 AVERAGE
Read this several years ago and was interested in the evidence. So after reading the finding of King Richard's grave, I had to re-read this. There is another book I am wanting to read, My Lord John by Georgette Heyer. She relates this from the point of view of the Tudors. But I want to see what she has to say because she has a reputation for historical accuracy.
Anyway, this book is fascinating with it's discovery of evidence,or lack thereof, for Richard killing the boys.
(spoiler alerts)
The end of the book also reveals that these fact are not unknown and have been written of before by various people. I thought that point especially interesting. I'd like to read some of these accounts by others.
Anyway, this book is fascinating with it's discovery of evidence,or lack thereof, for Richard killing the boys.
(spoiler alerts)
The end of the book also reveals that these fact are not unknown and have been written of before by various people. I thought that point especially interesting. I'd like to read some of these accounts by others.
In this book, Inspector Alan Grant is bedridden, and while he is stuck in the hospital, he becomes obsessed with trying to solve the historical mystery of Richard III. Grant has an instinctual sense that Richard III did not murder his nephews, and he investigates the case by reading a variety of historical sources and working with a young research assistant who comes to visit him at a mutual friend's invitation.
This book starts out well, with vivid characterization and dialogue, but it begins to drag in the middle. During this stage of the story, most of the dialogue revolves around historical facts and theories, and one's level of engagement depends on their existing knowledge of the Wars of the Roses and the royal family of that time. Since I cannot keep up with the royal family from any generation and do not care enough to try, I ended up skimming parts of this, hoping that the denouement would still make sense.
It did! I found the ending satisfying and interesting, and I'm glad that I finally read this classic that I have heard recommended so many times. Because I am a history major, I am reluctant to read novelized interpretations of history that could distort my understanding of reality, but this book was right down my alley. I enjoyed the reflections on historiography, and even though I cannot vouch for how much they would entertain the average reader, I loved the dialogue and dramatic reflections about history and propaganda, and about how often historians build upon faulty foundations without considering the actual merit and credibility of vaunted early sources. As Grant discovers, seemingly authoritative works often fit the narrative of whoever was in power, and people go on to write school texts for centuries based on the distorted views of "contemporary" writers who never even witnessed these events themselves.
This book appealed to my general historical interests very much, despite my lack of investment in England's royal history, and it made a compelling case for why it is unlikely that Richard III murdered his nephews. However, I am only giving this book three stars because it does not strike the right balance between fiction and nonfiction. As I mentioned, the book drags significantly in the middle, but the most significant problem is that the author does not provide any historical citations. It is never clear how many of the facts and theories presented in this
book are backed up by real historical sources, versus fictionalized for the purposes of this mystery novel.
The author clearly put a lot of research and effort into this, and I believe that her theory is sound, but because she did not summarize her findings or sources in an author's note and bibliography, the book is much less convincing than it could be. The dull parts won't captivate a reader who doesn't care about history, and a reader who is invested in the past will want more certain evidence that the author's discoveries and theories are well-founded. This hybrid between a mystery and a historical text is genuinely entertaining, and it is amazing how interesting it remains even as the point of view character is confined to a hospital bed, but even though there is a reason why this unique accomplishment became such a classic, I can only give it a mixed review.
This book starts out well, with vivid characterization and dialogue, but it begins to drag in the middle. During this stage of the story, most of the dialogue revolves around historical facts and theories, and one's level of engagement depends on their existing knowledge of the Wars of the Roses and the royal family of that time. Since I cannot keep up with the royal family from any generation and do not care enough to try, I ended up skimming parts of this, hoping that the denouement would still make sense.
It did! I found the ending satisfying and interesting, and I'm glad that I finally read this classic that I have heard recommended so many times. Because I am a history major, I am reluctant to read novelized interpretations of history that could distort my understanding of reality, but this book was right down my alley. I enjoyed the reflections on historiography, and even though I cannot vouch for how much they would entertain the average reader, I loved the dialogue and dramatic reflections about history and propaganda, and about how often historians build upon faulty foundations without considering the actual merit and credibility of vaunted early sources. As Grant discovers, seemingly authoritative works often fit the narrative of whoever was in power, and people go on to write school texts for centuries based on the distorted views of "contemporary" writers who never even witnessed these events themselves.
This book appealed to my general historical interests very much, despite my lack of investment in England's royal history, and it made a compelling case for why it is unlikely that Richard III murdered his nephews. However, I am only giving this book three stars because it does not strike the right balance between fiction and nonfiction. As I mentioned, the book drags significantly in the middle, but the most significant problem is that the author does not provide any historical citations. It is never clear how many of the facts and theories presented in this
book are backed up by real historical sources, versus fictionalized for the purposes of this mystery novel.
The author clearly put a lot of research and effort into this, and I believe that her theory is sound, but because she did not summarize her findings or sources in an author's note and bibliography, the book is much less convincing than it could be. The dull parts won't captivate a reader who doesn't care about history, and a reader who is invested in the past will want more certain evidence that the author's discoveries and theories are well-founded. This hybrid between a mystery and a historical text is genuinely entertaining, and it is amazing how interesting it remains even as the point of view character is confined to a hospital bed, but even though there is a reason why this unique accomplishment became such a classic, I can only give it a mixed review.
dark
funny
informative
mysterious
reflective
I really wanted to like this book but by the time I reached the end I didn't really care if Richard III killed his nephews or not.
LOVE. A refreshing variation on a detective novel. For a book where the detective is bedridden from beginning to end, that's not an easy feat. I wonder how many people have fallen in love with Richard III and with the study of history thanks to this book.
It's a light read but one that could open up a whole world if the reader is interested to put the book aside and plunge into a bit of history. I liked that this book shows how difficult it is to pinpoint exactly what happened in history, that a historian's psychology and limited resources drive him to all sorts of conclusions. I also liked how Josephine Tey painted those historical figures from the events of the transition of power.
Quote to retain: [Historians] they see history like a peepshow; with two-dimensional figures against a distant background.
Quote to retain: [Historians] they see history like a peepshow; with two-dimensional figures against a distant background.
informative
mysterious
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
Like nothing I’ve ever read, which, as a seasoned reader, is at once off putting and refreshing! I loved watching the research unfold, the questions asked the theories put forward. It felt like being in a room with a passionate historian following the breadcrumb trail of evidence. Really enjoyed the journey!
informative
mysterious
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
A historical detective novel looking at the murder of the Princes in the Tower by Richard III. Colin Dexter did the exact same with the Morse novel The Wench is Dead. This was written 40 years earlier. Interesting idea and diverting read.
adventurous
informative
lighthearted
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No