Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by radioactiv
The Wars of the Roses by Alison Weir
4.0
I read this book and Dan Jones' [b:The Wars of the Roses: The Fall of the Plantagenets and the Rise of the Tudors|20821029|The Wars of the Roses The Fall of the Plantagenets and the Rise of the Tudors|Dan Jones|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1396671577s/20821029.jpg|40166938] close together, so I ended up comparing the two of them. Weir starts the narrative much earlier than Jones; Jones starts immediately with Henry IV's overthrow of Richard II in 1399 whereas Weir starts much earlier, with Edward III. I found Weir's starting point preferable, since the accession of Richard II as a child was certainly relevant to the issues that surrounded Henry IV's accession as an infant. However, Weir's telling stops much earlier than Jones'. Weir stops with the Battle of Tewkesbury, when Edward IV defeats Henry VI, rather than continuing until Henry VII defeats Richard III. I suspect this is because she has written a book about the Princes in the Tower. Jones instead covers Henry VII's accession and even discusses Henry VIII, since this is the point where a son of a living king acceded to the throne as an adult. I find Jones' ending point much more satisfactory.
In terms of narrative, I felt that Weir did a better job of giving the actors personality, particularly figures who weren't personally vying for the throne. Jones focuses much more on the actual claimants to the throne and their closest allies (Margaret of Anjou, Warwick). Weir's approach has benefits - I feel like I got a better sense of the various actors involved with different events - it did mean flipping back and forth between genealogical tables A LOT. Jones' narrative is a bit easier to follow (though it also helped that I read Jones' book second) .
Jones seems to have been much more conservative with sources than Weir. Some things that Jones presents as possibilities/uncertain, Weir states as fact (e.g., Somerset agreeing to surrender Maine as part of Henry VI's marriage agreement). At points she seems to accept contemporary beliefs without much questioning, whereas Jones is more questioning.
I preferred Jones' actual writing to that of Weir. While both are quite readable, I found Jones' style flowed better, particularly when listing names, as he used semi-colons to separate lists of names that include titles whereas Weir only used commas. Sounds like a small complaint until you read a long list of supporters of a claim...
I've given both 4 stars - both were enjoyable.
In terms of narrative, I felt that Weir did a better job of giving the actors personality, particularly figures who weren't personally vying for the throne. Jones focuses much more on the actual claimants to the throne and their closest allies (Margaret of Anjou, Warwick). Weir's approach has benefits - I feel like I got a better sense of the various actors involved with different events - it did mean flipping back and forth between genealogical tables A LOT. Jones' narrative is a bit easier to follow (though it also helped that I read Jones' book second) .
Jones seems to have been much more conservative with sources than Weir. Some things that Jones presents as possibilities/uncertain, Weir states as fact (e.g., Somerset agreeing to surrender Maine as part of Henry VI's marriage agreement). At points she seems to accept contemporary beliefs without much questioning, whereas Jones is more questioning.
I preferred Jones' actual writing to that of Weir. While both are quite readable, I found Jones' style flowed better, particularly when listing names, as he used semi-colons to separate lists of names that include titles whereas Weir only used commas. Sounds like a small complaint until you read a long list of supporters of a claim...
I've given both 4 stars - both were enjoyable.