Take a photo of a barcode or cover
sophles 's review for:
The White Queen
by Philippa Gregory
I had a history trash craving, so turned to Gregory. In that respect, I wasn't dissapointed. Perhaps I'm biased as after the Other Boleyn Girl I cannot take her seriously as an accurate historical author, merely an author who uses historical characters to play out a fairytale.
There is no subtlety in this novel, and ideas are repeated so often it becomes patronising. I personally did not need to be reminded countless times of her supernatural ancestry, but as a protaganist, Elizabeth insists on mentioning it every other page.
The casual approach to her witchcraft also seemed a little unrealistic, considering the fear surrounding the subject at the time. The emphasis on her witchcraft also cheapens the entire period: from her existance as queen to the entire war. Battles are won through her magic, kings are won through her magic, factions are destroyed through her magic, not through cunning, manipulation, court politics or anything of the other factors that were actually in play during the period.
These parts of the novels provided me with minor annoyances that I could live with, however the portrayal of Richard III seemed ridiculous. Her main argument in favour of his innocence regarding the two princes is entirely contradictory. The idea that he had nothing to gain from the death of the princes makes little sense. There were uprisings throughout the kingdom whilst the princes lived, the death was supposedly a reaction to one such uprising. History had also already proven, a usurper is never safe on his throne until the usurped has been disposed of, as had been demonstrated previously with Richard II and Henry VI. I understand that there are arguments defending Richard III, but this felt like a pretty damn weak one :/
Despite all this, I'll still probably go ahead and read the Red Queen
There is no subtlety in this novel, and ideas are repeated so often it becomes patronising. I personally did not need to be reminded countless times of her supernatural ancestry, but as a protaganist, Elizabeth insists on mentioning it every other page.
The casual approach to her witchcraft also seemed a little unrealistic, considering the fear surrounding the subject at the time. The emphasis on her witchcraft also cheapens the entire period: from her existance as queen to the entire war. Battles are won through her magic, kings are won through her magic, factions are destroyed through her magic, not through cunning, manipulation, court politics or anything of the other factors that were actually in play during the period.
These parts of the novels provided me with minor annoyances that I could live with, however the portrayal of Richard III seemed ridiculous. Her main argument in favour of his innocence regarding the two princes is entirely contradictory. The idea that he had nothing to gain from the death of the princes makes little sense. There were uprisings throughout the kingdom whilst the princes lived, the death was supposedly a reaction to one such uprising. History had also already proven, a usurper is never safe on his throne until the usurped has been disposed of, as had been demonstrated previously with Richard II and Henry VI. I understand that there are arguments defending Richard III, but this felt like a pretty damn weak one :/
Despite all this, I'll still probably go ahead and read the Red Queen