Scan barcode
A review by emilykatereads
Da Vinci's Tiger by L.M. Elliott
2.0
Honestly I don't think I could've been more bored while reading this. But the history was quite well done and thoroughly researched. I love the Renaissance and I went into this really excited, but it lacked the emotional depth to get me attached to any of the characters at all.
I felt nothing towards any of it. It was interesting. But it didn't make me feel anything. Ginevra had so much potential, but she was just a flat character. The only bit of this book that made me enjoy the characters was the dialogue between Da Vinci and Ginevra.
What kept me reading was that I enjoyed the history. It was well researched, aside from the fact that it says something about "homosexual men" after Da Vinci is arrested. The term homosexuality didn't exist until the 19th century, and sexuality is only very recently seen as an identity. In the afterward of the book, Elliott mentions that the term "homosexuality" wasn't coined yet so instead she uses "sodomy" and "Florenzer" which is accurate, but yet she still says "homosexual men."
While reading, that made me question how accurate the book was, but at least I saw her thorough research described later on. Easy enough mistake to make.
I felt nothing towards any of it. It was interesting. But it didn't make me feel anything. Ginevra had so much potential, but she was just a flat character. The only bit of this book that made me enjoy the characters was the dialogue between Da Vinci and Ginevra.
What kept me reading was that I enjoyed the history. It was well researched, aside from the fact that it says something about "homosexual men" after Da Vinci is arrested. The term homosexuality didn't exist until the 19th century, and sexuality is only very recently seen as an identity. In the afterward of the book, Elliott mentions that the term "homosexuality" wasn't coined yet so instead she uses "sodomy" and "Florenzer" which is accurate, but yet she still says "homosexual men."
While reading, that made me question how accurate the book was, but at least I saw her thorough research described later on. Easy enough mistake to make.