This is a good example of the kind of historical fiction that plays fast and loose with generally accepted history, bending events to fit the plot. Before the internet, I would just have wondered how accurate the supposed history was, but now I can read from numerous sites to find out what most historians think actually happened. In the case of this book, historians disagree with many aspects of Gregory's account.
This is the story of Mary and Anne Boleyn and Henry VIII, as narrated by Mary. Gregory portrays her as an innocent 14-year-old who is already married when she comes to Court and catches the eye of the king. Her parents and uncle push her into becoming his mistress while her husband obligingly turns a blind eye. This is the first of many historical inaccuracies. Mary was almost certainly older, probably about 21, when she came to Court, and she was apparently not an innocent, because she had been living at the court in France and King Francis himself had referred to her as "my English mare" and "my hackney" and "a great slag" ("slut"). I can only assume Gregory chose to make Mary a young innocent so that she could portray her throughout as the "good" sister, a helpless pawn just following the orders of her elders, in contrast to Anne, the "bad" sister, a self-centered, calculating, and ruthless opportunist. Gregory also casts Mary as the younger sister, although historians agree that Anne was the younger. This, also, was probably because the author wished to portray Mary in a sympathetic light as being naive and malleable. The list of other misrepresentations is lengthy.
Aside from the historical inaccuracies, The Other Boleyn Girl reads more like a bodice-ripper romance novel than historical fiction. Even the language used is romance-novel-appropriate. People frequently "tremble with desire." Female hair is always "lustrous" or "glossy" and always "tumbles in curls" around their shoulders. The several sex scenes would fit just right in a Harlequin Historical.
Philippa Gregory is a best-selling author with many books purported to be historical fiction. I would classify her instead as a popular fiction writer who adapts history to fit her plots. That might be OK for light reading, but she represents herself as a researcher and reporter of real history. I think not.
Saturday, December 3, 2016
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment