33 of 34 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Great Disappointment, April 20, 2009
This review is from: Anne Boleyn: Henry VIII's Obsession (Hardcover)
It was with great anticipation that I awaited this latest biography of arguably the most famous of Henry VIII's wives. Anne Boleyn has intrigued me since my teenage years, and I've tried to read everything that has been written about this woman who still captivates both scholars and laypersons, even after all the centuries that have transpired since her death.
After reading Elizabeth Norton's much anticipated book, I was shocked and disappointed by the lack of anything approaching true scholarship. The author doesn't quite skip through Anne's life; "glide" may be a more appropriate term. Alas, there is nothing new here; no in depth or enlightening analyses of this very complicated woman.
The author throws in bits and pieces of primary sources-i.e., Wyatt's love poems-in a vain attempt to prove that this is a serious historical work. Where are the footnotes? Where are the sources, both primary and secondary, old and new, that lend support to the suppositions that exist, in most cases, purely in the author's imagination?
Almost every page is replete with "Anne must have felt". Replace "must have" with "might have", "could have", "should have" etc. and one quickly begins to realize that there is no shred of serious scholarship here. At least 50% of this book is mere speculation on the author's part, along with a misunderstanding of the 16th Century mindset regarding women and the family (especially of the upper classes) in general.
As an example, when during Anne's quite long stay at the French Court, her father arrived to attend the famous "Field of Cloth of Gold" event. The writer supposed that Anne must have felt happiness at seeing him, but this is simply conjecture. Families of this time period were not what we would call "close knit"--Sir Thomas More's being the exception to the rule. For all we know, Anne may have cringed at the sight of her father and tried to avoid him at all costs.
A bit of speculation is necessary as historians try to fill in the space between known facts and how they relate to the person involved, but when an entire book is filled with this type of guesswork, we have almost arrived in the realm of historical fiction.
Reading Ms. Norton's credentials, I was shocked to see she had attended Oxford and Cambridge. Perhaps I am being a bit too critical, but if I were a professor I know I wouldn't have accepted this work if turned in as an assignment. The alternative would be to have graded it a C- at best.
The book I am currently reading, "After Elizabeth" by Leada de Lisle is a work of intense scholarship and filled with a vast amount of footnotes and a bibliography that would make any serious historian proud. It shocked me to see that both women had studied at Oxford. The difference is as night and day.
I mean no disrepect to Ms. Norton; rather, it is her lack of true scholarship as indicated by this work that bothers me. With such an academic background, one would have expected much, much better than this. It causes me to wonder about the standards as set by these distinguished institutions of learning. Yes, this book is that bad.
Why two stars? Because the many fine photographs and other visuals are outstanding. Apparently the author was given free rein to photograph at Hever Castle and has given us a wonderful display of that fine historical structure. In such a small volume, the amount and quality of the illustrations are way beyond what one would expect.
But alas, the meat of a book is in the written material, and it is there this falls flat on its face. I have already donated my copy to my local library. From now on, I intend to wait before pre-ordering a book based on a short review, a nice cover, and an author's credentials.
BTW, am I to understand the same author will be producing a similar work on Jane Seymour? If so, I'll save my money for something more dependent on sources, rather than speculation.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
19 of 20 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Guessing game?, April 17, 2009
This review is from: Anne Boleyn: Henry VIII's Obsession (Hardcover)
I really wanted to like this book. The title is intriguing, the cover's nice, the description sounds engaging. I'm not very happy with the way this book is written. I sat down and actually read through chapter 4, then skimmed the rest. This book is plagued with "maybe," "perhaps," "could have been," "would have been," "possibly," "must have," "almost certain" - and it's annoying. These phrases do nothing but make it obvious the author isn't willing to stand behind any fact she's presenting. So then I wonder, why am I bothering? Because if she's not sure, and I certainly don't know (why I bought the book)......... why'd I pay $20 for a book in which the author doesn't want to make a decisive point?
Example: (pg33) "Ann Boleyn is not recorded at the Field of the Cloth of Gold but she was almost certainly present ..... Anne's presence would have been required .....Anne prepared for the meeting with excitement..." Was she there or not? If she prepared with excitment then I would venture to claim, yes she was there. Therefore, the beginning statement "she was almost certainly present" just drags the entire point down. And most of what I looked at in this book reads just like that. So through the chapters and passages that I read, I had to make my own decisions as to whether or not events actually happened. And the verb tenses bounce back and forth throughout the book as well. There's hardly an active tone in the book, that I saw. It's mostly passive. This book doesn't engage the reader at all. We're never permitted to get inside and actually see the Tudors. We stay on the outside wondering, still not knowing much more than when we picked the book up.
On the plus side, the book has some excellent photos.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No