Customer Reviews

The Memoirs of Mary Queen of Scots: A Novel

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(7)
1 star:		(13)

 

 

I'm trying to react to this novel in the spirit that Carolly Erickson suggests in her author's note at the end -- to view it as a 'historical entertainment', as 'whimsy'. But I can't. It's just a bad book, not only because it plays fast and loose with the known facts of history (occasionally reading a bit like a hallucination of what might have been) but because it's not even well-written. The only positive note is that I didn't buy it; a friend of mine who knows that I enjoy historical fiction gave it to me as a gift, and I thought I might as well try it, despite my growing distaste for Erickson's novels.

Good historical fiction, like any work of fiction, starts with the author posing himself or herself the question, "What if..." and continues from there. The winners in this category know their history and respect it, in part because they know that a reasonable degree of historical accuracy is valued by those readers who are irritated by errors and partly because they respect the history themselves, and hope to foster a knowledge and appreciation for it on the part of readers whose introduction to a time in history or a historical figure may come through their book. After a certain point, treating historical fact as if it didn't matter, or just an obstacle in the way of telling a good story, irritates me deeply. Especially when the facts already lend themselves to a lot of interpretation and drama, as countless historical novelists have discovered. "Historical entertainment" increasingly strikes me as a more acceptable way of saying that a lazy writer can't be bothered to play by the rules that others largely stick to, perhaps because those rules might limit sales.

In my opinion, the way all historical novelists except Erickson approach their books leaves a LOT of room to manoeuver. Anya Seton's Katherine, for instance, was based on very flimsy historical records (simply because very little survived); the result is one of the classic books of historical fiction that, while it invents or imagines some episodes, is always true to "what could have been", to what was plausible for the character and the time in which she lived. I've seen recent books that suggested Elizabeth the 'Virgin Queen' was no virgin at all and even that she might have become pregnant by either Thomas Seymour or Robert Dudley. I personally think that's unlikely, but we can't know. We simply don't have and can't have that information, and because of that, it's fertile ground for a novelist to go to work with their imagination. Similarly, the fate of the princes in the Tower is wide open for speculation.

What persuaded me to write this review were some comments by another reviewer, who obviously loved this book. While I respect the reviewer's opinion, I deeply disagree with her conclusion that "we finally know how Mary lived and loved" after reading this book. Nothing could be farther from the truth, and it concerns me that someone may mistake this book for even a fictionalized view Mary's life. Erickson's novel doesn't illuminate the gray areas of the life of Mary, Queen of Scots -- she INVENTS them, wholesale. Most historical novelists, like the ones who imagine that Elizabeth Tudor gave birth to a child, at least rely on some evidence, such as the close relationships she had with both Seymour and Dudley, both of whom wanted to marry her. Erickson, however, has created a fictional personage, named her Mary Queen of Scots, and created for her years of a life that did not happen. (Wanna see Mary at the papal court in Rome? In a Flemish army camp? Picking up apples to feed to the pigs at a farm in Normandy? Well, read away...) Normally, I would have just reacted to this book by tossing it out and trying to obliterate it from my mind (while crafting a white lie for the friend who thought I would enjoy it.) But I was troubled by both the fact that readers might walk away thinking "oh, this could have happened."

I wouldn't quibble if the author had stuck to playing around with minor details. For instance, it's almost irresistible (as lots of writers since Schiller in 1800 have done) to create a meeting of some kind between Mary and Elizabeth, who kept her imprisoned for nearly 20 years before finally executing her. Similarly, it's fun for any novelist to play around with exactly how Darnley, Mary's second husband, ended up being blown up in his house and whether she was involved in the crime, or the extent of her involvement in conspiracies to dethrone Elizabeth, etc. I may find it highly unlikely that James Bothwell, Mary's controverisal third husband called her "Orange Blossom" as a pet name, much less witnessed her execution. But in a pinch, I could live with that, although I'd probably end up rating the book three stars. But while Mary's interior life and the extent of her plotting during her long imprisonment may indeed be a gray period in her life, the fact that she was imprisoned certainly wasn't, and that's what Erickson suggests. And a defense of "whimsy" doesn't cover it. Whimsy is inventing a fictional memoir penned by Mary; it isn't inventing a parallel life for her. It's as if Erickson wanted to write a still more dramatic novel than the facts enabled her to, and rather than just resorting to entirely fictional characters (which would have made the book less marketable, let's face it), she just disposed entirely of the facts.

Adding insult to injury is the that even if I could have completely suspended my disbelief and just submerged myself into the quasi-hallucinatory parallel universe that Erickson conjures up, is the fact that it isn't a good book by those standards. Mary, as queen of France, is quite willing to relinquish her royal dignity and hang out in taverns out of curiosity and she's willing to check the hen house for eggs every morning. And yet she is so insistent on that same royal dignity that she will endanger herself and those she claims to love most? None of this character's behavior or actions are convincing. The writing is staccato and choppy -- those who didn't enjoy Philippa Gregory's writing in her own treatment of Mary's years in imprisonment in The Other Queen: A Novel won't find much to rejoice in here.

A historical fiction devotee I know enjoyed Erickson's previous novel, focusing on Tatiana Nicolaevna, second daughter of the last Tsar of Russia, in large part because there is so little historical fiction about Tatiana and the four other Romanov children. In contrast, there are many books, from the adequate to the very good, about Mary Queen of Scots, all of which are better written, most of which are just as lively and all of which contain as much intrigue and drama as this. At the top of the heap is Reay Tannahill's book, Fatal Majesty: A Novel of Mary, Queen of Scots. There are several books by Jean Plaidy about Mary's life both before and after her imprisonment, including Royal Road to Fotheringhay: The Story of Mary, Queen of Scots. Margaret George has written a book that could double as a doorstop, but for those with a tolerance for loooonng books, it's still compelling - Mary Queen of Scotland & The Isles: A Novel. Some of Fiona Buckley's Elizabeth mysteries deal with plots surrounding Mary -- they are highly fictionalized but in a way that doesn't do violence to history. Lesser known but still good books include Elizabeth Byrd's Immortal Queen, while Margaret Irwin tackled Mary's love affair with Bothwell in The Galliard (also published under the title The Gay Galliard, back in the days when 'gay' didn't have a double meaning.) A less readable book is Nigel Tranter's Marie and Mary, about Mary and her mother; Pamela Hill wrote about Darnley's mother in Green Salamander. In other words, there is a lot of very good historical fiction focusing on Mary and imagining what lay between the known lines of her life without resorting to what I can only describe as indifferently-written balderdash.

Calling this kind of book a 'historical entertainment' is rather disingenuous. It's also inaccurate. Certainly, historical fiction can be extremely entertaining, but this 'historical entertainment' is neither historical nor entertaining enough for me to find any redeeming qualities. At what point is it permissible to distort known history in the interest of fiction? Could we see, down the road, a novel that portrays Diana of Wales as an undercover agent for al-Qaeda charged with undermining the British monarchy? That's pretty much the kind of license that Erickson has taken with Mary's life.

I've always been fascinated by Mary Queen of Scots, the fate of Darnley, Bothwell and the perfidious Scots lords, and fell prey to Erickson's Memoirs, not expecting the talent of Elizabeth Byrd's Immortal Queen, or Antonia Fraser's brilliant bio, but at least a pleasant read. Not so. This book is truly tripe, from the poor writing and editorial misses to the nonsensical history Erickson makes up. Bothwell disguised as a peddler who visits her in captivity? Meeting Elizabeth in the bath at Buxton in the dead of night? Escaping from England to spend years with the Pope plotting a Catholic takeover of England? This isn't just re-imagining what might have happened, it's an author gone off the rails. This isn't a "historical entertainment", it's fantasy, and badly written fantasy at that. It's also an insult to good historical fiction writers everywhere, and especially to poor Mary Queen of Scots herself. Do yourself a favor and don't buy this book.

I don't usually write reviews on books I have read but I just had to on this one. I have read a few "historical novels" on this time period and individuals in history, but this novel made me go "huh?". Now I know that historical fiction takes license in situations and events, but never to the point of making up history. I had to go back a reread parts of it to make sure I read it right. Mary had a "secret" daughter to Bothwell? What about the twins she lost? Bothwell "visited" her while in captivity disguised as a peddler? And the thing that really got me was that Mary escaped from captivity and spent years in Rome with the Pope to try to start a religious crusade against the English. The scene where the Pope is part of a fight with Bothwell and Don John is ridiculous. I had to quickly read over these scenes because they bothered me so much. The author states at the end about "historical entertainment" and states that Bothwell never visited Mary in captivity and never knew what happened to her.
I understand that an author has license to invent certain events, but to actually make up something totally out of the blue that history doesn't reflect? Unbelievable! Try novels by Jean Plaidy or Philippa Gregory instead.

I was ok with the liberties the author was taking right up to the point where Mary escapes and goes off to Rome. I love historical fiction. I also an am avid reader of true history, and have read several biograpies of Mary, Queen of Scots, and Elizabeth I. Like I said in my title, I understand this is a novel. But to take such a liberty! It was hard enough to suspend what I know of the true history to even entertain the thought that Bothwell visited Mary in England. It's become standard to write in a meeting between Mary and Elizabeth. Those things I can accept because they don't change the central facts and keep the storyline where it should be.

I can't even finish this novel. I don't want to know what Mary does in Rome, or how she ends up back in England waiting to get her head chopped off. This novelist must make Mary out to make worse decisions than she did in life.

Pass this one up. If you're looking for decent historidal fiction about Mary, Queen of Scots, read Margaret George's book.

This book is terribly inaccurate even for a fiction book. Mary Queen of Scots has a secret daughter, her Mary's (ladies in wating, etc.) are not present in this book. It skips over her earlier life quite quickly- including Lord Darnley's death. Mary escapes being a prisoner in England under Elizabeth I, and goes to Rome for awhile to visit with the Pope, then she goes to live with her secret daughter & grandmother with the Earl of Bothwell in a cottage. Terrible & Ridiculous. I like other books by Carolly Erickson and have enjoyed them, but this is the worst. If you want a nice fiction book about Mary Queen of Scots, 'Mary Queen of Scotland & The Isles' by Margaret George is much MUCH better! Mary Queen of Scotland & The Isles: A Novel

What happened to historical fact? Bothwell at her funeral...huh? He had died in prison, hopelessly tied to a stake on a dirty floor..never allowed to see the light of day. Where in the world did she get her facts??? I found this book entertaining yet the facts were so missconstrued! Wrong,in fact!A child by James Bothwell?..she must be hallucinating..Really!Read this book, but BEWARE!!! it is NOT historically accurate!

...because I have been fascinated by the story of this tragic queen for a long time and have read several other fictional treatments of her life. Unfortunately, this novel added nothing to my understanding of Mary and the world she inhabited. Mary comes off as shallow, gullible and one-dimensional in this treatment, and events in the novel strained my willingness to suspend disbelief to the breaking point. I could just buy that Mary met secretly with Elizabeth at some point during her long captivity - that incident was at least plausible. But that Bothwell visited her frequently during her imprisonment? That Mary escaped from England, spent several years as a guest of the pope, and a couple more at a farm in Normandy? Sorry, even for fiction that was too much for me to swallow. For a much better fictional telling of Mary's story, I would recommend (in addition to the works mentioned by previous reviewers) Immortal Queen by Elizabeth Byrd. Don't waste your money on this book.

With all the drama Mary Queen of Scots endured in her life, I find it almost impossible to understand how the author of this book managed to write a book that is virtually unreadable.

Her flights of fancy--really? Mary has a daughter who survived?--are so totally aggravating I found it impossible to finish this book. Bothwell called her {wait for it!} ORANGEBLOSSOM....yikes. Mary's real life was dramatic and the stuff of legend. I don't know WHAT the author was thinking when she wrote this piece of fluff, but telling Mary's story was obviously NOT her goal.

I bought this book for $3.00 and consider it a total waste of money.

I am a pretty avid history buff, particularly of the Tudor period. I generally do not really like "historical" novels much, but thought I'd give this one a try because Carrolly Erickson is a historian, and I have read her non-fiction books before. Mary Queen of Scots is such a fascinating character, I thought a historically accurate "novel" about her life might be interesting. I had to stop reading when Mary met with Queen Elizabeth in a bathhouse and then escaped to Rome and met the Pope. I could not, and will not, finish the book.

I couldn't even just pretend I was reading a story about some fictional character and enjoy it on that level, because without the veneer of "history" the book is just not that good. It also wasn't enjoyable as a fantasy of "what ifs," because it just is not that well-written or insightful on any level. The story is thin, the characters are one dimensional, the writing is not terribly exciting. I truly wish I had not wasted my money.

Erickson's latest *historical entertainment* (her words) covers the life of Mary Queen of Scots from the time she was married to Francis and became Queen Consort of France, her return to Scotland as Queen after she is widowed, her marriage to the despicable Darnley and his murder, her subsequent marriage to Bothwell and her eventual imprisonment by Elizabeth I. It's all known history and I needn't spend much time rehashing it because Erickson totally reinvents it anyway - and quite badly I might add.

***Spoiler warning - that is if anyone really cares***

Let's see, where shall I begin? The prologue wherein Bothwell and their invented by Erickson secret daughter that no one knew existed witness Mary's execution? How about the Queen of France dressing up as a peasant and going to taverns to spy on Bothwell? More? We've got Bothwell dressing up as a peddler and visiting Mary off and on during her captivity (remember now, history says he was imprisoned and died in Denmark). Better yet, he's able to get her alone in the stillroom and make whoopee (more than once I might add and never ever got caught). How's about representatives from the Pope who manage to get Mary away from where she was being held and take her to Rome where she meets with the Pope and they plan a crusade to oust Elizabeth from the throne (no, I am not making this up). Of course the plot fails when Don John is called back to save Rome from the Infidels and the whole army just ups and leaves her alone (I'm not kidding) and she has to travel back to grandmamma's home all by herself on a horse (maybe I missed something but I swear she was alone - not even a lady or two to attend her).

I'd go on, but you get the picture. Perhaps there are people who like their history made up and ridiculous but I've yet to meet one. Worse yet, this made up history is badly written with no character development and poor dialogue, but wait it get's worse - Bothwell's nickname for her is "Orange Blossom" (ugh).

I'll just finish this off with a few quotes from the author's notes,

"Readers eager to uncover the factual truth of the past, that ever elusive goal of historians, must look elsewhere than in these pages, where "thick-coming fancies" crowd out sober evidence and whimsy prevails."

Whimsy? WTF?

"Yet in whimsy, at times, is to be found a richer truth than in the tantalizingly fragmented, often untrustworthy historical record."

Hate to say it, but this isn't even entertaining. It's just bad, unbelievably bad. Only if the library has it and you're looking for a good laugh or a sleeping pill. Seriously.