Biased, yes, but what history is not biased?,
This review is from: Harold and William: The Battle for England, A.D. 1064-1066 (Hardcover)
I've read the other reviews criticizing Harold and William for its bias towards Harold, but what written history is without bias? History tends to be recorded by winners, survivors, descendants and later observers, the majority of whom tend not to be actual eyewitnesses to the event chronicled for their audience. Credit should be given Mr. Patterson for tackling a subject lacking in available documentation. He has several things working for him: he is British, and they are some of the best historians, he is an academic and professor of journalism, and he is fascinated with his subject matter. This is a labor of love, and Mr. Patterson wishes to share it with us. Can you blame him for that?
As for those desiring a text with lively dialogue and vivid action, please attend to any number of historical fictional adventures not based in fact. I find Mr. Patterson's writing style concise, yet descriptive and his narrative tempered to the right degree to keep me interested. He maintains a fluid plot and his attention to detail with chronologies and background materials adds to the reader's interest and education.
Give thanks that the world has historians willing to take a chance and present their theories before us. You only have to look to Hollywood to see history mangled for lowest common denominator audiences. If you disagree with Mr. Patterson's book, then write your own in rebuttal.