fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2514 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2514 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 033 secrets from Secret Submission Post #359.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 1 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

08. http://i.imgur.com/nPPW5kx.jpg

I'm always disturbed by her claiming to be historically accurate about anything.

This is the chick what dug up Richard III, yes?

No. She's an author of historical fiction.

Edited 2013-11-21 00:36 (UTC)

I have never seen her claim to be historically accurate. Historical fiction should be accurate to a point but if you want 100% accuracy, find the biography section.

Also, IIRC, wasn't the brother in the book gay? It definitely wasn't some consensual, happy, kinky relationship between him and Anne. But they were accused of incest, so showing why someone might think that is definitely the least of her crimes against history (with that book, her characterization of Mary is the most suspect thing, given that she was supposedly the mistress of the King of France first ... not nearly so sweet and innocent as the book portrays).

If it's not her, then it's her publisher that does.

It's fairly well known that she does claim this, enough that it warranted a controversy section in her wikipedia article with historians taking exception to the claim.

She does indeed claim to be historically accurate--in fact she had some sort of maddeningly smug interview where she claimed to have done "private" research showing that Mary's children were definitely fathered by Henry (ludicrous, Henry would've shouted it to the rooftops if he'd fathered another son) and basically everything in the book actually happened but she wasn't going to reveal her sources neener neener neener. She was slammed for TOBG--critics said that Anne swore on her immortal soul that she hadn't cheated and it seemed really tacky to insist that yes, she had when you didn't have sources for that kind of slander. Even at the TIME no one believed the charges against Anne--including the supposedly cuckolded husband!

It's impossible to say if George was gay--all we know definitively is that he and Lady Rochford had a REALLY unhappy marriage. George screwed around quite a bit with other women, so no, not "gay" in the modern identity sense of the word.

I'm inclined to agree with you on the author potentially having an incest kink. If I recall correctly she's got another book or two that has incest in it to some degree, Wideacre if I recall correctly.

She's not acually a historian. She has a PhD in Literature and no real training whatsoever in the field of history. And she loves incest (she did it with Richard III and Elizabeth of York, too).

I don't mind it if historical fiction isn't 100% accurate, but it annoys the fuck out of me that she hosts her own 'history documentaries' on tv where she presents her fanfiction as fact, calling herself 'Doctor' as though her PhD had any relevance whatsoever.

This. Very much this.

If she has a PhD, then she's a Doctor, relevant or not.

True, but if she's talking history, it's quite misleading, don't you think?

The point is that she deliberately makes it look like she's got a PhD in History, which she doesn't.

So? Doctorates are not interchangeable. Not a good idea to call for 'a doctor' on a plane and get someone with a PhD in Civil Engineering.

/Cabin Pressure reference

Also, Philippa Gregory historically accurate? HAHAHAHAHAHA NO. Not remotely.

My sister used to love this author. I'm a history buff so I figured I'd read one of her books. I forget which one it was, but it was just another history-flavoured bodice buster and I couldn't finish it.
Better writing than most drivel of that sort (no offense to anyone who likes the genre, but it isn't known for quality wordsmithing), but the history wasn't any better than your standard grocery store paperback.

Maybe she doesn't want to be pin pointed as "that incest writer", so she just has it sporadically in her books, instead of shouting her love of bro/sis banging to the world?

Hearing that these books aren't historically accurate doesn't surprise me.

If anyone's "that incest writer" it's got to be V.C. Andrews.

(no subject)

feotakahari - 2013-11-21 04:31 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) - 2013-11-22 01:02 (UTC) - Expand

Like there's anything historically accurate about The Other Boleyn Girl. Or any of her writing that I've read.

I just take all her books as history-inspired fairy tales and have done with it.

She's less about accurate history and more about portraying her pet historical figures as perfect and everyone else around them as even more flawed than they actually were (and all bad rumors about them true). Which would be annoying even if she weren't claiming historical accuracy.

Are you saying it's bad OOC fanfiction that claims it's canon?

philstar22 - 2013-11-21 03:09 (UTC) - Expand

Meh, she's a great writer, imo, and The Other Boleyn Girl is a fantastic book. She shouldn't be claiming things are historically accurate if they aren't, I agree, but she still told a great story and it does read pretty researched to me, if not all the actual events.

That and... incest kink? Maybe she does, but that seems like a pretty big accusation. Writing a book about murder doesn't mean you have a murder kink. Writing a book with rape doesn't even mean you have a rape kink. She could just like using incest as a plot device, or found it appropriate in the story, but that hardly translates to a kink.

There's a difference between "I really enjoyed this author's work" and "this author is a great writer". Gregory has some skill as a storyteller, but The Other Boleyn Girl would only read as well researched if you didn't actually know very much about the Tudor era because it's full of inaccuracies. Which, you know, is FINE for a work of fiction, but Gregory makes claims of historical accuracy that simply aren't supported.

(Anonymous) - 2013-11-21 23:53 (UTC) - Expand

Go read Wideacre and get back to me.

Its daft but I can't read any other historical fiction other than Jean Plaidy. From the age of 10 I worked my way through her entire works and now it just feels disloyal to read anyone else.
Seriously I'm just posting to remind people there are better historical authors out there - go read Jean Plaidy!