Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
9:30 am
February 16, 2009
Offline
Yes, PG’s PhD is in literature, as Anyanka says, and I don’t think Weir has a degree. In the bio on her website it says:
“I was educated at the City of London School for Girls and the North Western Polytechnic, training to be a teacher with history as my main subject. I did not pursue that career, however, because I quickly became disillusioned with trendy teaching methods.”
As someone in a FB history group pointed out, that suggests that she gave up her training because you’d normally write “I have a degree in … from …” but I don’t know.
Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn
10:08 am
October 28, 2011
Offline
I have no problem with historical fiction at all. Historical fiction, movies and television shows usually make me go and read books. I think they’re a good thing. If the author makes out they’re being historically accurate then I assume that’s because they actually believethey’re being historically accurate. Not to deliberately mislead people. I don’t think any author tries to deliberately mislead readers, I think they’re trying to give readers their point-of-view.
Everyone has their own theories on how history happened, even historians. Or not-historians, with Weir being an obvious example. I don’t like Mantel because I think her writing is crap, not because her book was inaccurate, and it was. But reading anything she says it is clear she actually believes Anne was guilty, like Philippa Gregory and Weir do. When I read a book by Margaret Campbell Barnes she obviously believes Anne was innocent, but the books are not all that accurate.
What do I find more pleasing? The ones I agree with obviously.
But then my favourite historian Julia Fox made some rather anti-Boleyn statements in her last book (mostly in relation to George and Thomas) and that was after writing a book trying to quash the myth of Jane Boleyn -villain. And yes I found them annoying, but then it’s another perspective I can look at. I try to get something out of each book I read, even if it’s rubbish (doesn’t always work obviously)
And yes I know some people will read a historical fiction book and assume it’s factual but you can’t hold out for universal agreement. People are going to believe what they’re going to believe, even if you publish a 12,000 page book and smack them in the face with it repeatedly.
10:15 am
December 5, 2009
Offline
I find Weir incredibly defensive. So what if she hasn’t got a degree? I know lots of very clever and talented people who don’t. But her language in describing her educational background shows she would have made a brilliant politician. If she hasn’t got a degree then why try to cover it up with convoluted jargon. Why not just say so because no one would hold it against her. As for ‘I quickly became disillusioned with trendy teaching methods’, isn’t that just jargon for, ‘I dropped out’?
Perhaps the lack of a degree gives her a chip on her shoulders, which is why she can’t take criticism and why she feels the need to justify herself all the time.
10:26 am
December 5, 2009
Offline
Olga said
I have no problem with historical fiction at all. Historical fiction, movies and television shows usually make me go and read books. I think they’re a good thing. If the author makes out they’re being historically accurate then I assume that’s because they actually believethey’re being historically accurate. Not to deliberately mislead people. I don’t think any author tries to deliberately mislead readers, I think they’re trying to give readers their point-of-view.
Everyone has their own theories on how history happened, even historians. Or not-historians, with Weir being an obvious example. I don’t like Mantel because I think her writing is crap, not because her book was inaccurate, and it was. But reading anything she says it is clear she actually believes Anne was guilty, like Philippa Gregory and Weir do. When I read a book by Margaret Campbell Barnes she obviously believes Anne was innocent, but the books are not all that accurate.
What do I find more pleasing? The ones I agree with obviously.But then my favourite historian Julia Fox made some rather anti-Boleyn statements in her last book (mostly in relation to George and Thomas) and that was after writing a book trying to quash the myth of Jane Boleyn -villain. And yes I found them annoying, but then it’s another perspective I can look at. I try to get something out of each book I read, even if it’s rubbish (doesn’t always work obviously)
And yes I know some people will read a historical fiction book and assume it’s factual but you can’t hold out for universal agreement. People are going to believe what they’re going to believe, even if you publish a 12,000 page book and smack them in the face with it repeatedly.
Sadly I do think some authors set out to deliberately mislead. Weir, particularly. Mantel in her fiction created situations which she knew to be untrue. It wasn’t just a case of interpretation, it was deliberate deception. I find that unpleasant on any level.
10:50 am
June 15, 2012
Offline
Louise said
Sadly I do think some authors set out to deliberately mislead. Weir, particularly. Mantel in her fiction created situations which she knew to be untrue. It wasn’t just a case of interpretation, it was deliberate deception. I find that unpleasant on any level.
And right there is the difference between a trained historian and an amateur. While there are some excellent amateurs around who try very hard to get to the truth (Claire, take a bow!), you get others like Weir who appear to have little integrity and are not above manipulating facts shamelessly, and often with little to no evidence to support their pet theories. Generally trained historians, while you may not agree with their conclusions, don’t deliberately try to mislead.
12:18 pm
February 16, 2009
Offline
Olga said
“If the author makes out they’re being historically accurate then I assume that’s because they actually believethey’re being historically accurate. Not to deliberately mislead people. I don’t think any author tries to deliberately mislead readers, I think they’re trying to give readers their point-of-view.”
I love historical fiction, what I don’t like is when the author makes out that it is factual. I quoted PG on the George Boleyn thread:
“Nobody can know the answer to this one. Anne was accused of adultery with George at their trials and his wife gave evidence against them both. Most people think the trial was a show trial, but it is an interesting accusation. Anne had three miscarriages by the time of her trial, and she was not a woman to let something like sin or crime stand in her way—she was clearly guilty of one murder. I think if she had thought that Henry could not bear a son she was quite capable of finding someone to father a child on her. If she thought that, then George would have been the obvious choice.”
And I believe this answer from her Author Q&A section is more than her just stating her opinion, she is making a few statements there which just aren’t true. It should be made clear what is opinion and what is fact.
Fiction is fine, I love it, but don’t dress it up to be something it isn’t. Just my humble opinion!
Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn
12:22 pm
February 16, 2009
Offline
Re the whole historian thing and being upfront about your qualifications (thanks, Gill for the lovely comment, I bowed!), that is why I’m very careful in calling myself a researcher and writer. I have a BA Hons but it’s not in history and although I research history full-time I would not want to cause any misunderstanding, or put people’s backs up, by saying that I was an historian.
Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn
12:34 pm
October 28, 2011
Offline
You’re missing my point though Claire, some of them don’t think it’s an opinion, they think it’s fact. Did they know otherwise at the time? A lot of TOBG is based on Weir’s Six Wives. It’s all there, the poisoning, the three miscarriages, in that statement. I think Lady in the Tower states she had three miscarriages as well.
A historical fiction author probably is going to read a dozen books and use that for background, they’re not all going to spend time combing through Letters and Papers to get the exact sources. They’re writing fiction, and I have seen quite a few other authors putting stuff in their author notes or saying things in interviews stating things that are incorrect. And it’s because they haven’t spent years researching. One author I read about says she researches for two months before she starts, two months is nothing. But they’re not writing history books. Yes it’s brilliant when authors like Susan Higginbotham painstakingly research their work and you get a fantastic book as well, but when you’re being pushed to churn out stuff for Avon you’re not going to subscribe to History journals.
12:43 pm
October 28, 2011
Offline
Louise said
Sadly I do think some authors set out to deliberately mislead. Weir, particularly. Mantel in her fiction created situations which she knew to be untrue. It wasn’t just a case of interpretation, it was deliberate deception. I find that unpleasant on any level.
I think Mantel thinks Anne was guilty. She might be pushing her agenda but I am 100% convinced she thinks Anne is guilty, and all the men along with her. I read an article Claire had posted a link to in a blog by Mantel where she made some point that Anne “may have risen from her childbed” to have sex with one of the accused men. I was disgusted, but it’s clear that’s what she actually thinks of her. You couldn’t possibly come up with something like that if you didn’t believe she was guilty, and it’s a horrible statement.
I know she created a lot of false situations in her book but you know, there’s not much in the way of recorded conversations and such, any author writing about Anne is going to have to take wild liberties as far as conversation is concerned. Situations there is a few recorded, but not enough to create a novel.
12:50 pm
December 5, 2009
Offline
Olga said
Louise said
Sadly I do think some authors set out to deliberately mislead. Weir, particularly. Mantel in her fiction created situations which she knew to be untrue. It wasn’t just a case of interpretation, it was deliberate deception. I find that unpleasant on any level.I think Mantel thinks Anne was guilty. She might be pushing her agenda but I am 100% convinced she thinks Anne is guilty, and all the men along with her. I read an article Claire had posted a link to in a blog by Mantel where she made some point that Anne “may have risen from her childbed” to have sex with one of the accused men. I was disgusted, but it’s clear that’s what she actually thinks of her. You couldn’t possibly come up with something like that if you didn’t believe she was guilty, and it’s a horrible statement.
I know she created a lot of false situations in her book but you know, there’s not much in the way of recorded conversations and such, any author writing about Anne is going to have to take wild liberties as far as conversation is concerned. Situations there is a few recorded, but not enough to create a novel.
Then don’t write pure fiction and then pretend it’s historically accurate. It’s not only a lie, but it also exhibits a total lack of integrity.
