![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I've read many of Alison Weir's histories, including her The Six Wives of Henry VIII. I have to admit that I liked many of her earlier works including The Six Wives more than her more recent histories. Much of it has to do with her lately spending more time arguing against other points of view and less presenting her own case than she used to. Part of it is that as she delves more into the history of individual women there is less solid material to go on from the period she studies, 400 years ago and more. Much of the original sources were biased and/or censored from the very beginning. Sorting out what can be believed as fact, isn't an easy task. But perhaps she spends a bit more time than necessary criticizing her fellow historians over it.
At any rate, while I've read many of Weir's histories, she also writes historical fiction and has won prizes for it, and I've never read any of her novels before. Last week I found a copy of her latest novel, Katherine of Aragon and decided I'd like to see how Weir's fiction is. Weir is planning on writing a novel for each of Henry VIII's wives so a good start for this series ought to be important. I'm still reading it, but I think I can already give it a fair judgement.
One would expect an exacting historian like Alison Weir to be careful about being historically accurate and the book certainly is that. If you've never read any of the history about the Tudor period, reading Katherine of Aragon is not going to steer you in any wrong directions. You could learn a lot by paying attention to the characters, the events and the times.
Weir's prose is very good, which is what one would expect from the way her earlier histories flow along. Relieved of the perceived burden of having to defend her opinions, the novel moves along well, covers a lot of ground and let's you know what was going on.
I have to say that as a novel, though, Katherine of Aragon is distinctly lacking. The point of view is extremely cramped. J K Rowling has been criticized because nothing ever seems to happen in Harry Potter books unless Harry is watching. The point of view is much the same in Weir's novel. We see nothing except though Katherine's eyes. Worse, Katherine is not around when 95% of the action happens. So the novel largely consists of Katherine being informed of this or that which happened or was then happening off stage, Katherine reacting in a vacuum to whatever, and Katherine fretting about what might happen next. Some of this is justified, particularly before she marries Henry. But afterward, certainly while she is his treasured wife with some definite influence on him, it's more than a little odd that she is totally unaware of most things going on at court till someone comes and tells her. She rarely sees anything herself, and, as far as I've read, she never overhears anything. Very bizarre for a novel.
The biggest complaint is that Katherine has absolutely no personality in the book. She has political and moral opinions, but otherwise Weir presents her as an empty shell that acts 100% predictably to the many emotional moments. Weir tells us that Katherine is fretting about this or that, and it's always perfectly understandable. The problem is Weir never shows us how Katherine might have been different than any other woman now or of her own age in the same position. It's like a bad play. None of the dialog gives us a clue as to what Katherine is like, and Weir doesn't say. Weir is very guilty of constantly telling rather than showing, anyway. Maybe it's the historian in her that doesn't want to say anything that might be contradicted later, but I would much prefer a Katherine of Aragon with any personality rather than one with none at all. I'm going to finish reading this book, but I see little point in reading any more of Weir's fiction.
At any rate, while I've read many of Weir's histories, she also writes historical fiction and has won prizes for it, and I've never read any of her novels before. Last week I found a copy of her latest novel, Katherine of Aragon and decided I'd like to see how Weir's fiction is. Weir is planning on writing a novel for each of Henry VIII's wives so a good start for this series ought to be important. I'm still reading it, but I think I can already give it a fair judgement.
One would expect an exacting historian like Alison Weir to be careful about being historically accurate and the book certainly is that. If you've never read any of the history about the Tudor period, reading Katherine of Aragon is not going to steer you in any wrong directions. You could learn a lot by paying attention to the characters, the events and the times.
Weir's prose is very good, which is what one would expect from the way her earlier histories flow along. Relieved of the perceived burden of having to defend her opinions, the novel moves along well, covers a lot of ground and let's you know what was going on.
I have to say that as a novel, though, Katherine of Aragon is distinctly lacking. The point of view is extremely cramped. J K Rowling has been criticized because nothing ever seems to happen in Harry Potter books unless Harry is watching. The point of view is much the same in Weir's novel. We see nothing except though Katherine's eyes. Worse, Katherine is not around when 95% of the action happens. So the novel largely consists of Katherine being informed of this or that which happened or was then happening off stage, Katherine reacting in a vacuum to whatever, and Katherine fretting about what might happen next. Some of this is justified, particularly before she marries Henry. But afterward, certainly while she is his treasured wife with some definite influence on him, it's more than a little odd that she is totally unaware of most things going on at court till someone comes and tells her. She rarely sees anything herself, and, as far as I've read, she never overhears anything. Very bizarre for a novel.
The biggest complaint is that Katherine has absolutely no personality in the book. She has political and moral opinions, but otherwise Weir presents her as an empty shell that acts 100% predictably to the many emotional moments. Weir tells us that Katherine is fretting about this or that, and it's always perfectly understandable. The problem is Weir never shows us how Katherine might have been different than any other woman now or of her own age in the same position. It's like a bad play. None of the dialog gives us a clue as to what Katherine is like, and Weir doesn't say. Weir is very guilty of constantly telling rather than showing, anyway. Maybe it's the historian in her that doesn't want to say anything that might be contradicted later, but I would much prefer a Katherine of Aragon with any personality rather than one with none at all. I'm going to finish reading this book, but I see little point in reading any more of Weir's fiction.