The Other Boleyn Girl

[Margaret]

The Other Boleyn Girl seems to be quite controversial. Readers seem to either love it or hate it. I liked it, because it presented a dramatically different angle on Anne Boleyn, who is usually presented with great sympathy. This novel was not sympathetic to Anne, and many readers have accused it of inaccuracy. I'm not a historian of the Tudor period, so I don't want to stick my neck out too far on this - but it seems to me at least possible (if not necessarily probable) that Anne might have done some of the things she was accused of having done, and I found it interesting to consider this fresh view of her. Also I didn't think the novel was completely unsympathetic to Anne - the corrupting atmosphere of the court, with everyone scrambling for favor, seemed to take its toll on everyone to one degree or another, with Anne as much its victim as a perpetrator.

[Melisende]

Read something similar - The Tudor Sisters

[EC2]

I neither loved nor hated it. It was a page turner. It portrayed a dark atmosphere where one constantly had to look over one's shoulder. I don't think it portrayed Anne Boleyn as she was or perhaps just momentary 'gleams' (check how many times people are 'gleamed at' in that novel, but I think the book played very well to modern audiences and it did set historical fiction as a genre back on its feet. Not my favourite Gregory, and IMO the incest was a load of hokum and hooey, but on the whole okay.

[boswellbaxter]

Read something similar - The Tudor Sisters

Who wrote that ? Fiction or non?

[Divia]

I agree with EC about the incest thing. I remember saying on the other forum that PG seems too fond of it. And I also agree that PG helped to push historical fiction into the mainstream and it helped out our community.

So while I thought the book was good at the time, upon thinking about it I'm not as fond of it. But I am thankful for what it did for our community.

[Misfit]

I agree with EC about the incest thing. I remember saying on the other forum that PG seems too fond of it. And I also agree that PG helped to push historical fiction into the mainstream and it helped out our community.

So while I thought the book was good at the time, upon thinking about it I'm not as fond of it. But I am thankful for what it did for our community.


I loved it when I first read it a few years ago when I was just getting into HF, but I'm guessing if I picked it up now it would end up making the list.


I agree about PG and the incest thing in her books. It's gotten way too old and I'm sick of it. :mad:

[Ash]

I agree it was a page turner, and is the only Gregory book that I can say anything good about. But the characterisations of Anne was so over the top that it just rang false for me. Then I tried her other books and realized that all of her characterizations are over the top....

[Divia]

Yeah, I think they are over the top.

My fav though is BI. I havent read her new one yet. And I havent read any reviews yet. Hmmm.

[Margaret]

It's interesting how differently one can react to an author's books depending how many and in what order one has read them. The Other Boleyn Girl was the first of PG's novels I read. The only other one I have read so far is The Queen's Fool, which I did not find as interesting as OBG. QF is about a young Jewish woman with precognitive abilities who masquerades as a boy and becomes a fool in Queen Elizabeth's court. Taken individually, I would not have objected to either book. Taken together, it seemed like there was an anti-feminist message about women being best suited for home and family, not meddling in political affairs.

I finally stopped reading Diana Gabaldon's novels because the many spanking scenes annoyed me.

[Ariadne]

OK, I guess I never got far enough in Diana G's novels to remember those!

My favorites now of PG's are Queen's Fool and Boleyn Inheritance, though I loved TOBG when it first came out. After I reread it, a few years later, I didn't find some of the characterizations believable. That said, I enjoyed it a heck of a lot more than the film!

I reviewed her new one back in Feb, but as far as I know, the review isn't online anywhere. I gave it credit for some aspects of the storytelling and history but found it very repetitive.

[Ash]

Queen's Fool annoyed me to no end, because the very premise was faulty - that a young unmarried Jewish girl would be picked by the two lords in question, and to be able to become Queen's Fool as an anonymous person. The idea that she could hide her Jewishness in that time is ludicrious. I am also remembering frustration with how she dealt with her fiance, and basicaly thought she was an idiot first, and out of character for the time second.

[diamondlil]

I finally stopped reading Diana Gabaldon's novels because the many spanking scenes annoyed me.


I only remember one. Now if you were going to talk about how many characters get raped, then I would understand that that is getting a bit old.

[Margaret]

As I recall, there were more spanking scenes as the series progressed. The first one didn't bother me so much, but it got to where it almost seemed like a theme in the series. But it's been awhile since I read any of these novels.

[Divia]

I thought Queen's Fool is her worst novel to date. I also remember someone here who was Jewish saying that PG got some Jewish details wrong.

[Melisende]

Who wrote that ? Fiction or non?

"The Tudor Sisters" by Aileen Armitage is the (fictional) story of Mary and Anne Boleyn. It begins with the death of their mother and finishes with Henry's impending marriage to Anne. For me, however, it is more the story of Mary. In this book, the author places Mary as the elder of the two sisters who went to France in the entourage of Mary Tudor when she married the King of France.

The book itself is barely 200 pages - and its easy to read, whether the Tudor period of English history takes your fancy or not. Though, not a fan of the abundance of Tudor fiction about, I did enjoy the book.

I think the story of Mary Boleyn is becoming more popular than that of her sister (and rival) Anne. Mary, at least, survived her entanglement with Henry VIII!.

[princess garnet]

I read and enjoyed The Other Boleyn Girl. I got to 'know' Mary Boleyn better.

I also own TQFand Boleyn Inheritance. I borrowed The Constant Princess from the library.

[Spitfire]

I loved it when I first read it a few years ago when I was just getting into HF, but I'm guessing if I picked it up now it would end up making the list.
I agree about PG and the incest thing in her books. It's gotten way too old and I'm sick of it. :mad:

I have to totally agree with you here Misfit. I Read TOBG a few years back as well, and remember being totally enthralled with it then. I have to admit it was a page turner. But I would not pick up this book again. I think PG's use of sex/incest in many scenes is very vulgar. Granted that is what probably made this book more popular to the mainstream public, hence increasing popularity to Historical Fiction novels, I guess for that we can be grateful. But, a really good author shouldn't have to use shock factor in order to sell novels in the Historical Fiction gendre. If we want that, we could read romance or erotica...right? Anyways, I think PG overall is a good storywriter, she really can hook the reader and keep them on the ride. I enjoyed TCP and TBI much more than TOBG, these two books show that she can make a historical character come to life without having to use shock value as a crutch.

[Juniper]

I agree about PG and the incest thing in her books. It's gotten way too old and I'm sick of it. :mad:


Which other PG books contain the theme of incest? :confused: I can think of Wideacre, although incest was by no means a prominent theme. Any others?

[SonjaMarie]

I like this image better than the one they ended up with. Found this on Ebay, it was an ARC of the book:
http://i22.ebayimg.com/02/i/001/0c/97/936b_1.JPG

SM

[LCW]

I"m in the "hated it" category! I do agree that it was a page turner but I finished it and immediately felt I needed a shower!! I didn't like the focus on incest, esp. because, from what I gather it's pretty much not true. And I thought Henry was portrayed as a mindless puppet that was too easily manipulated by the court. It was just too dark and sensationalized for my tastes. The premise was great but I think PG really ruined the story!

[SonjaMarie]

Oh oh, I actually Wallbanged TOBG, after I read it I literally threw it at the wall!

SM

[Margaret]

That's a beautiful painting, Sonja Marie, and it reminds us how young these girls were!

[Ash]

Ok, so I just came back from a book discussion of this book, and I am just flabbergasted. I think I should just not attend these when they are historical fiction. Everyone loved this book but me, and seemed to think it was all real. When I mentioned my problems with the inaccuracies and the writing, it was obvious I was putting a damper on their fun. Ok. But what really got me was more tha one women saying they were surprised by the ending (they really didn't know?), and that several women didn't realize how limited women's options were in that century. I am probably seen as a history snob, but I just assume people know these things. Ah well - Its a newer group, and rather large which makes it difficult to really have a discussion, so I'll probably drop it. Just had me shaking my head

[Madeleine]

Well I really enjoyed this book! In fact, one of the reasons that I didn't read it til about a year after I'd bought it was because I knew what happened at the end - although I didn't know about Mary and didn't know they had a brother. I'm surprised this book divides opinion so much, I don't know about the inaccuracies, not being an expert on the subject though.

[Margaret]

What are the inaccuracies people are finding in this novel? I'm not an expert in the period, so would not necessarily pick up on some of these.

I know a lot of people object to the incest scenes, but I don't think these qualify as inaccuracy - we don't really know what Anne Boleyn's relations with her brother were. She was accused of having sex with him. This certainly doesn't prove she did, but the fact that people were motivated to fabricate accusations does not necessarily mean the accusations were fabrications. I thought it was interesting to read an interpretation of Anne Boleyn's life that was so different from the usual sympathetic interpretations.

Ash, it might be some consolation that other readers in your book group did, at least, gain a more accurate impression of the limitations women had to cope with in the Tudor period by reading this book. That might be the most important factual point to grasp. If the novel inspires them to read more historical fiction, they'll be exposed to a variety of authors and interpretations - and just maybe they will also be inspired to read some nonfiction history. (Though, alas, historians don't always get the facts right either.)

I just came back from the Key West Literary Seminar, which was about historical fiction this year. The big topic of conversation was about the "accuracy" question. Novelists were all over the map in regard to how faithfully they follow the historical record, some saying they would never knowingly alter a known historical fact, while others said it's a novelist's perogative to alter facts if doing so serves the greater emotional and artistic truth of the novel. But there was general agreement that a novel is fiction and readers should read fiction differently than they read nonfiction.

[Madeleine]

Margaret, I agree with you entirely. I think so many of the accusations against Anne were fabrications or, at best, exaggerations of fairly innocuous incidents that it's probably impossible to ever know what really happened - we were taught at school that she had 6 fingers which is why she was accused of witchcraft, but I don't think that's ever been proven either way; it was so long ago after all and Henry VIII was so intent on getting rid of Anne that I don't think he really cared how he did it in the end! And novels are of course, meant to be more dramatic, so I think as long as the author doesn't take too many outrageous liberties with historical accuracy - PG says herself that very little concrete evidence exists about Mary - then I think I can allow for a bit of "artistic licence"!

[Ash]

My biggest problem was with the characterization of the three main characters. She portrayed Anne as if everything rumored about her was true. She was anything but a complex character. One thing we do know about Mary is that she wasn't pure as the driven snow; she was the mistress of the king of France till the queen sent both girls packing. And Henry was not the henpecked husband, simply caught in Annes spell. Its those kind of things that drive me batty.

I have read plenty of HF that is not accurate, but the characters are well drawn and the story so well written that I don't care. Often these are the books that have me going to other sources to find out what really happened - and many of the women in the group mentioned a desire to do so, which is good. But if an author is going to do this, she needs to have an authors note either explaining that most of the book is pure speculation, or a note saying what was real and what was memorex. Such author comments make me appreciate the book much more, and are less likely to have be thowing it against a wall.

[Margaret]

A good author's note is always welcome, telling where the author followed the historical record, where s/he filled in the gaps, and where (if anywhere) s/he altered facts in the service of telling a good story. In my reviews at www.HistoricalNovels.info, I've started noting at the end of the review, along with the publication date and number of pages, whether the author included one. I think every author of historical fiction should do it - they're so helpful!

[Telynor]

There are quite a few innaccuracies in TOBG. The one that drove me simply mad was having Mary being younger than Anne -- it doesn't make any sense at all. Too, having it so obvious that Mary's two children being Henry's get is a bit off; however, there is an interesting twist to that later on in history. Henry Carey, Lord Hudson, was offered a higher peerage by Queen Elizabeth I, and turned it down, saying that he did not deserve to given such an honour if he had not earned it by merit. Both he and his sister Catherine had a strong resemblence to the Tudors, so it -might- be true.

Henry was a man who preferred his women to be, well, womanly -- small, petite, and with curves in the right places. The youngest that he went for was Catherine Howard, and I think that some of it was due to poor Anne of Cleves being everything that Henry didn't like -- tall, thin, angular, and unskilled in the courtly graces. I find that having him debauching Mary Boleyn in TOBG at the age of fourteen or so not that believable.

Was Anne a witch (doubtful) ? Towards the end of the relationship, there is a single comment that Henry made that had him saying that Anne had bewitched him, but that doesn't mean that she was practicing sorcery. And I doubt that she would have. I also don't think that she was having sexual affairs or committing incest with her brother, George. I do think she was flirtatious, acting as she had seen women in the French court behaving, but England was much more of a backwater, and where it would have been expected in France -- flirting without any promise of hopping into bed later -- in England, I think that such behaviour would be taken as a sign of infidelity. Think of the 'crim con' of the Georgian and Regency periods later.

O, I could rattle on about this...

[Madeleine]

Telynor, I appreciate your arguments but all of them have been said before! I've read several times that no one is really sure which of the sisters was older, and also that no one is really sure, and it's never been proved, that Henry VIII fathered children by Mary.

I remember from childhood the speculation about Anne being a witch but later theories have pretty much debunked this, it's also been said that Anne didn't have extra fingers either. I think the witchcraft accusations, along with the adultery and incest, were all trumped-up charges as Henry just wanted rid of her; after all she wasn't the first person who he had executed on very loose accusations!

As you say, you could talk about it for ever but I don't think anyone will ever know the real truth. I think it's safe to say that while many things haven't been proven, they haven't been unproven either! Always fun to speculate though.

[Misfit]

Interesting thread (http://www.amazon.com/tag/historical%20fiction/forum/ref=cm_cd_ef_tft_tp?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1GAYRAS8PX4CC&cdThread=Tx2KR3ETICVTYI5) going on over at the Amazon HF boards that touches on the issue of alternative history if anyone's interested.

[tsjmom]

I loved this book so much! I didn't really know the story before reading this. After this, I read 3 of her others but I was greatly disappointed. They all seemed alike and pedantic, except for TOBG. 5/5!

[zsigandr]

TOBG was one of the first historical fiction novels that I read and truth be told, the genre had me hooked! I had read quite a bit about the Tudor era prior to reading these books and knew that it was not known whether Mary was the elder or the younger of the Boleyn girls. I also knew that both Anne & George were executed for incest and treason.

I agree that the use of incest was unnecessary and fed the idea that she truly did commit the heinous acts she was accused of, however, I would like to think that it was a fabrication and Anne was only a victim of the times. Henry needed an easy way to get rid of her with the least amount of guilt on his conscience so to accuse of her of things such as incest was an easy way to make her into the evil woman who seduced him.

I did enjoy learning about Mary whom I did not really know anything about prior to the novel.

I also like the character of Jane Parker (later Boleyn) and how she was involved not only in these beheadings but later in her own and Catherine Howards! For those who have not read PGs the Boleyn Inheritance, this picks up on Jane Boleyn and Catherine Howard's stories.

I did enjoy most of PGs books, but was really disappointed in The Other Queen which I had been dying to get my hands on!

[Chatterbox]

I have been reading about Henry VIII and the wives since I was a child, so I came to the book reasonably familiar with the history and found myself enjoying several parts of this book, especially because PG crafted a very compelling atmosphere around the court. Firstly, starting with the scene of an executed nobleman & Mary's response to that set the stage for the atmosphere of the court that was interesting (although it was over the top in terms of foreshadowing as a literary device). I liked the emphasis on the life of a courtier and what that meant. And the character of Anne was just plausible enough -- we all know people who have been damaged in one way or another who could respond in the ways she did, and she was the single most divisive character at the court for decades, not just for her actions but for who she was. The Spanish ambassador described her attractions in v. unflattering terms (and while that was politically motivated, others did the same); at the same time, she was considered fascinating, compelling, magnetic. She was in many ways an anomaly for her time and place (which of course doesn't mean she was a modern woman dropped down in Tudor times!)

The age issue didn't bother me quite as much as it did other readers. The debate over Anne's age has been going on for centuries, I think. 1501? 1507? Who was the elder/younger? Personally, I believe Mary was probably the elder (which was why she was married first), but I don't think being a teenager would have stopped Henry for an instant. At any event, there is enough uncertainty that that didn't impede my general enjoyment of the book.

Witchcraft: I think this was a literary device/literary license. I found the suggestions silly, but possibly motivated by an awareness of how witchcraft was viewed at the time. Which is why I think when Henry tried to explain to himself how he had fallen for her and remained enraptured for so long after he had fallen out of 'love' with her, he grasped at what for his time & place was the only rational explanation -- witchcraft. (Today's shrinks could come up with some great alternatives, I suspect.)

Incest: I found this a silly suggestion. As above, it was a pretext. As Anne herself pointed out at the time, nearly all the accusations of adultery were technically impossible. This is where I part ways with PG, because I felt it was thrown in there for the purpose of titillation alone. (Ditto some of the stuff about John Tradescant senior in PG's book about him, where she believed he was having a homosexual fling with James I's favorite.)

Children: I think Lettice, Catherine's daughter, was supposed to look very much like a Tudor & a more beautiful Elizabeth -- believe I read that in a book that dealt with Elizabeth & Robert Dudley (NF). I somewhat doubt Henry was the king's son -- after all, he had acknowledged Fitzroy, and at that stage, any son would have been claimed, I think, as proof that he could father sons outside his marriage but not in it.

Still, to me, TOBG sticks close enough to the historical facts as I came to know them and while PG may go further out on a limb in imagining the workings of the Tudor court & mind than others, that doesn't bother me. I remember thinking that the book felt v. fresh after reading the same story retold in essentially the same way elsewhere for years. It wasn't esp. well written (the point re "gleaming" is just one of many egregious OTT flourishes), but far less annoying than a lot of other HF I have read. (Kate Emerson's "The Pleasure Palace" hit the wall about halfway through....)

Still the Queen's Fool was a disappointing follow up. I don't know enough about Judaism to comment on that dimension, but it seemed as if she was straining to stretch the known facts to cover what she wanted them to be -- if you follow that!

Her later books -- Constant Princess, the Other Queen -- have been v. disappointing.

[Margaret]

Thanks for an excellent analysis of The Other Boleyn Girl, Chatterbox. I liked it for the same reason you did - it was a very fresh take on the story. Even though I don't think some of the scenarios Gregory presents are what really happened, I nevertheless find her version of the Anne Boleyn story more plausible in many ways than some other versions which present Anne as a complete innocent. We'll never know as a historical certainty what these people were really like and how they really behaved, except in the broadest general outline that we can deduce from what is necessarily a patchy historical record. I like reading a variety of fictional interpretations that let me imagine some different versions.

[wealcere]

I haven’t read the book but saw the film the other night on Sky.
Fast paced and enjoyable, it seemed to all end very quickly and it seemed like I was google-ing for ages afterwards searching for more information about this relationship and period, as like Zsigandr, I knew nothing about Mary.
I’m sure the book is better than the film, either way I’ve learnt a loads of new facts.

[Chatterbox]

Wealcere, the book is exponentially better than either film. I thought the BBC version with Jodhi May was marginally less horrible, but in the US version, Mary's husband just... vanishes! Suddenly, she's running off with Stafford, and nary a mention that her first husband has vanished. Not to mention compressed time lines, egregious historical errors... (don't get me going...)
It did have glamorous costumes.
In other words -- do, please, try the book when you get a chance!

Margaret, tks for summarizing in a few words what I tried to say in too long a fashion! It is just plausible enough for me to be willing to suspend my disbelief and relax and just read for pleasure. Of course, based on the thread I started a week or so ago, it seems different things trigger wallbanging by difft folks, so no guarantees that others won't hit on something that makes them hiss with outrage. A salutary reminder that reviewing is inherently extremely subjective. Another good reason to never do it professionally!

[Madeleine]

I agree about the film, Chatterbox, about the bit where Mary's husband just vanishes (I think this has been discussed on the movie thread) and the film is very compressed, but they do have to fit in an awful lot of history into less than 2 hours. I wasn't too keen on the Beeb's version either, I didn't like the "diary-room" style sequences (how modern was that!) and noticed that, presumably to appease viewers' sensibilities, they made the sisters quite a few years older than they were in the book, although I think the Beeb's version was better quality than the recent film, which did, of course, look fabulous!

I thoroughly enjoyed the book, and I know it has its detractors on here but I read an interview with PG herself where she does point out that the book is first and foremost a novel, and that she herself knew very little about Mary B and there's not much info available about her. And it's impossible to know from 500 years distant exactly how people would have talked etc.

[Margaret]

And it's impossible to know from 500 years distant exactly how people would have talked etc.

It's probably safe to assume they would have talked in a way different enough from modern English to make readers wall-bang a truly "accurate" book within a few pages!

Thanks for the kind words, Chatterbox! It's very true that reviewing is inherently subjective. When I review for my website, I try very hard to be as objective as possible and simply sketch out what the book is like, so both readers who will probably like it and readers who will probably dislike it will find the review useful and either read or avoid the book, according to their taste. But when I really love a book, I go to bat for it. And every now and then, I find a book disgusting and reprehensible, and will say why I feel that way about it. In both cases, there are readers out there who disagree with me.

[wealcere]

It was the beebs version I saw chatterbox but it looks like I'll have to add to my book pile, probably slip it in under Falls the Shadow.

[Chatterbox]

Wealcere, that's probably about where it belongs in the list of priorities on the TBR pile! :)

[SusannaG]

I enjoyed TOBG - strictly as fiction, though.

It's easily winning the "Best Books About Tudor England" voting on Listmania over at GoodReads.

I think the two of her novels I've liked best were Virgin Earth and The Boleyn Inheritance. Didn't think much of either Wildacre (couldn't finish the first volume) or The Queen's Fool.

[Libby]

I had to stop part way through Wideacre as well. It was just too...well, weird. :eek: I have the second and third books but haven't read them.

[Divia]

I had to stop part way through Wideacre as well. It was just too...well, weird. :eek: I have the second and third books but haven't read them.

Yeah so did I. I second the weirdness in the book.

[zsigandr]

I couldn't finish Wideacre either - too weird and I am not big on the whole incest thing.

[boswellbaxter]

I looked at the Philippa Gregory interview on the Harper Collins (http://www.harpercollins.ca/author/AuthorExtra.aspx?displayType=interview&authorID=50000293) site and saw this comment by her about Anne Boleyn:

The other thing which we tend to loose sight of is her absolute criminal nature. She certainly conspired to poison an Archbishop, by chance he didn′t have the soup she poisoned but three men at his table died. So she was a woman who was quite prepared to take on murder as well as other crimes. I think that this has been a bit concealed because that′s not part of the Henry and Her story, so in a sense what I′ve done is widen the story.

I've read that Anne was accused of trying to poison various people, but is there any proof that she "certainly conspired" to do so? Any thoughts from the Tudor experts here?

[trueblood]

I looked at the Philippa Gregory interview on the Harper Collins (http://www.harpercollins.ca/author/AuthorExtra.aspx?displayType=interview&authorID=50000293) site and saw this comment by her about Anne Boleyn:



I've read that Anne was accused of trying to poison various people, but is there any proof that she "certainly conspired" to do so? Any thoughts from the Tudor experts here?

I think it's debatable what actually constitutes 'certain involvement,' but I re-read a couple of works not long ago that mention facts about one of the suspicious incidents that Philippa must be referencing:the poisoning attempt against Fisher.

Besides the poison, there was the matter of gunshot reportedly fired from the earl of Wiltshire's residence across the Thames. Bernard describes the incidents in the King's Reformation: Henry VII and the Remaking of the English Church. I had the impression that Dr. Bernard believed Anne's brother or father (or the King himself!) were more likely culprits--though his reasons were not detailed. The events are described on page 110.

Maria Dowling, in Fisher of Men: a Life of John Fisher additionally mentions a veiled threat that Anne herself reportedly made to the clergyman, a message attempting to persuade him not to attend parliament lest he catch some sickness as he had before. Read page 143 for the full context and sources.

Hope that was helpful, although a very late reply.

[Madeleine]

That poisoning incident was also featured in The Tudors, and the poor old cook ended up being boiled alive as he got the blame! Can't remember if the finger was pointed at Anne being behind this incident though.

[boswellbaxter]

Interesting, thanks, trueblood! It doesn't seem as if there's enough evidence for Gregory to charactize the proof against Anne as "absolute" and "certain," though.

[Miss Moppet]

Besides the poison, there was the matter of gunshot reportedly fired from the earl of Wiltshire's residence across the Thames. Bernard describes the incidents in the King's Reformation: Henry VII and the Remaking of the English Church. I had the impression that Dr. Bernard believed Anne's brother or father (or the King himself!) were more likely culprits--though his reasons were not detailed. The events are described on page 110.


I think Uncle Howard should be included on the suspect list.

But I really like to imagine AB herself lining up the crosshairs like that girl in Nikita. Unlikely as it is.

[ruth]

I loved TOBG - one of my favourite reads so far this year. I read The Queen's Fool last year (in retrospect, it would have been better to have read them the other way round), and loved that too. I want to read The Other Queen, but have heard a few people say that it's not as good as some of her other books.

[Miss Moppet]

I loved TOBG - one of my favourite reads so far this year. I read The Queen's Fool last year (in retrospect, it would have been better to have read them the other way round), and loved that too. I want to read The Other Queen, but have heard a few people say that it's not as good as some of her other books.

I love TOBG although I'm not blind to its flaws. The Queen's Fool was a DNF for me - found it contrived, and wasn't interested enough in any of the characters to read on. The romance element also seemed super predictable, although to be fair, I didn't finish it, so perhaps it wasn't!

I did finish TOQ, but it was a struggle. I wouldn't really recommend it. I advise getting it from the library.

[SCW]

Out of all her Tudor Novels this is my favourite, Even though there were some historical (possible) errors, its a wonderful read.

[wendy]

Out of all her Tudor Novels this is my favourite, Even though there were some historical (possible) errors, its a wonderful read.

I also really enjoyed TOBG. It was a refreshing change for someone to try to account for the allegations against Anne Boleyn ( particularly the incest and witch craft). But I HATED the movie version with a passion!

[LoobyG]

I don't intend to read anything else by PG unless she changes her style somewhat, but I do remember reading TOBG and enjoying it some time ago. I also hated the movie version with a passion, and I had been so looking forward to it when I saw the cast - I really like Scarlett Johansson! But the way they portrayed Anne and made Mary a saint infuriated me, especially when they made out she took Elizabeth at the end...just typing about it makes me seethe lol :D

[wendy]

I don't intend to read anything else by PG unless she changes her style somewhat, but I do remember reading TOBG and enjoying it some time ago. I also hated the movie version with a passion, and I had been so looking forward to it when I saw the cast - I really like Scarlett Johansson! But the way they portrayed Anne and made Mary a saint infuriated me, especially when they made out she took Elizabeth at the end...just typing about it makes me seethe lol :D

That movie was just so wrong on so many levels! I wonder what PG thought when she saw it?

[princess garnet]

That movie was just so wrong on so many levels! I wonder what PG thought when she saw it?
She commented in her online forum that she advised against the rape scene. Overall she seemed pleased with it, from what I've read.

[Miss Moppet]

especially when they made out she took Elizabeth at the end...just typing about it makes me seethe lol :D

That was beyond ridiculous. I was torn between rolling my eyes and LMAO.

[wendy]

She commented in her online forum that she advised against the rape scene. Overall she seemed pleased with it, from what I've read.

Yeah, I guess a zillion Hollywood dollars would have the effect on me too!

[Divia]

She commented in her online forum that she advised against the rape scene. Overall she seemed pleased with it, from what I've read.

I must have blocked it out. I dont remember it.

[SCW]

The film started off well (I thought Natalie Portman was very good) but it seemed rushed towards the end. Does anyone know whether 'The Boleyn Inheritance' is going to be made into a film?