ellietonkin's review against another edition
2.0
Let me preface this by saying that I 100% empathise with the author’s defence of Anne Boleyn, as she has been cruelly misrepresented/slandered for hundreds of years and her legacy deserves better… But I would have liked to have seen more sources/credible arguments and less sensationalism. Unfortunately, this book offers nothing new. The kindest thing that I can say is that I found it to be thought provoking and I hope it plants seeds of doubt into the minds of people who see Anne as a one-dimensional villain.
kenzloux's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
hopeful
informative
reflective
sad
tense
medium-paced
4.0
forever an anne boleyn lover
jessicabeel's review against another edition
1.0
The style of writing was not my favorite. It's not written poorly, but it does not have the style of an academic historical paper as the writer paraphrases primary sources into modern language and inserts sarcastic comments about the actions of the key players throughout the book. It's not horrible but I did not enjoy the writing style.
The entire premise seems to miss existing historical analysis. Plenty of historians have written articles and books that do not subscribe to the notion that Anne Boleyn was a seductress; however, the entire book seems to overlook these other sources. I know that writing any type of paper or book can be overwhelming trying to determine which sources to include or exclude - but it feels like Nolan didn't look at relevant scholarly sources that would have made the book better and also would have added support to her argument.
The entire premise seems to miss existing historical analysis. Plenty of historians have written articles and books that do not subscribe to the notion that Anne Boleyn was a seductress; however, the entire book seems to overlook these other sources. I know that writing any type of paper or book can be overwhelming trying to determine which sources to include or exclude - but it feels like Nolan didn't look at relevant scholarly sources that would have made the book better and also would have added support to her argument.
adrianajj517's review against another edition
5.0
Soooo good! Having a stripped down history lesson about Anne Boleyn was both fascinating and sad. Thr author has great delivery on giving her expert opinion! Loved it! It's a must re-read!
mavi's review against another edition
informative
4.25
It's an interesting book. I've read other books about the Tudor period and I still found information I didn't know and a fresh perspective on some events in Anne's life. I really liked the focus on her upbringing in France, which was not libertine as it's often depicted.
The focus on her religious faith, passion for education and charity work was refreshing since all too often Anne is reduced to her sex appeal and ambition.
It's not a full 5 stars because the authors often acts as if herself and maybe Eric Ives have been the only historians simpathetic to Anne ever, when that's not t e case especially in recent years.
The author also considers it a fact that Henry VIII was a sociopath. While it's possible (I would say likely) that he had a personality disorder, most mental health professionals will tell you that in the absence of a formal, in-person evaluation diagnoses are uncertain at best.
The tone is quite informal, which I didn't think detracted from the book's quality but felt forced at times (example: there's an "#Awkward")
The focus on her religious faith, passion for education and charity work was refreshing since all too often Anne is reduced to her sex appeal and ambition.
It's not a full 5 stars because the authors often acts as if herself and maybe Eric Ives have been the only historians simpathetic to Anne ever, when that's not t e case especially in recent years.
The author also considers it a fact that Henry VIII was a sociopath. While it's possible (I would say likely) that he had a personality disorder, most mental health professionals will tell you that in the absence of a formal, in-person evaluation diagnoses are uncertain at best.
The tone is quite informal, which I didn't think detracted from the book's quality but felt forced at times (example: there's an "#Awkward")
chelseela's review against another edition
2.0
This book could have been at least 3 chapters shorter. The concept is very good, but it ended up being very repetitive.
chluless's review against another edition
2.0
Interesting content but highly (and at times irritatingly) sensationalist in delivery. Nothing here is new and previously undiscovered as Nolan rather aggressively claims.
The author also has a firmly reformist stance at odds with the complexity of the religious turmoil they narrate. In fact, there is little impartiality to be found across this work.
And thirdly, there’s the diagnosis of Henry VIII as a sociopath. The only counter arguments presented are those which further support this theory. As such, the fixation on this argument comes across oddly in a book which repeatedly states it’s intention to report only fact. Unless, of course, the concern with fact is only applied to Anne Boleyn and I really can’t believe I seem to be defending Henry VIII here. Ew. But other plausible theories exist and the book would’ve benefited greatly from dividing its time between an exploration of at least a few of them.
Oh, and the sources. There is so much speculation in this book, and where sources are consulted they are used sparingly. For a work of historical non-fiction the sources and citations are not what I would reasonably expect. One source liberally quoted and generally declared to be reliable throughout is suddenly revealed near the end to have NEVER MET Anne before one brief encounter during the final portion of her life.
The author also has a firmly reformist stance at odds with the complexity of the religious turmoil they narrate. In fact, there is little impartiality to be found across this work.
And thirdly, there’s the diagnosis of Henry VIII as a sociopath. The only counter arguments presented are those which further support this theory. As such, the fixation on this argument comes across oddly in a book which repeatedly states it’s intention to report only fact. Unless, of course, the concern with fact is only applied to Anne Boleyn and I really can’t believe I seem to be defending Henry VIII here. Ew. But other plausible theories exist and the book would’ve benefited greatly from dividing its time between an exploration of at least a few of them.
Oh, and the sources. There is so much speculation in this book, and where sources are consulted they are used sparingly. For a work of historical non-fiction the sources and citations are not what I would reasonably expect. One source liberally quoted and generally declared to be reliable throughout is suddenly revealed near the end to have NEVER MET Anne before one brief encounter during the final portion of her life.
taureanbookclub's review against another edition
4.0
Anne Boleyn deserved so much better — I spent the entirely of this book fuming about what a jackass Henry XIII was.