Good history, but bad novel
934758
I feel bad giving this novel only two stars, because it's meticulously researched and contains many beautifully written passages. One gets the sense that Sarah Dunant maybe wanted to write a nonfiction history of the Borgias, but was constrained by her previous success as a novelist from straying too far from her established template. The resulting novel reads like a strange mix of biography and fiction: Dunant seems uncomfortable inventing motivations or events to which the historical record doesn't directly attest, so the book is filled with strange time lapses, unexplained behavior from main characters, and huge amounts of telling rather than showing.

These problems are most apparent in her characterization of the Borgias themselves, among whom there's no clear protagonist. The point of view often jumps within a single chapter--or even page--from one poorly-developed viewpoint to the next. Dunant's characters read like sketches a historian might reconstruct from letter fragments and secondhand evidence about people long dead, not living people with a rich emotional life, as characters in fiction need to be for a novel to be compelling.

 Nor is there a coherent plot structure: the course of events simply meanders through the family's history, breaking off abruptly and confusingly at Lucrezia's departure from Rome to marry her third husband with only the barest hint of a conclusion (I presume a sequel is forthcoming?). Those who are fascinated enough by Italian history to enjoy the book purely for its rich evocations of the material culture of early modern Rome may find it worth the purchase, but as a work of fiction it falls flat.
4341916
Good historical novel, a lot of detail, about rather one dimensional, cruel and selfish Moghul emperor Aurangzeb.

It was hard to read, because the point of view character is so unappealing.

It mainly goes into, I think, too much detail, at the end of the book, with Aurangzeb's 26 year campaigns against the Maratha, which in the end he lost.

Instead of the political dialog and what felt like a long list of generals and forts, hard to keep the names straight, it would have been better to show more of how Aurangzeb got that way.

Instead, it skips his childhood and formative years completely, and starts when he has already been married awhile, but is appointed governor of the Deccan, and he is infatuated with the slave girl Hira Bai.

He gets his uncle to give him his treasury as well as Hira.

All the dialogue with all the women show the women strained in subservience, while wily Aurangzeb tries to trap them, and finally imprisons his spirited daughter for 21 years till she dies, then he cries.

He did the same with his eldest son, and also killed his brothers and imprisoned his father Shah Jahan.

This novel does not mention Aurangzeb's roles in his getting to the throne, and hardly mentions Dara, his eldest brother.

It is all, "well, Dara was favored by my father" and it misses completely how Dara was a multicultural liberal three centuries before his time, and how Aurangzeb really was a human monster, who failed even in his declared goals of subduing the Deccan and converting Hindus to Islam.

In the process he killed himself, but not before he had killed thousands, like all dictators.

He also completely took the joy out of his children's lives, and also took the life out of their lives literally too.

I feel the dry foxy old man always telling his beads was a hypocrite, and the novel would have been better if more space were given to his foils in character, like his brother Dara and his daughter, poet, garden designer and intellectual, Zeb un Nissa.

His surviving daughter Zeenat looks completely cowed.

His third daughter Zubqal, married to Dara's son, is not mentioned at all.  So we don't know how Dara and his family met their tragic end.

Though the politics of the Deccan is gone over rather fast (confusing), the battles themselves are not described in any great detail, nor the topography of the great Rajput forts, so it is rather disappointing, as opposed to reading say Conn Iggulden in his Genghis or Rome series.

As regards the scenes, there are not enough, though those that are, such as the revelation of his wasted imprisoned eldest son to scare his other sons sent on military missions, are very powerful, as is the death scene.

The dialog may be realistic, Aurangzeb always saying "dear" to Zeenat, even as he gives her a job that will chain her to the zenana or harem for life.

I wonder why Inamdar, writing in Marathi, chose this subject, but it might have been for his Marathi audience.

In history, it is said that it's not known or recorded how Shivaji and his son Sambhaji escaped his clutches, and Inamdar hints that Zeb un Nissa might have had a role in it.

From Wiki, I found that Sambhaji was a handsome man, and so must have been Shivaji, and Zeb was locked in an harem.  I liked the portions about the roses.

But as a novelist, Inamdar should have imagined and written about things not covered in the history books.  The sights, the sounds, the flowers, the foods.

That's what a novel is all about.

As to the translation, it is brisk and no-nonsense and skips along energetically.

However, sometimes the "Indian English" gets annoying, as so many "as pers" and "till dates" which are really verbal tics and like all tics, highly annoying.  Also, skipped words such as large (sums of) money.  Some may be just typos.

Otherwise, it is a good book by an Indian author and an Indian translator, but it seems to miss entirely the diversity of India because its point of view character is so one dimensional.
2294026
I was one of those who disappeared for a few days until I finished the book.  A great, spellbinding novel.  With that said, the history in the book is terrible.  This is such a warped perspective on slavery; it is history through the eyes of Simon LeGree.  We are supposed to believe that the slaves really loved "Massa", instead of being kept in place by the lash, the chain, and the gun.  Further, the Reconstruction governments in the South did some great things.  The South has done an excellent job of rewriting history to make themselves look good.  This novel is unfortunately the basis for many people's view of history of these times.  We are supposed to feel bad that the "glorious" days of the slave plantation are "gone with the wind."
4607213
Ok, im sorry. The historical accuracy of this novel, even for a novel "based on a true story", is total hogwash. Im about 50 pages in and there is steam coming out of my ears. The church in general, and the Pope in particular, knew about the Nazi attocities and, AT BEST, treated the Nazi's organized  mass murder of the Jewish population throughout Europe with benign, passive neglect. There is ample proof that many Christian clergy were actually complicit with the SS. Yes, there absolutely were those heroes who risked their lives to save Jews, but they were an extreme minority. This "truth-based novel" makes it seem that the Pope and church saved Jews on a mass scale. Not only totally untrue, but very insulting to those who have lost close relatives to the Holocaust.
3039926
With a Pulitzer Prize and my admiration for McCullough's previous works (Path Between the Seas, Truman and John Adams) the expectations for 1776 were high.  While the book is a work of substantial scholarship, it is difficult to read.

To start with, the maps are inadequate and good maps are quite necessary for the number of battles described.  There are pages and pages of the familiar portraits, linotypes and engravings that have appeared in almost every history book written about that time period.  However, they do not add anything to the narrative.

Other reviewers have suggested other books for a better treatment of this time period.  I have read the historical fiction novel "The Glorious Cause" by Jeff Shaara and found that book, which essentially compares and contrasts Washington to Cornwallis, an excellent source of information while being eminently readable!

While reading and learning history is sometimes a chore, and impatient readers looking for instant gratification often lose interest in hard-to-read history books, the criticisms of 1776 appear valid to me.  Perhaps McCullough is a victim of his stellar reputation and the high expectations that readers have of him?

If you are interested in this time period, 1776 is a good supplement to other works such as Washington's Crossing by David Hackett Fisher, another Pulitzer Prize winner.  Quite frankly, I'm not sure how this book got so many 5 STAR ratings from readers?  What am I missing?

John E. Nevola
Author of The Last Jump - A Novel of World War II
2409671
The historical research for this book is solid, indeed exemplary. If publishers demanded such thoroughness for historical writing, there would be far fewer books published, and there would be a lot less nonsense.

Unfortunately, the author seemed to miss some basics in his English composition courses. The writing is competent, but stiff and dull. The author seems to have three or four basic sentences into which he continuously plugs his data. The writing does not breathe. It does not provoke the imagination. In this book is much human drama, but the writing conceals the drama with its repetitive, formulaic style.

I wanted to like this book, having purchased it shortly after a visit to Fort Casey. It took many months for me to slog through it.
2645869
I love the subject, the marvelous lover of Marie Antoinette, but this author should have confined herself to writing a non-fictionalized history.  In fact this book is not well done, with little of the adventurous sort of writing which the subject offered.  I regret having spent money on this poorly conceptualized so-called "novel", because it is in no way a novel to my taste.  Too much so-called historic detail, and too little imagination, adventure, and real portrayal of physical and emotional love.
1579926
I wanted so much to love this book.  Elizabeth Woodville, the commoner who captivated a king and became Queen of England, is a fascinating historical figure and I always eagerly anticipate any new book written with her in mind.

Why did this one fail for me?  Surprisingly, it wasn't shoddy research (although you can read reviews here from historians who point out some of the more glaring errors).  Rather, it was the writing itself.  Written in first person narrative, it felt as if the author is "talking down" to the reader; assuming we are idiots.  Points she wants to make are repeated over and over again, usually via dialogue, to the point of frustration.

That said, the book isn't all bad.  There are sly little observations about politics of the time that are both barbed and amusing.  Loved those.  And it's easy to sense that the author holds women (vastly marginalized during this time period) in high esteem.  Kudos for that!

So by the time you balance that bad with the tidbits of good, you end up with an average historical fiction novel.  Nothing to write home about, that's for certain, and no where near the quality of The Other Boleyn Girl.

Would I recommend the novel to my fellow historical-fiction lovers?  No.  But if you absolutely must read it, I suggest using your local library.
3340689
This was an enjoyable read but totally disregarded historical timelines. Famous characters were long dead or very young and the mix of wooden ships and airplanes was absurd.
The other distraction was the out of context and inappropriate limericks. They showed poor taste.
  Maybe this "steam punk" style is popular with some readers, but you have to be ignorant of history for it to really make sense.
With better research the author would be on to something far better.
3945721
This is a big book and a big disappointment. Lousy history and very poorly written. The subject should have been exciting, with lots of room for laying out some of the larger patterns of English history. There is a great deal of wonderful new social history and archeological discoveries that the author apparently has not read. Instead of a lively tale of the coming-of-age of one of the great "nations" of the world, it's one tedious detail after another, with bits of everyday life (some of it wildly inaccurate) thrown in here and there without connection to the rest of the narrative. In addition, there are no timelines or geneological trees, nor even a list of the "kings," so the reader can keep track of where battles occurred, which Henry or Edward he's talking about, who went to France when, and what year it is. I can't imagine that even a reader who is familiar with English history could make heads or tails of this book. Save your money.
4870066
If true history is fascinating, why do people want to redo it? While I acknowledge that historical fiction is a marvelously rich genre, I was pretty disappointed with Dunn's most recent novel.

The two narrators are Henry VI's second queen, Anne Boleyn, and his chief confectioner, Lucy Cornwallis. The parts narrated by Mrs. Cornwallis give interesting looks at the underbelly of royalty, including court intrigues, trivial matters of the great palace, and what it meant to be a servant in the royal household. Her voice is believable and charming, in a way, in her loyalty to Catherine of Aragon, the king's fat old wife.

But Anne's narrative voice is jarring. As other reviewers have complained, the reader must stop at various points to shake off the feeling that Anne is actually a citizen of the 21st century instead of the 16th. She uses words like "partying," "crush," and other slang which rings false for a lady of her era. On top of that, Anne is completely unlikable. While Dunn obviously attempts to create her as a proud person who falls because of her pride, there is little, if any allusion to Henry's hideous behavior toward her. By the end of the book, I was eager for her head to be chopped off.

Unless you're desperate for a contrived look at a story that already can stand on its own, stick to the history books and biography.
1784429
I think Phillip Hoose's idea of portraying history through the eyes of children is great. However, his research could be alot better.

  I got his book because a relative of mine, Ellwood Harvey MD, was actually involved in one of the stories that Mr. Hoose wrote about in the book, Maria Weems:Escape to Canada. It was Ellwood, not Dr. Howard, that took Ms. Weems from the White House to Philadelphia (and then onto NYC). While I can forgive this mistake, many sources have gotten it wrong, there are too many mistakes in this chapter that could have easily been checked. Hoose should have used William Still's famous book on the Underground Railroad (1873), it is in most libraries and  currently in print.

  First, the girl's name was Ann Maria Weems, not Maria Weems. She was rescued by Jacob Bigelow, not Charles Bigelow. Mr. Bigelow hid Ann in Washington DC in Sept. of 1855, not Oct., until Ellwood Harvey could come get her. Jacob was not a lawyer or a Quaker. He was often mentioned in Still's book as he was a major conductor on the UGRR and worked for the Washington Gas Light Company which used coal to produce their gas. Once the coal was unloaded Bigelow would hid escaping slaves on the boats leaving Washington DC.

  Bigelow's interest in Ann originated with Harriet Beecher Stowe's request that he get involved in freeing the Weems. The family was well known amongst abolitionists, in England money was even raised to buy their freedom. Charles Price had bought the whole Weems family, except for the father who was a freeman, not just Ann. He then sold off Ann's three brothers. Bigelow bought Ann's mom and older sister to set them free, but Price would not sell Ann. That's when plans were made to rescue her.

  The Powder Boy was the one of the captains of these boats. He had been responsible for getting the gunpowder onboard while in the navy. The nickname stuck. When the Powder Boy backed out of the plan to free Ann the Philadelphia Vigilance Committee offered then Ellwood $300 to fetch her. He was working as a professor at the Female Medical College in Philadelphia (the first school for female MDs). He used the $300 to buy the college's first dissection mannequin. While Ellwood had written a famous letter about witnessing a slave auction there is no proof that he was involved in the UGRR beyond the episode with Ann. Ann also used a second alias based on Ellwood's editor, E. W. Capron. This was used after "Joe Wright", Ann's first alias, had reached the free states.

  Ellwood took Ann to not just Still's house, but also NYC. Amos Noe Freeman was the black reverend that took her the rest of the way to Canada.

  Outside of the bits about Ellwood the rest of these facts are available to the public. With this many obvious errors one can only wonder how accurate the other chapters are in this book.

A wonderful idea like this book needs a little more time spent researching to provide the necessary factual accuracy.
957475
Goodrich has both advocates and detractors, both sometimes quite vociferous.  She is a good writer, and she has some interesting insights and ideas.  I find fault in her excessive reliance upon the medieval  Romances (especially those of Chretien de Troyes of the late 12th Century)  to reconstruct history.  The Romances were intended and written as  entertaining fiction and therefore incorporate too much material from  ancient Celtic legends, as well as wholly new medieval story ideas.  Goodrich should have concentrated instead on earlier sources, including  Gildas Sapiens, Nennius, William of Malmesbury and Geoffrey of Monmouth  (who all intended to write history), as well as the growing body of  archaeological evidence.
4516144
The book provides interesting historical information, but uses a foolish and uncomfortably nave story line to develop that history. The author uses most of the uninteresting  pages to  create an interesting military dilemma which he resolves in a few paragraphs. None of the  characters particularly the young hero and older heroine are believable, a terrible flaw in an historical novel.
3573104
A decent summer read, but nothing more.  While it's presented as historical fiction, the numerous inaccuracies indicate that the author has done little or no actual research in writing the book.  Too many characters and too many subplots muddle the story - it could have used one more trip by a good editor.

That said, the main plot moves along, though there is far too much time spent on exposition (it seems to have been written as the origin story for a whole series of books).  Check it out from the library or buy a used copy at a yard sale, but it's not worth retail price.

FYI - if you want to see how this sort of thing can be done well, try "The Alienist" by Caleb Carr.  The research Carr puts in makes all the difference.
2284228
While I admire the huge amount of historical research that went into this novel, I came away not liking Princess Victoria very much.  Most of the history is accurate and as the author notes, some of it was condensed from several years into one for brevity.  My main dislike of the novel is that Princess Victoria comes across as a hugely spoiled brat at best and an inconsiderate snob at worst.  I've read many biographies of Victoria and one of the interesting aspects about her is her compassion for her people of the working and poorer classes.  While I understand that this novel covers her late teens, she comes across as one of those overly primped, overly spoiled, self-centered 10 year-olds that make everyone else's life hell.  It's a bit like Nelly Olson in Little House On the Prairie.  Maybe she was that way, but I hope not.  This book made her very annoying and I found myself wanting to skim through the scenes with her in it, though that's really not possible.  I found myself rooting for a non-monarchy republic in Britain after a while.  When the subject of the novel is so annoying, it makes for a frustrating read.  This book is definitely geared toward the YA crowd, but I think, even they would find it tedious.
2245137
I love Lindsey Davis as an author.  She definitely does her research in location and historical background when she writes and I enjoy that aspect very much.  However in Rebels and Traitors there was too much history.  I started to bond with the characters in the book only to lose them for many many chapters in-between about the English Civil War.  At first the history was interesting but then I remembered I did buy this book for a storey and it was lost to me.  I started skipping as many pages as possible looking for Juliana again, and Kinchin and other's that just weren't talked about.  Finally, finally, it got back to the storey  at the near end of the book and believe me I did not like the ending at all.  Nothing about anyone's life was complete.  It was a cliff-hanger ending.  I'm sorry Lindsey, but I would've been better off buying a history book about the English Civil War because I wouldn't have been looking for a novel.