Historical (in)accuracy

I blame my parents. Sure, lots of other women love the costume drama. But I seem to have a special affinity for movies and books that involve hoop skirts and bodices and ridiculously uncomfortable-seeming clothing.

This is why I avoided Philippa Gregory's The Other Boleyn Girl like the plague. Bodices, yes; bodice-rippers, no thank you. And besides, I grew up around Elizabethan history snobs and had become one myself. But then the ads for the movie started. And this reminded me that last year I had decided I was being too stuck-up about the book, and bought myself a cheap copy. So last week, I read the book.

In the end, I think my mom, who watched last year's Elizabeth: The Golden Age on Sunday, and I could have had a "taking historical liberties" competition. (I really enjoyed my time with Wikipedia, which had to my mind a fairly balanced portrayal of the various suppositions by historians about the lives of Queen Elizabeth's mother and aunt.) Gregory was probably never out and out misrepresenting what evidence suggests; but she definitely felt free to choose what made the most exciting narrative.

Which is fine. I was entertained the entire time. But the writing style was a bit simplistic, and many of the characters too caricatured. And this is especially frustrating when Gregory is making the point that courtiers did have real lives and emotions and were forced to constantly play parts. Most frustrating was Mary Boleyn's anachronistic proto-feminism and desire to be a small woman farmer. I was skeptical of that the whole time.

But again, whatever. I was entertained. And sometimes, that's enough.