#philippa gregory

The descriptions of Katherine of Aragon felt bland, which I was also disappointed by. We're somehow supposed to know that Katherine's goodness was true and admirable, but Jane Seymour's goodness was naive and holier-than-thou. Neither of these seemed backed up by anything other than Jane Rochford's narration. None of Anne's good or interesting actions were depicted at all. Her interest in culture, theology, and charity are absent. In fact, she only used charitable works to punish her ladies in waiting apparently.

Jane Boleyn herself isn't nearly as smart as the narration insists she is, and again, couldn't tell if this was intentional unreliable narration or the author failing to show us Jane's interesting character traits and settling for just telling us. Over and over and over. I didn't finish the book, but it seemed that the extent of Jane's learning taught her to be bookish and good at discussing philosophy, but not exceptionally clever in a practical way.

I got about halfway through before abandoning the book. Anne of Cleves was alright. Don't know how the relationship between Jane and Catherine Howard went. May have been interesting but I wasn't compelled enough to find out.

Henry was the most interesting character to me. It was chilling to see how his cognitive dissonance worsened over time and the frantic games the court had to play to cater to his whims. Jane's criticisms of Henry's capriciousness and paradoxical thinking were the most interesting parts of the book.

But if I never read the phrase "courtier's laugh" or puzzle through another sentence with an unnecessary question mark at the end again, it won't be a loss.