Nell Gavin Message Board
Note: the views expressed here are only those of the posters.
Barbara Krueger posts on 1/12/2005 8:14:57 PM
The last comment about "historical inaccuracies" was addressed in a book discussion forum once, and it turned out the reader's knowledge of Anne Boleyn was based on a TV documentary she had watched one time years before. From this, she believed she was an expert on Tudor history!!! The last comment had almost identical wording so I'm guessing this person is the same one. If this isn't the same person, I would be willing to bet her knowledge of Tudor history is pretty similar because Tudor history has always been a passion of mine, and I was very happy with the research in Threads.
The book is exceptionally well-written. That's evident to anyone who can tell the difference. I'm a technical writer, and didn't see the grammatical errors the poster supposedly found. (So I'd be interested in seeing what "errors" she found...?)
The Forward in the book notes that most biographies (which I learned the person had not read) contain contradictory information -- very little verifiable information exists about Anne Boleyn. This is a fictional account, as accurate as anyone can make it, and totally blew over the head of that person posting the message. She obviously missed the whole point of the book!
I know several people who have read Threads, in fact I keep a copy on hand to lend out. So do several people I know. It'll blow you away.
Rest assured that the book was well-researched, and that the author places a disclaimer in the front about the variances in the different biographies, and a list of events that she changed for the sake of plot.
Don't listen to the criticism. You'll love Threads!