Review: Let's Play "Count the Historical Inaccuracies"!
Rating: 1 out of 5
Date: 05 29, 2014
When I initially wrote my review, I hadn't quite finished the book--and wasn't sure I would--but upon reaching the end, I subtracted one star. To be honest, the only reason I finished this book was because the blatant historical inaccuracies made me laugh so hard!Why do people with zero knowledge of history always think it's easy to write historical fiction?  Irina Shapiro exhibits a meager talent for storytelling, but her work is curtailed by her ignorance of the period, as well as a serious lack of skill in composition.This isn't the worst book I've ever read, but Shapiro should attend a few writing classes or read a couple of books about writing before publishing again. I'd describe her writing style as "limp, passive and repetitive." Overused adverbs abound, as well as bland descriptions constructed with passive verb tense, poorly written dialogue with a dearth of tags, and too much meaningless inner dialogue dragging the plot to a crawl.I had a hearty laugh when Turner told Cassandra, "Your story is so cliché" because this entire book is the definition of 'cliché.'  When Cassandra interviews the local historian and states, "I'm trying to find as much as I can...I like to be accurate," I actually shrieked with mirth.  (By complete coincidence, the heroine manages to find the only historian in England who knows the life stories of an obscure local working class family from 500 years in the past, but he doesn't know that James I was PROTESTANT, not Catholic.)***CONTAINS SPOILERS*** (Though if you have any sense, it won't matter because you won't waste your time reading this book.)Shapiro's lack of research into Elizabethan England initially irritated me, until the mistakes became so outrageous that I couldn't stop laughing. There are so many anachronisms: Elizabethan characters uttering everything from Valspeak to quotes that wouldn't be coined for centuries to modern psychological terms, parlors furnished with sofa and armchairs, the hero traveling around London in a posh carriage and wearing "coats" with his doublets ('doublet' is the Elizabethan word for jacket), and a maidservant pregnant with a bastard who plans to surrender her baby for adoption! Shakespeare also makes a premature appearance. (Is it really that hard to look up Shakespeare?) Yet it's clear Shapiro did do some research, as the process of drawing and quartering is presented in elaborate detail, as is Mary Stewart's execution (which we're treated to even though Mary isn't a character and the event takes place 'offstage').It's hard to summon any empathy for the flawless modern heroine. Cassandra is young, beautiful, talented, successful, rich, famous, lives in a ritzy flat, has the perfect relationship...yawn. Could there be a more boring protagonist? Even her breakup with her original boyfriend is perfect, since a better lover is eager to take his place.Elizabethan heroine Constance faces more adversity, making her more interesting, though she's basically a Vanilla Heroine, all beauty and not much personality. For most of the book, she's referred to as 'Constance'; then Shapiro switches to 'Connie' without warning, and thereafter alternates between the two.  Another peeve: most of the female characters have names beginning with "C": Cassandra, Constance, Camille, and Charlotte, which evidently confused even Shapiro since "Connie" ends up chopping salad in Camille's modern-day kitchen during Chapter 52.Dialogue is sparse, mostly polite chit-chat which fails to drive the plot; Shapiro tells the reader about most conversations instead of showing them.  She spins elaborate descriptions of minor details, such as walking up to the door and knocking, but love scenes and fights are summed up in a few brief words. One disturbing element: the love scenes are vague and glossed over with euphemisms, but the rape scene is described in sickening detail. (That scene was another reason I changed my rating from two stars to one.) Death scenes are also written with close attention to gruesome reality, a startling contrast to the cardboard characters and unconvincing plot.Too much of the book is a rehash of what happened before.  For example, Chapter 56 features Richard thinking about everything that happened in Chapter 55.  Then Chapter 57 begins with a broadsheet (in laughable "mock-Olde English") that repeats the events of Chapter 55 again!Shapiro doesn't understand that conflict is the basis of a good story, or that overcoming obstacles is essential to a romance. There's only token conflict when each couple meets but it's soon forgotten, and what little dramatic tension initially existed dissipates.  The villain's motivation doesn't make sense, nor do the charges brought against Richard after he defends his wife. Cassandra-the-famous-writer frequently states that she moves her characters like puppets, requiring only a beginning and an ending because filling in the middle is easy; I get the feeling Shapiro is describing her own writing style, which probably explains why the characters lack realism and the plot is so implausible.***END OF SPOILERS***If you're ever stranded on a deserted island with no other reading material available, then I recommend you read "Precious Bones."  Until then, there are better ways to spend your valuable time...unless you're looking for a good laugh, but even that isn't worth the price of this book.  Watch "Blackadder II" instead.