My biggest criticism of this novel is the inconsistency in language. It’s all down to the author writing with hindsight, which I find very irritating. The future was unknown for these people, but in several Plaidy books they have premonitions, which I can’t believe the real people these characters are based on would ever have, such as Ann Boleyn more than once stating – or implying – that she’ll one day be beheaded. Her characters say prophetic things, which is too unrealistic, or they wish for things – repeatedly – until they either get their wish or die trying. This is storytelling at its worst.Another annoying trait this author has is writing with hindsight. Dialogue is active, reported speech isn’t, and like with the quote below, it sometimes doesn’t even make clear what was said:*Francis retorted in such a way as to make Henry squirm, and he did not go to Calais to make a personal inspection of prospective wives.*We never do find out in what way Francis retorted. A marriage between England and the house of Cleves would therefore seriously threaten the Emperor’s hold on his Dutch dominions.*Something else Plaidy’s guilty of is her continuous use of the passive voice, such as “The door of the Palace,” as opposed to the active, “The Palace door.” Passive voice = passive prose.Same can be said about the extent of reported speech. His son had a claim to the Duchy of Guelders, which Duchy was in relation to the Emperor Charles very much what Scotland was to Henry, ever ready to be a cause of trouble. For years the old Duke of Cleves had wanted an alliance with England. The reader is often told what happened in a few sentences, when the author could’ve dramatized scenes to show what happened.At times, like with the quote below, the narrative is so dry and lacking in drama that it reads like a history book, not a novel: *Cromwell outlined his plan. The main reason why her works are so dry is because there’s far too much *telling*, as opposed to *showing*.
It’s one viewpoint too many for the reader to digest.As with all Plaidy novels, “Murder Most Royal” features a lot of repeated info and dry facts. The section on Thomas Moor and his family, for example, should’ve been cut. I skipped several tedious paragraphs that were doing nothing to move the story along – in fact, they were dragging it down. The pace often drags, and little action occurs.“Murder Most Royal” has some good moments, hence my rating it two stars instead of one, but these high points are few and far between in this slow-paced novel. Like with the Plantagenet saga, the author attempts to pack many years’ worth of history from numerous viewpoints into one volume, which results in a lot of bland scenes that should’ve been dramatized.
0 kommentar(er)
