Talk:The Other Boleyn Girl

[Untitled]
Raforce (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Hope I'm doing this correctly

I've never commented on Wiki before but as a donor and, also, recently interested in some of the fiction associated with this genre of history, I'm wondering: what do people thing of this quote:

Promiscuity is the only trait of Mary Boleyn that can be backed up by evidence.

Where did this come from? Of what evidence does this statement speak? I'm not challenging that Gregory's work is fiction or asserting that it should be taught at school, I'm just curious. I'm actually interested in reading some more scholarly works about the Tudor period, though I hope they can still be saucy, and wondering where this leaves me?

Help is appreciated. I will say, I've seen some posturing on this site and I'm not interested. If you have words of help, great! I really appreciate it. If not, back off.

Raforce (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)RAF

Raforce (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Spoiler
It would be a nice addition if someone could summarise the story, or at least the first part, and put that before the "spoiler" tag. That way people who don't read past the spoiler tag will still learn enough to know a bit about what's going on. Articles like Watchmen and High Charity are good examples of doing this. -- John Fader 19:02, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * i just added a spoiler...feel free to change it (BUT PLEASE DON'T DELETE IT!!!) im only new here so its not exactly top quality, but enjoy!! oh and if anyone wants me to add some information on it, just tell me on my user talk. Sweetlife31 (talk) 07:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Argument
I said stop erasing my paragraph! I am not just a fan of the novel. As founder of the literary sociey of Oxford University I have the right to express my views and educate those who do not know what historical fiction is. Historical fiction is is a genre in which a novel is based upon history but is not to be used as a reliable source. Being historical fiction does not mean that the novel is factual, nor does it mean that the author has stuck to the storyline. Every author has the right to "put their own spin on the story". The author can change aspects to suit their ideas and, in short, to sell more copies. They must list their sources, so as not to be sued for plagerism, but using other historical texts does not mean that they have copied it word for word. Philippa Gregory has every right to tell her story, and people should appreciate the novel as what it is - HISTORICAL FICTION - and not fact! (Unregistered user)

Really? You're from the University of Oxford? I'd be amazed at that, frankly, given how you write. Where on earth did you get the idea that an encyclopedia entry should have a paragraph beginning with, "I said stop erasing my paragraph!" I am, however, a finalist at Oxford. So I'd be intrigued if you could give me some details of your studying there - professors, modules, colleges, opinions etc. If you can, I'll gladly eat my words. Basically, I have no doubt that a fictional author has the right to "put their own spin on the story." However, the paragraph you keep adding it on to is not saying that they don't. It is a factual summarisation of the various criticisms from others, who felt Gregory overstepped the boundaries. I'm not saying I agree with them, I'm not saying that I don't. The writer of this entry is correct, however. The debate does exist. Moreover, I'm surprised at your inaccurate claim that a fictional writer must list their historical sources. Often, many of them do not - Margaret George did not in "The Autobiography of Henry VIII" or "Mary Queen of Scotland and the Isles," Rosalind Miles didn't in "I, Elizabeth," Robin Maxwell didn't in "The Secret Diary of Anne Boleyn," and Jean Plaidy never did, nor did Alison Weir in her first non-fiction work, "Innocent Traitor." It is only a few writers who do list their sources and, in the two most famous cases, Dan Brown and Philippa Gregory, the listing of those sources have got them into trouble (Brown more than Gregory, of course.) Please allow this article on "The Other Boleyn Girl" to remain a neat, well-written, impartial analysis of the novel's storyline and impact and not an opinion-driven rant about the rights and wrongs of historical plagerism in fictitious writings. The article is more than fair and contains ample evidence of the book's popularity and critical reception, as well as its controversy. Even if you love the book, you need to remember that not everyone does and this isn't Amazon.com, where anyone can upload their opinions at any time. This is Wikipedia and there needs to be a higher level of editing standard. User:Gboleyn

I have to say that I'm surprised that the "founder of the literary sociey of Oxford University" is defending the book at all. It's not just bizarrely inaccurate (as though the "real" story weren't full enough of exciting plot threads), but also very badly written. And though even badly written novels are generally edited and proof-read, I have to assume that no one did either job on this book, as there are sentences run together with commas instead of periods, adjectives run together without commas, colons where commas should be...in short, it's a mess. I and every other writer I know were appalled at what passed for proper English in this silly book. On another subject, in Showtime's "The Tudors" (also very innaccurate, I know) the Boleyn family were also depicted as essentially pimping Anne to Henry for the family's gain. Is there anything in the historical record that does support this? It seems odd that both, however poor their scholarship, should be asserting the same family dynamic. I suppose this book could have inspired the series' writer. TEHodson (talk) 06:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of all credentials (I think those should be irrelevant here: this is not a scholarly article, but a user-moderated encyclopedia entry), I would like to back up the first poster's words: this novel is historical FICTION. It should not be read as a history text book but as a novel that happens to take place at the Tudor court featuring characters that did indeed exist in real life but were perhaps not at all the way the author portrays them. Allow the author her artistic licence to write the novel she wants to write, without being scolded because she didn't consult historical documents about the popular opinion of her characters. What matters here is the story SHE is telling. If you want to know what really happened, I suggest you don't go looking for answers in the fiction section of the library. (Unregistered user)

Separate article for film?
I'd propose a separate article for the film, filming starts in two weeks in Somerset and casting has already long taken place.

Done! User:Gboleyn

I moved a review citing "Rotten Tomatoes" from this article to the film article. I spent some time trying to find something worded similarly for the book, but could not, so I just reverted the passage to our old unreferenced "counterpoint." And yes, I checked with an editor before touching cited material. GingerSnapsBack (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Who is it?
Who the hell is it who keeps going off on some rant about historical FICTION (yes, it's always in block capitals or bold?) This isn't Amazon.com; no one cares about your personal opinions on this. This is about fact and the FACT is that there has been some controversy over Gregory's use of sources and style of writing. I'm not saying I agree one way or the other, but stop turning this into such an unprofessional article. It now reads like a 14 year old's shoddy review of the book! User:Gboleyn

tone
I've edited grammer and POV statements somewhat; please keep an eye on this article, it's in need of some help. Kuronue 15:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Will do, as I've just finished the novel and have it and the controversial "Author's Note" on hand. --Fsotrain09 04:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't commented on Wikipedia in the past, but I think someone should check out the neutrality of this. It begins well, but I honestly felt like I was reading someone's critical review toward the end, more than simply pointing out points of controversy or differences with the historical record. It contains some "weasel words" and needs better citations. Even the review of the book linked at the end is very negative. Wouldn't it be better to offer examples of positive and negative reviews? In any case, I think Wiki's credibility is hurt if people start using it to slam artworks, theories, etc. that they don't like. Please consider an impartial editor or two to review. Othertalktwo (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC) Othertalktwo (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Otherboelyngirl.jpg
Image:Otherboelyngirl.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Article error
Hi,I am new to Wikipedia. I am trying to work out how to report errors. In this article, the reference to 'Dr James Higgins', with a phd from 'The University of Australia' is incorrect. There is no such institution as 'The University of Australia'. Also, the only Dr James Higgins I can find on the net is an expert in Latin American Literature...this review seems a bit of an unusual departure... Pookietron5000 (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree completely, and will delete the review. Lisiate (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Eric Ives
I'm not an authority on history, literature, or this book by any means. I came to this article to learn more about it after reading the movie. So I AM an authority on coming into this not knowing anything and wanting to find out more. As such, I can say this is a pretty informative and relatively neutral article, but I have one major gripe: who is this Eric Ives guy? Under the "Historical Accuracies" section, this article keeps contrasting Gregory's views with someone named Eric Ives. I have no idea who he is other than a "historian" and fellow author, but this article seems to position his as some sort of an authority. I'm not advocating taking him out... but as someone new to this subject (and an "outsider" in this debate) I think it needs to be explained a little more clearly who he is and establish his credibility a little better... since he is used as the main person to refute Gregory's assertions (even though other authors are mentioned). In other words, as someone new to the story of the Boleyns, why should I believe him over Gregory?--Videojournalist (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

==== Dr Ives' Wikipedia entry is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Ives He is Emeritus Professor of History at the University of Birmingham and regarded as an authority on the Tudor period. Certainly a more reliable source than a novelist such as Gregory. His biography of Anne Boleyn is referenced at the bottom of the page. Hope this helps.203.23.57.129 (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Philippa Gregory's responses
Where are Gregory's responses, interspersed throughout the article, taken from? Google turns up nothing. Did she actually come here and type them directly into the page herself? Very interesting! 98.240.208.99 (talk) 07:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Prefer British spelling
As a novel by a British author on a British subject British spelling should be consistent except in quoting writers who use American spelling.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 11:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)