Quote:
Originally Posted by Catlady
I don't think it's legit in the way Tey did it. I've read mysteries where someone is researching a past event or person and, eureka! finds hitherto unknown evidence that upends the common wisdom. I think that's fine; the author is clearly inventing the new evidence and only a foolish reader would think it's real. Tey, though, jumbled her invented sources and real ones such that a reader doesn't know which is which without further research. It's easy enough for us these days to use Google or check Wikipedia, but in 1951, how many people were hoodwinked?
I'm too lazy to try to find what historians at the time of publication had to say about Tey's book, but if I were a historian, I think I'd've been outraged.
|
I feel a bit silly writing pages of notes, factchecking & refuting fictional sources
I guess that’s what I get for taking myself too seriously!
But you raise a very interesting point. What did historians think at the time of the publication? I’ve been trying to find some comment on that, but haven’t found anything far.
However, in looking, I came across a short article that I thought was interesting. The author offers a very factual defence against the notion that Henry IV killed the princes. I found it quite persuasive. The comments are interesting too - some of the people who commented favourably on article are published authors from reputable sources.
I don’t want to flog a dead horse, but in case anyone is interested the link is
https://nathenamin.com/2012/09/13/th...for-henry-vii/