The author, Elizabeth Norton. She seems to crank-out Tudor-related biographies about every three months. It's just been noticed that two more biographies by her are slated for publication- one dealing with Margaret Beaufort.
What sort of writer is she? Can her 'facts' be believed? Is she 'scholarly', or of the Alison Weir mode? Is there depth to her work, or just general information? I have never read her works, none are available in my local library, or for inter-library loan.
I will admit to being interested in the Margaret Beaufort publication, but would like to have some idea of what to expect.
9 comments:
I read Norton's biography on Anne Boleyn and was VERY disappointed. Lots of factual errors, and her writing style is poor.
Also, to save on reproduction fees on the photos she uses, she scans paintings from books with expired copyrights (even though the rights are still owned by particular museums or individuals).
The publisher is The History Press who is unfortunately not very discriminating about who they publish.
My copy says Amberley Publishing, who are relatively new. I was very disappointed with 'Jane Seymour' - you just can't research and publish books that quickly and do it well. She apparently has a Masters from Cambridge, so should be knowledgeable, but I found it offered nothing new and seemed rushed.
My copy says Amberley Publishing, who are relatively new. I was very disappointed with 'Jane Seymour' - you just can't research and publish books that quickly and do it well. She apparently has a Masters from Cambridge, so should be knowledgeable, but I found it offered nothing new and seemed rushed.
Jane - you are correct, the publisher is 'Amberley', not 'The History Press'. My mistake.
Besides Anne Boleyn and Jane Seymour, Ms. Norton also has a book out on Anne of Cleves. I assume she will do one for each wife.
I went to a lecture by Dr. Linda Porter last week on her latest book about Katherine Parr (published by Macmillan March 2010). She started by talking about the difficulties and pressures of working for publishers these days, who expect a new book every two years.
She obviously knows her stuff inside out and appears to do all her own research rather than employ researchers, as some popular historians are known to do. She said a publisher expects the research to take a year, which is no time at all if you are going to be thorough, and allows a further year for the writing, again this isn’t very long, and an author is under tremendous pressure worrying about meeting the deadline.
I would recommend her lectures – she hadn’t been well but stood all the time to address the audience and didn’t use notes. There is an interview with her at:
http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/
sept08-linda-porter/
I am hugely disappointed by this author's work. She is superficial, rehashes the same old facts in a bland and uninteresting style. She has many errors and she reads like a high school student history report.
There is a book on Margaret Beaufort that is quite scholarly. It is called The King's Mother, by Michael Jones and Malcolm Underwood. You can find copies on Amazon.
If you want a scholarly biography of Margaret Beaufort, you can find on Amazon the book The King's Mother, by Michael Jones and Malcolm Underwood.
The books by Elizabeth Norton I have been hugely disappointed by. She is too short, does not offer any new insights. She only rehashes the same old facts handled by more scholarly writers, and does so in a way that reads more like a high school history class report than a book.
I hate to say it, but I bought one of her books.
It's embarrassing how Elizabeth Norton reproduces famous paintings and pictures in her books, and then gives the copyright as belonging to herself.
I hope the National Portrait Gallery, etc. investigate her for this obviously illegal practice. As a writer myself, I know that one is supposed to pay repro rights to obtain permission to use such pictures.
Under UK law it's not illegal if the images are over seventy years old (and the photographer is not named in the work). The original artworks lose copyright 70 years after the artist's death so for, for example, a Holbein sketch, the original artwork is well out of copyright. Only a photograph of the image would potentially still be in copyright. That's why galleries do not allow photography.
Post a Comment