Major mixed feelings on this one. All the information the author has compiled through painstaking research is super interesting. I had a difficult time with her attitude towards others with different opinions/interpretations. In the first part of the book (the biography of Anne Boleyn), there were several times she completely dismissed another author's presentation of how things may have happened while acknowledging that her belief on that particular matter isn't backed up by any hard evidence either. In the 2nd part, she got downright snippy about several people/films/shows/books. While much of the book had a scholarly tone, many of these later sections sounded more like mocking and airing personal grudges than making objective critiques of the works. It made it hard for me to take some of her critiques seriously, whether or not I had read/seen the works. That being said, there was still a lot of good substance overall.

This is a FABULOUS book.

Bordo isn't a historian - she's a philosopher, sociologist, and cultural studies-er (what's the term for that, anyway?) but she has thrown herself into Anne Boleyn, the Tudors, and the various ways that Anne has been treated, mis-treated, portrayed, revered and reviled, and 'discovered' in the 500 years since her brief reign, which has resulted in a wonderful read.

This isn't history, exactly, although the first third does examine the 'history' of Anne - what happened when and to whom, who tells us about it, and the like. She also examines the sources, their reliability, how historians have used (or mis-used) them, and what might have been happening behind them.

The latter two thirds of the book are historiography/sociology/cultural studies/media studies, in that she looks at how Anne has been portrayed ('created') since her reign and execution, from the earliest biographies in the 1800s to Anne of the Thousand Days, The Tudors, and The Other Boleyn Girl. She's scathing in her criticism of Philippa Gregory (and justifiably so), and also critical of Alison Weir and David Starkey, all for different reasons.

Highly recommended - Bordo is an engaging author, whose writing style is lively, but whose sources are impeccably referenced, and who maintains the standards of academe.

A very intensive examination of Anne Boleyn's life and representation through popular culture. It could be a bit dense at times, but always fascinating. I was struck at the realization that Boleyn likely was aware at the time of her sentencing the role gender politics (and Boleyn's refusal to abide by them) had played in her downfall. (It's the only "guilt" she confesses to.) No, it would be unfair to call Anne Boleyn a feminist, but there is much in her story that resonates as modern. (This includes the relationship dynamics she shared with Henry VII during their good times.) I suppose that's why she continues to be such an evocative touchstone in today's cultural imagination.

Interesting exploration of Anne and the author's infatuation

I am fascinated with Anne Boleyn , so I can relate to Bordo's infatuation. This is not high scholarly work, though it is well researched. It is engaging, light, but often provokes some deep thinking and questioning. I certainly enjoyed reading it. It is a kind of apologia for Anne, a defense, though Bordo admits we cannot really know what Anne was like.

довгий час я не могла запам'ятати, чи це в генріха шостого було вісім дружин, чи у генріха восьмого – шість. більше не плутатиму, але з цього, мабуть, зрозуміло, що до "створення анни болейн" мене привабила не тема. зате за жанром це мала бути метабіографія / культурна критика, а в обох цих варіантах є щось вкрай симпатичне.
майже вдалося, до речі. тобто так, книжка багатослівна (і повтори. скільки тут повторів), доволі поверхова, і тепер я знаю значно більше, ніж хотіла, про зйомки "тюдорів" і відчуття відвідувачів одної фейсбучної сторінки, проте значно менше та приблизніше – про, наприклад, католицьку і протестантську версії анни болейн. але, з іншого боку, про її образ у популярній культурі від хіх століття було цікаво, і посилання на ренесансні тексти про те, що жінки теж люди, привели мене до дуже симпатичної серії чиказького університету, і завжди приємно ще раз побачити на практиці, як історія робиться не лише з наявних свідчень, а й із лакун на місці старанно витертих фрагментів. і принаймні трьох перших дружин генрі восьмого я вже пам'ятатиму.

A very interesting look at how Anne Boleyn's history has been shaped by the primary documents of her time and her more modern portrayals in popular movies and historical fiction. I would have preferred if the author kept her own personal story out of the narrative, but otherwise an interesting read.

To be completely honest, I picked up this book not really expecting anything. Anne Boleyn has been my favorite historical figure (and frankly, hero) for a long time, and I saw that this book was released lately so—what the heck? I’ve already read so many books about her, why not read another more recently released?

Boy, have I never been more pleasantly surprised.

If you’re wanting just a play by play of Boleyn’s life, this isn’t it—well, sort of. Obviously Bordo has to write the factual details of her history. What makes this book fresh is the discussion of Anne’s reputation throughout history—ie, what makes people think she was an “evil temptress”? What do we actually KNOW about Anne as a person? And the answer is... Not a whole lot. Maybe that has a whole lot to do with why she remains tremendously fascinating.

As a Boleyn junkie, I found a few historical details/theories lacking. She barely touches on Anne’s treatment of Princess Mary (one that could’ve used more discussion of what the expectations were of children, royal or not, and whether this means that Anne was actually cruel), and a favorite theory of mine as to WHY Henry so suddenly turned on Anne—that he suffered a personality altering head trauma—was never mentioned. There were also a lot of comments cited from her personal Facebook page that she made that, while intelligent, can be seen as rather cutting to her trustworthiness as a writer.

But overall, I loved that while Susan Bordo is most certainly pro-Anne, she takes great care in relaying all the facts. One of her big arguments is that our view of Anne as “evil” and that the king gradually tired of her comes only from the very biased Chapuys letters. She has Anne’s best interests at heart: not necessarily wanting her to be shown as “good,” but wanting her to be SEEN and understood. I may be petty, but her obvious distaste for Philippa Gregory (often compared to as a messiah of historical fiction) had me howling because.... Gregory really is trash.

All in all, yes this is a history book—but more so it’s about the misunderstanding of a woman fallen from grace for making her own choices. That’s the Anne I love. That’s the Anne that people are endlessly fascinated by.

I honestly do not even know if I have the energy to write a review of this ridiculous 'scholarly' work. There are so many problems, such unprofessionalism, and even inaccurate historical facts, I don't know where to begin.

So, here we go:

Anyone who has read my reviews in the past know how I feel about Anne Boleyn. I do not see her as a victim or a heroine. I see her as an intelligent woman in love with a married man, who was able to advance her position socially into the very highest ranks in becoming Henry's queen. I see a woman who gambled on the fact that she would be able to provide Henry what Catherine could not, a son, but in the end she too would be cast aside when she could not follow through on her lofty promises. She played the game well for three years, but in the end lost, just as so many others did during Henry's tyrannical reign. I do not believe any of the nonsense about witchcraft, extra fingers, or the clearly trumped-up charges of adultery which can easily be dismissed given the timing and facts we know of Anne's whereabouts and pregnancies.

That being said, me making my feelings about Anne in historical context perfectly clear, I should also point out that I am well-versed in Tudor history and have read numerous books about the queens of England. I have read books dedicated to Anne alone, and can recognize a good biography when I see one, even when I do not hold the subject in high regard - Eric Ives being numero uno. It was a great read, despite my dislike of Anne. Since I am able to recognize a good Anne-related text, let me say this is certainly NOT one of them and to not waste the time or money. There are so many issues, as I briefly touched on above, it is almost overwhelming. I was updating every five minutes as I read about something new that was absurd or ridiculous or factually incorrect.

Now, I was reluctant to read this when I was still only in the introduction. You see, I greatly admire Eleanor of Aquitaine. I was put off right away when the author stated that Anne's execution was shocking even to those who believed her guilty of the accused crimes of adultery and treason, and states that Eleanor of Aquitaine was simply banished for the same crimes. I about said 'bye Felicia' right here. Eleanor was not banished. She was held captive by her husband (Henry II) due to her helping incite her sons into rebellion - more than once. So yes, treason. But no on the banishment and adultery (insofar as we know in regards to this marriage. As far as her marriage to Louis, that is another story). Basically, there is no comparison between Eleanor of Aquitaine and Anne Boleyn, and for the author to even use them in the same sentence was nearly enough for me to call it quits there. But I persevered (get it?), and deeply regret it. On we go to the more solid Anne-related reasons this book is terrible...

First, one of the factual inaccuracies that has been bothering me occurs early on. Here the author says that when Henry and Anne met Francis in Calais, Henry could not force Francis' wife Claude to come meet Anne (page 71). That is true, but not for the reasons the author states. See, Claude died in 1524. This visit was in 1532. By then Francis has remarried, and been so to Eleanor of Castile/Austria (depending who you ask on the 'of' part) since 1530. As someone who claims herself (on page 213) to be an 'Anne scholar', surely she should not have made such an error - especially because it was considered kind of a big deal that Eleanor refused to meet Anne at all. How did no one catch this? Not just the author, but anyone in editing or someone who proofread? I mean, seriously.

Secondly, the book just reeks left and right of unprofessionalism. While I am no fan of Starkey myself, largely due to his horribly misogynistic treatment of the queens and his insulting those of us in the Midwest and the implication The Tudors was dumbed down so we could understand it, this became a free-for-all on him and really any author who had ever said anything negative about Anne or used Chapuys as a reference - something the author then does herself! How can she say at one point that he is not unbiased (DUH! He hated Anne!) and we can't trust him, but then she goes on to take his written word on various other matters. She then goes on to insult not only Starkey, but those who have read him (and I am assuming those who take everything he writes as factual). The author writes, "...a not-very-historically-informed reader - that would be most of Starkey's audience, as he is not interested in courting the academics but rather the general audience" (page 17). Sorry lady, but I am a very informed reader who reads about these topics for pleasure, not academically. By page 231, the author has devoted a considerable sum of pages targeting Phillippa Gregory in particular for 'The Other Boleyn Girl'. Now, I have not read this, nor do I plan to, mostly because I do not read historical fiction, but come on. Attacking left and right those who present Anne in a less than flattering light? It's called historical fiction for a reason - though I agree that those who write in this genre should do a better job making sure their audience knows what is fact and what is fiction.

Fun Fact #1: Know what else is totally unprofessional? Pretending to be a scholar while calling Henry a 'pussy-whipped hubby.' Yet she did, right there on page 13. Keep it classy, Bordo.

The author's treatment of Catherine and Mary is highly suspect for someone who claims she is not writing a just biography of Anne, but a 'cultural history.' In a cultural history (especially the parts about, you know, how Anne has been portrayed), I would expect facts only, not the constant injecting of opinion on the marriage and Catherine that we are constantly subjected to. The author has the nerve to try to paint Catherine as the problem, not Henry, when she herself in other sections is proclaiming that Henry is the problem in regards only to relating to Anne. Excuse me, but I am pretty sure Henry is the root cause all the way around - and Anne was certainly not innocent. But, back to Catherine and Mary. We have them labeled 'self-righteous' on page 13. Then by page 17, Catherine has already been called 'proud' and 'stubborn' many times - right, because how silly of the old hag to want to preserve her marriage and protect Mary. (I hope it is clear here that I am being facetious here when referring to Catherine in this way; of all the Queens, I admire her the most, despite what this author might have you believe of her). As if more examples are needed (but they are, to show how absurd this portrayal of Catherine is), on page 73 the author writes, "Catherine remained stubbornly glued to her 'rights'" and "Mary behaved either like an obsessively dutiful daughter or a spoiled brat (depending on your point of view) in refusing to acknowledge Anne as queen." So, let me get this straight, Mary was a spoiled brat for supporting her mother? For wanting the inheritance that was rightfully hers? It is obvious which camp the author falls into. The author is seriously so enthralled by Anne, that she seems to believe Anne was genuine in offering Mary friendship and life at court in return for acknowledging her as queen. While I don't necessarily subscribe to the view that she was plotting to kill Mary (or Catherine, for that matter), but I can believe she wanted Mary close in order to keep an eye on her. Here is the last example I will use, from page 174, "Catherine, after all, had fought him tooth and nail for six years, stubbornly refusing all attempts to provide her with a dignified exit, seemingly unconcerned that she was tearing England apart with her resistance." Look lady, I have put up with a lot of nonsense in this book, but that takes the cake. It was HENRY who tore England apart, not Catherine or even Anne. It seemed to be that when the author was discussing Anne, Henry was to blame for everything, but when discussing Anne and Henry together, everything was Catherine's fault. That does not fly and should not, regardless of your opinion on any of the players involved. It's like the author (remember, a self-proclaimed Anne scholar) suddenly knows nothing about Henry whenever Catherine is discussed; like she does not recognize suddenly that he gradually became a tyrant (though I am of the belief it was always there, kind of lying in wait, even in his early years) who did as he pleased. No one should be surprised that he ordered Anne's death to make himself look all the more the wronged husband who had loved his wife and she had been unfaithful - of course this would have been a major crime, the succession of the throne was at stake.

Fun Fact #2: The author is also a doctor, apparently (I know nothing of her beyond this book, so perhaps she actually is. I don't know). By this point in the text she has diagnosed Henry as either having a borderline or narcissistic personality disorder. In a previous chapter she asserted that if he lived today he would have been diagnosed with ADD. Interesting that in this same chapter she calls into question the theory of Henry possibly having McLeod Syndrome, stating that, "bioarchaeology, like evolutionary psychology, is heavy on theory and light on proof." Pot, meet kettle.

In the end, there is nothing groundbreaking about this book. I was truly hoping for a cultural history and a study of Anne through the ages, with her various portrayals (I did enjoy reading the excerpts of how Victorian-age children learned of Anne) but too often it became a diatribe against another author. It is already pretty widely accepted that Anne was innocent of the charges against her and Henry was looking for a quick way to get rid of the wife he had once loved, but had since grown tired of. Even those of us who side firmly with Catherine can recognize the superstitions of the age, all that about witchcraft and deformed fetuses, moles and extra fingers. All of it was piled on to further demonize Anne through the centuries. No one is disputing that - or should be, at this point. Anne's strengths were also her flaws - ambitious, scheming, even ruthless at times, I believe.

While I could go on, this review has taken more than enough of my time. The book eventually just becomes an homage to Natalie Dormer, who gave a great performance as Anne in The Tudors. I was glad to be done, as I am glad to now be done with this review as well.

My first encounter with Anne Boleyn was the movie "Anne of the Thousand Days", and of course in it Anne is a heroine. I still recall the massive hatred I felt for Richard Burton at the end, when they hear the cannons signalling Anne's execution and he hollers "To Seymours!" and callously rides off. So when Anne is portrayed, in recent years especially, as rather nasty and scheming it is a bit confusing. What was her true self? The problem is that no one really has a clue, and the real answer is probably what is usually is, something down the middle. Anyway, this book takes a look at what we actually know about Anne vs that which has evolved over time in popular entertainment. Interesting for the most part.