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.

For the most part, rather interesting exploration of how the legend of Anne has been built up over the years. Bordo lost me on the last two chapters, though - her need to tear apart contemporary historical fiction writers (particularly Phillipa Gregory) was a turn off. I get that there's been some two steps forward-one step back with some of those books, but why not focus more on how they've directed people to dig deeper themselves to find out about the true Anne?

Make no mistake, this book is a cultural history of the historical persona of Anne Boleyn. Those looking for a definitive biography of Anne may do better looking elsewhere because Bordo's starting point is at the end of Anne's life. Thus, the first half of the book drags a little because as Bordo states, there is not a lot of first hand information about how Anne thought or what she believed. It's in the second half of the book where Bordo hits her stride, in discussing the various fictional recreations of Anne throughout the last three to four hundred years. I enjoyed her discussion of Anne as feminist figure. The only issue I had with this book is her obvious disdain for many of the authors she mentions, specifically David Starkey and Phillipa Gregory. Like these people or hate them, they are still somewhat responsible for moving interest forward on the Tudors. While this did bother me, I did enjoy many parts of the book and would recommend it.

Possibly the best non-fiction I've read this year. Anne Boleyn is a fascinating historical figure, largely reconstituted from 500 years of pop culture variation.

In The Creation of Anne Boleyn, feminist scholar Susan Bordo began with an agenda.

I would find the “real” Anne Boleyn and rescue her from the pile of mythology that had built up around her. Presumptuous. Grandiose.

As she proceeded to explore the various historical sources, and the spins and interpretations put upon Anne Boleyn by a plethora of historians, novelists, playwrights, moviemakers, actors, and bloggers, Bordo discovers the “real” Anne Boleyn is not so easy to find.

The book is divided into three sections: Queen, Interrupted - a look at the historical record; Recipes for “Anne Boleyn” - how the fictional story of Anne Boleyn has been mixed and and rebaked, according to the time in which it was told; and An Anne for All Seasons - a look at how Anne has been portrayed in motion pictures, with especial attention to Anne of the Thousand Days, the BBC series The Six Wives of Henry VIII, and the Showtime series The Tudors.

I found this book provocative and insightful, the arguments well made, and the book itself flowed well. If you are an Anne Boleyn fan, or even an enemy, you need to read this book.

Bordo points out (repeatedly), that the main historical source for much of the contemporary material about Anne’s life comes from her sworn enemy, who had his own agenda and was trying to the best of his ability to instigate a Spanish invasion of England. Eustace Chapuys, Spanish ambassador, and personal friend of Katharine of Aragon and Princess Mary, never heard a rumor that was derogatory to Anne that he failed to pass on, whether it could be verified or not. Most historians agree that Chapuys was an extremely partisan and unreliable source, yet while sometimes they dismiss what he wrote, in other places they heavily depend upon him for some or much of their material. Additionally, each historian brings his or her own prejudices about Anne, which become apparent in their choice of language (including Bordo, as she admits).

Like Anne Boleyn herself, Susan Bordo is not afraid to make enemies and burn bridges. She blames historians David Starkey and Alison Weir, among others, for giving too much credence to questionable historical evidence and negative portrayals of Anne Boleyn. She also loathes the way popular novelist Philippa Gregory has played fast and loose with what historical facts are agreed upon. Bordo even picks fault with novelists she greatly admires, such as Hilary Mantel, author of Wolf Hall and Bring Out the Bodies. When it comes to motion picture portrayals of Anne, even though Bordo cites the historical inaccuracies of Anne of the Thousand Days, and The Tudors, she is a big fan (as am I) of the underlying spirit, sexuality, and complexity brought to the role of Anne by actresses Geneviève Bujold, and Natalie Dormer, both of whom she interviewed at length for this book.

Bordo takes an analytic look at how Anne Boleyn has fascinated generations, and how each has remade Anne to fit its stereotypes and needs. Was she a scheming seductress? A Protestant martyr? A loving, protective mother - or a cold, calculating one? A raging, vindictive nag? A helpless victim? Was she an early feminist, insisting on sovereignty over her body, and the freedom to express her thoughts and ideas? Bordo includes some interesting answers from a web poll asking “Anne Boleyn - Angel or Devil?:”

“It’s far too simplistic to define her as either an ‘angel’ or ‘devil.’ She was an intelligent, educated, highly sophisticated woman, who certainly possessed many flaws, significant among them being considerable arrogance, but who was also far too complex to be dismissed simply as a ‘bad’ or ‘good’ character... She really was a great deal more than a home-wrecking harlot who ran off with another woman’s husband, but she also wasn’t an innocent lamb who had no idea what she was getting herself into. She was hugely complicated and not easy to dismiss."

I loved this book because it challenged me to think beyond my own vision of “who Anne Boleyn really was” and to consider that all great historical and fictional characters are impossible to fit into neat little boxes.

Anne has been less the perpetual victim of the same old sexist stereotyping then she has been a shape-shifting trickster... In cutting her life so short and then ruthlessly disposing of the body of evidence of her “real” existence, Henry made it possible for her to live a hundred different lives, forever.

Given my interest in history and on and off since adolescence interest in the Tudors, this was RIGHT up my alley. Deconstruction of the cultural history and mythology of Anne Boleyn? Yes, please! Bordo takes a brief look at the standard history of Anne and its sources, then examines the biographies, art, novels, film, and TV portrayals that have come since. Lots of fun, especially when some of the more recent popular historians and novelists come under her radar. Interviews with actresses who have played Anne were a nice surprise. I wasn't a fan of the Tudors, but mad props to Natalie Dormer for fighting to portray an intelligent, multi-dimensional Anne. (Although since we're evaluating sources...though the author's obvious girl crush on Dormer may have affected the way she wrote in this chapter, Dormer's quotes stand on their own.) I may even re-visit a few episodes as a result of this read.

The best part of this book is where Susan Bordo and Natalie Dormer hang out. But the rest is pretty awesome too. It was a surprisingly quick read, and didn't go into quite the depth I expected.

I suppose I should say that I have a sort-of tangential relationship to the author of this book, my husband is one of her daughter's high school teachers and she gave him a copy of this book last Christmas, but I haven't had any personal contact with her.

I enjoyed this book, as both a general history fan and a Tudor buff, though I have to say that there really wasn't anything I found particularly surprising or shocking. I have a college degree in history, so I have read a lot of history, and I know how to read history - I don't take anyone's (including this author's) word for anything. No one writes 100%, "this is exactly how it happened and there are no other possible interpretations" history. It doesn't exist. Everyone has bias and agendas and things they want to stress or avoid.

This book complains about other historians who seem to announce certain things as "fact" despite little or no evidence for them, but there are times this author does the same thing. And there's not necessarily anything wrong with that, as an historian you have to make some judgment calls, but she calls out these other authors while doing it herself. There is very little we actually know for sure about Anne (including her birthdate, though this author appears to have decided that for herself) so every depiction of her is going to be made up or inferred from other things. This book does a good job of pointing that out, and shows how the depictions of her have changed over the centuries, and why she was portrayed the way she was at different points in time. I recognize that not everyone has a history education, and some people may find this more enlightening than I did.

I also happened to enjoy both The Other Boleyn Girl and The Tudors, while recognizing how historically inaccurate they are. As entertainment, they succeed. As history, they fail, especially TOBG. I just wish more people would take something they enjoy and actually do some research about the history, and not just assume that what they read in a FICTIONAL novel or saw on TV was exactly the way things happened (because what reason would people who want to make money on a story have to lie?).

I think this book was a good one to read, along with my other books on Tudor history, because I think taking everything combined can start to give a clearer picture of the real story.

Pop Cultural historiography of Anne Boleyn, following the ways in which Anne has been portrayed by subsequent times, from Eustace Chapuys' catty letters back to the Emperor, Protestants sucking up to Elizabeth, Catholics putting caricatures in Corpus Christi festivals, operas, Victorian moralists, flapper novelists, Freudians, feminists, movies, two versions of The Other Boleyn Girl, The Tudors and Hilary Mantel's novels. Bordo is not a Tudor historian, and it shows in some elementary factual errors, but anyone willing to take a swing at Alison Weir and David Starkey gets some points in my book.