GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1990-02 > 0635566205


From: Kay Allen AG <>
Subject: Re: Eleanor of Aquitaine (by Weir)
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1990 18:10:05 -0800


wrote:
>
> In a message dated 2/19/2000 9:09:41 PM, writes:
>
> << Alison Weir is a specialist, and a hack ... She does not see any complete
> panorama. She is a one-note hack, as pointed out by other
> correspondents. She is not a terminally thorough researcher who tries to
> explain or analyze the big picture. She is a specialist apologist with
> her own axes to grind. >>
>
> With all due respect, this seems to be an overly harsh and opinionated
> judgment about a work which no one has yet read. Weir has been published by
> some of the world's largest publishers and her latest work is with Random
> House. Few of us can say the same about our work.

I would rather be overly harsh than overly gullible. I never claimed to
not be opinionated :-) I don't like her previous work. I have not
issued judgement about this current work other that I was dubious of its
potential.

Random House is in the business of making money. This is no guarantee of
its scholarly content. In fact, I would consider that the fact that RH
is publishing it would mitigate against it being a quality book of
scholarship.


I urge great caution when
> disseminating such opinions, as they might come back to haunt us.

I am not afraid. The worst that could happen is that I might have to
apologize. Big deal. Or do you think that she might threaten to sue me
ala Roderick Stuart?

Eleanor of
> Aquitaine has to be a difficult subject for a researcher.

Why? As one of the major players of her day, there should be plenty of
material laying around. English, French..It would be interesting to
compare what the French archives would have to say about her in
comparison with the English


The copious
> endnotes and abundance an of contemporary source materials show that Weir has
> done her homework, so let us at least read it before rendering such harsh
> judgments.

All copious endnotes proves is that she did some homework; not that she
was terminally thorough. It would be interesting to compare her sources
with Amy Kelley and other biographers of the subject in question.
When one of the libraries which I frequent acquires this tome,I shall
read it and do some comparisons. But I won't spend my hard-earned money
on it. I have better things upon which to spend said money.

I must confess that I would be skeptical of your review as you seem to
be already predisposed to saying good things about it. I do hope that
you will read other books on the subject and do an honest comparison and
not just write a paen or ode to her creativity.

Kay Allen AG
>
> - Ken

This thread: