This book was a great success. It successfully turned what would be a fascinating life of Mary queen of Scots into a boring Diary of a whining girl. Though it wasn't written too terribly, the over use of the exclamation mark was maddening. Why is every body shouting theatrically? Also, throwing in "alas!" every few paragraphs doesn't make the dialogue feel historical; it's simply inconsequential. I almost couldn't bring myself to complete it. The books only saving grace was the Authors creative use of vocabulary. This is not a very accurate book, historically at least, but it is entertaining. I am willing to reread this book but even though I found it enjoyable it was only because I was willing to think of it as fiction and not historical fiction. I probably wouldn't recommend this book to any of my friends, however, because those who know history well would be annoyed by the inaccuracies (Mary sneaking out of her prison in England to meet the Pope in Rome? Really?), and I'd be afraid those who don't know history well would think it true.Basically: don't read this if you want your historical fiction to be (mostly) accurate. It'll frustrate you to no end. If you don't mind some completely fabricated events, you might enjoy this.
What do You think about Mary Queen Of Scots (2010)?
I so wanted to like this book, but I just cannot get past the rewriting of history.
—bob
not as well written as some other historical fiction writers but still enjoyable
—Kupfadachl
This was a very slow read and I didn't quite enjoy Erickson's writing style.
—jobellesincioco
