Hipshon Biography
Hipshon Biography
2010-12-23 09:58:46
I have to admit to being deeply annoyed and disappointed with David Hipshon's new biography of Richard.
In his Death of Chivalry book, at least during the first half, he showed a huge admiration for Richard, that only changed when he reached 1483 and he adopted the traditional anti Richard, his bravery at Bosworth apart.
His new biography seems to come at Richard backwards, through the Tudor tradition, which he repeats numerous times, and Mr Hipshon is obsessed with Edward V and what happened to him, so much so that he is there at the start of the book and is mentioned at every opportunity. Hipshon rushes through important parts of the history, Richard's part in the fighting of 1471 for example, and when mentioning complimentary evidence always adds a proviso that contradicts it. The famous Bishop Langton quote "God has sent him to us for the weal of us all" was because he was a northerner, and after promotion, which he got the next year. Only as an afterthought does he add that this was written in a private letter to a friend. Similarly Hipshon discusses the pre contract having already decided it was a fabrication before he begins, and that Stillington was only out for revenge against the Woodvilles and personal advancement. Hastings was murdered, not executed, because Richard had sounded him about about his taking the throne and found him adamantly against it (familiar to anyone who has read More or seen Shakespeare). Talks of a plot are nonsense, while Shaa's sermon was about the bastardy of Edward IV not his sons! And there are quite a few "obviouslys" in there before conclusions.
All Richard's good works and behaviour after he became king Hipshon sees only as a means to cover up the ghastly way he achieved the throne, thus ignoring his career and character before 1483.
While easy to read in style, David Hipshon should be ashamed of himself for being rushed into writing such a seemingly insufficiently properly researched book that ignores so many facts, includes so many fairy tales, and does not appreciate that these were human beings living in extraordinary times.
Can Ricardians see why I have been getting so hot under the collar
Paul Trevor Bale
In his Death of Chivalry book, at least during the first half, he showed a huge admiration for Richard, that only changed when he reached 1483 and he adopted the traditional anti Richard, his bravery at Bosworth apart.
His new biography seems to come at Richard backwards, through the Tudor tradition, which he repeats numerous times, and Mr Hipshon is obsessed with Edward V and what happened to him, so much so that he is there at the start of the book and is mentioned at every opportunity. Hipshon rushes through important parts of the history, Richard's part in the fighting of 1471 for example, and when mentioning complimentary evidence always adds a proviso that contradicts it. The famous Bishop Langton quote "God has sent him to us for the weal of us all" was because he was a northerner, and after promotion, which he got the next year. Only as an afterthought does he add that this was written in a private letter to a friend. Similarly Hipshon discusses the pre contract having already decided it was a fabrication before he begins, and that Stillington was only out for revenge against the Woodvilles and personal advancement. Hastings was murdered, not executed, because Richard had sounded him about about his taking the throne and found him adamantly against it (familiar to anyone who has read More or seen Shakespeare). Talks of a plot are nonsense, while Shaa's sermon was about the bastardy of Edward IV not his sons! And there are quite a few "obviouslys" in there before conclusions.
All Richard's good works and behaviour after he became king Hipshon sees only as a means to cover up the ghastly way he achieved the throne, thus ignoring his career and character before 1483.
While easy to read in style, David Hipshon should be ashamed of himself for being rushed into writing such a seemingly insufficiently properly researched book that ignores so many facts, includes so many fairy tales, and does not appreciate that these were human beings living in extraordinary times.
Can Ricardians see why I have been getting so hot under the collar
Paul Trevor Bale
Re: Hipshon Biography
2010-12-23 14:50:20
Paul,
I find it so interesting when "historians" are not taken to task when
their research is shoddy and when they ignore what is known and
documented in the contemporary archives. I find it appalling when
someone who is writing non-fiction deliberately inserts his or her
agenda into the work regardless of whether what is know bears them out.
It would be acceptable if, like Annette Carson, those historians pointed
out where they extrapolated from what is known.
Perhaps you could do a book review for the Bulletin and tell us what you
really think. [:D]
As a writer of fiction I'm freer to bend or change what is known and to
speculate on what might have happened. Yet, I feel I have an obligation
to stay true to the real people who I write about and add some notes at
the end of the book explaining my speculation and why I took certain
leaps of the imagination.
Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> I have to admit to being deeply annoyed and disappointed with David
Hipshon's new biography of Richard.
> In his Death of Chivalry book, at least during the first half, he
showed a huge admiration for Richard, that only changed when he reached
1483 and he adopted the traditional anti Richard, his bravery at
Bosworth apart.
> His new biography seems to come at Richard backwards, through the
Tudor tradition, which he repeats numerous times, and Mr Hipshon is
obsessed with Edward V and what happened to him, so much so that he is
there at the start of the book and is mentioned at every opportunity.
Hipshon rushes through important parts of the history, Richard's part in
the fighting of 1471 for example, and when mentioning complimentary
evidence always adds a proviso that contradicts it. The famous Bishop
Langton quote "God has sent him to us for the weal of us all" was
because he was a northerner, and after promotion, which he got the next
year. Only as an afterthought does he add that this was written in a
private letter to a friend. Similarly Hipshon discusses the pre contract
having already decided it was a fabrication before he begins, and that
Stillington was only out for revenge against the Woodvilles and personal
advancement. Hastings was murdered, not executed, because Richard had
sounded him about about his taking the throne and found him adamantly
against it (familiar to anyone who has read More or seen Shakespeare).
Talks of a plot are nonsense, while Shaa's sermon was about the bastardy
of Edward IV not his sons! And there are quite a few "obviouslys" in
there before conclusions.
> All Richard's good works and behaviour after he became king Hipshon
sees only as a means to cover up the ghastly way he achieved the throne,
thus ignoring his career and character before 1483.
> While easy to read in style, David Hipshon should be ashamed of
himself for being rushed into writing such a seemingly insufficiently
properly researched book that ignores so many facts, includes so many
fairy tales, and does not appreciate that these were human beings living
in extraordinary times.
> Can Ricardians see why I have been getting so hot under the collar
> Paul Trevor Bale
>
I find it so interesting when "historians" are not taken to task when
their research is shoddy and when they ignore what is known and
documented in the contemporary archives. I find it appalling when
someone who is writing non-fiction deliberately inserts his or her
agenda into the work regardless of whether what is know bears them out.
It would be acceptable if, like Annette Carson, those historians pointed
out where they extrapolated from what is known.
Perhaps you could do a book review for the Bulletin and tell us what you
really think. [:D]
As a writer of fiction I'm freer to bend or change what is known and to
speculate on what might have happened. Yet, I feel I have an obligation
to stay true to the real people who I write about and add some notes at
the end of the book explaining my speculation and why I took certain
leaps of the imagination.
Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> I have to admit to being deeply annoyed and disappointed with David
Hipshon's new biography of Richard.
> In his Death of Chivalry book, at least during the first half, he
showed a huge admiration for Richard, that only changed when he reached
1483 and he adopted the traditional anti Richard, his bravery at
Bosworth apart.
> His new biography seems to come at Richard backwards, through the
Tudor tradition, which he repeats numerous times, and Mr Hipshon is
obsessed with Edward V and what happened to him, so much so that he is
there at the start of the book and is mentioned at every opportunity.
Hipshon rushes through important parts of the history, Richard's part in
the fighting of 1471 for example, and when mentioning complimentary
evidence always adds a proviso that contradicts it. The famous Bishop
Langton quote "God has sent him to us for the weal of us all" was
because he was a northerner, and after promotion, which he got the next
year. Only as an afterthought does he add that this was written in a
private letter to a friend. Similarly Hipshon discusses the pre contract
having already decided it was a fabrication before he begins, and that
Stillington was only out for revenge against the Woodvilles and personal
advancement. Hastings was murdered, not executed, because Richard had
sounded him about about his taking the throne and found him adamantly
against it (familiar to anyone who has read More or seen Shakespeare).
Talks of a plot are nonsense, while Shaa's sermon was about the bastardy
of Edward IV not his sons! And there are quite a few "obviouslys" in
there before conclusions.
> All Richard's good works and behaviour after he became king Hipshon
sees only as a means to cover up the ghastly way he achieved the throne,
thus ignoring his career and character before 1483.
> While easy to read in style, David Hipshon should be ashamed of
himself for being rushed into writing such a seemingly insufficiently
properly researched book that ignores so many facts, includes so many
fairy tales, and does not appreciate that these were human beings living
in extraordinary times.
> Can Ricardians see why I have been getting so hot under the collar
> Paul Trevor Bale
>
Re: Hipshon Biography
2010-12-23 21:39:07
Thank you, Paul, for warning us - I'm sure I can find more worthwhile books to
spend my money on! And I agree with Joan. It's a sad state of affairs when
non-fiction writers are taking greater liberties with the known facts than those
of fiction.
Cheers, Dorothea
________________________________
From: joansr3 <u2nohoo@...>
To:
Sent: Fri, 24 December, 2010 1:50:19 AM
Subject: Re: Hipshon Biography
Paul,
I find it so interesting when "historians" are not taken to task when
their research is shoddy and when they ignore what is known and
documented in the contemporary archives. I find it appalling when
someone who is writing non-fiction deliberately inserts his or her
agenda into the work regardless of whether what is know bears them out.
It would be acceptable if, like Annette Carson, those historians pointed
out where they extrapolated from what is known.
Perhaps you could do a book review for the Bulletin and tell us what you
really think. [:D]
As a writer of fiction I'm freer to bend or change what is known and to
speculate on what might have happened. Yet, I feel I have an obligation
to stay true to the real people who I write about and add some notes at
the end of the book explaining my speculation and why I took certain
leaps of the imagination.
Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> I have to admit to being deeply annoyed and disappointed with David
Hipshon's new biography of Richard.
> In his Death of Chivalry book, at least during the first half, he
showed a huge admiration for Richard, that only changed when he reached
1483 and he adopted the traditional anti Richard, his bravery at
Bosworth apart.
> His new biography seems to come at Richard backwards, through the
Tudor tradition, which he repeats numerous times, and Mr Hipshon is
obsessed with Edward V and what happened to him, so much so that he is
there at the start of the book and is mentioned at every opportunity.
Hipshon rushes through important parts of the history, Richard's part in
the fighting of 1471 for example, and when mentioning complimentary
evidence always adds a proviso that contradicts it. The famous Bishop
Langton quote "God has sent him to us for the weal of us all" was
because he was a northerner, and after promotion, which he got the next
year. Only as an afterthought does he add that this was written in a
private letter to a friend. Similarly Hipshon discusses the pre contract
having already decided it was a fabrication before he begins, and that
Stillington was only out for revenge against the Woodvilles and personal
advancement. Hastings was murdered, not executed, because Richard had
sounded him about about his taking the throne and found him adamantly
against it (familiar to anyone who has read More or seen Shakespeare).
Talks of a plot are nonsense, while Shaa's sermon was about the bastardy
of Edward IV not his sons! And there are quite a few "obviouslys" in
there before conclusions.
> All Richard's good works and behaviour after he became king Hipshon
sees only as a means to cover up the ghastly way he achieved the throne,
thus ignoring his career and character before 1483.
> While easy to read in style, David Hipshon should be ashamed of
himself for being rushed into writing such a seemingly insufficiently
properly researched book that ignores so many facts, includes so many
fairy tales, and does not appreciate that these were human beings living
in extraordinary times.
> Can Ricardians see why I have been getting so hot under the collar
> Paul Trevor Bale
>
spend my money on! And I agree with Joan. It's a sad state of affairs when
non-fiction writers are taking greater liberties with the known facts than those
of fiction.
Cheers, Dorothea
________________________________
From: joansr3 <u2nohoo@...>
To:
Sent: Fri, 24 December, 2010 1:50:19 AM
Subject: Re: Hipshon Biography
Paul,
I find it so interesting when "historians" are not taken to task when
their research is shoddy and when they ignore what is known and
documented in the contemporary archives. I find it appalling when
someone who is writing non-fiction deliberately inserts his or her
agenda into the work regardless of whether what is know bears them out.
It would be acceptable if, like Annette Carson, those historians pointed
out where they extrapolated from what is known.
Perhaps you could do a book review for the Bulletin and tell us what you
really think. [:D]
As a writer of fiction I'm freer to bend or change what is known and to
speculate on what might have happened. Yet, I feel I have an obligation
to stay true to the real people who I write about and add some notes at
the end of the book explaining my speculation and why I took certain
leaps of the imagination.
Joan
---
author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> I have to admit to being deeply annoyed and disappointed with David
Hipshon's new biography of Richard.
> In his Death of Chivalry book, at least during the first half, he
showed a huge admiration for Richard, that only changed when he reached
1483 and he adopted the traditional anti Richard, his bravery at
Bosworth apart.
> His new biography seems to come at Richard backwards, through the
Tudor tradition, which he repeats numerous times, and Mr Hipshon is
obsessed with Edward V and what happened to him, so much so that he is
there at the start of the book and is mentioned at every opportunity.
Hipshon rushes through important parts of the history, Richard's part in
the fighting of 1471 for example, and when mentioning complimentary
evidence always adds a proviso that contradicts it. The famous Bishop
Langton quote "God has sent him to us for the weal of us all" was
because he was a northerner, and after promotion, which he got the next
year. Only as an afterthought does he add that this was written in a
private letter to a friend. Similarly Hipshon discusses the pre contract
having already decided it was a fabrication before he begins, and that
Stillington was only out for revenge against the Woodvilles and personal
advancement. Hastings was murdered, not executed, because Richard had
sounded him about about his taking the throne and found him adamantly
against it (familiar to anyone who has read More or seen Shakespeare).
Talks of a plot are nonsense, while Shaa's sermon was about the bastardy
of Edward IV not his sons! And there are quite a few "obviouslys" in
there before conclusions.
> All Richard's good works and behaviour after he became king Hipshon
sees only as a means to cover up the ghastly way he achieved the throne,
thus ignoring his career and character before 1483.
> While easy to read in style, David Hipshon should be ashamed of
himself for being rushed into writing such a seemingly insufficiently
properly researched book that ignores so many facts, includes so many
fairy tales, and does not appreciate that these were human beings living
in extraordinary times.
> Can Ricardians see why I have been getting so hot under the collar
> Paul Trevor Bale
>
Re: Hipshon Biography
2010-12-24 17:37:48
Yes, I expected better from Mr Hipshon. He isn't Alison Weir after all, he is a genuine historian, although my nephew, who was taught by him last year, says he is more a modern historian, as in 20th century, than anything.
I'm not surprised.
Paul
On 23 Dec 2010, at 21:39, Dorothea Preis wrote:
> Thank you, Paul, for warning us - I'm sure I can find more worthwhile books to
> spend my money on! And I agree with Joan. It's a sad state of affairs when
> non-fiction writers are taking greater liberties with the known facts than those
> of fiction.
>
> Cheers, Dorothea
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: joansr3 <u2nohoo@...>
> To:
> Sent: Fri, 24 December, 2010 1:50:19 AM
> Subject: Re: Hipshon Biography
>
>
> Paul,
>
> I find it so interesting when "historians" are not taken to task when
> their research is shoddy and when they ignore what is known and
> documented in the contemporary archives. I find it appalling when
> someone who is writing non-fiction deliberately inserts his or her
> agenda into the work regardless of whether what is know bears them out.
> It would be acceptable if, like Annette Carson, those historians pointed
> out where they extrapolated from what is known.
>
> Perhaps you could do a book review for the Bulletin and tell us what you
> really think. [:D]
>
> As a writer of fiction I'm freer to bend or change what is known and to
> speculate on what might have happened. Yet, I feel I have an obligation
> to stay true to the real people who I write about and add some notes at
> the end of the book explaining my speculation and why I took certain
> leaps of the imagination.
>
> Joan
> ---
> author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>>
>> I have to admit to being deeply annoyed and disappointed with David
> Hipshon's new biography of Richard.
>> In his Death of Chivalry book, at least during the first half, he
> showed a huge admiration for Richard, that only changed when he reached
> 1483 and he adopted the traditional anti Richard, his bravery at
> Bosworth apart.
>> His new biography seems to come at Richard backwards, through the
> Tudor tradition, which he repeats numerous times, and Mr Hipshon is
> obsessed with Edward V and what happened to him, so much so that he is
> there at the start of the book and is mentioned at every opportunity.
> Hipshon rushes through important parts of the history, Richard's part in
> the fighting of 1471 for example, and when mentioning complimentary
> evidence always adds a proviso that contradicts it. The famous Bishop
> Langton quote "God has sent him to us for the weal of us all" was
> because he was a northerner, and after promotion, which he got the next
> year. Only as an afterthought does he add that this was written in a
> private letter to a friend. Similarly Hipshon discusses the pre contract
> having already decided it was a fabrication before he begins, and that
> Stillington was only out for revenge against the Woodvilles and personal
> advancement. Hastings was murdered, not executed, because Richard had
> sounded him about about his taking the throne and found him adamantly
> against it (familiar to anyone who has read More or seen Shakespeare).
> Talks of a plot are nonsense, while Shaa's sermon was about the bastardy
> of Edward IV not his sons! And there are quite a few "obviouslys" in
> there before conclusions.
>> All Richard's good works and behaviour after he became king Hipshon
> sees only as a means to cover up the ghastly way he achieved the throne,
> thus ignoring his career and character before 1483.
>> While easy to read in style, David Hipshon should be ashamed of
> himself for being rushed into writing such a seemingly insufficiently
> properly researched book that ignores so many facts, includes so many
> fairy tales, and does not appreciate that these were human beings living
> in extraordinary times.
>> Can Ricardians see why I have been getting so hot under the collar
>> Paul Trevor Bale
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
I'm not surprised.
Paul
On 23 Dec 2010, at 21:39, Dorothea Preis wrote:
> Thank you, Paul, for warning us - I'm sure I can find more worthwhile books to
> spend my money on! And I agree with Joan. It's a sad state of affairs when
> non-fiction writers are taking greater liberties with the known facts than those
> of fiction.
>
> Cheers, Dorothea
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: joansr3 <u2nohoo@...>
> To:
> Sent: Fri, 24 December, 2010 1:50:19 AM
> Subject: Re: Hipshon Biography
>
>
> Paul,
>
> I find it so interesting when "historians" are not taken to task when
> their research is shoddy and when they ignore what is known and
> documented in the contemporary archives. I find it appalling when
> someone who is writing non-fiction deliberately inserts his or her
> agenda into the work regardless of whether what is know bears them out.
> It would be acceptable if, like Annette Carson, those historians pointed
> out where they extrapolated from what is known.
>
> Perhaps you could do a book review for the Bulletin and tell us what you
> really think. [:D]
>
> As a writer of fiction I'm freer to bend or change what is known and to
> speculate on what might have happened. Yet, I feel I have an obligation
> to stay true to the real people who I write about and add some notes at
> the end of the book explaining my speculation and why I took certain
> leaps of the imagination.
>
> Joan
> ---
> author of This Time, a novel about Richard III in the 21st-century
> 2010 Next Generation Indie Book Awards General Fiction Finalist
> website: http://www.joanszechtman.com/
> blog: http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/
> ebook: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/3935
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>>
>> I have to admit to being deeply annoyed and disappointed with David
> Hipshon's new biography of Richard.
>> In his Death of Chivalry book, at least during the first half, he
> showed a huge admiration for Richard, that only changed when he reached
> 1483 and he adopted the traditional anti Richard, his bravery at
> Bosworth apart.
>> His new biography seems to come at Richard backwards, through the
> Tudor tradition, which he repeats numerous times, and Mr Hipshon is
> obsessed with Edward V and what happened to him, so much so that he is
> there at the start of the book and is mentioned at every opportunity.
> Hipshon rushes through important parts of the history, Richard's part in
> the fighting of 1471 for example, and when mentioning complimentary
> evidence always adds a proviso that contradicts it. The famous Bishop
> Langton quote "God has sent him to us for the weal of us all" was
> because he was a northerner, and after promotion, which he got the next
> year. Only as an afterthought does he add that this was written in a
> private letter to a friend. Similarly Hipshon discusses the pre contract
> having already decided it was a fabrication before he begins, and that
> Stillington was only out for revenge against the Woodvilles and personal
> advancement. Hastings was murdered, not executed, because Richard had
> sounded him about about his taking the throne and found him adamantly
> against it (familiar to anyone who has read More or seen Shakespeare).
> Talks of a plot are nonsense, while Shaa's sermon was about the bastardy
> of Edward IV not his sons! And there are quite a few "obviouslys" in
> there before conclusions.
>> All Richard's good works and behaviour after he became king Hipshon
> sees only as a means to cover up the ghastly way he achieved the throne,
> thus ignoring his career and character before 1483.
>> While easy to read in style, David Hipshon should be ashamed of
> himself for being rushed into writing such a seemingly insufficiently
> properly researched book that ignores so many facts, includes so many
> fairy tales, and does not appreciate that these were human beings living
> in extraordinary times.
>> Can Ricardians see why I have been getting so hot under the collar
>> Paul Trevor Bale
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.