Hm. Now, if one were to pretend the book made no claims to historical fact at all and approach it as one would a work of fiction/decidedly subjective interpretation, would it have any merit? Any literary quality, any outlandish (and preferably unheard-of) interpretation that could warrant a claim to artistry or make for exciting insights into the befuddled mind of the writer? It does come across as possessing some cheap entertainment value, at least, but there's ever such a lot of that around in 'historical' 'biographies' already - and it gets so repetitive, too.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2009-07-17 12:05 am (UTC)