Some rather sweeping generalizations here. Iâm currently reading Wolf Hall. My knowledge of Tudor England is not what it could be so the book often sends me Googling. I every case Iâve encountered so far it seems that Ms. Mantel has done her research.
As for adaptations - while I havenât seen it Iâm given to understand that The Tudors was done as a bit of a bodice ripper. The BBC production of Wolf Hall is most definitely not. Aside from âAh, Robinâ played on lute over the opening, the music falls in two categories: Any music that is mise en scene - that the characters on screen would have heard - is real 16th C music. (There is a shawm band.) There is also a modern background score of which the best I can say is that it it unobtrusive. Beyond music, the BBC has gone to a staggering amount of work to get the visuals correct. Check out some of the material here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02gfy02 <http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02gfy02> Iâve also just seen the excellent Royal Shakespeare Company production. (Wolf Hall and Bring Up the Bodies - 3 hours each on the same day with a break for dinner.) Which brings up a question for Ron: Does your antipathy to historical fiction extend to the Shakespeare history plays? You could, if you like, argue that Shakespeare was a better writer than Ms. Mantel and Mike Poulton (who did the RSC adaptation) but is there any fundamental difference in what they are doing? -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
