The Innocent is the story of the red-headed and all-round perfect peasant girl with a mysterious past Anne de Bohun and her rather ludicrous escapades through the politically tangled era of the Wars of the Roses. This is a rather peculiar book, a sort of hybrid chimera; equal parts historical fiction and trashy, melodramatic and rather depraved sexual intrigue and romance. It harbours to a certain taste for Harlequin-styled novels IMHO.
In fact, I would go so far to say that this book is absolutely TRASH-TASTIC!
This isn't a terrible book. The writing is competent and brimming with energy. Fast-paced and sharply plotted, The Innocent is a quick and easy read; nothing is over complicated. I actually read this novel in less then four days. I was genuinely gripped by the narrative and intrigue to a certain point until the story gradually petered out. So in terms of writing and pacing, I can confidently say that these were the novel's strongest characteristics.
However, in terms of plot, characterisation, generally plausibility, historical accuracy and the romantic aspects, this text falls horribly short. Spectacularly short. These various failings contributed to the low score of 2.5 stars that I gave and hampered my ability to fully enjoy or even believe the events of this novel.
Sigh.
The plot to say the least is melodramatic, anachronistic and often borders on the ridiculous. The Innocent focuses on the tumultuous life of the young Anne de Bohun as she moves from the secluded forest of her childhood to the troubled and back-stabbing royal court of King Edward IV and his Queen, Elizabeth Woodville. At times, I was required to suspend belief in various incidences.
1. the reader is asked to accept that Anne, a poor, obscure peasant girl, can read and write in French, English and Latin, has advanced knowledge of herbs and of medicine and has the ability to see into the future. Naturally, in a time when even noble women were rarely educated, we are expected to accept that Anne has been so highly educated for one so low-born. I don't need to go into detail about the seeing into the future stupidity. Its a lazy way of showing what historical events will happen.
2. In the prologue, a two women, one of whom is nine months pregnant and in labour, mount a startled war house and ride off into the night. War horses, of this era, were as big as draft horses, nearly 16 hands high. They had to be! These were the mounts that carried Knights into battle. They were often stallions and notoriously difficult to handle. The author expects us to believe that these two women successfully rode a war horse with no difficulty.
3. THIS IS HIGHLY SPOILERISH. MAJOR PLOT POINTS DISCUSSED.
ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO GO ON?
OK THEN.
Anne is revealed to be the bastard daughter of Henry VI and a noblewoman named Alyce de Bohun, born after her mother is attacked the servants of the childless Margaret of Anjou, Henry's fearsome wife. Anne is raised in secret and only learns of her heritage when it (somehow) places her in grave danger. I have several problems with this plot point. Henry VI was a timid, principled and kindly man with a strong religious bent; better suited as a monk than a king. He was a faithful husband to Margaret of Anjou and a loving father to their only child, Edward of Lancaster. The mere idea of him cheating of his wife is hard to accept. He loathed lewd talk and once fled in shock upon seeing a trope of half naked female dancers brought to entertain him. This idea of his fathering a bastard is melodramatic in the extreme and played solely for shock value. Also, the idea that a bastard of Henry VI could pose such a threat to Margaret of Anjou and then King Edward IV is utterly blown out of proportion. There is no way that Anne could have succeeded to the English throne or even posed a possible alternative as monarch. Accusations of bastardy were hurled both at Margaret of Anjou's son and Edward IV in order to claim that they had absolutely no legitimate right to the throne and to contest their status as rightful heir. Bastards were NEVER considered as viable heirs to the crown. EVER. So much of Anne's supposed importance is not possible in any aspect. To tell otherwise is historically dishonest.
The characterisation of this novel was fraught with little ambiguity and complexity. Anne and Edward IV are prime examples of this. Anne for all intents and purposes is a classic Mary-Sue; a feisty, sweet mannered and angelic red-headed young girl who is lusted after by all men and who gains the animosity of several female characters. A Mary-Sue is perfection incarnate. She can do no wrong, can perform tasks expertly and with no difficulty or practise and gains universal admiration. Anne conforms so devoutly to the Mary-Sue characteristic that I'm rather dismayed that a published author wrote such a heroine. Edward IV is another issue. The promiscuous, power-saavy, highly intelligent and charismatic king is the novels strongest character but even he suffers from weak characterisation. It was frankly aggravating to witness this play-boy of a king fall hopelessly and inexplicitly in love with Anne. I mean what did he see in Anne? They meet only a few times yet proclaimed true love and had such tearful farewells that I nearly rolled my eyes out of my head. The romance seemed so out of place and utterly unbelievable. I couldn't buy it for a second. Other characters such as the horrible sexual sadist Piers and the poor wretched Aveline are fleshed out greatly and are far more believable sadly, despite their unpleasantness and eventual ends.
The last point I'll discuss is the abundance of sex, weird BDSM practices and people watching other people doing 'it'. This, for me, was the oddest and most uncomfortable part of the book. The sex was mildly graphic and in the case of Piers and Aveline, is highly abusive and masochistic. It occurs in nearly every chapter with Piers raping Aveline regularly and sexual degrading Anne, Edward watching his friend Hastings doing it with a laundress and Anne and Edward consummating their relationship in Westminster Abbey of all places. The over reliance on sex added to the novel's detriment. I don't object to it morally, I just found the emphasis on it a bit bothersome at times.
Historically, the novel sticks to the known facts for the majority of the time. The politics is very lightly done and at times barely noticeable. I think the future King Richard III appears in one chapter. The wars of the roses and the dynastic conflicts that twisted contemporary events and caused betrayals, escapes, brutal battle, land and sea invasions are glossed over to the reader's frustration. This novel focuses on the romantic and sexual intrigue of Anne and rarely descends into political discussion. Historical romantics would probably be happier with the Innocent. I feel this would have turned into a stronger novel if the focus had been on politics instead of romance.
All in all, I give the Innocent 5/10 stars. Well-written, with a Mary-Sue character, light historical detail, rather graphic sex scenes, a discernable lack of politics and an over reliance on ridiculous plot elements, the Innocent isn't for everyone.
This is all my personal opinion.