Lucy Weston’s “The Secret History of Elizabeth Tudor, Vampire Slayer” – Review

Buy It Now: on Amazon.com

Book Description : On the eve of her coronation, Elizabeth Tudor is summoned to the tomb of her mother, Anne Boleyn, to learn the truth about her bloodline – and her destiny as a Slayer. Born to battle the bloodsucking fiends who ravage the the night, and sworn to defend her beloved realm against all enemies, Elizabeth soon finds herself stalked by the most dangerous and seductive vampire of all.

He is Mordred, bastard son King Arthur, who sold his soul to destroy his father. After centuries in hiding, he has arisen, determined to rule a world of eternal night and to claim the young Elizabeth as his Queen. Horrified by his enticements of everlasting beauty and protection from all enemies, Elizabeth embraces her powers as a Slayer even as she realizes that the greatest danger comes from her own secret desire to yield…to bare her throat in ecstasy and allow the vampire king to drink deeply of her royal blood.

This review is based upon a free copy from the publisher.

StrangenessAbound’s Review:

Having just come out of a graduate course in which I read The Faerie Queene by Edward Spenser, I felt that continuing the theme of Elizabethan-era-style literature with Lucy Weston’s The Secret History of Elizabeth Tudor, Vampire Slayer, would be appropriate.

Unfortunately, after finishing Elizabeth Tudor, Vampire Slayer, I decided I didn’t care for the main protagonist and narrator, Queen Elizabeth. She was portrayed as narcisstic, self-obsessed and obsessed with her lover, Robin Dudley, childish and frankly, she was described in such general terms that she could have been easily exchanged for any other character, even an original character. What irritated me was that there was hardly any depth to her character, and when irritating character is the central protagonist, the story is in trouble. I was expecting her to embark upon a journey of questioning her faith/religion, who she was as a person and her role in the greater universe, but it was perfectly clear that she was the universe and that she had no intention of growing as a person. She ended up in the same place that she began. I did not appreciate the fact that her powers in killing vampires were described in such general terms that I was bored with Elizabeth “summoning a bolt of power.” Additionally, she seemed to pick advisers who were portrayed as bumbling and utterly useless to her.

In fact, I ended up not caring for any of the characters in Elizabeth Tudor, Vampire Slayer, except for one: Sir Mordred of Arthurian legend fame. This guy stole the show, in my opinion. He put fantastic ambiguity into the story and I just loved him. I would have preferred to see the entire story written from his viewpoint. If Weston could have written it entirely from his angle, the execution of the story and the lack of solid, identifiable characters probably wouldn’t have suffered as badly.

Technically speaking, the writing style is stilted and an odd mix of modern day and Elizabethan era language. I’m speaking from a purist’s angle, but for me, the mix doesn’t work and put me off. When I edit other people’s papers or books, if I catch a sentence that I have to read several times in order to get the gist, I ask that person to revise it. There were many sentences that I had to read several times in order to understand in Elizabeth Tudor, Vampire Slayer, and it wasn’t because I was reading too fast – that’s simply how they were constructed. I think it would have been best for Weston to study Elizabethan era writing syntax before writing Elizabeth Tudor, Vampire Slayer. What killed the writing style so much for me was that it was all written in present tense, though in diary format. The diary format could have worked, but the present tense did not. I have only seen one example of present tense working fantastically, and Elizabeth Tudor, Vampire Slayer, is not that example.

And (again, speaking from a purist’s point of view) the historical inaccuracies and the inaccuracies in the way the Arthurian legends are retold ground my gears. If I remember correctly, Le Morte d’Arthur says that Sir Mordred, King Arthur’s son, was also Arthur’s half-sister’s son. In Elizabeth Tudor, Vampire Slayer, Mordred states that he was born of a woman who was Arthur’s paramour before Arthur met Guinevere.

In spite of that, this is one hell of a story. The ending was fairly anti-climatic and abruptly ended without any real resolution, but the progression of the story, with the brief insertions of Mordred’s point of view, was good.

So borrow Elizabeth Tudor, Vampire Slayer from a friend if they happen to have it, or read it all in one sitting at your local library. It’s worth reading for Mordred’s story angle, but Elizabeth Tudor, Vampire Slayer was not a cerebral or memorable read for me.