A well researched book that leaves you asking more questions than when you started. Highly reccomended! ( )

http://www.slywy.com/bookreviews/who-... ( )

I picked up this text as part of a presentation requirement for a graduate seminar on The Canterbury Tales, so my intentions in reading it were largely academic in nature. The premise of the book (that is, that Chaucer himself may have been the victim of political assassination) is based on the lack of material evidence regarding Chaucer's last days, and what that lack of evidence (such as a will, funeral announcements, etc) may suggest about the poet's demise. Terry Jones and the four scholars he worked with present an interesting rereading of what is arguably a tainted history (limited records and the possibility of censorship render it difficult to gain an accurate account of the times), and situate their theories in the realm of possibility, while maintaining that speculation is all that is possible at this time.

From my perspective, Who Murdered Chaucer? is itself more speculation than scholarship, and Chaucer himself seems to often be lost among the shuffle of stories and plots (leading me to question the true focus of the book, be it Chaucer’s death, or a reexamination of the political atmosphere from which he disappeared). As a casual read, Terry Jones' publication is grossly entertaining and rewarding in terms of style and presentation, and would certainly delight any Chaucer, medieval, or Jones enthusiast. As a scholarly text, I can’t help but feel it falls short of its mark. ( )

Erudite and authorative, though at times shows the nature of co-authorship in repetition, at least for the first two thirds of the book. (No bad thing perhaps when one is new to the subject!). I am presently immersed in the denoument and cannot wait for the conclusion.

Terry Jones' wish to 'provoke debate and stimulate further study that will shed more light on this rather shady corner of history' is, for me, fulfilled. Sadly, however, much of what is available does, as Jones states, perpetuate the propaganda created by the winning side - 'Forget the traditional image of a Happy England overjoyed to see the tyrannical Richard II gone and the throne occupied by the popular and pious Henry IV.' Perhaps an era for Sharon Kay Penman's excellent skills? ( )

haven't read it yet