I think the idea was that villains don’t know that they are villains; we see events from his POV, while knowing the results of his actions as seen by others and history.
Obviously yes, but as the article points out Mantel did make some claims about the potential for historical fiction to be true (see her Reith lectures).
Not sure that's putting it entirely fairly. Mantel was talking about the ability of fiction to explore the kind of truth that history cannot but was open about the difficulties. E.g. you "realize, once again, that while you were tethering part of the truth, another part of it has fled into the wild"
Let's just say that I think Mantel's version was considerably more nuanced than Duffy's is. Mantel wasn't seeking to discredit any other version. Duffy is making claims about Mantel that she can't respond to. There's a window in the evidence in which the possibility of More being a torturer exists
Confessional historiography still clinging on. (I used to do a lot of public talks on Wolf Hall and the division of audience opinion by Catholic school/not was striking.)
Comments
Looks at camera.
Disappointing to see him writing such rubbish.