Lollards Book

This annoyed me so much I for the first time actively challenged a writer in one of my papers. Rex has some good information, and for that reason I almost gave this two stars. But then how he uses that information holds it back (that's honestly a problem I find myself complaining about a lot. Good information but not used well. And you'll see why).

Lollardy is a really complicated topic. I just finished by BA thesis on it a last month and I'm still reeling from all the interpretations that exist. Rex's interpretation is that the Lollards weren't as important as we've made them out to be, and they've been seen as more important than they really were because too many of their texts have survived. I think that's when my brain short-circuited. A surprising number of texts from Lollards, heterodox Christians, and John Wycliffe have survived considering they were made illegal in 1407, but this is not proof to Rex that Lollardy mattered a great deal. He seems to get importance confused with effectiveness. No, there was no large scale change in English society and religion, but the smaller movement was important to its followers and detractors.

Rex's tone is obnoxiously combative throughout, especially since his goal is to disprove everybody else's interpretations. I know that part of historical research involves evaluating evidence and theories but here the author is the person who just wants to be contrary. It detracts from the usefulness of the information he has, I was able to use some of the facts in my paper but not much. I would just as soon ignore this book, unless you want to deal directly with Rex's interpretations.