May / Historical Fiction Reading: Wolf Hall

[Scheherazade]

In May we will be reading Wolf Hall by Hilary Mantel.

Please post your views and questions in this thread.

[Paulclem]

The style is unusual and takes alittle getting used to at first - she leaves you wondering what is happening and who it concerns, but it becomes apparent as you read through the passages. It's an interesting technique.

[Dark Muse]

One of the things which most particularly bothered me about this book is that in the authors efforts to make Cromwell a sympathetic character it seemed she simply tried to make all the other characters as unlikable as possible thus trying to make Cromwell look better by compression.

And while certainty all the individuals involved leave me with mixed feelings and behaved in ways that are not altogether to be approved of, Mantel it seems simply highlights all of the flaws of Cromwell's enemies, while using an airbrush over his own flaws, and that of his companions and enemies. As well she tries to pass Wolsey off as being a completely innocent victim of the whims of Anne and Henry.

There was too much one sidedness in it for me, that the characters came off as a bit flat, because she does not explore the complexity of the personalities involved. She only displays them as she wants the reader to see them instead of letting the reader come to their own conclusions.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I'll be starting this later this week. It'll be interesting, as historical fiction from this time period usually doesn't interest me unless it has dragons and wizards and stuff, so we'll see.

[Emmy Castrol]

I’ve just started and read the first 17 pages. It is surprisingly easy to read for what is supposed to be such a great book which makes me suspicious… easy reading usually indicates little originality of thought. Notice how the very best of writers take ages to read because you have to pay careful attention to the original way they have of structuring their sentences?
But maybe Wolf Hall will prove the pattern in my reading experience wrong.

[kasie]

I have generously loaned my copy to my sister-in-law so I will not be able to read alongside all of you - please forgive me if I make a comment that is way off the mark - I may be relying on a faulty memory of my reading last year.

Paul: One of my friends returned the book to me unread - she said she kept getting confused with all the 'Thomas' characters! She wondered why Mantell couldn't have given different names.... I did wonder myself why Thomas was such a popular name in those days - anything to do with Thomas a Beckett, perhaps?

Muse: Well, he is the 'Hero', after all! And maybe it's good, once in a while, to review previously held assessments of historical characters. I must admit I was shocked at what an unpleasant man More is shown to be - then I thought that maybe he wasn't necessarily the saint he's always portrayed as being. It must be very difficult living with a man who knows he's right all the time.

Emmy: That's quite a wide generalisation - had you any particular authors in mind? I find that once I have tuned in to an author's 'voice', I can manage most of them fluently enough.

[TheFifthElement]

I've started reading today. Looking forward to a good discussion :)

[Brock]

My copy won't arrive till Thursday! (Is it just me, or is Amazon's Super Saver Delivery getting slower?).

[Dark Muse]

Muse: Well, he is the 'Hero', after all! And maybe it's good, once in a while, to review previously held assessments of historical characters. I must admit I was shocked at what an unpleasant man More is shown to be - then I thought that maybe he wasn't necessarily the saint he's always portrayed as being. It must be very difficult living with a man who knows he's right all the time.

Yes I did try to make allowance for that fact and took it into consideration. But I generally prefer characters who are shown as being more black and white.

I myself am no great fan of More and certainly he is not the Saint in which many people may portray him, but nor do I think he can be seen as being the complete tyrant that Mantel displays him as.

And personally I think an author is far more successful if they are able to make a character appear sympathetic while still displaying them in both thier flaws as well as thier virtues, and showing them as they are, as a flawed human who perhaps may have been unfairly demonized. Opposed to trying to "force" the reader into liking a character simply by showing them in only thier good points, and trying to make them look better in comparison, becasue everyone else around them is painted as appearing so much worse.

[Paulclem]

Weren't all the players in the court of good King Henry Machiavellien? I think they must have been in order to survive for as long as they did whilst still rising through the ranks.

The dissolution of the monasteries is seen as a black chapter in the history of England, and Henry's motives were clearly financial, yet the church, as it was with all the abuse of power that went on then - relic sales, blessings etc, was not the innocent party. In fact - as usual, although the context is religious, it's really all about power.

I like the narrative structure - the use of the present tense seems to have the effect of revealing the action rather than reflecting back on it. Would you agree with that? I'm trying to put my finger on the effect it has upon my reading.

I also like the sparse narrative that does make you work, as perhaps Kasie's friend indicated. It seems to drop you in the middle of the action, but I like this technique as I've got used to it.

[Emmy Castrol]

I do find the present tense is effective, as it draws me into the story better. That might be what contributes to its easy reading and have to admit that it's a good choice considering the setting.

Kasie, I had been thinking of a few years back when I was reading Graham Greene's Brighton Rock the same time as Daphne Du Maurier's Jamaica Inn and was surprised to find that it took me five times as long to read Brighton Rock though it has less pages than Jamaica Inn. I wondered why and that's when I first realised how a writer's choice of words within a sentence, especially if it has not been structured conventionally, can affect the amount of concentration required to read it.

[kasie]

Paul: yes my friend was unwell at the time, I think it was all a bit too much for her. I liked the present tense - I felt it had the effect of putting the reader right into the heart of the action. I thought it maybe tried for the effect that the author, like the protagonists, didn't know what was coming next but living through the events as they they were, as sort of Real Time effect.

Muse: I wonder if Mantell is going to undermine this impression of Cromwell as the story proceeds (possibly into the next book - I understand she plans to continue with a second book).

Emmy: I take your point though I think Paul's point about revealing the action is a good one. Incidentally, (and this is quite off-topic, so please forgive me!) my Dad was living in Brighton at the time Brighton Rock is set: I passed on the book to him when I had read it and he gleefully told me much of it was true, the gang fights etc. He did hasten to add that he and most of his mates disappeared swiftly down side alleys when the action started!

[Dark Muse]

Muse: I wonder if Mantell is going to undermine this impression of Cromwell as the story proceeds (possibly into the next book - I understand she plans to continue with a second book).

When I finished this book I thought it ended in a way that suggested a sequel and I had wondered if indeed she had any such plans. In spite of some of my criticisms about the book I will be looking forward to reading the next on, for there were things I did enjoy about it.

[Paulclem]

This thread looks as if it will be interesting.:yesnod:

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I'm going to start it tonight. I'll probably jump in on the conversation once I'm a quarter of the way through it. I think I can trust these forums enough to not have to worry about untagged spoilers.

[Brock]

Got my copy today. I will also be starting it tonight.

[dfloyd]

How can a book which is totally history with all characters being historical characters, have spoilers. This is more of a history lesson written from a different viewpoint than a novel. If you were reading a book about Lincoln, would you consider discussing his assassination a spoiler? Anyone with a shred of English history of the time of Henry VIII knows the wives he had executed along with his two chancellors: Thomas More and Thomas Cromwell.

Again, this is not a historical novel ala Daphne Dumaurier, but history from a viewpoint. Mantel spent hour upon hour researching her book so that when she presents a conversation which takes place on a certain day, the reader can be assured that the people having the dialogue could actually have been together at the time the author picks.

[Dark Muse]

How can a book which is totally history with all characters being historical characters, have spoilers. This is more of a history lesson written from a different viewpoint than a novel. If you were reading a book about Lincoln, would you consider discussing his assassination a spoiler? Anyone with a shred of English history of the time of Henry VIII knows the wives he had executed along with his two chancellors: Thomas More and Thomas Cromwell.

Again, this is not a historical novel ala Daphne Dumaurier, but history from a viewpoint. Mantel spent hour upon hour researching her book so that when she presents a conversation which takes place on a certain day, the reader can be assured that the people having the dialogue could actually have been together at the time the author picks.

LOL I had the same thought. In reading this book, if you know anything of the histrocial background, than nothing which happens in the book can really surprsie you. I cannot imagine that this book could really have spoilers unless someone really is not familair with the history behind the book.

[Paulclem]

I disagree about it being a history lesson from a different viewpoint. The histroy is merely the context, the setting. The rest is surely fiction - the dialogue, the fleshed in parts of the autobiography, the reflections of Cromwell, the tone of the interactions.

I think a little knowledge would help in reading the book though.

[Dark Muse]

I disagree about it being a history lesson from a different viewpoint. The histroy is merely the context, the setting. The rest is surely fiction - the dialogue, the fleshed in parts of the autobiography, the reflections of Cromwell, the tone of the interactions.

I think a little knowledge would help in reading the book though.

Yes I think most of what we see of Cromwell's family life, and his interactions with various characters within the book, while there may be some things of which we may know from certain historical evidence, a lot I think is speculation and the authors own vision of the character. The events and some of the conversations, meetings, may be known fact, but I do not think we can altogether know their personality and certainly not their thoughts nor can we know every private conversation they may have had.

[Paulclem]

Do you like the play technique she uses with Cromwell and Cavendish at Esher? Not only do we get Cromwell and cavendish's interaction and an indication of their attitudes, but we also get the relation of the events that Cavendish is describing to Cromwell. Effective.

[dfloyd]

on dvd. It was interesting in that the movie gave a face to all the historical characters of the book. The Tudors is a little ahead of the book in that Cromwell is executed at the end of the next to last season. If Mantel does finish the story. I can compare the book version with the movie version.

The movie is fairly accurate with the major exception in that Henry VIII is a lithsome, good-looking King. In actuality, Henry had bloomed up to more than 300 pounds when he married Catherine Howard whom he executed for treaon (adultery) along with her lover, courtier Culpepper. Catherine had been raised with loose morals so after dallying with several men before meeting Henry, she just continued on with her dalliance with Culpepper. It is said she practiced kneeling and putting her head on the block all the night before her execution.

Next, the movie tells us how Cromwell's involvement in the court politics led to his downfall. Cromwell wanted the protestant reformation to continue onward so he found a new wife for Henry with the German Lutheran, Anne of Cleves. Cromwell was trying to place England in the foreground of the Reformation by allying England with Germany against France and Spain. However, Cromwell didn't reckon on the fact that Anne was repugnant to Henry. Henry never consummated the marriage, and divorced Anne six months later, giving her properties and leaving her well off. While not a reason for divorce, Henry said she had a peculiar odor abiut her, perhaps from eating onions. From then on, he referred to Anne as his sister.

With Cromwell in disfavor with the king, his enemies, the other advisors of the king, moved rapidly to have Cromwell sent to the tower. All of Henry's advisors were of royalty with Cromwell being the lone commoner. His low birth was a factor in rallying te royals against him. He was executed 30 days after Henry's divorce from Anne of Cleves.This was a time of court cabals to see who would gain the greatest favor with the king. If Mantel does write a sequal, it is bound to fimd readers awaiting it

While Cromwell lost his head to the king, a later Cromwell- Oliver - was to have a king's head - Charles I.This Cromwell was to govern England as lord protector, eventually dying before the monarchy was reinstituted under Charles II. Not to be outdone by the king killer Oliver Cromwell - a diect descendent of Thomas Cromwell's' sister - Charles II had Cromwell's corpse dug up and hung in chains at Tyburn gate. Obviously the English didn't have such nicesity of manners then as they exhibit today.

[Paulclem]

Anne was repugnant to Henry

He apparently called her The Mare of Flanders which was harsh.

[dfloyd]

money and houses on Anne. He couldn't send a German Princess to the Tower. But Anne did not live very long to enjoy her riches, dying in her early 40s. Henry could not have been very attractive either with his continually seeping leg wound from his jousting accident.

I'm going to have to see if I can get the old Charles Laughton movie of The Wives of Henry VIII. Laughton had the right build to play Henry.

[kasie]

Please take The Tudors with a huge pinch of salt, dfloyd. I watched the first series with growing frustration - there were so many gaffes and elision of events, I was almost throwing things at the screen. I couldn't bring myself to watch the subsequent series. It's a story based on history, the drama is more important than historical accuracy.

[wessexgirl]

on dvd. It was interesting in that the movie gave a face to all the historical characters of the book. The Tudors is a little ahead of the book in that Cromwell is executed at the end of the next to last season. If Mantel does finish the story. I can compare the book version with the movie version.

The movie is fairly accurate with the major exception in that Henry VIII is a lithsome, good-looking King. In actuality, Henry had bloomed up to more than 300 pounds when he married Catherine Howard whom he executed for treaon (adultery) along with her lover, courtier Culpepper. Catherine had been raised with loose morals so after dallying with several men before meeting Henry, she just continued on with her dalliance with Culpepper. It is said she practiced kneeling and putting her head on the block all the night before her execution.

Next, the movie tells us how Cromwell's involvement in the court politics led to his downfall. Cromwell wanted the protestant reformation to continue onward so he found a new wife for Henry with the German Lutheran, Anne of Cleves. Cromwell was trying to place England in the foreground of the Reformation by allying England with Germany against France and Spain. However, Cromwell didn't reckon on the fact that Anne was repugnant to Henry. Henry never consummated the marriage, and divorced Anne six months later, giving her properties and leaving her well off. While not a reason for divorce, Henry said she had a peculiar odor abiut her, perhaps from eating onions. From then on, he referred to Anne as his sister.

With Cromwell in disfavor with the king, his enemies, the other advisors of the king, moved rapidly to have Cromwell sent to the tower. All of Henry's advisors were of royalty with Cromwell being the lone commoner. His low birth was a factor in rallying te royals against him. He was executed 30 days after Henry's divorce from Anne of Cleves.This was a time of court cabals to see who would gain the greatest favor with the king. If Mantel does write a sequal, it is bound to fimd readers awaiting it

While Cromwell lost his head to the king, a later Cromwell- Oliver - was to have a king's head - Charles I.This Cromwell was to govern England as lord protector, eventually dying before the monarchy was reinstituted under Charles II. Not to be outdone by the king killer Oliver Cromwell - a diect descendent of Thomas Cromwell's' sister - Charles II had Cromwell's corpse dug up and hung in chains at Tyburn gate. Obviously the English didn't have such nicesity of manners then as they exhibit today.

Are you having a laugh? :willy_nilly: As Kasie says, take the series with a whole salt cellar of salt, in fact, a sack........

I too gave up on the series after the first few episodes. I don't mind a bit of artistic license, but it was a joke. By all means use movies to spark your interest in something, but don't rely on it for "real" history.

I'm hoping to join in on this one, as I've just finished my previous huge book, and have Wolf Hall sitting here waiting. As I am a great fan of Mantel anyway, I'm looking forward to this.

[Paulclem]

I didn't watch the Tudors either. History it is not, but what gets me most with a lot of historical dramas are the anachronistic phrases they use.

Anyway, in Wolf Hall, mantel has a very good mythic theme running through it concerning the ancient mytical history of England, and the descent of Kings from serpents.

I've also been trying to pin down the narrative style. It's not stream of consciousness, but it has elements of that within it. Sometimes you are observing Cromwell, sometimes a party to his thoughts,though the structure, whilst it can be a bit confusing, is very good at linking Cromwell's own experiences with the current events.

[Dark Muse]

I have to say I do not let inaccuracies in movies or books bother me that much as I think it is called Historical "Fiction" for a reason, and so I think a certain creative liberalness with the facts can be allowed in the name of producing a good and interesting story. I do not think our movies and novels should be held to the same standards as a text book.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well, thanks for spoiling the book. I know Henry the VIII had his wives beheaded, but I didn't know he did with Thomas Cromwell. I didn't watch the Tudors and have never had much interest in English history, so I'm not very familiar with it, at all. I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of it, as I was going to post how, after being about a quarter of the way through the book, I was still waiting for something interesting to happen.

And, why is this even considered historical fiction is it's all based on what actually happened? Am I missing the 'fiction' part?

[Dark Muse]

And, why is this even considered historical fiction is it's all based on what actually happened? Am I missing the 'fiction' part?

Here are my reasons for why it is Fiction:


Yes I think most of what we see of Cromwell's family life, and his interactions with various characters within the book, while there may be some things of which we may know from certain historical evidence, a lot I think is speculation and the authors own vision of the character. The events and some of the conversations, meetings, may be known fact, but I do not think we can altogether know their personality and certainly not their thoughts nor can we know every private conversation they may have had.

There are things that occur within the book that are not necessarily based on pure historical fact as for example I do not think it is a historical fact that Mary Boleyn ever showed any interest in possible marrying Cromwell. I think that is just an invention of the author. And I do not think we truly can know just what More of Cromwell were like in their home life and how they really acted around their families. And of course when it comes to the dialogue, we cannot truly know every single word that was actually spoken.

[Paulclem]

Well, thanks for spoiling the book. I know Henry the VIII had his wives beheaded, but I didn't know he did with Thomas Cromwell. I didn't watch the Tudors and have never had much interest in English history, so I'm not very familiar with it, at all. I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of it, as I was going to post how, after being about a quarter of the way through the book, I was still waiting for something interesting to happen.

And, why is this even considered historical fiction is it's all based on what actually happened? Am I missing the 'fiction' part?

It really doesn't matter about what the ending is. In fact I think Dark has indicated that Mantel may write another book to follow Wolf hall which may deal with that aspect.

The history is just the setting, as Dark has indicated. The details of the story are surely unknown. It's the same as taking a journey. You may know the destination, but the interesting bit is how to you get there. The other thing is that Mantel is employing a very interesteting narrative style - just contrast it with a conventional narrative tha you would get in a 19th C novel. I think the discussion is going to be illuminating.

Don't let a little spoiler put you off.

[dfloyd]

But the basic happenings did happen. The divorce of Henry from Catherine of Aragon, the confiscation of church property, the beheading of two wives plus the beheading of two Chancellors all happened. Poetic license was taken and characters were invented, but these didn't bother me that much. Henry's physique did bother me somewhat when I knew from Hobein pictures that Henry was actually very fat.

Even though the actor didn't resemble Henry at all, he was good at portraying the much married king. Maybe Henry said that happilly married is an oxymoron.

One thing I tried to find out about was the execution of Cromwell. Purportedly, the executioner was bought large quantities of wine the night before the execution by some other of the king's advisors. Consequently, he was still inebriated at the execution and tried three times to knock off Cromwell's head before a tower guard took over and severed his head. Sometimes it is suggested historically when an execution is botched, but I couldn't find anything on this.

When you allow a movie to excite your passion when not in compliance with historical fact, you limit your enjoyment. As long as events are chronologically corect, I overlook the small things inserted for dramatic effect.

[Paulclem]

It's the feeling that it's all happening today, except with the dressing up. It's such an interesting period, and that comes through the whole culture and worldview which is completely different to now. There's no effort to accomodate that. It's one of the things i dislike about such inaccuracies - it's all pandering to audience, all in their terms so that there no effort by the audience to understand the time and how different it was. It's lazy, and builds a false impression about what it was all about.

Hollywood is similar. How many people have been deluded by the image of a knight being hoisted onto a horse in Henry V. It's nonsense. A knight's armour was no heavier than the packs carried by modern soldiers.

[Emmy Castrol]

Emmy: I take your point though I think Paul's point about revealing the action is a good one. Incidentally, (and this is quite off-topic, so please forgive me!) my Dad was living in Brighton at the time Brighton Rock is set: I passed on the book to him when I had read it and he gleefully told me much of it was true, the gang fights etc. He did hasten to add that he and most of his mates disappeared swiftly down side alleys when the action started!

How interesting, I never knew it was based on true events although I should have expected it. I love Graham Greene, only he can describe the act of walking down a street to make it sound like a painful experience! If only I didn't feel like killing myself after finishing any single one of his books...



Anyway, in Wolf Hall, mantel has a very good mythic theme running through it concerning the ancient mytical history of England, and the descent of Kings from serpents.

I've also been trying to pin down the narrative style. It's not stream of consciousness, but it has elements of that within it. Sometimes you are observing Cromwell, sometimes a party to his thoughts,though the structure, whilst it can be a bit confusing, is very good at linking Cromwell's own experiences with the current events.

I like the mythical references too, makes it feel as if Mantel has managed to incorporate a complete mythical history of England up to the Tudor period.

I've been thinking about the narrative style too. I find present tense third person is very similar to first person. We really only see things from Cromwell's point of view. What I find the present tense third person does add is a sensual description of events where the protagonist may not be conscious to it - a kind of 'subconscious' filler.


Well, thanks for spoiling the book. I know Henry the VIII had his wives beheaded, but I didn't know he did with Thomas Cromwell.

I didn't think there could be a spoiler but I too didn't know about Thomas Cromwell's ultimate beheading. I wish I hadn't known, at least until I finished Wolf Hall, because it affected how I saw his character thereafter. Here I was thinking what a reasonable, practical, shrewd person he is but the fact that even he couldn't escape the executioner's axe made me try to seek for the flaws in him and the other characters that could have led to that fate, kind of dampened it a bit for me.


It's the feeling that it's all happening today, except with the dressing up. It's such an interesting period, and that comes through the whole culture and worldview which is completely different to now. There's no effort to accomodate that.

I don't know about that... for me, I find the dialogue is a bit weak, in regards to how authentic it comes across as representative of the Tudor period. I still feel as if they could be talking like how we do today. I do understand historical speech may be very difficult to imitate and writers either have the knack or they don't. Georgette Heyer was very good at replicating the way people spoke in the Regency period. Perhaps after reading Georgette Heyer, I find it hard to believe that the speech of the Tudor period, as how Mantel paints it, could be more similar to current times than the Regency period that came after.

But I guess Mantel should be allowed one weakness in her storytelling ability considering how well she's done everything else. She makes up for her weak dialogue (or disguises it anyway) with her insight on how what occupied the Tudor mind. I find their obsession with purgatory silly (with the help of hindsight) but I suppose they really took it seriously in their day.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

It really doesn't matter about what the ending is. In fact I think Dark has indicated that Mantel may write another book to follow Wolf hall which may deal with that aspect.

The history is just the setting, as Dark has indicated. The details of the story are surely unknown. It's the same as taking a journey. You may know the destination, but the interesting bit is how to you get there. The other thing is that Mantel is employing a very interesteting narrative style - just contrast it with a conventional narrative tha you would get in a 19th C novel. I think the discussion is going to be illuminating.

Don't let a little spoiler put you off.

Meh. Too late, I've already moved on. And the present tense was clever, but not particularly engrossing, for me.

[TheFifthElement]

Well I'm about half way through and finding it an enjoyable and easy read. I suppose it helps that the history is so familiar, but even so there are times where I get a little bit lost over who's speaking and how it all fits in. Mantel has an engaging way of writing. It's an interesting view on Cromwell's rise to power. If she writes a follow up, I'd definitely be interested in reading it.

Other than that the only problem with discussing this as a book club book is that there doesn't seem to be a great deal to say! The history is a known element, so all that's left really is the fiction. I too have enjoyed the weaving of myth and legend into the history.

As regards the 'sympathy' towards Cromwell, well I wonder how much this is influenced by Mantel's own rejection of the Catholic church? Cromwell was instrumental in Britain's break from the Catholic church, and perhaps, in writing his story, she is also addressing her own break from the church? I wouldn't be too surprised if there was some influence there.

Interestingly, Mantel was born in the same town I grew up in. So far, for a little town, it's growing a crop of pretty decent writers (Mantel / Steven Hall). Can it grow a third? (probably not :D).

[Paulclem]

I don't know about that... for me, I find the dialogue is a bit weak, in regards to how authentic it comes across as representative of the Tudor period. I still feel as if they could be talking like how we do today. I do understand historical speech may be very difficult to imitate and writers either have the knack or they don't. Georgette Heyer was very good at replicating the way people spoke in the Regency period. Perhaps after reading Georgette Heyer, I find it hard to believe that the speech of the Tudor period, as how Mantel paints it, could be more similar to current times than the Regency period that came after.

But I guess Mantel should be allowed one weakness in her storytelling ability considering how well she's done everything else. She makes up for her weak dialogue (or disguises it anyway) with her insight on how what occupied the Tudor mind. I find their obsession with purgatory silly (with the help of hindsight) but I suppose they really took it seriously in their day.

I suppose it's a balancing act. I agree that the dialogue is in the modern idiom, but there are no anachronistic phrases in it, and there are plenty of references to the 16th c idiom, and old fashioned 16th C at that. I like her references to "By the Mass" which Cromwell considers to be an old expression. I know the dialogue isn't authentic, otherwise it would be pre-Shakespearian, and she wants to communicate the story easily. I think she gets the balance right though.

Incidentally, my Dad used to say, i the Yorkshire idiom, "Tha'll go t'Mass" meaning you'll go to mass in church, as a kind of threat. I wonder if that phrase has stayed in the Yorkshire lingo all this time.

My cousins, who are from South Yorkshire, still say thee and thou. They are from an old mining community where these expressions seem to have survived. The film "Kes" shows this in the speech of the kids.

[Paulclem]

As regards the 'sympathy' towards Cromwell, well I wonder how much this is influenced by Mantel's own rejection of the Catholic church? Cromwell was instrumental in Britain's break from the Catholic church, and perhaps, in writing his story, she is also addressing her own break from the church? I wouldn't be too surprised if there was some influence there.

Interestingly, Mantel was born in the same town I grew up in. So far, for a little town, it's growing a crop of pretty decent writers (Mantel / Steven Hall). Can it grow a third? (probably not :D).

I didn't know that. Interesting. it might be why she focused upon Cromwell as the cynical critic of the monasteries. Certainly there was a rampant exploitation of relics etc.

Where I'm from - Wakefield - we have a Chantry on a bridge - hence the name Chantry Bridge. When I lived there I never knew that it was for the saying of masses for the dead. In the book Cromwell pays for them for his parents, Liz and the children.

http://rpmedia.ask.com/ts?u=/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/Chantry_Bridge.JPG/180px-Chantry_Bridge.JPG

There could be more. Weren't you going to write something?

[Emmy Castrol]

Other than that the only problem with discussing this as a book club book is that there doesn't seem to be a great deal to say! The history is a known element, so all that's left really is the fiction. I too have enjoyed the weaving of myth and legend into the history.

There's a lot of the fiction element that can be discussed - the language, memorable scenes, our favourite characters, etc. Also, because I don't live in and wasn't brought up in the UK, I actually only have a very basic knowledge of the history behind it, so I welcome any historical input... even if it's to tell me that Cromwell gets his head chopped off in the end!

Where's everyone else up to in their reading? Anyone up for doing a chapter by chapter analysis and discussion of Wolf Hall?


As regards the 'sympathy' towards Cromwell, well I wonder how much this is influenced by Mantel's own rejection of the Catholic church? Cromwell was instrumental in Britain's break from the Catholic church, and perhaps, in writing his story, she is also addressing her own break from the church? I wouldn't be too surprised if there was some influence there.

Interesting, I think you've got something there, I wouldn't be surprised at that. Perhaps that explains how she was able to get into Cromwell's character so well.


Interestingly, Mantel was born in the same town I grew up in. So far, for a little town, it's growing a crop of pretty decent writers (Mantel / Steven Hall). Can it grow a third? (probably not :D).

You never know! I would say that increases your chances ;)

[Dark Muse]

There's a lot of the fiction element that can be discussed - the language, memorable scenes, our favourite characters, etc. Also, because I don't live in and wasn't brought up in the UK, I actually only have a very basic knowledge of the history behind it, so I welcome any historical input... even if it's to tell me that Cromwell gets his head chopped off in the end!

In attempting to view the characters within the context of this story, and trying not to consider too much the actual historical figures, I cannot say that I truly had any favorite characters.

The way in which I felt as if Mantel was trying to force me into liking Cromwell, and how biased she was against everyone else, ended up turning me against him and rebelling against her attempts to make him the sympathetic hero of the story.

I have to say that I did at moments quite like his son George and Rafe I kind of liked.

And I find it near impossible not to admire, respect and sympathize with Queen Katharine she alone I think was truly an honest victim.

[Paulclem]

The other interesting thing is how our cultural experiences colour our views of the characters. Anne Boleyn has generally been portraid as a sympathetic character in films and dramas, whereas Mantel goes against this. Moore - and I'm thinking of A Man foe All Seasons - was also portrayed in a positive light, but comes over as a cruel and dogmatic fanatic.

[Dark Muse]

The other interesting thing is how our cultural experiences colour our views of the characters. Anne Boleyn has generally been portraid as a sympathetic character in films and dramas, whereas Mantel goes against this. Moore - and I'm thinking of A Man foe All Seasons - was also portrayed in a positive light, but comes over as a cruel and dogmatic fanatic.

I have to disagree with Anne being portrayed as sympathetic, but perhaps she has been in the other things you have seen or read, but I have to say in both The Tudors, and The Other Boleyn girl I would not say that the portrait of her is truly all that sympathetic.

The thing that surprised me more is her portrayal of Mary Boleyn whom usually is portrayed as being more innocent, and victim to the manipulations of her family and the ambition of her family and her sister, and as someone who was pushed into this position against her will. But Mantel makes her come across as being something of an air headed whore.

[TheFifthElement]

The way in which I felt as if Mantel was trying to force me into liking Cromwell, and how biased she was against everyone else, ended up turning me against him and rebelling against her attempts to make him the sympathetic hero of the story.



Maybe I'm missing something, but I've not picked up on any apparent 'bias' against any other characters. Wolsey was presented more sympathetically than I've encountered previously, representations of More have been quite balanced - the impression I get is that Cromwell grudging likes him whilst considering him an enemy. I get the similar feeling from representations of Chapuyes too. The only characters which seem to have been harshly represented are those of Anne and, perhaps, Stephen Gardiner, but even there it's not direct, more an acknowledgement of Gardiner as a threat.

Do you have any specific examples of where the bias comes through?

In terms of representing Cromwell sympathetically, Mantel states that her intention was to flesh out the man from the charicature he'd become. From the interview in the back of my copy:


I think Cromwell's been given a very hard time by writers. In fiction and drama he's been caricatured as an evil figure in a black cloak, lurking in the wings with dishonourable intentions. In biography his essential self is missing, because his private life is almost entirely off record.

David Starkey's phrase works wonderfully (Note - David Starkey referred to Cromwell as 'Alistair Campbell with an axe') to alert you to Cromwell's role as a propagandist for Henry, but Cromwell was a lot more subtle than Alistair Campbell - or at least more subtle than the popular picture of Alistair Campbell suggests. Cromwell didn't deploy his heavy artillary unless he needed to. He was a persuader, negotiator and, to a degree, a compromiser.

I think the picture darkened with the Victorians. Cromwell's image hasn't always been bad: in Elizabethan legend and literature he was a hero, but to the Victorians he presented a problem. He wasn't a varsity man. Historians couldn't get their heads around the idea of a member of the lower orders rising so high in the hierarchy. There was a sentimentality about the medieval world, with Cromwell seem as one of its destroyers. The idea persists today.

Certainly what Cromwell achieved, in the light of the age in which he lived, is extraordinary. The idea that a commoner could become the King's right hand man, could rise from nothing to become the Earl of Essex, is nothing short of miraculous. It is hard, I think, for us to appreciate in our present time how unlikely such a rise was.

[Paulclem]

I have to disagree with Anne being portrayed as sympathetic, but perhaps she has been in the other things you have seen or read, but I have to say in both The Tudors, and The Other Boleyn girl I would not say that the portrait of her is truly all that sympathetic.

The thing that surprised me more is her portrayal of Mary Boleyn whom usually is portrayed as being more innocent, and victim to the manipulations of her family and the ambition of her family and her sister, and as someone who was pushed into this position against her will. But Mantel makes her come across as being something of an air headed whore.

On Anne, it will depend upon what we've seen. I distinctly remember people -girls - regarding Anne Boleyn as the wronged woman/ romantic figure. You did get people dressing up as her - including one of our cousins when she was in her teens - in the seventies. It might be a case of cultural revision with new dramas about her recently - which I haven't seen.

The romantic view of her might have been perpetuated by her daughter Elizabeth 1st. It is funny though seeing as she usurped a legitimate Queen, but had this romantic myth attached to her. I think we underestimate the almost subliminal messages we get about historical figures from the multitudes of influences we come across.

Oliver Cromwell is another example of someone whose reputation has always been portrayed as bad against the backdrop of the royal restoration. As kids we just assumed that the roundheads were the baddies.

[wessexgirl]

On Anne, it will depend upon what we've seen. I distinctly remember people -girls - regarding Anne Boleyn as the wronged woman/ romantic figure. You did get people dressing up as her - including one of our cousins when she was in her teens - in the seventies. It might be a case of cultural revision with new dramas about her recently - which I haven't seen.

The romantic view of her might have been perpetuated by her daughter Elizabeth 1st. It is funny though seeing as she usurped a legitimate Queen, but had this romantic myth attached to her. I think we underestimate the almost subliminal messages we get about historical figures from the multitudes of influences we come across.

Oliver Cromwell is another example of someone whose reputation has always been portrayed as bad against the backdrop of the royal restoration. As kids we just assumed that the roundheads were the baddies.

Not me Paul :nono:. I've always been sympathetic to Cromwell, (Oliver, as I never really took much notice of Thomas until now). I was probably quite a rarity though. It all depends on which historians you read, and there are those who are sympathetic to Olly. I studied this period in my degree, and I remember reading huge amounts on the Civil War, but I can't tell you without checking back (senior moment :blush:) who was the best to read, but there's lots on him. I think (could be wrong) but the late Barry Coward was an authority on him with a sympathetic, or should I say, more balanced view. Then again, I may have misremembered. I should dig out all my old books. I always cringe when I hear people condemning him for being an uptight killjoy. Not true. I've recently learned that one of the signatories to the execution of Charles had my surname, and came from a part of the country where my family originated from. I'm desperate to find out more, as perhaps my sympathy for the Parliamentarians comes from being a distant ancestor.....:smilewinkgrin:

[Paulclem]

Not me Paul :nono:. I've always been sympathetic to Cromwell, (Oliver, as I never really took much notice of Thomas until now). I was probably quite a rarity though. It all depends on which historians you read, and there are those who are sympathetic to Olly. I studied this period in my degree, and I remember reading huge amounts on the Civil War, but I can't tell you without checking back (senior moment :blush:) who was the best to read, but there's lots on him. I think (could be wrong) but the late Barry Coward was an authority on him with a sympathetic, or should I say, more balanced view. Then again, I may have misremembered. I should dig out all my old books. I always cringe when I hear people condemning him for being an uptight killjoy. Not true. I've recently learned that one of the signatories to the execution of Charles had my surname, and came from a part of the country where my family originated from. I'm desperate to find out more, as perhaps my sympathy for the Parliamentarians comes from being a distant ancestor.....:smilewinkgrin:

I know. later as i became more aware of the history, i realised that Cromwell has been stitched up by history. He's referred to as banning fun - that type of thing, but luckily for us, he did change the system.

[Dark Muse]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I've not picked up on any apparent 'bias' against any other characters. Wolsey was presented more sympathetically than I've encountered previously, representations of More have been quite balanced - the impression I get is that Cromwell grudging likes him whilst considering him an enemy. I get the similar feeling from representations of Chapuyes too. The only characters which seem to have been harshly represented are those of Anne and, perhaps, Stephen Gardiner, but even there it's not direct, more an acknowledgement of Gardiner as a threat.

Do you have any specific examples of where the bias comes through?

Wolsey I actually felt she made look too much like an innocent victim in everything and in regards to the other characters my personal impression when reading is that it felt to me like all those who were enemies of Cromwell, or those who helped contribute to his downfall, she emphasized only their faults.

While Cromwell and his friends and supporters such as Wolsey who Cromwell is shown as always having a respect for in this book, she emphasizes only their positive attributes.

In the case of More for example while I am no More fan and I do not deny that he was not quite the saint that many people portray him as, and he has done some things that I distinctly disagree with, I did not feel Mantal's treatment of him was at all balanced. Personally I felt she did make him out to look like some sort of mad tyrant. It felt to me as if she did take it to the other extreme.

It felt to me as if she did not really portray any of the characters as really human but only in black and white terms.

[Paulclem]

Is it important to marry the historical, or perceived historical view with the perspective of the book?

I think it is this ability to make a credible and consistent character from the bones of history that makes this fiction. We are left with the bare facts of history and an interpretation of them. I think it would be hard to try to make Henry out to be a caring, constant and attentive husband, given his history, but, with Cromwell, Mantel has been able to use the history to mould her own character as we know much less about him, his circumstances and what motivated him. I think she does make Henry sympathetic and human, but also widely inconstant.

[Emmy Castrol]

I have to say that I did at moments quite like his son George and Rafe I kind of liked.

And I find it near impossible not to admire, respect and sympathize with Queen Katharine she alone I think was truly an honest victim.

I found that I enjoyed the scenes at Austin Friars more than the court scenes. Rafe, Richard and Gregory were the characters I liked reading about most. I don’t think Cromwell could come across favourably without these fictitious scenes of his personal life.

I can’t say I liked Queen Katharine; I certainly sympathised with her and agree she was the only honest victim but I couldn’t bring myself to like her or Princess Mary. They just come across as so humourless and uncompromising.


I have to disagree with Anne being portrayed as sympathetic, but perhaps she has been in the other things you have seen or read, but I have to say in both The Tudors, and The Other Boleyn girl I would not say that the portrait of her is truly all that sympathetic.


I actually think that Mantel portrayed Anne Boleyn more sympathetically than how was she in The Other Boleyn Girl.


The romantic view of her might have been perpetuated by her daughter Elizabeth 1st. It is funny though seeing as she usurped a legitimate Queen, but had this romantic myth attached to her. I think we underestimate the almost subliminal messages we get about historical figures from the multitudes of influences we come across.

I agree that Elizabeth I, and the way she is favourably looked upon as one of England’s better rulers, probably has been played a large role in how Anne Boleyn is viewed. I myself have to say that I don’t dislike Anne, even from Mantel’s portrayal; I find that I understand Anne, her motives and actions. If she was ambitious and greedy, that was her honest self and she couldn’t help but be it. In the end she paid for it and I think it is in that knowledge of her fate that one is able to sympathise with her.

A character whom I can never like is Henry VIII. I don’t know why I can excuse Anne and not Henry. Perhaps it is because self-dishonesty and infidelity are the two traits I can least tolerate and most portrayals of Henry show him to possess both of these unfavourable traits.


In the case of More for example while I am no More fan and I do not deny that he was not quite the saint that many people portray him as, and he has done some things that I distinctly disagree with, I did not feel Mantal's treatment of him was at all balanced. Personally I felt she did make him out to look like some sort of mad tyrant. It felt to me as if she did take it to the other extreme.

It felt to me as if she did not really portray any of the characters as really human but only in black and white terms.

I too felt that the bad character of More was exaggerated by Mantel. I have to agree somewhat with you DM, I did feel as if Mantel was trying to force the reader to like and dislike certain characters and so none of the characters actually came across as real to me. But then the reviews of Wolf Hall are so good that I wonder if there’s something wrong with how I am reading it because although it is a good read, it is not that good. I don’t find it that much better than an Oprah Winfrey Bookclub recommendation.

[Dark Muse]

I too felt that the bad character of More was exaggerated by Mantel. I have to agree somewhat with you DM, I did feel as if Mantel was trying to force the reader to like and dislike certain characters and so none of the characters actually came across as real to me. But then the reviews of Wolf Hall are so good that I wonder if there’s something wrong with how I am reading it because although it is a good read, it is not that good. I don’t find it that much better than an Oprah Winfrey Bookclub recommendation.

I have to say that in spite of how unlikable More is within her book one of my favorite scenes within this book was when More refused to sign the oath stating that Henry was head of the church and his marriage to Katharine a false marriage.

There was something I found to be a bit amusing in the way in which Cromwell and the others could not conceive of the idea that ones integrity might actually be of more value than their life and they could not comprehend how More was not willing to pledge a false off and be false to himself and that which he believes in for the sake of his physical being.

In spite of everything else which More had done I found this to be admirable and it did show Cromwell in a bit more of a mercenary light displaying how he would not bat an eye at lying if it were to save his own skin.

You can picture Cromwell signing an oath with one hand while he has his fingers crossed behind his back.

[Emmy Castrol]

Yes, that is an interesting scene, considering your interpretation of what could have been More's true motives. I am more inclined (taking into account the character consistent with Mantel's portrayal of More) to disbelieve More's sincerity behind why he refused to sign the oath. The reason why is because of this part of the conversation (p.565):

Audley leans forward. ‘Let us be clear. You will not take the oath because your conscience advises you against it?’
‘Yes.’
“Could you be a little more comprehensive in your answers?’
‘No.’
‘You object but you won’t say why?’
‘Yes.’
‘Is it the matter of the statute you object to, or the form of the oath, or the business of oath-taking in itself?’
‘I would rather not say.’

More refuses explanation, consistent with the arrogance of his character, but also because he cannot express the conviction behind his decision. Emptily, he claims that he has ‘all the angels and saints behind’ him. I wonder if this is because More knows, that alongside with the righteousness of his position, he is also using the situation to antagonise Cromwell, so he is not completely innocent in God’s eyes. It is a battle of egos; even though Mantel states that it is Gardiner who is Cromwell’s most devoted enemy, I feel that his arch-nemesis is more appropriately found in More.

I find More’s character very interesting because despite Mantel’s portrayal, despite the impurity behind why he chooses this position, I feel that the position itself is the moral one. It is inconsistent with the hypocrisy Mantel has painted him to possess but I actually think this contributes towards a more complex character of More, perhaps the most complex out of them all. Considering their preoccupation with purgatory, why should England put their souls, and more understandably, their conscience, at stake, just to satisfy the gratification of a lustful king, especially one who denies this as the motivation driving it all? But Mantel is sympathetic to the anti-Catholic cause, and perhaps the separation from Rome was a necessary historical development, even if the motivations behind it were sinful.

[Dark Muse]

Yes, that is an interesting scene, considering your interpretation of what could have been More's true motives. I am more inclined (taking into account the character consistent with Mantel's portrayal of More) to disbelieve More's sincerity behind why he refused to sign the oath. The reason why is because of this part of the conversation (p.565):

Audley leans forward. ‘Let us be clear. You will not take the oath because your conscience advises you against it?’
‘Yes.’
“Could you be a little more comprehensive in your answers?’
‘No.’
‘You object but you won’t say why?’
‘Yes.’
‘Is it the matter of the statute you object to, or the form of the oath, or the business of oath-taking in itself?’
‘I would rather not say.’.


I have to say that I personally did not see his lack of providing the reasons behind his choice to be a sign of insincerity on his behalf but rather I thought it that he did not feel as if he owed Cromwell an explanation plus he knew that even if he did explain it would make no difference. Whatever compromises Cromwell might try to come up with he knew he would refuse them. He knew it would be pointless to reason or debate upon the issue because his mind was already determined and thus he so no point in giving his reasons if Cromwell was going to try and use it as a way to talk him out of his conviction.

And I agree that the antagonism between the two of them could be felt, and it may be that in part More was also enjoying frustrating Cromwell both with his decision and his refusal to explain his reason why and maybe he also felt what it would be beyond Cromwell to understand his reasons even if he did give them

[Paulclem]

I too felt that the bad character of More was exaggerated by Mantel. I have to agree somewhat with you DM, I did feel as if Mantel was trying to force the reader to like and dislike certain characters and so none of the characters actually came across as real to me. But then the reviews of Wolf Hall are so good that I wonder if there’s something wrong with how I am reading it because although it is a good read, it is not that good. I don’t find it that much better than an Oprah Winfrey Bookclub recommendation.

I don't agree with this. The scene where Cromwell's children die is not only sensitively written, but manages to intermingle myth and current affairs.

I think the play technique with George Cavendish enables Mantel to portray the events through Cavendish, represent Cromwell and Cavendish's attitudes and also their relationship.

I also think that what has been excised from the narrative is quite important too. Lots of details are included, but we don't get a mass of description and scene setting, which must take a good deal of discpline to achieve.

[Emmy Castrol]

I've just had one of the worst days at work. I feel like I could be (my interpretation of) More, was forced to make a complaint against a colleague, but I felt that my complaint was affected by that I do not personally like this person. I feel satisfied that I was presented with the opportunity for making the complaint but guilty for feeling that satisfaction.


I have to say that I personally did not see his lack of providing the reasons behind his choice to be a sign of insincerity on his behalf but rather I thought it that he did not feel as if he owed Cromwell an explanation plus he knew that even if he did explain it would make no difference. Whatever compromises Cromwell might try to come up with he knew he would refuse them. He knew it would be pointless to reason or debate upon the issue because his mind was already determined and thus he so no point in giving his reasons if Cromwell was going to try and use it as a way to talk him out of his conviction.

This is a good point, perhaps you are right there. After today, I'm reminded how difficult it is to reason with an unreasonable person, who already is determined on a particular objective and will refuse to consider anything that does not align with that objective.


I don't agree with this. The scene where Cromwell's children die is not only sensitively written, but manages to intermingle myth and current affairs.

I think the play technique with George Cavendish enables Mantel to portray the events through Cavendish, represent Cromwell and Cavendish's attitudes and also their relationship.

I think it's just that I feel Cromwell is too good. He is humane, but not human. The home death scenes are very well done, we suffer along with him while he suffers; I find myself throughout the book wishing that Anne and Grace did not have to die. But these scenes just add more to his virtues, I wish Mantel did a bit more on his flaws.

The Cavendish and Cromwell scene - is this the one where Cavendish wanted Cromwell to play the cardinal, and Cromwell couldn't do it? I found it one of the most humourous scenes, makes both Cromwell and Cavendish very likeable. As an insight into his character, it indicates to me that Cromwell is one of those very pragmatic people, who cannot help but be level headed and practical about everything. He is such a cool personality that I think one of the only times when he loses it a bit is during the confrontation with More (to swear the oath) where Cromwell makes the comment about how he'd rather his own son die than More not sign it. Cromwell is out of his usual character here, oversentimental and rather false, which is what made me think that More gets under his skin more than Gardiner does.

In terms of characters, I like how the Cardinal Wolsey and More are drawn. I don't like their moral characters, but I like the way Mantel has made me able to understand them.

[Dark Muse]

This is a good point, perhaps you are right there. After today, I'm reminded how difficult it is to reason with an unreasonable person, who already is determined on a particular objective and will refuse to consider anything that does not align with that objective.

While it may be hard to imagine someone who would be willing to accept thier own death when it is within thier power to stop it and take a course of action to prevent it from happening. I do not know if I would call it unreasonable of someone who chooses to stand behind thier convictions instead of becoming a hypocrite or sell out even at the risk of thier life.

There was nothing that was going to convince More to swear that Kathrine's marriage was a false marriage, and that she was not a true wife to Henry, for he did not beleive that to be so in his heart and soul and was not willing to let his actions contradict his belief.

There was no way to save his life without his willingness to pledge the oath stating that very fact. So there was no way in which more could save his life without betraying himself.

And I am not defending More across the board here, but in this one particular instances whatever else I may have thought of him, I do think that his self-sacrifice, when it would have been so easy to just sign his name to spare himself, was an admirable action.



I think it's just that I feel Cromwell is too good. He is humane, but not human. The home death scenes are very well done, we suffer along with him while he suffers; I find myself throughout the book wishing that Anne and Grace did not have to die. But these scenes just add more to his virtues, I wish Mantel did a bit more on his flaws.

While on the whole I agree with this and feel the same way it seems that in spite of her favoring Cromwell and being overall sympathetic towards him, and painting him in a more virtuous light it seems there are subtle moments in which his flaws peep out a bit.

One of the things which of the things which really struck out at me, and of which I could not help but to wonder just what Mantel's ultimate intention with this was how throughout the story it is mentioned more than once how Cromwell looks like a man who will do anything, or that he has the face of a Killer.

Cromwell himself asks a few different people if he looks like he would kill someone.

Perhaps this is meant to be a reflection of how Cromwell is more frequently portrayed, and does touch upon some of his less favorable traits.

Also there are a couple of times in which his son George shows disapproval of some of Cromwell's actions, or things of which his father might do.

I do not have a copy of the book with me now becasue I lent it to someone after reading it so I cannot recall the exact dialogue, but there was a scene in which George and Cromwell were speaking of Kathrine, and George expressed disapproval and surprise at Cromwell's treatment of her particuarly after Cromwell once claimed to have admiration for her.

And I cannot remember exactly what it was, but there was something in which George said, surely you would not do that to Kathrine, and Cromwell made a response along the lines of how he would if the king asked him too.

[Emmy Castrol]

Also there are a couple of times in which his son George shows disapproval of some of Cromwell's actions, or things of which his father might do.

I do not have a copy of the book with me now becasue I lent it to someone after reading it so I cannot recall the exact dialogue, but there was a scene in which George and Cromwell were speaking of Kathrine, and George expressed disapproval and surprise at Cromwell's treatment of her particuarly after Cromwell once claimed to have admiration for her.

And I cannot remember exactly what it was, but there was something in which George said, surely you would not do that to Kathrine, and Cromwell made a response along the lines of how he would if the king asked him too.

I don't think it is necessarily an unfavourable thing upon his character that Cromwell chose to prioritise Henry over Katharine. To some people, loyalty is a more important virtue than righteousness. I also think that Cromwell, being fiercely pragmatic, was quite skeptical on moral positions and even though he did love his wife, the way he went about choosing her was so matter of fact and money based, that I wonder what importance he places on marriage. It is a reoccuring topic throughout (the unattainability of Johane and Anselma, the comments about women wanting to marry him, Mary Boleyn, Rochford's referrence to Jane Seymour) which felt left unfinished by Mantel.

Initially I didn't think I'd want to read the next volume but after finishing the book I am curious of a few things - the events leading to his execution and if they were contributed to by what he felt for Jane Seymour. I was oblivious to this until the conversation between Cromwell and Jane Rochford. Did anyone pick up on his personal partiality for Jane Seymour before this scene?

[TheFifthElement]

Initially I didn't think I'd want to read the next volume but after finishing the book I am curious of a few things - the events leading to his execution and if they were contributed to by what he felt for Jane Seymour. I was oblivious to this until the conversation between Cromwell and Jane Rochford. Did anyone pick up on his personal partiality for Jane Seymour before this scene?

I thought the partiality for Jane Seymour was apparent from the beginning. Remember he sent her a gift and she used the silk in which the gift was wrapped to line her sleeves? Then there was this exchange, very early on:

'I haven't seen you for so long...What have you been doing, where have you been?'

'Sewing mostly.' She considers each question separately. 'Where I'm sent.'

'And spying, I think.'

She nods. 'I'm not very good at it.'

'I don't know. You are small and unoticable.'

He means it as a compliment; she blinks, in acknowledgement.'

Beware, though. The suggestions of Cromwell's interest in women such as Anne and Mary Boleyn and Jane Seymour are entirely fictional. Not much is known about Cromwell's private life. His downfall comes about another way, which I'll tell you if you want to know, but if not there's always Wikipedia ;)

I'm about 150 pages from the end now. It's been a pretty good read so far. I have some thoughts...I'd like to discuss the suggestion of 'bias' a bit more, but not now. Maybe by weekend.

[Emmy Castrol]

I thought the partiality for Jane Seymour was apparent from the beginning. Remember he sent her a gift and she used the silk in which the gift was wrapped to line her sleeves? Then there was this exchange, very early on:

For some reason, I thought the motive for his interest in the quiet little girl in the corner was because he was considering to use her as a spy himself. Totally oblivious! I think its because Cromwell seems so old and I thought of Jane as a 17 yo... although, no idea how old she actually was. I know Anne Boleyn was about 28 and I am assuming her sister Mary was the older... perhaps I was biased by the portrayal of Jane Seymour in The Other Boleyn Girl, where she is portrayed differently.

Oh, and how do you put text in one of those quote boxes? That may come in handy for me should I want to quote anymore text from Wolf Hall.


Beware, though. The suggestions of Cromwell's interest in women such as Anne and Mary Boleyn and Jane Seymour are entirely fictional. Not much is known about Cromwell's private life. His downfall comes about another way, which I'll tell you if you want to know, but if not there's always Wikipedia ;)

All Wiki mentions is something about him forcing Henry VIII to marry Anne Cleeves - this must be the same Anne that PaulClem and dfloyd said that Henry VIII found repulsive - and that his enemies used this as the opportunity to bring about his execution. If you want to fill in the rest, I'd appreciate it (that's if no one else minds).

I found what wiki had to say here very interesting:

The final session of the Reformation Parliament began on 4 February 1536. By 18 March an Act for the Suppression of the Lesser Monasteries, those with a gross income of less than £200 per annum, had passed both houses. This caused a clash with Anne Boleyn, who wanted the proceeds of the dissolution to be employed for charitable purposes, not paid into the King's coffers. Anne instructed her chaplains to preach against the vicegerent, and on 2 April 1536 her almoner, John Skip, denounced Cromwell before the entire court as an enemy of the Queen. Anne had so far failed to produce a male heir, and Cromwell, aware that the King was growing impatient and had become enamoured of the young Jane Seymour, acted with ruthless determination, accusing Anne of adultery with several courtiers.

If Cromwell wanted Jane Seymour for himself, why does he encourage Henry VIII's advances? He must have been very loyal to Henry, finally only to be repaid with betrayal by the king:

Henry came to regret Cromwell's execution, and later accused his ministers of bringing about Cromwell's downfall by false charges. On 3 March 1541, the French Ambassador, Marillac, reported in a letter that the King was now said to be lamenting that ‘under pretext of some slight offences which he had committed, they had brought several accusations against him, on the strength of which he had put to death the most faithful servant he ever had’.

A bit too late for that regret, Henry!!!!

I'm interested to see how Mantel will use the historical information in her next volume.

Oh, I came across Han's portrait of Cromwell in wiki:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/Cromwell%2CThomas%281EEssex%2901.jpg

So what do you guys think, does he look like a murderer?

[Dark Muse]

One of the things of which kind of confused me, though I do not know much about how titles work, but I could not help but to wonder about this, is when Anne Boleyn's brother was married, he became known as Lord Rochford.

Why is it that it seemed that he took on his wife's name after marriage? I found this a bit strange, and wondered if it had something to do with her title that she kept her own name and he took it on

[TheFifthElement]

For some reason, I thought the motive for his interest in the quiet little girl in the corner was because he was considering to use her as a spy himself. Totally oblivious! I think its because Cromwell seems so old and I thought of Jane as a 17 yo... although, no idea how old she actually was.
What you need to be aware of is that, in those days, it wouldn't be uncommon for a very young woman to be married off to a much older man, as in the case of Charles Brandon who is in his 40's but married a 14 year old.

***possible spoiler - history, but not directly the book***

All Wiki mentions is something about him forcing Henry VIII to marry Anne of Cleeves - this must be the same Anne that PaulClem and dfloyd said that Henry VIII found repulsive - and that his enemies used this as the opportunity to bring about his execution. If you want to fill in the rest, I'd appreciate it (that's if no one else minds).
Yes, it was Cromwell's role in arranging Henry's marriage to Anne of Cleves which finished him off. By all accounts Henry was very much in love with Jane Seymour and her death affected him very badly. And he was also still obsessed with securing his line with a male heir (although Jane Seymour delivered him a boy, Edward, he was a sickly child and died young - although after Henry). Cromwell arranged his marriage to Anne of Cleves on the grounds that it was a good political match (it created an alliance with the Lutheran Germans in a Europe which was increasingly against Henry, courtesy of his break with Rome) and furthered Cromwell's aims to secure England's break with Rome. Anne, however, did not suit Henry - he found her unattractive and, by definition, she would not then be someone with whom he would be able to produce a male heir. He was forced into the marriage in order to maintain his treaty with the Germans and blamed Cromwell for this. This, coupled with the actions of Cromwell's enemies who seized on the King's displeasure to undermine and, ultimately, kill Cromwell. I suspect other issues were contributory though - the suggestion that Cromwell was siphoning off the King's money (this suggestion is made numerous times through the book), his increasing zeal in reforming the monasteries which was an unpopular initiative which incited rebellion, particularly in the North (remember how it is said that Henry loves to be loved, loves to be popular?) and all this built to create an irreparable breach in the King's and Cromwell's relationship. I notice towards the end of the book that Mantel brings in more about Cromwell, perhaps, desiring power - considering himself the King's right hand man. Is it a case of 'pride comes before a fall'?


If Cromwell wanted Jane Seymour for himself, why does he encourage Henry VIII's advances? He must have been very loyal to Henry, finally only to be repaid with betrayal by the king:
It's an interesting point, because there is no suggestion in history that there was ever any interest between Cromwell and Jane Seymour. My interpretation of this is that Mantel is building on Cromwell's reputation as, in Henry's words "the most faithful servant he ever had". Throughout the book she shows Cromwell to have many faults - his ugliness, his trickiness with words, his brutality, his shifty character and willingness to set aside his morals for the sake of expedience - but the one quality which comes across very strongly is his loyalty. This is shown in his support of Wolsey despite his apparent downfall which could have led to Cromwell's ruin, and later in his diligence in securing the King's desire, despite the upheaval and threat this presents to the country (and Europe), but also in the more minor relationships: Mary Boleyn, Rafe, Richard, Johane, even the relationship with Thomas More and Chapuys have a certain consistency and loyalty to them (unless something happens in the last 50 pages, that is. I've not quite finished yet). I think that his giving up of Jane Seymour is intended to further enhance this impression and I wonder if she will also go on to show how his loyalty, ultimately, becomes his downfall? In any event, I think if she's writing a follow up book it will definitely be an interesting read.


One of the things of which kind of confused me, though I do not know much about how titles work, but I could not help but to wonder about this, is when Anne Boleyn's brother was married, he became known as Lord Rochford.

Why is it that it seemed that he took on his wife's name after marriage? I found this a bit strange, and wondered if it had something to do with her title that she kept her own name and he took it on

My understanding of this is that George's title was granted by the King - the Boleyns were a 'low' family (without rank or title) but due to Anne's liaisons with the King they were granted titles. So George became 'Lord Rochford' by act of the King. From Wiki:

It was also in December 1529 that he was ennobled as George, Viscount Rochford,


Oh, and how do you put text in one of those quote boxes? That may come in handy for me should I want to quote anymore text from Wolf Hall.
To put text in quotation boxes you can either use the quote tags button just above the message box (if you 'quote' someone else's post it will automatically appear, otherwise click on the 'go advanced' button on the 'quick reply' box and it will automatically take you there), or you can use the code which is [ QUOTE] to start your quotation and [ /QUOTE] to end it. You need to do it without any spaces in between though (I've put the spaces there as otherwise what I've just written would appear in quotes!).

[Dark Muse]

My understanding of this is that George's title was granted by the King - the Boleyns were a 'low' family (without rank or title) but due to Anne's liaisons with the King they were granted titles. So George became 'Lord Rochford' by act of the King. From Wiki:.

Than I wonder why he would not be given a title in his own last name. And became Lord Boleyn, and his wife Lady Boleyn. Instead of his being titled with his wife's last name as his own.

Is it because her family had a higher rank than his own and so did he take her name because it was superior to his own.

[TheFifthElement]

Than I wonder why he would not be given a title in his own last name. And became Lord Boleyn, and his wife Lady Boleyn. Instead of his being titled with his wife's last name as his own.

Is it because her family had a higher rank than his own and so did he take her name because it was superior to his own.

It wasn't his wife's name. English titles are all linked to a titular 'seat' which is a place - a town, city, county or country: The Earl of Suffolk, The Earl of Essex, the Duke of Norfolk, the Duke of York, the Prince of Wales. Rochford is a town in Essex and the title of Viscount Rochford was Thomas Boleyn's title, which George inherited.

[Dark Muse]

It wasn't his wife's name. English titles are all linked to a titular 'seat' which is a place - a town, city, county or country: The Earl of Suffolk, The Earl of Essex, the Duke of Norfolk, the Duke of York, the Prince of Wales. Rochford is a town in Essex and the title of Viscount Rochford was Thomas Boleyn's title, which George inherited.

Oh, I thought his wife's name was Jane Rochford

[David Lurie]

an interesting article by Hilary Mantel (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article6105341.ece)

[Paulclem]

A good read..

[Brock]

OK, after the trauma of a teaching course interview, I'm now able to start reading this novel without feeling guilty that I should be reading about teacing. I started reading it this morning and I have to say I really like it. The writing style is unique albeit slightly confusing sometimes, but overall it has a really gripping quality. I know next to NOTHING about the history surrounding this time, so this should be double gripping. I shall read the posts in this thread as soon as I'm in the safe zone (ie the story isn't going to be ruined for me).

[David Lurie]

The writing style is unique albeit slightly confusing sometimes, but overall it has a really gripping quality.

I think the writing style is rather effective especially for the kind of story Mantel is telling us: this is a fictional account of a well-known historical figure where the author tries to shade some light over the parts of his life we don't know much about while making us doubt that the commonly known facts about Cromwell that we know are only a limited portrait of a very complicated and surprising life.
If the reason of this book was to make the reader rethink his/her opinion of Cromwell, then I think Mantel's writing technique suits well such scope.

[Brock]

I think the writing style is rather effective especially for the kind of story Mantel is telling us: this is a fictional account of a well-known historical figure where the author tries to shade some light over the parts of his life we don't know much about while making us doubt that the commonly known facts about Cromwell that we know are only a limited portrait of a very complicated and surprising life.
If the reason of this book was to make the reader rethink his/her opinion of Cromwell, then I think Mantel's writing technique suits well such scope.

I think at first it was simply the use of pronouns for characters which confused me. I mean, there are a lot of characters to take in. A couple of times, I found myself saying 'who?', 'what?', 'who's he again?'. But now I'm 133 pages in, it's all fairly obvious and now I'm just really enjoying it. :)

[Brock]

Well, I was late finishing but I've finally read all of the book now. An absolute corker. Loved it. Not exactly my favourite writing style, but an excellent read overall. Does Mantel have a sequel to this? Because I was really expecting some gory decapitation at the end..

[Paulclem]

I liked it as well. Someone said she's planning a sequel.

I liked her choice of a talented commoner for her focus in this period. Given all the aristos, and the prior focus upon them, it's good to have a different focus.

[Brock]

I liked it as well. Someone said she's planning a sequel.

I liked her choice of a talented commoner for her focus in this period. Given all the aristos, and the prior focus upon them, it's good to have a different focus.

A sequel is desperately needed. Otherwise I'll feel as unsatisfied as I did when I finished Twin Peaks season 2...

[kasie]

All I have been able to find is that she is 'working on the sequel' (HarperCollins site) and it is to be called The Mirror and the Light. Apparently she will not reveal anything about her work in progress until she herself is satisfied with it and it is virtually ready for publication. I am looking forward to it.

[scotta.clark]

I have read review about this book, its really good. Hope its really interesting to read.