Printable View
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
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:
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by wessexgirl
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
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 actually think that Mantel portrayed Anne Boleyn more sympathetically than how was she in The Other Boleyn Girl.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emmy Castrol
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emmy Castrol
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emmy Castrol
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emmy Castrol
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emmy Castrol
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Emmy Castrol
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 ;)Quote:
'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.'
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
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.
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
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/wikipedi...Essex%2901.jpg
So what do you guys think, does he look like a murderer?
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emmy Castrol
***possible spoiler - history, but not directly the book***
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'?Quote:
Originally Posted by Emmy Castrol
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emmy Castrol
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
Quote:
It was also in December 1529 that he was ennobled as George, Viscount Rochford,
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!).Quote:
Originally Posted by Emmy Castrol
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
Oh, I thought his wife's name was Jane RochfordQuote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
an interesting article by Hilary Mantel
A good read..
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).
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brock
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. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by David Lurie
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..
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
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.
I have read review about this book, its really good. Hope its really interesting to read.