In May we will be reading Wolf Hall by Hilary Mantel.
Please post your views and questions in this thread.
Printable View
In May we will be reading Wolf Hall by Hilary Mantel.
Please post your views and questions in this thread.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I've started reading today. Looking forward to a good discussion :)
My copy won't arrive till Thursday! (Is it just me, or is Amazon's Super Saver Delivery getting slower?).
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by kasie
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by kasie
This thread looks as if it will be interesting.:yesnod:
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.
Got my copy today. I will also be starting it tonight.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by dfloyd
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
Anne was repugnant to Henry
He apparently called her The Mare of Flanders which was harsh.
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.
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.
Are you having a laugh? :willy_nilly: As Kasie says, take the series with a whole salt cellar of salt, in fact, a sack........Quote:
Originally Posted by dfloyd
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.
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.
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.
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?
Here are my reasons for why it is Fiction:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
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.
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.
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.
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by kasie
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
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.
Meh. Too late, I've already moved on. And the present tense was clever, but not particularly engrossing, for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
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).
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emmy Castrol
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
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=/wikiped...try_Bridge.JPG
There could be more. Weren't you going to write something?
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
Where's everyone else up to in their reading? Anyone up for doing a chapter by chapter analysis and discussion of Wolf Hall?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
You never know! I would say that increases your chances ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emmy Castrol
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.