May / Historical Fiction Reading: Wolf Hall

[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 ).

[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 ).

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=/wikiped...try_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 ).

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 . 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 ) 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.....