Scan barcode
susannavs's review
5.0
I have yet to read a book by Antonia Fraser that I haven't enjoyed. This is a brilliant piece of work on the Gunpowder Plot. I learnt a lot from this book - the fate of those involved (in more detail than I knew before; sometimes too much detail!), the fate of priests who weren't even involved. It was fascinating through and through.
blackorwa's review
3.0
The disdain of Catholics by Protestants gave us the pop figure of Guy Fawkes as he joined a group of Papist (Catholics) to blow up King James I together with Member of Parliament on 5th November 1605.
angelofthetardis's review
informative
medium-paced
2.0
Slightly outside my usual comfort zone of the sixteenth century, I saw this and was drawn to the fact that it's by one of the Queens of narrative history, and it's about a fascinating moment in time which I'd like to know more about.
In general terms, the book does impart some very interesting takes on the motives and background of the plot, as well as exposing the fact there is a debate between historians as to whether there was actually a plot at all. However, you really have to have your head on straight to concentrate and take in all of the information. I've read this book over a couple of days, but I'll be honest, for the most part I've totally forgotten about most of it. It is not a light read. I wasn't expecting it to be, but then I've read other books by this author and they at least felt like the flowed and there was a point to the text.
In this case, the introduction suggests that she's going to set out the evidence and consider the Pro-Plot/No-Plot arguments, but this is very quickly forgotten for more of a straight narrative history. However, she spends about the first half of the book setting out the wider context of the country in 1603-1605, allowing the main conspirators to sneak in one by one. Guy Fawkes of course gets a little bit more focus, but then you're into the plot, discovery, trial and executions at breakneck speed. Then the last quarter of the book focuses on one particular Jesuit priest who wasn't directly involved in the plot at all but knew about it because one of the plotters came to him in confession. I don't feel that I actually learned anything about the plot itself, the conspirators and/or their deeper motivations, which is really disappointing.
It seems that the author was more drawn to the background characters; the priests, wives and wider family of the plotters. This does make a certain amount of sense when you consider that the vast majority of the main 13 are related by blood or marriage (only Guy Fawkes and one other lack family ties). However, this shifts the focus away from the story you're here to read. I admit a couple of the women are fascinating, but it's not enough to justify prioritising them over the plotters.
She's also deeply invested in the architecture of the various properties, particularly in relation to the priest holes and hiding places built in. Again, very interesting, but there's just not enough detail, so once again it detracts from the narrative.
I understand that this book isn't new; first published in 1996, it is written in more of the old fashioned style of non-fiction (and before you shout, yes, I was born before this book was published!); a quite dry exploration of the period in question. I think it needed another pass with an editor (quite a lot of repeated little facts and phrases in here) and a tighter focus on the subject matter. If you're a newbie to this subject, then this book definitely isn't for you.
In general terms, the book does impart some very interesting takes on the motives and background of the plot, as well as exposing the fact there is a debate between historians as to whether there was actually a plot at all. However, you really have to have your head on straight to concentrate and take in all of the information. I've read this book over a couple of days, but I'll be honest, for the most part I've totally forgotten about most of it. It is not a light read. I wasn't expecting it to be, but then I've read other books by this author and they at least felt like the flowed and there was a point to the text.
In this case, the introduction suggests that she's going to set out the evidence and consider the Pro-Plot/No-Plot arguments, but this is very quickly forgotten for more of a straight narrative history. However, she spends about the first half of the book setting out the wider context of the country in 1603-1605, allowing the main conspirators to sneak in one by one. Guy Fawkes of course gets a little bit more focus, but then you're into the plot, discovery, trial and executions at breakneck speed. Then the last quarter of the book focuses on one particular Jesuit priest who wasn't directly involved in the plot at all but knew about it because one of the plotters came to him in confession. I don't feel that I actually learned anything about the plot itself, the conspirators and/or their deeper motivations, which is really disappointing.
It seems that the author was more drawn to the background characters; the priests, wives and wider family of the plotters. This does make a certain amount of sense when you consider that the vast majority of the main 13 are related by blood or marriage (only Guy Fawkes and one other lack family ties). However, this shifts the focus away from the story you're here to read. I admit a couple of the women are fascinating, but it's not enough to justify prioritising them over the plotters.
She's also deeply invested in the architecture of the various properties, particularly in relation to the priest holes and hiding places built in. Again, very interesting, but there's just not enough detail, so once again it detracts from the narrative.
I understand that this book isn't new; first published in 1996, it is written in more of the old fashioned style of non-fiction (and before you shout, yes, I was born before this book was published!); a quite dry exploration of the period in question. I think it needed another pass with an editor (quite a lot of repeated little facts and phrases in here) and a tighter focus on the subject matter. If you're a newbie to this subject, then this book definitely isn't for you.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Death, Religious bigotry, and Torture
Minor: Child death, Death of parent, Gun violence, Injury/Injury detail, and Fire/Fire injury
siria's review
4.0
Remember, remember, the 5th of November; Gunpowder, treason and plot...
At first glance, it might seem a little odd that I am reading a book so closely connected with November and Bonfire Night at the beginning of August. But although Fraser manages to untangle much of the still confused circumstances and events which made up the Powder Treason, this book is a lot more than a simple recounting of the events of 1606. She places them in the context of a continuum of events dating back to the reign of Elizabeth I, and traces their impact and influence all the way down to the modern day, looking at the struggles associated with being part of a minority - a Catholic - in a country where that had been the majority religion not a hundred years before. The terrors and vagaries of life as a recusant, and the tangled webs of recusant gentry society, are also examined.
The most important and most intriguing part of the book, to my mind, though, was when Fraser looked at the question of what kind of faith, what kind of beliefs are they, that would drive a group of men to commit mass murder. That's been a question for a long time where I live, and has rarely been more relevant in the rest of the western world. It's not an easy question, either to ask or to answer; and Fraser does not, in fairness, really try to answer it. She displays the evidence to the best of her ability, and leaves it up to the reader to make up his or her own mind - and that's the best kind of history writing.
At first glance, it might seem a little odd that I am reading a book so closely connected with November and Bonfire Night at the beginning of August. But although Fraser manages to untangle much of the still confused circumstances and events which made up the Powder Treason, this book is a lot more than a simple recounting of the events of 1606. She places them in the context of a continuum of events dating back to the reign of Elizabeth I, and traces their impact and influence all the way down to the modern day, looking at the struggles associated with being part of a minority - a Catholic - in a country where that had been the majority religion not a hundred years before. The terrors and vagaries of life as a recusant, and the tangled webs of recusant gentry society, are also examined.
The most important and most intriguing part of the book, to my mind, though, was when Fraser looked at the question of what kind of faith, what kind of beliefs are they, that would drive a group of men to commit mass murder. That's been a question for a long time where I live, and has rarely been more relevant in the rest of the western world. It's not an easy question, either to ask or to answer; and Fraser does not, in fairness, really try to answer it. She displays the evidence to the best of her ability, and leaves it up to the reader to make up his or her own mind - and that's the best kind of history writing.
xxstefaniereadsxx's review against another edition
informative
medium-paced
3.0
The Gunpowder Plot refers to a conspiracy to blow up the House of Lords and King James I, on November 5, 1605, by some English Catholics that were led by Robert Catesby. One of his co-conspirators was Guy Fawkes, a man who had ten years of military experience, and who was the one that was in charge of the explosives. Fawkes was discovered guarding thirty six barrels of gunpowder, and was tried and sentenced for his failed assassination. This date is now known as Guy Fawkes Day, and is celebrated with fireworks, which is kind of...ironic.
I won't get into many of the details and background of how this plot came to be and what happened with the rest of Catesby and Fawkes' cohorts, but the story is very interesting. I am in the United States, so this was not something that was ever mentioned in any of my classes. I remember briefly reading about it once I started my World History major, but nothing as in depth as this book goes. I personally really like the work of Antonia Fraser, which is always properly researched and entertaining to read. I always learn a lot from the books that are written by her, and this one was no exception. I hate that I took forever to get around to reading this one.
I won't get into many of the details and background of how this plot came to be and what happened with the rest of Catesby and Fawkes' cohorts, but the story is very interesting. I am in the United States, so this was not something that was ever mentioned in any of my classes. I remember briefly reading about it once I started my World History major, but nothing as in depth as this book goes. I personally really like the work of Antonia Fraser, which is always properly researched and entertaining to read. I always learn a lot from the books that are written by her, and this one was no exception. I hate that I took forever to get around to reading this one.