Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.35 AVERAGE
4.35 AVERAGE
I'm torn.
The Sunne in Splendour had so much obvious work and effort put into it. It takes us all over 15th century England, from the battlefield to Bruges.
I knew that this was a pro Ricardian work. What I didn't realize was that it was so pro Richard, it blotted out everyone else. That's why I took off a star. Elizabeth Woodville=grasping woman who only wanted the crown and whose lasting regret is that she didn't keep it for her sons through murder. Anne Neville=delicate English rose who always backs down in an argument. Obviously, I'm simplifying, but it was distracting in the middle sections of the novel.
Overall, very well put together, but with an extremely obvious slant.
The Sunne in Splendour had so much obvious work and effort put into it. It takes us all over 15th century England, from the battlefield to Bruges.
I knew that this was a pro Ricardian work. What I didn't realize was that it was so pro Richard, it blotted out everyone else. That's why I took off a star. Elizabeth Woodville=grasping woman who only wanted the crown and whose lasting regret is that she didn't keep it for her sons through murder. Anne Neville=delicate English rose who always backs down in an argument. Obviously, I'm simplifying, but it was distracting in the middle sections of the novel.
Overall, very well put together, but with an extremely obvious slant.
In this work of historical fiction based in fact, the author takes us back more than five centuries to the final years known as The War of the Roses. The novel is so well written and the amount of research I cannot even imagine. Not only has she written an entertaining and interesting work but the historical characters have such depth to them, she has breathed life into them. From beginning to end she has totally captured the period; battle scenes, tender moments...all the drama there entailed. There is much to discredit the Tudor spin on Richard III, if they were not so fixed on making him out to be a monster, why did they bother to go to such lengths?, what did they have to hide? We will never know what truly happened to the Princes in the Tower but I have to agree with those still in support of King Richard III, that he had no hand in their demise. Since the book has been written, those still loyal to this sovereign have located him at last and he has been laid to rest as he deserves, a king of England.
adventurous
challenging
dark
emotional
informative
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Really I would give this 4.5 stars if I could. It is very well researched and written, but it lacked some emotional connection until the very end so it took me a long time to get through it. I also was annoyed by her use of "be" when all other dialog felt modern.
It took me about 150 pages to really take the bait and then this book was all I could talk about for weeks. I could not finish it for days because the ending was too grim. Penman's development of plot, character and historical detail in a labrynthal epic about The War of the Roses is nothing short of brilliant. how did this book escape me for so long? More than the first half deals with Edward IV to the point where I began to wonder if she would err get around to Richard III. Penman does this so subtly that by the time Richard dominates the book, I would gladly have gone to war with him and was secretly praying for another ending as he is such an appealing character....ah well, just is historical fiction. She fleshes out each character with a multi-dimensional grocery list of favor and flaws. I could see why a decision was being made, even if it was historical a disaster. The reader is allowed to be in the present of the story....brilliant....now on to plan a War of the Roses travel plan to see the the towns and churches where this all took place.
A brilliant take on the Yorkist era. The characters were interesting, and I was never bored.
Perhaps my only quibble was the language employed in the dialogue. The constant use of 'did', 'does', 'do', etcetera made the dialogue rather awkward. Taking that out very likely could have cut the size of the book down by at least a few dozen pages.
Perhaps my only quibble was the language employed in the dialogue. The constant use of 'did', 'does', 'do', etcetera made the dialogue rather awkward. Taking that out very likely could have cut the size of the book down by at least a few dozen pages.
"And what of those who didn't know him? What happens, too, when all who knew him are dead, when people know only what they've been told? What truth will we be talking about, then? Tudor's truth."
please ignore the almost year-long break i took while reading this. i love big books but boy am i slow at reading them! this book is an incredible feat, even more-so considering penman had to start from scratch when the original manuscript was stolen.
the detail and research that went into this novel is admirable and i really enjoyed that it involved POVs from characters from all sides of the conflict from start to finish. while the story is obviously biased and intends to redeem richard iii's historical reputation, all characters felt human.
i was wary of how this book would approach the princes in the tower and was definitely satisfied by penman taking the most logical route rather than trying to pin it on henry tudor or margaret beaufort. while i don't believe richard was responsible first-hand for their deaths (logically it just wouldn’t make sense for him to do that), it is clear that richard failed them by neglecting his duty of care and trusting the wrong men. they also wouldn't have died if richard hadn't taken the crown for himself, regardless of his reasons for doing so.
with this i felt that, while penman painted richard in an overall positive light, he was still written as complex and multidimensional character with flaws that proved to be fatal not only for himself but also others.
the final act really hit home how tragic his life became, with the death of his son and anne in such a short space of time time, sooo many betrayals, and ultimately his own death on the battlefield. and then what came after - don't get me started on george and isabel's kids, especially poor teddy.
i think what's most interesting about richard iii is that we'll never really know the truth. many sources at the time do speak favourably of him both before his kingship and during it. but while i'm sure he's far from the monster depicted by shakespeare, he was also not the saint depicted by some ricardians. in the author's notes pre-dating the discovery of richard iii's skeleton, penman describes his "deformity" as a "myth", and yet richard was discovered to have had scoliosis (i'm aware that penman wrote an updated author's note after the discovery of richard's skeleton). what was once considered tudor propaganda was proven to be somewhat "true" - though exaggerated and intended to vilify people with disabilities.
was richard iii good? was he bad? i don't know. all i know that he is interesting and that aneurin barnard is hot.
please ignore the almost year-long break i took while reading this. i love big books but boy am i slow at reading them! this book is an incredible feat, even more-so considering penman had to start from scratch when the original manuscript was stolen.
the detail and research that went into this novel is admirable and i really enjoyed that it involved POVs from characters from all sides of the conflict from start to finish. while the story is obviously biased and intends to redeem richard iii's historical reputation, all characters felt human.
i was wary of how this book would approach the princes in the tower and was definitely satisfied by penman taking the most logical route rather than trying to pin it on henry tudor or margaret beaufort. while i don't believe richard was responsible first-hand for their deaths (logically it just wouldn’t make sense for him to do that), it is clear that richard failed them by neglecting his duty of care and trusting the wrong men. they also wouldn't have died if richard hadn't taken the crown for himself, regardless of his reasons for doing so.
with this i felt that, while penman painted richard in an overall positive light, he was still written as complex and multidimensional character with flaws that proved to be fatal not only for himself but also others.
the final act really hit home how tragic his life became, with the death of his son and anne in such a short space of time time, sooo many betrayals, and ultimately his own death on the battlefield. and then what came after - don't get me started on george and isabel's kids, especially poor teddy.
i think what's most interesting about richard iii is that we'll never really know the truth. many sources at the time do speak favourably of him both before his kingship and during it. but while i'm sure he's far from the monster depicted by shakespeare, he was also not the saint depicted by some ricardians. in the author's notes pre-dating the discovery of richard iii's skeleton, penman describes his "deformity" as a "myth", and yet richard was discovered to have had scoliosis (i'm aware that penman wrote an updated author's note after the discovery of richard's skeleton). what was once considered tudor propaganda was proven to be somewhat "true" - though exaggerated and intended to vilify people with disabilities.
was richard iii good? was he bad? i don't know. all i know that he is interesting and that aneurin barnard is hot.
Penman is a master of historical fiction, here she has woven a tale that finally does justice to the many men and women involved in the Wars of the Roses.This novel gracefully redeems Richard III from the Tudor slander long associated with his name. While it is hardly a sympathetic story in terms of Elizabeth Woodville, all the characters come off as fascinating individuals in their own rights. Penman changes perspectives, allowing the reader insight into the many different minds and agendas. In particular, Anne Neville served as an strong and lovable character, so much more than purely the daughter of Warwick or the "reluctant" "tragic" queen.
However, it took a lot of effort for me to finish this story. Knowing what was going to befall all the characters I had come to love was a terrible burden. I struggled to bring myself to finish it and I had to resist the urge put it in the freezer, a la Joey and Rachel of F.R.I.E.N.D.S. As it was, I bawled unabashedly through the last fifty pages.
However, it took a lot of effort for me to finish this story. Knowing what was going to befall all the characters I had come to love was a terrible burden. I struggled to bring myself to finish it and I had to resist the urge put it in the freezer, a la Joey and Rachel of F.R.I.E.N.D.S. As it was, I bawled unabashedly through the last fifty pages.
This book was lent to me by a colleague at the chocolate shop. I hadn't ever really been much interested in historical fiction before but we got to talking and she brought it in for me one day. I think the reason I disliked historical fiction was because I was worried I would read a book and struggle to separate the historical from the fiction and end up with a warped view of the past. That said, it's not like I was reading history books to get an accurate opinion on it either. So I gave it a go.
The plot follows the rise and fall of the House of York from Richard, 3rd Duke of York, through to his sons Edward IV and Richard III. The only history I knew from this period was the dark mystery behind the vanishing Princes in the Tower and the nursery rhyme, Grand Old Duke of York. History suggests Richard III was behind the plot to put the sons of his late brother Edward IV to death in order to claim the throne. Penman argues that this may well be a case of history being written by the victor.
In The Sunne in Splendour, Richard III admires his older brother with a reverence that is at times excessive, particularly in the first half of the book. As a reader, their later clashings of opinion were welcomed and their bond felt stronger and more believable for it. According to Penman, it was the machinations of the court, particularly Elizabeth Woodville's scheming and Henry Stafford's betrayals that led to Richard's tarnished legacy. Penman makes a convincing case on behalf of Richard III's innocence claiming the murder of the Princes was unnecessary for securing Richard's kingship. They had already been declared illegitimate, he was a seasoned battle commander and the country was tired of civil war. Things don't end well for Richard and the successor to the throne, Henry VII of the House of Tudor may well be credited for the discredit done to both Richard's body and legacy.
In my search for a suitable quote to headline this review, I noticed the little attention paid to landscapes or scenery in this book. Personally, I tire very quickly of descriptions of settings so this was not a problem to me but for a book of 900+ pages it was strange not to get any passages detailing place or backdrop. However, one reference that does stick in mind was Raby Castle, birthplace of Cecily Neville, mother of Edward VI and Richard III. That's largely because it's about 8 miles away from where I'm currently sitting. I chose to include a review of this book because I spent six years in Lancaster and thought a book on the Wars of the Roses would help me stick to the plan of reviewing books that linked to places I'd been. In fact, it ties in better with the place I've spent the last six months, a market town in Country Durham.
A strange trait that every character seemed to possess was the ability to read minds. With the smallest look or word or silence, characters seemed to know exactly what another was thinking or feeling and there was as much left unsaid as what was given speech marks. What was lacking in scenery was compensated for in the plains of psychology that the characters could traverse, often with two, three or even four layers of bluffing.
One of the sadnesses in reading historical fiction is that you know how it ends, unless it's heavy on the fiction side of things. Throughout the book, the reader is placed on the side of York and of Richard. The loss of his son, wife and his own death in the last 100 pages accelerates the pace of the book, but it didn't feel rushed. Richard's romance with Anne is a plot point wound all through the narrative. Once she dies, Richard is broken, therefore the reader's narrative anchor begins to break. When Edward died, the reader could latch onto Richard, but at the end of the novel there are no 'good guys' with enough substance left for the reader to identify with. That said, there are characters like Francis Lovell and Bess, Richard's niece and Edward's daughter who are relegated to a post script. The novel has to end somewhere and it would be impractical to follow the lives out of every character. Nevertheless, I did feel some sorrow that their stories couldn't be told in full. Maybe that's the joy of historical fiction, there is always going to be a sequel.
The plot follows the rise and fall of the House of York from Richard, 3rd Duke of York, through to his sons Edward IV and Richard III. The only history I knew from this period was the dark mystery behind the vanishing Princes in the Tower and the nursery rhyme, Grand Old Duke of York. History suggests Richard III was behind the plot to put the sons of his late brother Edward IV to death in order to claim the throne. Penman argues that this may well be a case of history being written by the victor.
In The Sunne in Splendour, Richard III admires his older brother with a reverence that is at times excessive, particularly in the first half of the book. As a reader, their later clashings of opinion were welcomed and their bond felt stronger and more believable for it. According to Penman, it was the machinations of the court, particularly Elizabeth Woodville's scheming and Henry Stafford's betrayals that led to Richard's tarnished legacy. Penman makes a convincing case on behalf of Richard III's innocence claiming the murder of the Princes was unnecessary for securing Richard's kingship. They had already been declared illegitimate, he was a seasoned battle commander and the country was tired of civil war. Things don't end well for Richard and the successor to the throne, Henry VII of the House of Tudor may well be credited for the discredit done to both Richard's body and legacy.
In my search for a suitable quote to headline this review, I noticed the little attention paid to landscapes or scenery in this book. Personally, I tire very quickly of descriptions of settings so this was not a problem to me but for a book of 900+ pages it was strange not to get any passages detailing place or backdrop. However, one reference that does stick in mind was Raby Castle, birthplace of Cecily Neville, mother of Edward VI and Richard III. That's largely because it's about 8 miles away from where I'm currently sitting. I chose to include a review of this book because I spent six years in Lancaster and thought a book on the Wars of the Roses would help me stick to the plan of reviewing books that linked to places I'd been. In fact, it ties in better with the place I've spent the last six months, a market town in Country Durham.
A strange trait that every character seemed to possess was the ability to read minds. With the smallest look or word or silence, characters seemed to know exactly what another was thinking or feeling and there was as much left unsaid as what was given speech marks. What was lacking in scenery was compensated for in the plains of psychology that the characters could traverse, often with two, three or even four layers of bluffing.
One of the sadnesses in reading historical fiction is that you know how it ends, unless it's heavy on the fiction side of things. Throughout the book, the reader is placed on the side of York and of Richard. The loss of his son, wife and his own death in the last 100 pages accelerates the pace of the book, but it didn't feel rushed. Richard's romance with Anne is a plot point wound all through the narrative. Once she dies, Richard is broken, therefore the reader's narrative anchor begins to break. When Edward died, the reader could latch onto Richard, but at the end of the novel there are no 'good guys' with enough substance left for the reader to identify with. That said, there are characters like Francis Lovell and Bess, Richard's niece and Edward's daughter who are relegated to a post script. The novel has to end somewhere and it would be impractical to follow the lives out of every character. Nevertheless, I did feel some sorrow that their stories couldn't be told in full. Maybe that's the joy of historical fiction, there is always going to be a sequel.