Take a photo of a barcode or cover
amythompy 's review for:
The Sunne in Splendour
by Sharon Kay Penman
"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.