You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
kdayshauthor 's review for:
Sharpe's Triumph: The Battle of Assaye, September 1803
by Bernard Cornwell
Like the first book, very easy to read, not particularly deep, and pretty fun. In ways, it suffered from being like the first book because it was kind of interchangeable, and hit very similar notes. Sharpe didn’t need quite so much introduction in this, he is your standard male lead, but I enjoyed his interactions more with McCandless and his attempts to become an officer. What I do like about his character is his honesty; he is open enough to say things like ‘yeah I want to be an officer because I want to rub other people’s face in it’, and I found that a much more realistic thing that contrasted with some of the more idealistic viewpoints in other characters. I also found the darker side of him quite intriguing, like when he goes ape at the end while defending Wellesley.
Which brings me on to those other characters. I really warmed to Wellesley in this, which is kind of weird because of how cold a character he is. I do have a thing for authoritative, distant officer types, and it was certainly helped by imagining him as Christopher Plummer plays him in Waterloo.
(big oof)
I really liked his ‘re-introduction’ in this with Sharpe bleeding his horse, and how that motif of the horses reappeared throughout the novel. As for the other characters, I enjoyed McCandless (especially his clapbacks to Hakeswill), but no others particularly stood out. Bernard Cornwell really just needed to leave Hakeswill dead in the tigers’ den from the first book. If I read “says so in the scriptures” one more time, I thought I might throw the book across the room. Dodd, the antagonist, was a bit pantomime but provided a good contrast to Sharpe’s narrative (and perhaps some crossover, in his wild side, and his desire for recognition).
Others have mentioned the female characters in this, and I have to agree. There are a lot of instances where Bernard Cornwell writes the characters talking about women as weaker and only good for mothering, cooking etc, and it was obviously meant to shock/offend. But that didn’t offend me, because of course the male figures would have thought along similar lines at the time in which the book is set. What offended me much more was Bernard Cornwell’s own use of female characters, as props, basically. Tell me what would have changed about this story if Simone wasn’t in it? Nothing. With historical fiction like this, I either think write good female characters, or don’t bother.
Again, also like the first book, I liked the historical elements, and they worked a lot better when they were inserted into the narrative rather than info-dumped in. I know that the front cover of my book said it was mainly about the Battle of Assaye but that battle went on for so long in so many dense paragraphs, with description of what happened from a distance. That should have been the most action-packed bit, but it wasn’t for some reason? The writing didn’t quite capture the excitement of what was happening.
But I did enjoy it, and I will be going on to the next book.
Which brings me on to those other characters. I really warmed to Wellesley in this, which is kind of weird because of how cold a character he is. I do have a thing for authoritative, distant officer types, and it was certainly helped by imagining him as Christopher Plummer plays him in Waterloo.
(big oof)
I really liked his ‘re-introduction’ in this with Sharpe bleeding his horse, and how that motif of the horses reappeared throughout the novel. As for the other characters, I enjoyed McCandless (especially his clapbacks to Hakeswill), but no others particularly stood out. Bernard Cornwell really just needed to leave Hakeswill dead in the tigers’ den from the first book. If I read “says so in the scriptures” one more time, I thought I might throw the book across the room. Dodd, the antagonist, was a bit pantomime but provided a good contrast to Sharpe’s narrative (and perhaps some crossover, in his wild side, and his desire for recognition).
Others have mentioned the female characters in this, and I have to agree. There are a lot of instances where Bernard Cornwell writes the characters talking about women as weaker and only good for mothering, cooking etc, and it was obviously meant to shock/offend. But that didn’t offend me, because of course the male figures would have thought along similar lines at the time in which the book is set. What offended me much more was Bernard Cornwell’s own use of female characters, as props, basically. Tell me what would have changed about this story if Simone wasn’t in it? Nothing. With historical fiction like this, I either think write good female characters, or don’t bother.
Again, also like the first book, I liked the historical elements, and they worked a lot better when they were inserted into the narrative rather than info-dumped in. I know that the front cover of my book said it was mainly about the Battle of Assaye but that battle went on for so long in so many dense paragraphs, with description of what happened from a distance. That should have been the most action-packed bit, but it wasn’t for some reason? The writing didn’t quite capture the excitement of what was happening.
But I did enjoy it, and I will be going on to the next book.