Anyanka said

As an Cromwell-lady…it was nice not to have the un-educated thug that is some-times seen and more human Cromwwell in WH. I haven’t yet read BUTB nor the biography but both are on my list .

I don’t dislike Cromwell. Cromwell did what he had to do.
Craig and I were talking about this last night, we had a few copies of Wolf Hall in the shop which sold last night and he was suggesting we get more (and a fight ensued ) For some reason I started talking about Jane Seymour and how Starkey called her an “accomplice” in Anne’s downfall and Craig came up with one of his random inspired comments. “It’s all Henry’s fault, nothing would have happened if it wasn’t for him”
I find it pretty difficult to blame any of them when most of them were in constant danger from a fickle monarch who could decide you were an enemy at the drop of a hat. Cromwell still had children, he had no reason to try and save Anne and every reason to try and save himself.

As for Mantel, her characters are so shallow it’s difficult to feel empathy for any of them. The only person I disliked after reading that book was her.

Louise said
Olga, I didn’t like anyone in the book. Surely a book is supposed to make you care about someone?
Anyway, aren’t you supposed to be reviewing TLITT at some stage?

Sorry Madam I promise I will get on it. It’s spring here so I am busy with my new bonsai hobby, because apparently I don’t have enough hobbies.
I’ll dig it out this weekend, my brain is a bit fried from reading proper history so a bit of rubbish should suit me nicely. Might not be good for the blood pressure though.

Sharon I haven’t read Wolf Hall actually so I couldn’t compare, but I imagine it must be really disappointing. Claire I also don’t understand why people keep praising her Cromwell. I think some of it has to do with the fact she’s not sticking to traditional style historical fiction and by using a literary style people think it’s amazingly different (although it has been done before) It’s just the same old tired representations that get used over and over although she’s taken them to a new extreme (and now is where I pipe down before I start my homophobia and misogyny rant)

Hi James, Nice to hear from you again!
I see your point about bringing people in to read more about the Tudors. Historical fiction is getting its due. Unfortunately there are so many people who will read Mantel’s book and believe what she wrote is fact because she is an historian. We hear so much bad info from people who read these stories and do not bother to check the facts. They will argue until the cows come home that they read it in Mantel’s book, therefore, it must be true. Mantel recently said in an interview that historians have a duty to keep to the facts when writing non-fiction as well as fiction. ????

Maybe she believes that Anne wasn’t where she was supposed to be at times, but she wasn’t at the places the indictment claims either. How could she be guilty if she wasn’t at the places where the crimes were supposed to have been committed? Records are pretty clear on that. I guess I don’t know what she means when she says Anne wasn’t entirely innocent. Why? Is it because Anne was a flirt and she was asking for it? Why did she write that George Boleyn cried at his trial when we know he defended himself admirably? If memory serves, she made the rest of the men look like fools, too.
She even made Cromwell look bad as I said above. Why? She knows Cromwell didn’t put the case together because of a need for vengeance. I know that where there are gaps in history, a fiction writer can tell her story the way she thinks it may have occurred. In this case, as an historian who claims the truth should be told even in fiction, why didn’t she follow her own advice. She changed some major facts. I would love to know why she did that?
Sorry. Not helping am I? I guess I don’t know how to put it politely.
Anyway, I do envy you for being able to go to Hampton Court. Have fun!

Well that was very interesting. Historic Royal Palaces advertised tonight’s talk as very much on Cromwell constructing the fall of Anne Boleyn… But we actually had very little talk on Anne, the only comment she did make was when she read the bit about the play at court with Wolsey being dragged into hell & that all the men in that ‘scene’ where later involved in Anne’s fall & found guilty… Though not ‘guilty as charged’ which i found interesting, the whole talk was pretty much about Cromwell himself, his family, relationship with Wolsey- she read a couple of chapters from the book, but there was barely any mention of Anne during the talk.

She did keep stating the differences between a novelist & a historian- basically saying how she was not a historian… She kept doing this throughout the talk which i found very intriguing. During the questions part after the talk one lady asked if her view on Anne had changed whilst researching the book, her reply was very interesting.. ‘It is not for me to comment on Anne’ was all she said. I asked about writing the part of Anne’s downfall & trial & what that was like to write & was it difficult to portray- she said that she ‘portrayed as through Cromwell’s eyes’ & that ‘Anne’s downfall is one of the greatest conspiracy’s of all time’ then went to say ‘Henry gave Cromwell the nod to go through with it all’ & ‘Cromwell brought it about when he realized Henry needed a new wife’. Very vague at times and really did avoid talking about Anne as much as possible, never stating the ‘we don’t know if she was guilty or innocent’ or ‘she wasn’t in the places she was supposed to be’ that she’s mentioned before. Perhaps she’s taken on some of her criticism? One can only hope…

Sharon said

Oh my…I don’t know why I referred to her as an historian. My apologies. However, she did say authors should stick to the truth while writing fiction, and she didn’t.

No she didn’t that’s very true.

I did wonder whether she was being very careful with what she said because the people in attendance where obviously quite clued up on history with it being Hampton Court, & a Historic Royal Palaces event, the whole talk she would repeat the author/historian differences over & over.

James33 said

the only comment she did make was when she read the bit about the play at court with Wolsey being dragged into hell & that all the men in that ‘scene’ where later involved in Anne’s fall & found guilty… Though not ‘guilty as charged’ which i found interesting.

The play was commissioned by Thomas Boleyn and was played out privately for the French Ambassador. Mantel says that all the men in the scene were later involved in Anne’s fall. That’s simply not true. There is no evidence at all that any of the men were present at the time, let alone that they acted in the scene regarding Wolsey. That was purely a fictional reason for why Cromwell acted against them, but it has no basis in fact as Mantel is trying to suggest by that comment.

We were nice when James went to see her. Why would you think we’d be mean to you Neil? You wouldn’t look good with a target on your back. Please don’t put one there.
I would certainly go see her if I had the chance. I would be asking her, if she wouldn’t mind, could she point to the source of her info that all the men who took part in that play were later arrested and later found “guilty” but “not guilty as charged?” Of course, we know she stuck to the facts, but I’d like to read that for myself. (she says tongue-in-cheek )

Louise, did you just rain on my parade? What is that?

Sorry. I have not heard of that book. I get it now! Very funny!