Wolf Hall

[Misfit]

Anyone game?

[boswellbaxter]

I am, although I haven't had a chance to start my copy yet. I've got a long plane ride next week--hopefully that will be my chance!

[Chatterbox]

yes, but not for a week or two. I'm swamped...

[Ash]

Um, we may be reading that for our November selection....if you wait a bit, more people will have had time to read it (like me, who is still waiting for it to appear on the doorstep!)

[Misfit]

Well I've started and in the mood and will forge ahead. For once a publisher offered me a copy, so I'd be feeling bad if I put it off :);)

Tanzanite's reading it now also.

[Tanzanite]

I'm up for some discussion along the way.

My initial reaction (after 75 pages) is that the present tense is initially very annoying but has become less distracting along the way. It is definately a different writing style than what I usually read and I can see how it might not appeal to everyone. I'm honestly not sure yet if it even appeals to me!

I do find the story, that is oh so familiar to many of us, not necessarily so familiar anymore since it is told from Cromwell's point of view. He is usually a secondary character to the action and here, we get to hear his thoughts on what is going on and what he thinks about his involvement in it. For that reason alone, I will likely finish it.

[Misfit]

Good, I have today off and plan on devoting the rest of it to Wolf Hall.

[Misfit]

A preview of a review to come, http://royalaffairs.blogspot.com/2009/10/coming-soon-my-review-of-wolf-hall.html

[annis]

Oh the frustration- I'd love to get reading this book, but it's on a looong waiting list at the library (which will no doubt get much longer now it's won the Booker Man prize!) I may have to give in and buy a copy :(

In her review at Historical Novels Info (http://www.HistoricalNovels.info/Wolf-Hall.html), Margaret also commented on the frequent, unclear use of the ubiquitous "he" throughout the book which caused a bit of confusion for the Royal Affairs eviewer, but the opinion seems to be that it's a relatively small irritation in an outstanding novel.

[Tanzanite]

I'm up to page 200. I'm becoming less aware of the present tense, although the "he" issue is a continuing problem. And there is a subtle wit and sense of humor about it that I'm enjoying.

At one point while talking about Katherine of Aragon's situation after the death of Arthur, he refers to Katherine as "fresh meat". That seemed like an odd reference for the time period (not that it's a good one in any time period, but it just seemed out of place).

[EC2]

I'm up to page 200. I'm becoming less aware of the present tense, although the "he" issue is a continuing problem. And there is a subtle wit and sense of humor about it that I'm enjoying.
].

The 'he' did my head in too Tanzanite. I almost gave up reading at one point because of it, but I am glad I persevered. I'm not sure if it gets less, or if I just ceased to notice. The humour is terrific and Mantel very much reminds me of Dorothy Dunnett in this respect. You do realise when reading this that you are listening to a full orchestra rather than a single note, say as in a Philippa Gregory novel.

[sweetpotatoboy]

You do realise when reading this that you are listening to a full orchestra rather than a single note, say as in a Philippa Gregory novel.

What a wonderful way of expressing this thought!! I haven't read this book yet, but I know exactly what you mean and that this feeling reflects the work of a truly talented writer.

[Margaret]

An AP reporter interviewed Mantel and wrote a fun article: http://www.pbpulse.com/arts-and-culture/book-reviews-arts/2009/10/13/the-rise-and-rise-of-hilary-mantel/.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who was bugged by the "he" ambiguity - most of the other reviews don't even mention it, and I was starting to wonder if I was nuts. It may be, however, the one flaw that makes us realize Hilary Mantel is merely human, because it's an outstanding novel otherwise. As I went on, I became more and more riveted. I read a comment at Facebook from someone who said they felt the ending left them hanging, but I thought it ended at exactly the right place - will save that discussion for the BOM thread after everyone's read to the end.

If it helps, an ambiguous "he" seems to refer to Thomas Cromwell about 95% of the time (even if a different person is the antecedent). Once I figured that out, the reading went more smoothly. I wonder why she wrote it this way. She seems too skilled a prose stylist in other respects to have done it accidentally, but maybe it's just a blind spot for her.

[Misfit]

Did you guys see this blog post?

http://royalaffairs.blogspot.com/2009/10/plagiarism-setting-record-straight.html

[4ever Queen]

Did you guys see this blog post?

http://royalaffairs.blogspot.com/2009/10/plagiarism-setting-record-straight.html

Wow! :eek: I hope this matter will be put to rest by both of them. And I certainly was reminded to attribute quoted lines to whom they belong :D

[Margaret]

This is a major reason why, if I can help it, I don't read other people's reviews of a novel I know I'm going to be reviewing until I've written at least a first draft. It's the only way of being sure I won't accidentally plagiarize someone else's words or ideas, something I wouldn't want to do even if it weren't both unethical and illegal.

[Misfit]

There are going to be some books that are too difficult to creative an "original" review. I know the feelings for other readers about Gabaldon's new book pretty much mirror mine and I've seen a review or two that had me looking again - but I don't think they're copying.

There was another incident at Amazon with a book with such a basic plot/storyline that was virtually impossible not to sound like you're saying something new. One of my friends got attacked both on her review and at the Amazon Vine boards and accused her of plagiarizing the book jacket. It was very upsetting to her.

My take on this situation would be the same at Amazon - I have spotted reviews where someone's literally written the same blurb that I spotted at Powells. I didn't go making accusations to the person, I informed Amazon and let them deal with it as they see fit. I wish Ms. Carroll had done this privately as well.

[Margaret]

I've seen a lot of "reviews" on blogs that borrow the book jacket copy word-for-word. I don't think bloggers, usually, are trying to pass this off as their own writing; it's just a lazy way of sharing what they're reading. This is completely different, it seems to me, than using another reviewer's writing word-for-word. Book-jacket copy is written by publicists who want to interest people in the book and promote it that way, and they're paid a salary for writing jacket copy and whatever else they do - I expect they're quite happy to have the jacket copy repeated word-for-word wherever anyone wants to repeat it, because it helps sell books (though it can be annoying to read, if one's hoping for an actual reviewer's take on the book - it's promotional copy, not a review). A reviewer, though, is not going to want his/her review copied word-for-word and posted somewhere else. Reviews are the reviewer's work and property, the same as a novel is the author's work and property.

[Misfit]

A reviewer, though, is not going to want his/her review copied word-for-word and posted somewhere else. Reviews are the reviewer's work and property, the same as a novel is the author's work and property.

I agree, and I'm still making no judgment whether or not this was plagiarized. My problem is the way this was blogged to the world in such a public, accusatory manner instead of handling it privately.

I see Ms. Carroll, has recently posted a very very detailed review of Wolf Hall here (http://royalaffairs.blogspot.com/2009/10/who-let-dogs-out-at-long-last-my-review.html).

[annis]

Woo-- that review is nearly as long as the book itself! iI guess the tetchy discussion between the two reviewers is a reminder that though people put their words out on the 'net for all to read, it's still only courtesy (apart from isues of illegality), to acknowledge the source if you use someone else's words.

Off the subject slightly (if inspired by it) I was rather amused to see that various celebs have been using Twitter as a means of tweetly slagging each other off!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/12/celebrities-twitter-scand_n_317384.html

[Misfit]

Woo-- that review is nearly as long as the book itself! iI guess the tetchy discussion between the two reviewers is a reminder that though people put their words out on the 'net for all to read, it's still only courtesy (apart from isues of illegality), to acknowledge the source if you use someone else's words.

Off the subject slightly (if inspired by it) I was rather amused to see that various celebs have been using Twitter as a means of tweetly slagging each other off!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/12/celebrities-twitter-scand_n_317384.html

Woo indeed. I haven't been able to make it past the first paragraph yet. I might try again :)

As for Twitter, I still don't get it - but those celebs sure can't keep their traps shut can they?

[Misfit]

OK, I'm back at it and I have to say it's going better now. Having refreshed my memory of Cromwell and who and what he was by reading Mary Luke's book on Catherine Parr did a world of good.