PDA

View Full Version : The Sheen on the Silk by Anne Perry


Chatterbox
02-19-2010, 05:09 AM
Cross-posted from Amazon.

I hate writing this negative review, because I wanted to love this book -- I'm a fan of Anne Perry's Victorian-era mysteries featuring Pitt and Monk, and even enjoyed her segue into the World War I era with a quartet of novels which I felt were generally less successful. And I'm a big fan of mainstream historical fiction, including the epics of authors like Sharon Kay Penman, whose company Perry is clearly trying to join with this, her first 'mainstream' historical novel.

But although I plodded my way diligently through all 500-plus pages, doing so sometimes started feeling like a chore; this was a book that, despite a fascinating setting -- the Byzantine empire in the late 13th century, threatened by a repeat of the devastating attack by Roman Catholic crusaders that had occurred in 1204 -- and a few vivid characters, was too easy to put down and forget about, even midway through.

The plot -- loosely, at least -- revolves around Anna, who disguises herself as a eunuch and travels to the empire's capital in order to try to unravel the mystery surrounding her brother's banishment to a distant monastery for having murdered a young Byzantine nobleman. But while most of Perry's conventional mysteries are resolved within the few weeks required for one of her detectives to ferret out the truth, this novel drags on for nearly a decade. Anna, disguised as Anastasius the eunuch, establishes herself as a physician to the nobility and even treats the emperor. His/her path crosses with members of the nobility, including some who are extraordinarily devout, extraordinarily manipulative and even extraordinarily murderous. The main plot becomes caught up in far too many sub-plots, many of which aren't well-developed or convincing. That in turn distracts the reader from the main plot, which in turn is related to Byzantine issues of state: will Byzantium accept changes to its Greek Orthodox faith in order to save itself from invasion from another bunch of crusaders? What will those who oppose these compromises -- who include some of the novels heroes and its villains -- resort to in order to preserve their way of life? The city is at war with itself, diplomats on one side -- including the city's emperor, Michael -- and religious purists like bishop Constantine on the other.

Unfortunately, instead of allowing the action to drive the plot, Perry far too often allows her narrative to fall into ruminations about theological issues, the nature of good and evil, heaven and hell, the role of religion in life, etcetera. Some of these discussions last for pages, and by the end had become so repetitious that I literally rolled my eyes, closed the book and thumped it down on a table on reading the following comment by one key character to another: "You missed the grace and the passion, the courage beyond anything we can imagine, the hope even in absolute darkness, the gentleness, the laughter and the love that has no shadow. The journey is longer and steeper than any of us can understand, but then heaven is higher, so it has to be steep, and far."

There is far too much florid, introspective language of that kind (always a feature of Perry's books) in this novel. It works when set in a shorter book, and when a character is in the midst of an epiphany, but is sententious, awkward and cumbersome when it happens every 20 pages or so. Anna notes of one character, "He described the funny and the absurd with pleasure and, she noticed, without cruelty. The more she listened to him, the more irrevocably she felt bound to the good in him." This could have been conveyed far more vividly in half as many words...

Perry has done a superb job of researching and recreating 13th century Byzantium, but I felt let down by the novel itself, the vehicle she used to try and convince her readers that it was a fascinating and dynamic place, a society so compelling that it becomes seductive to even those that start out as its enemies. It just doesn't work, and that's why I can't give this more than three stars or recommend it very heartily even to dedicated historical fiction readers. Byzantium isn't well-trodden territory in historical fiction, and this was Perry's chance to make it as fascinating and immediate to readers as Sharon Penman has done with medieval Wales and Colleen McCullough with ancient Rome. She doesn't pull it off, and it's because the novel meanders too much, pulled down by its multiple subplots, theological meandering and repetitive musing.

This will appeal to Perry's hardcore fans; those who sometimes struggle with her tendency to have her characters talk incessantly about their feelings and existential thoughts will find this book a far tougher read than her detective novels, because it's moving at a much slower pace. Personally, after finishing this, I really felt the need to go off and read something tightly and vividly written.

Misfit
02-19-2010, 11:08 AM
I couldn't agree more, and very very glad I gave up. I was disappointed in the Constantinople setting, as its a place and culture I know virtually nothing about. She not only didn't bring it *alive*, my head was spinning because I couldn't follow the politics and religion. Perhaps she assumed we already knew?

MLE
02-19-2010, 02:25 PM
Thanks for the warning. Sounds like 'Wolf Hall' in Byzantium! Only for those already familiar with the subject.
I did just finish Byzantium by Peter Lawhead, and enjoyed it immensely. But then, he kept his characters moving around, and the plot originated FROM the machinations in Constantinople, rather than having the protagonists simply park there in the middle of the bewildering politics. Also set circa 860, which is much earlier than tSotS.

Chatterbox
02-19-2010, 05:36 PM
I found Wolf Hall to be beautifully written, and compelling enough as a story that I would have persevered even if it had meant making an effort to track unfamiliar events, etc. But the filioque clause?? The nitty griitty of the schism? It was there all the time, along with that really purple prose about the nature of god, good, evil etc. Another example: "You already begin to know how vast is our capacity to learn, and yet what we do not know is without end." It's almost Bulwer Lytton-esque.

As I say, I've loved her detective novels and probably will keep reading them, but her own fascination with a fascinating era just didn't make the leap. I should have been the target reader for this book -- I've travelled to Istanbul several times, I've read the standard histories (including those she cites in her bibliography) and still found it a hard slog.

Misfit
03-27-2010, 04:26 PM
CB, clearly there is something wrong with us. Harriet gave it five and called it fast paced. :confused::confused:

Telynor
03-28-2010, 03:28 PM
A pity this didn't hit the mark. I've seen several other not-too-positive reviews on this one, and i think I will pass on this one.

Chatterbox
03-28-2010, 11:56 PM
CB, clearly there is something wrong with us. Harriet gave it five and called it fast paced. :confused::confused:

Harriet is seriously delusional. NOTHING about this book is fast paced, from the action to the speed with which the reader turns the page.

Misfit
03-29-2010, 12:41 AM
Harriet is seriously delusional. NOTHING about this book is fast paced, from the action to the speed with which the reader turns the page.

It must have been some verbiage on the book jacket. That would explain it :rolleyes:

Vanessa
03-07-2011, 10:00 PM
Having finished this book, I would agree it is long-winded and fairly philosophical. Some of it I enjoyed. However, I did get a little confused with all the many characters and sub-plots. Good job it had a list of characters at the beginning! I also agree it's well researched and I liked the idea of a story set in Byzantium. The actual writing is good but very detailed. All in all I found it an interesting but slow read.

cw gortner
03-10-2011, 06:26 PM
I actually enjoyed this but it might have been my particular frame of mind. I'd never read Perry before, so I had no expectations and I did skim the more pendantic bits.

I agree it could have used a judicious trim, particularly of interior monologues, religious philosophising, and the plethora of secondary characters. Frankly, I cared less about Anna than I did for her counterpart, the vengeful courtesan, a character I loved - an older, wiser woman with tremendous sex appeal (rarely seen in today's hf) and an agenda.

Were it not for her, I may not have persevered. She made the story, and Byzantium as a culture, come alive for me. But as a writer, I saw a lot of stuff in the book that made me remember, "Less is more."