Scan barcode
A review by wwatts1734
Sarum: The Novel of England by Edward Rutherfurd
3.0
"Sarum" is an epic novel about the Salisbury region of South Central England. The scope of this novel is simply breathtaking, spanning from the Ice Age (I kid you not) to the 1980s. Corresponding to the scope of this novel, the length of the novel is also breathtaking. My hardcover edition was 900 pages, and the softcover edition is more like 1200. Normally I enjoy historical novels, but this one was just OK, and given the fact that I had to slog through 900 pages to get through it, I was not very happy with this one.
Let's begin with the good points. Rutherford paints a very extensive picture of the Salisbury region and the people who inhabit it. He covers the Neolithic era, the pre-Celtic era, the Celtic era, the Roman era, the Anglo-Saxon era, the Norman era and the modern era. He goes into sociology, history, architecture, literature and many other aspects of the region's history. All of this is interesting.
On the downside, this work really does not work as a novel. Because of the scope of this novel, there really is no story to speak of. Each chapter deals with a different era of history, with different characters, different historical settings and everything else. So nothing flows. The characters are also extremely shallow. At the end of a novel I like to think back to which were may favorite characters, but in this one I didn't really relate to any of them. In fact, in some parts, the story is so flimsy that I couldn't even remember any of the characters. The novel is built around a set of families that was descended through the millenia from common ancestors, but the families change names, branch out into different names and so it all becomes so confusing that the reader just gives up trying to figure it all out. The confusion becomes even worse when some of the characters emigrate to places like Australia and America, and then their descendents are reintroduced in later chapters.
Another problem with the novel is the research. Rutherford did an amazing job researching this novel. For some novels, like Michener, the research enhances the story. But in "Sarum", the research dominates the novel so that it makes the novel read more like a research paper than a story. Rutherford insists on taking time away from telling the story in order to describe the history, sociology, etc. so that the back and forth between the background and the story is enough to give the reader whiplash. Rutherford also has an annoying habit of itemizing things in his prose. For example, he likes to begin paragraphs with a phrase like this, "After the war three things happened that changed things forever. The first was..." this kind of thing makes the reader think that Rutherford wrote this novel by drawing up an outline and then simply adding prose to the outline to flesh it out. This is not the way to write a great novel.
Tied into this is the perspective of Rutherford's characters. In a historical novel, the author could use characters who are noblemen, diplomats, generals or other prominent members of society so that they can comment on the larger issues of history. When he does that, the author can comment on the geopolitical issues of the day. But many historical novelists recently have written history from the point of view of commoners. When they do this, the author has to stick to issues that a commoner would understand, like social issues, trade, agriculture, food, etc. In "Sarum", Rutherford tries to have it both ways. He uses commoners as characters in his story, but he has them discussing geopolitical issues that commoners would not understand. For example, in one interesting scene, Rutherford narrates a conversations between stonemasons and wool merchants in the 14th century about the conduct of the 100 years war. Now, how would masons and merchants know what was going on in France in the war? These kinds of things happen everywhere in "Sarum", and it makes the perspective of the novel simply silly. Rutherford doubles down on this by having these same commoners predict the emergence of social trends that even philosophers at the time could not predict. These kinds of omniscient characters make a mockery out of the realism of the story and make it read more like a fairy tale.
Overall, this was an interesting novel, but I would not recommend it to someone unless that person was really into English history of the kinds of novels of giant scope that Rutherford tends to write.
Let's begin with the good points. Rutherford paints a very extensive picture of the Salisbury region and the people who inhabit it. He covers the Neolithic era, the pre-Celtic era, the Celtic era, the Roman era, the Anglo-Saxon era, the Norman era and the modern era. He goes into sociology, history, architecture, literature and many other aspects of the region's history. All of this is interesting.
On the downside, this work really does not work as a novel. Because of the scope of this novel, there really is no story to speak of. Each chapter deals with a different era of history, with different characters, different historical settings and everything else. So nothing flows. The characters are also extremely shallow. At the end of a novel I like to think back to which were may favorite characters, but in this one I didn't really relate to any of them. In fact, in some parts, the story is so flimsy that I couldn't even remember any of the characters. The novel is built around a set of families that was descended through the millenia from common ancestors, but the families change names, branch out into different names and so it all becomes so confusing that the reader just gives up trying to figure it all out. The confusion becomes even worse when some of the characters emigrate to places like Australia and America, and then their descendents are reintroduced in later chapters.
Another problem with the novel is the research. Rutherford did an amazing job researching this novel. For some novels, like Michener, the research enhances the story. But in "Sarum", the research dominates the novel so that it makes the novel read more like a research paper than a story. Rutherford insists on taking time away from telling the story in order to describe the history, sociology, etc. so that the back and forth between the background and the story is enough to give the reader whiplash. Rutherford also has an annoying habit of itemizing things in his prose. For example, he likes to begin paragraphs with a phrase like this, "After the war three things happened that changed things forever. The first was..." this kind of thing makes the reader think that Rutherford wrote this novel by drawing up an outline and then simply adding prose to the outline to flesh it out. This is not the way to write a great novel.
Tied into this is the perspective of Rutherford's characters. In a historical novel, the author could use characters who are noblemen, diplomats, generals or other prominent members of society so that they can comment on the larger issues of history. When he does that, the author can comment on the geopolitical issues of the day. But many historical novelists recently have written history from the point of view of commoners. When they do this, the author has to stick to issues that a commoner would understand, like social issues, trade, agriculture, food, etc. In "Sarum", Rutherford tries to have it both ways. He uses commoners as characters in his story, but he has them discussing geopolitical issues that commoners would not understand. For example, in one interesting scene, Rutherford narrates a conversations between stonemasons and wool merchants in the 14th century about the conduct of the 100 years war. Now, how would masons and merchants know what was going on in France in the war? These kinds of things happen everywhere in "Sarum", and it makes the perspective of the novel simply silly. Rutherford doubles down on this by having these same commoners predict the emergence of social trends that even philosophers at the time could not predict. These kinds of omniscient characters make a mockery out of the realism of the story and make it read more like a fairy tale.
Overall, this was an interesting novel, but I would not recommend it to someone unless that person was really into English history of the kinds of novels of giant scope that Rutherford tends to write.