Scan barcode
speesh's reviews
416 reviews
Red Inferno: 1945 by Robert Conroy
3.0
The 'What if?' premiss of Red Inferno is a good one and given the state of affairs in the final months of WWII, one that was entirely possible.
What if, Conroy wonders, while they rushed to capture Berlin, hopefully capture Hitler alive and at the same time exact the maximum possible revenge for the atrocities committed against them - both real and imagined - the Russians had decided the chance and opportunity was there to continue on past Berlin? What if they had decided to continue the war past the shut-off date we all know and continue onwards to take the whole of Germany, then continue on even further into Holland, Belgium and ultimately France? What if they had decided the Eastern European countries they captured were not enough of a buffer zone and that the chance was actually there to 'export' the Communist revolution to the whole of Europe? How might that have unfolded? What might have happened to the (mostly) US forces who were already a long way in to Germany at the time (even though their leaders were duped by Stalin into holding back from a full-power rush to Berlin themselves)? How might the US have reacted and how might the Russians have been stopped (presuming of course, our sympathies lie with the West here, shall we say)?
That's the set-up and a good one it is at that.
However, while I enjoyed reading the book and at no time found it poor reading, I did feel that it was one of missed opportunities. One which, in better hands could have been a lot more satisfying. Conroy is an entirely competent writer, it seems, but the story deserved someone better. He shows the broad picture, the big plans, the leaders and the generals deciding policy, but he also manages to focus in on the soldiers and the (German) civilians caught at the sharp end and paying in their own blood, the price of the generals' broad strategic sweeps.
As I say, there's no shortage of interesting ideas, but perhaps my problems with the book can be pretty much traced back to the fact that it just isn't long enough. This can't be a short story and with so many different elements necessarily having to be involved, it really needed to be (at least) twice as long to fully do the story justice. To fully develop the ideas, possibilities (and not least) the characters, but also the ethical questions raised and the psychological possibilities he begins, but hasn't space or possibly ability, to develop properly. So, not deep enough, not broad enough and not long enough. A 'what if?' alternative history that was entertaining enough, but left me wondering 'what if, it'd been written by Max Hastings or Anthony Beevor?'
What if, Conroy wonders, while they rushed to capture Berlin, hopefully capture Hitler alive and at the same time exact the maximum possible revenge for the atrocities committed against them - both real and imagined - the Russians had decided the chance and opportunity was there to continue on past Berlin? What if they had decided to continue the war past the shut-off date we all know and continue onwards to take the whole of Germany, then continue on even further into Holland, Belgium and ultimately France? What if they had decided the Eastern European countries they captured were not enough of a buffer zone and that the chance was actually there to 'export' the Communist revolution to the whole of Europe? How might that have unfolded? What might have happened to the (mostly) US forces who were already a long way in to Germany at the time (even though their leaders were duped by Stalin into holding back from a full-power rush to Berlin themselves)? How might the US have reacted and how might the Russians have been stopped (presuming of course, our sympathies lie with the West here, shall we say)?
That's the set-up and a good one it is at that.
However, while I enjoyed reading the book and at no time found it poor reading, I did feel that it was one of missed opportunities. One which, in better hands could have been a lot more satisfying. Conroy is an entirely competent writer, it seems, but the story deserved someone better. He shows the broad picture, the big plans, the leaders and the generals deciding policy, but he also manages to focus in on the soldiers and the (German) civilians caught at the sharp end and paying in their own blood, the price of the generals' broad strategic sweeps.
As I say, there's no shortage of interesting ideas, but perhaps my problems with the book can be pretty much traced back to the fact that it just isn't long enough. This can't be a short story and with so many different elements necessarily having to be involved, it really needed to be (at least) twice as long to fully do the story justice. To fully develop the ideas, possibilities (and not least) the characters, but also the ethical questions raised and the psychological possibilities he begins, but hasn't space or possibly ability, to develop properly. So, not deep enough, not broad enough and not long enough. A 'what if?' alternative history that was entertaining enough, but left me wondering 'what if, it'd been written by Max Hastings or Anthony Beevor?'
The Splintered Kingdom by James Aitcheson
4.0
If I read a better, more satisfying book, of the Historical Fiction (or any other) genre this next year - I'll be astounded.
Or for many years to come. Or at least until the next in the 'Bloody Aftermath' series.
The 'Splintered Kingdom' really is that good. Superbly plotted and well paced, it is a thought-provoking, richly nuanced and tremendously satisfying book. A vivid, convincing imagining of a tumultuous period in England's history. A book alive with incident, battles, tense last-minute rescues and not least, perhaps the most satisfying of all; alive with possibilities for the future direction(s) of the story.
But hey, read on...
Set in 1070, 'The Splintered Kingdom' is of course, a follow-on from the first in the '1066: The Bloody Aftermath' series, yet is so self-contained that while you really owe it to yourself to go read 'Sworn Sword' (now), you absolutely can get the most out of 'Splintered Kingdom' without having done so.
(Better make sure your chair has a good cushion, grab a cup of coffee and/or a sandwich and a blanket, 'cause as the great Robert Plant and Led Zeppelin once so succinctly put it; I'm gonna ramble on, for a while here)
'The Splintered Kingdom' begins with our Norman knight Tancred a Dinant the newly installed owner of an estate on the western edges of the English midlands, called Earnford. In this case; a Frenchman's Englishman's home is now his castle (!). The estate was given to him by his lord Robert Malet, who…well look, you're just going to have to read 'Sworn Sword now, aren't you?
The area is close to the ancient Offa's Dyke and therefore too close for comfort to the Welsh border. Life on the estate is generally happy and peaceful, judging by the lovely passages describing Tancred's life and the countryside surrounding Earnford. However, tensions with their Welsh neighbours are never far below the surface (and in invading Britain, the Normans have of course, stormed in the middle of an age-old conflict between the English and the Welsh - the reason why Offa had his dyke built in the first place) and Tancred has to start by leading his men on a hunt after some of their women are captured and taken hostage. Tancred is obviously respected, perhaps even liked, by his subjects and has found himself a new woman, pregnant now with their first child. His assimilation into local life as the estate's new Lord seems complete, even though we're not more than four years after the Conquest; "French and English making merry together: I hadn't thought I'd live to see it happen", as Tancred says at the celebration the whole village throws following the safe return of (most of) the hunters and hostages. Clearly this is something of a pleasant surprise for him.
But, perhaps not surprisingly, Tancred soon finds out that while the ordinary English people on his property may, if not like him, at least tolerate him - the English rebels don't like him. One. Little. Bit. He is a marked man and there's a price on his head. The English rebels (remember, this story is told from a Norman point of view) have allied themselves with the Welsh and want him dead. Not just him obviously, Normans in general, but him in particular.
Then again, the English lords now opposed to Tancred and the Normans, were ones who fought alongside Harold at Hastings, but survived. They swore fealty to William, yet haven't just gone quietly into the night. They are perhaps understandably more than a little miffed at the new King William giving their old lands away as rewards to his fellow Normans. So some have moved over the border into Wales and allied themselves with everyone's ancient enemy, the Welsh. All in the hope of driving their new, common enemy, out. The Welsh they once had to hold at bay now help in attacking their old lands! Meanwhile, off in the north, the English rebels even ally themselves with the Norman's old cousins, the Vikings, who are trying to invade again after Harald Hardrada's failed attempt to beat the English back in '66 at the battle of Stamford Bridge. Which of course, delayed and weakened Harold Godwinson's progress south to fight William and the Normans. Old scores and generations' old hatreds might have to wait. For now.
What James does especially well in 'The Splintered Kingdom' I feel, is set out how all these many contradictions play on the surface, while always hinting at the tensions that simmer just beneath, as the story rolls on, gathering new elements, constantly building and unfolding. Like following a wisp of smoke as it grows thicker leading back to its fire, I thought. Or, given the way the country and life down on Tancred's English manor is described at the start; as clouds gathering on a clear summer's afternoon, with the promise of a coming storm.
And the storm comes. Warnings of trouble brewing elsewhere in the supposedly conquered kingdom come and Tancred is ordered away to help the fight. Something that he imagined he would relish, but when confronted with the reality, he's suddenly not so sure; "For all the times in the past year that I had longed to lead my conroi into battle, I had never thought that when the summons came it would feel like this." Is Tancred perhaps a changing man? Is England changing him? Can he square his Viking warrior roots and lust for battle, with the demands of looking after a growing local community who depend on him? Conflicts, tensions and enemies mount, the fragile control the Normans had over the kingdom starts to shatter and Tancred must set off to defend a land he once helped conquer but now calls home. Nothing is straightforward, nothing is as it seems - there are twists, turns, contradictions, shifting alliances and, as my old Grandma used to say; "dirty dickery" galore - as you'll find. The principle of my enemy's enemy being my friend and the least worst choice, abounds. The whole thing careers unstoppably onwards, via tense chases, ambushes and more double-crossing. On to a nail-biting climax in York, Tancred's old stamping ground from 'Sworn Sword'. You just knew it. It can't be stopped.
I really did feel a lot of times, 'The Splintered Kingdom' read like there was a film playing in my head. A film, where everything seems nice and peaceful and sunny and tranquil and relaxed. But you know when you bought the ticket that it said 'thriller' and you know there's a shock or double cross coming. Soon. You know it, there must be. But you just don't know when. You know it's coming. You want the character to look round and see what you can see is behind him. You want to skip ahead to the end of the paragraph and find out, but you don't dare spoil the tension. You can't close your eyes of course. You can't stop it. You know it's coming, but even so, when it does - BANG! It's still a shock. You're thrilled to be thrilled. I had several of these moments during 'The Splintered Kingdom'. I could HEAR the sweet music playing as I read and then tripped and fell headlong down a bank into a huge surprise (a couple of times the wife had to ask why I was saying 'Ha!' out loud). And there is one HUGE surprise towards the end of the novel. One which suddenly throws the whole thing open again and makes you wish James hadn't stopped where he has (I'm currently wrapping pens, paper, more coffee and ProPlus pills to send over to Wiltshire - I need to know!).
"Oh, good grief!"
OK, not long to go now.
Where 'Sworn Sword' and 'The Splintered Kingdom' really do score for me, is how they play against my expectations of the Norman period. James Aitcheson studied History at Cambridge University so clearly knows his medieval and Norman onions. As I mentioned in my review for 'Sworn Sword', and which I'm going to bore you with again here: The conflict between the obvious 'reality' of this story and my previous understanding of how beastly the Normans were towards the English, post-invasion, is one of many dichotomies this novel/series presents me with. The plucky but unlucky English hero Harold, is, to the story's Norman hero, 'Harold the usurper'. These are not (all) the arrogant, confident, all-conquering Norman knights I thought I knew from my history lessons. They are land-owners worried about their property and especially worried about what might happen while they're away campaigning in Wales or elsewhere. Speaking as an Englishman, the Normans should be 'the enemy'! Here, it's the English (not to mention the Welsh) who are. It's also the English who are the rebels. "That can't be right!" I tell myself. THEY'RE in OUR country! Tancred is, but shouldn't be, an immensely likeable character - he's a nasty Norman, for goodness' sake! He's surely not how a Norman should be, my imagination cries. So, contrary to the stories of the Norman Conquest we (English) have grown up with, here is a genuinely likeable Norman knight who seems to truly care for his English subjects. He's not the aloof, brutal French warrior an English reader of this story would expect after countless 'Robin Hood' stories and films down the years (OK, just me then). 'The Splintered Kingdom', 'Sworn Sword' before it and Tancred, are nothing if not a challenge to my expectations.
However, despite his many outward complications, I think Tancred is in reality a simple man. His problem is simply that he is constantly torn between two sides. As I mentioned earlier, I think it is perhaps important to remember that the Normans were at this point only a few of generations from their Viking origins. Normandy, comes from 'Northman', after all. A Viking called 'Rollo' (not enough 'Rollo's, or 'Rolf's around these days, I feel - even here in Denmark) founded what became Normandy, in A.D. 911. Tancred's own Viking roots are never far below his outwardly calm surface. His feeling that his sword arm itches when battle is near and the feeling of battle calm, even joy he gets during a fight, is pure Viking. His heart often says fight, but his head says no. As one interesting passage puts it; "'The sword is not the answer to every problem,'... 'Sometimes it is better to keep it sheathed and stay your hand. You would be wise to remember that.'" And remember it he often has to. But luckily for us - not always!
This concept of the inner dichotomy in Tancred's personality - between the old-fashioned, hot-blooded Viking warrior constantly spoiling for a fight and the lord and master of an English estate, with people looking to him for guidance and protection - is broadened, brought out of Tancred and reflected many times across the story itself. A little awkward that, but inner personal struggle reflecting external, historical conflicts, I guess I mean. Alliances come and go, between people and groups who really shouldn't be in alliances and which all serve to keep Tancred on his toes, constantly wondering if he can work out which way history will have him move. That's just one more reason why it is such a splendid book, so many possibilities.
And I really hope that the possibilities presented by Tancred's personal struggle, of feeling fellowship with his English 'subjects', while still being bound by Norman rules, could be something explored further in future Tancred stories. The clash of loyalties and realities is actually similar to that we should have seen, but didn't, in Bernard Cornwall's recent 'The Death of Kings' (whilst I thought it was the best in the series so far, the struggle between Uhtred's Viking roots and his English loyalties was not, I felt, given the space the problem deserves. A bit of a wasted opportunity, if you ask me). Here, Tancred is conquerer, turned defender. Many of his own countrymen turn against him as his actions challenge their expectations and his fame irritates them. And speaking of 'countrymen', Tancred mentions several times that whilst he is unquestionably on the outside, a Norman, he is in fact Breton, not a Norman by birth. And Bretons have common Celtic, Welsh even, roots, don't they? Sweet. So where should his loyalties now lie when it's the Welsh come knocking at his back door? And, bear with me here; is it a subtle, but significant, nuance added to Tancred's character that he now wears his hair long? In the 'British style' (apparently). Not in the short, severe style favoured by his fellow Norman knights. Something else they criticise him for. Outwardly English, inwardly Norman. Could it be an indication Tancred is in danger of 'going native'? Normally something English people do when THEY live too long in a foreign country. If I were to speculate over future developments; could it indicate that Tancred, comes to bear arms against his former countrymen? In the future, I'd have Tancred come to question where his loyalties really lie. 'Home' or 'abroad'? Really put him on the spot and see which way he jumps. If I were James. Just a thought...
I don't want to make this sound like this is the perfect historical novel, but it's certainly on the way there. There were a couple of incidents I thought were a little awkward, but it's close and the series is getting closer. If 'Sworn Sword' showed great promise, then 'The Splintered Kingdom' delivers. And then some. If you thought the first one was good, just wait until you read this. If you haven't read the first one - what are you waiting for? Go buy it - and this one, now!
A disclaimer:
I'm English. I grew up in and around the western English midlands. I lived half my life up in Yorkshire, not that far from York. In my younger, drinking days, York always had a reputation as a 'fighting' town - so not much changed in 1,000 years? I now live in Denmark, where the Vikings come from. I speak Danish. The rest of my family have lived in south Wales for around 30 years. My maternal Grandmother always insisted our family surname was of French origin.
Or for many years to come. Or at least until the next in the 'Bloody Aftermath' series.
The 'Splintered Kingdom' really is that good. Superbly plotted and well paced, it is a thought-provoking, richly nuanced and tremendously satisfying book. A vivid, convincing imagining of a tumultuous period in England's history. A book alive with incident, battles, tense last-minute rescues and not least, perhaps the most satisfying of all; alive with possibilities for the future direction(s) of the story.
But hey, read on...
Set in 1070, 'The Splintered Kingdom' is of course, a follow-on from the first in the '1066: The Bloody Aftermath' series, yet is so self-contained that while you really owe it to yourself to go read 'Sworn Sword' (now), you absolutely can get the most out of 'Splintered Kingdom' without having done so.
(Better make sure your chair has a good cushion, grab a cup of coffee and/or a sandwich and a blanket, 'cause as the great Robert Plant and Led Zeppelin once so succinctly put it; I'm gonna ramble on, for a while here)
'The Splintered Kingdom' begins with our Norman knight Tancred a Dinant the newly installed owner of an estate on the western edges of the English midlands, called Earnford. In this case; a Frenchman's Englishman's home is now his castle (!). The estate was given to him by his lord Robert Malet, who…well look, you're just going to have to read 'Sworn Sword now, aren't you?
The area is close to the ancient Offa's Dyke and therefore too close for comfort to the Welsh border. Life on the estate is generally happy and peaceful, judging by the lovely passages describing Tancred's life and the countryside surrounding Earnford. However, tensions with their Welsh neighbours are never far below the surface (and in invading Britain, the Normans have of course, stormed in the middle of an age-old conflict between the English and the Welsh - the reason why Offa had his dyke built in the first place) and Tancred has to start by leading his men on a hunt after some of their women are captured and taken hostage. Tancred is obviously respected, perhaps even liked, by his subjects and has found himself a new woman, pregnant now with their first child. His assimilation into local life as the estate's new Lord seems complete, even though we're not more than four years after the Conquest; "French and English making merry together: I hadn't thought I'd live to see it happen", as Tancred says at the celebration the whole village throws following the safe return of (most of) the hunters and hostages. Clearly this is something of a pleasant surprise for him.
But, perhaps not surprisingly, Tancred soon finds out that while the ordinary English people on his property may, if not like him, at least tolerate him - the English rebels don't like him. One. Little. Bit. He is a marked man and there's a price on his head. The English rebels (remember, this story is told from a Norman point of view) have allied themselves with the Welsh and want him dead. Not just him obviously, Normans in general, but him in particular.
Then again, the English lords now opposed to Tancred and the Normans, were ones who fought alongside Harold at Hastings, but survived. They swore fealty to William, yet haven't just gone quietly into the night. They are perhaps understandably more than a little miffed at the new King William giving their old lands away as rewards to his fellow Normans. So some have moved over the border into Wales and allied themselves with everyone's ancient enemy, the Welsh. All in the hope of driving their new, common enemy, out. The Welsh they once had to hold at bay now help in attacking their old lands! Meanwhile, off in the north, the English rebels even ally themselves with the Norman's old cousins, the Vikings, who are trying to invade again after Harald Hardrada's failed attempt to beat the English back in '66 at the battle of Stamford Bridge. Which of course, delayed and weakened Harold Godwinson's progress south to fight William and the Normans. Old scores and generations' old hatreds might have to wait. For now.
What James does especially well in 'The Splintered Kingdom' I feel, is set out how all these many contradictions play on the surface, while always hinting at the tensions that simmer just beneath, as the story rolls on, gathering new elements, constantly building and unfolding. Like following a wisp of smoke as it grows thicker leading back to its fire, I thought. Or, given the way the country and life down on Tancred's English manor is described at the start; as clouds gathering on a clear summer's afternoon, with the promise of a coming storm.
And the storm comes. Warnings of trouble brewing elsewhere in the supposedly conquered kingdom come and Tancred is ordered away to help the fight. Something that he imagined he would relish, but when confronted with the reality, he's suddenly not so sure; "For all the times in the past year that I had longed to lead my conroi into battle, I had never thought that when the summons came it would feel like this." Is Tancred perhaps a changing man? Is England changing him? Can he square his Viking warrior roots and lust for battle, with the demands of looking after a growing local community who depend on him? Conflicts, tensions and enemies mount, the fragile control the Normans had over the kingdom starts to shatter and Tancred must set off to defend a land he once helped conquer but now calls home. Nothing is straightforward, nothing is as it seems - there are twists, turns, contradictions, shifting alliances and, as my old Grandma used to say; "dirty dickery" galore - as you'll find. The principle of my enemy's enemy being my friend and the least worst choice, abounds. The whole thing careers unstoppably onwards, via tense chases, ambushes and more double-crossing. On to a nail-biting climax in York, Tancred's old stamping ground from 'Sworn Sword'. You just knew it. It can't be stopped.
I really did feel a lot of times, 'The Splintered Kingdom' read like there was a film playing in my head. A film, where everything seems nice and peaceful and sunny and tranquil and relaxed. But you know when you bought the ticket that it said 'thriller' and you know there's a shock or double cross coming. Soon. You know it, there must be. But you just don't know when. You know it's coming. You want the character to look round and see what you can see is behind him. You want to skip ahead to the end of the paragraph and find out, but you don't dare spoil the tension. You can't close your eyes of course. You can't stop it. You know it's coming, but even so, when it does - BANG! It's still a shock. You're thrilled to be thrilled. I had several of these moments during 'The Splintered Kingdom'. I could HEAR the sweet music playing as I read and then tripped and fell headlong down a bank into a huge surprise (a couple of times the wife had to ask why I was saying 'Ha!' out loud). And there is one HUGE surprise towards the end of the novel. One which suddenly throws the whole thing open again and makes you wish James hadn't stopped where he has (I'm currently wrapping pens, paper, more coffee and ProPlus pills to send over to Wiltshire - I need to know!).
"Oh, good grief!"
OK, not long to go now.
Where 'Sworn Sword' and 'The Splintered Kingdom' really do score for me, is how they play against my expectations of the Norman period. James Aitcheson studied History at Cambridge University so clearly knows his medieval and Norman onions. As I mentioned in my review for 'Sworn Sword', and which I'm going to bore you with again here: The conflict between the obvious 'reality' of this story and my previous understanding of how beastly the Normans were towards the English, post-invasion, is one of many dichotomies this novel/series presents me with. The plucky but unlucky English hero Harold, is, to the story's Norman hero, 'Harold the usurper'. These are not (all) the arrogant, confident, all-conquering Norman knights I thought I knew from my history lessons. They are land-owners worried about their property and especially worried about what might happen while they're away campaigning in Wales or elsewhere. Speaking as an Englishman, the Normans should be 'the enemy'! Here, it's the English (not to mention the Welsh) who are. It's also the English who are the rebels. "That can't be right!" I tell myself. THEY'RE in OUR country! Tancred is, but shouldn't be, an immensely likeable character - he's a nasty Norman, for goodness' sake! He's surely not how a Norman should be, my imagination cries. So, contrary to the stories of the Norman Conquest we (English) have grown up with, here is a genuinely likeable Norman knight who seems to truly care for his English subjects. He's not the aloof, brutal French warrior an English reader of this story would expect after countless 'Robin Hood' stories and films down the years (OK, just me then). 'The Splintered Kingdom', 'Sworn Sword' before it and Tancred, are nothing if not a challenge to my expectations.
However, despite his many outward complications, I think Tancred is in reality a simple man. His problem is simply that he is constantly torn between two sides. As I mentioned earlier, I think it is perhaps important to remember that the Normans were at this point only a few of generations from their Viking origins. Normandy, comes from 'Northman', after all. A Viking called 'Rollo' (not enough 'Rollo's, or 'Rolf's around these days, I feel - even here in Denmark) founded what became Normandy, in A.D. 911. Tancred's own Viking roots are never far below his outwardly calm surface. His feeling that his sword arm itches when battle is near and the feeling of battle calm, even joy he gets during a fight, is pure Viking. His heart often says fight, but his head says no. As one interesting passage puts it; "'The sword is not the answer to every problem,'... 'Sometimes it is better to keep it sheathed and stay your hand. You would be wise to remember that.'" And remember it he often has to. But luckily for us - not always!
This concept of the inner dichotomy in Tancred's personality - between the old-fashioned, hot-blooded Viking warrior constantly spoiling for a fight and the lord and master of an English estate, with people looking to him for guidance and protection - is broadened, brought out of Tancred and reflected many times across the story itself. A little awkward that, but inner personal struggle reflecting external, historical conflicts, I guess I mean. Alliances come and go, between people and groups who really shouldn't be in alliances and which all serve to keep Tancred on his toes, constantly wondering if he can work out which way history will have him move. That's just one more reason why it is such a splendid book, so many possibilities.
And I really hope that the possibilities presented by Tancred's personal struggle, of feeling fellowship with his English 'subjects', while still being bound by Norman rules, could be something explored further in future Tancred stories. The clash of loyalties and realities is actually similar to that we should have seen, but didn't, in Bernard Cornwall's recent 'The Death of Kings' (whilst I thought it was the best in the series so far, the struggle between Uhtred's Viking roots and his English loyalties was not, I felt, given the space the problem deserves. A bit of a wasted opportunity, if you ask me). Here, Tancred is conquerer, turned defender. Many of his own countrymen turn against him as his actions challenge their expectations and his fame irritates them. And speaking of 'countrymen', Tancred mentions several times that whilst he is unquestionably on the outside, a Norman, he is in fact Breton, not a Norman by birth. And Bretons have common Celtic, Welsh even, roots, don't they? Sweet. So where should his loyalties now lie when it's the Welsh come knocking at his back door? And, bear with me here; is it a subtle, but significant, nuance added to Tancred's character that he now wears his hair long? In the 'British style' (apparently). Not in the short, severe style favoured by his fellow Norman knights. Something else they criticise him for. Outwardly English, inwardly Norman. Could it be an indication Tancred is in danger of 'going native'? Normally something English people do when THEY live too long in a foreign country. If I were to speculate over future developments; could it indicate that Tancred, comes to bear arms against his former countrymen? In the future, I'd have Tancred come to question where his loyalties really lie. 'Home' or 'abroad'? Really put him on the spot and see which way he jumps. If I were James. Just a thought...
I don't want to make this sound like this is the perfect historical novel, but it's certainly on the way there. There were a couple of incidents I thought were a little awkward, but it's close and the series is getting closer. If 'Sworn Sword' showed great promise, then 'The Splintered Kingdom' delivers. And then some. If you thought the first one was good, just wait until you read this. If you haven't read the first one - what are you waiting for? Go buy it - and this one, now!
A disclaimer:
I'm English. I grew up in and around the western English midlands. I lived half my life up in Yorkshire, not that far from York. In my younger, drinking days, York always had a reputation as a 'fighting' town - so not much changed in 1,000 years? I now live in Denmark, where the Vikings come from. I speak Danish. The rest of my family have lived in south Wales for around 30 years. My maternal Grandmother always insisted our family surname was of French origin.
The Moses Stone by James Becker
2.0
I'm sure that the 'Moses', linked to the word 'stone', gives you a fair clue as to what this one is about.
Unfortunately, this is another one that begins well enough, but which could have been much better. Becker decides to slip into an already well-worn formula, even though the other one of his I read previously 'The First Apostle', I remember as being really quite good. Makes you wonder if his publisher asked him if he had a 'Me Too' historical/religious artefact thriller lying about and Becker rush finished this one and they pumped it out.
What really irritated me, is something that happens in many of this type of book. It is the 'technique' of having the characters explain to each other, at great length, the historical or technical information the author feels the reader needs next to understand the novel or the next development in the story. Having the information conveyed by a character, rather than the author just putting the necessary information into the narrative, always makes me wonder how lucky our plucky hero is to stumble across the leading experts in their various fields with total recal and photographic memories. And it annoys the whathaveyou out of me. 'The Moses Stone' does it at nearly every turn. It's not alone in doing this, as I've said, but it really got to me before the end of the story.
I may have to think twice before reading another of his.
Unfortunately, this is another one that begins well enough, but which could have been much better. Becker decides to slip into an already well-worn formula, even though the other one of his I read previously 'The First Apostle', I remember as being really quite good. Makes you wonder if his publisher asked him if he had a 'Me Too' historical/religious artefact thriller lying about and Becker rush finished this one and they pumped it out.
What really irritated me, is something that happens in many of this type of book. It is the 'technique' of having the characters explain to each other, at great length, the historical or technical information the author feels the reader needs next to understand the novel or the next development in the story. Having the information conveyed by a character, rather than the author just putting the necessary information into the narrative, always makes me wonder how lucky our plucky hero is to stumble across the leading experts in their various fields with total recal and photographic memories. And it annoys the whathaveyou out of me. 'The Moses Stone' does it at nearly every turn. It's not alone in doing this, as I've said, but it really got to me before the end of the story.
I may have to think twice before reading another of his.
The Charlemagne Pursuit by Steve Berry
1.0
Why?
I suppose I keep thinking this will be the one.
Maybe THIS will be the one.
This isn't the one.
This really isn't very good. It's not really even a good 'Steve Berry' (pretty sure I read somewhere that Steve Berry isn't the author's real name). I think I have read a good Steve Berry book, just can't for the life of me remember the title just now. Maybe it was one of the others.
What story there is, tries to weave some excitement around an ancient, lost civilization who were extremely advanced way before the early civilizations we know of, who influenced the early civilizations, but disappeared - almost - without trace. Charlemagne (I'm working out from that you know roughly who Charlemagne was). Re-discovered, searched for and possibly found by mad Nazis, they were then searched for again, the searchers were abandoned but possibly discovered twice, by the Americans. And of course, being Americans, they covered the whole sorry mess up. The main story follows the son and two daughters of a couple of crew members of both the Nazi expedition and the American one. There's also some attempted political intrigue and a ruthless hit-man. And that description, is way more interesting than the actual story.
To be fair, he has done wonders with a very average idea. The idea behind the story is so extremely average, that I really can't suggest any ways it could have been better. This is about as good as this one possibly could be. The problem with the characters is, they have none. And the problem with the way the story is told, is that he cuts about from place to place, from incident to incident, way more than can be justified. He clearly is writing while seeing an hour long tv special in his head. That by having things going on in three or four different places at the same time, will create excitement and suspense. It doesn't. It may do on the tv, but not on the page of a book. Just creates confusion. And 'oh, for goodness' sake - get on with it!' But then when he does, it isn't worth it. And the writing style has got 'made for tv script' written all over it. It looks like I know a film/tv script looks. Like you write a proper story, then remove half of the 'unnecessary' words. Except they are necessary. To a reader.
Then there's the end credits, citing sources and background and justification for some of the scenarios he writes about. It's just window dressing. You really can't polish a you-know-what. The end credits can list all the historical 'facts' and precidents it likes, it still doesn't raise 'The Charlemagne Pursuit' anywhere near above the extremely average.
And finally. The characters' names in books like these. Always bugs me. What do the authors think happens? That parents know when they give their kids name that they will grow up to be international playboys/girls, super thieves, super heroes or ex-Marine/SAS globe-trotting, just how exactly did they get to be so rich, archaeological experts? Men with names like 'Dirk', or generally men with surnames as Christian names, can be super-intelligent, tall, dark, square-jawed heroes. The Clive Cussler school of story-telling (don't ever, ever read a Clive Cussler book, even the back of one, or even glance at a few pages in a bookshop). Don't they realise that film actor heroes change their names? He wasn't born Kirk Douglas, he changed his name. John Wayne was even christened Marion, for chuff's sake. Which is probably one of the reasons why you can really relate to Liam Neeson in the 'Taken' films. He's called Brian Mills. You probably know a Brian Mills yourself. I know a couple of Brians and I live in Denmark, for goodness' sake. But Cassiopea? No. And I sure as hell can't imagine knowing any one with even a nickname of 'Cotton'. I can't take seriously anyone who even seems to be called 'Cotton' by his own father.
And it's long, way too long. At a readable size on my iPhone (I'm reading these on the bus, at 06.00 on my way to and from work each day) it was up over 1100 'pages'. But the wait for something exciting to happen was a long, frustratingly fruitless one.
OK, maybe the next one will be the one...
I suppose I keep thinking this will be the one.
Maybe THIS will be the one.
This isn't the one.
This really isn't very good. It's not really even a good 'Steve Berry' (pretty sure I read somewhere that Steve Berry isn't the author's real name). I think I have read a good Steve Berry book, just can't for the life of me remember the title just now. Maybe it was one of the others.
What story there is, tries to weave some excitement around an ancient, lost civilization who were extremely advanced way before the early civilizations we know of, who influenced the early civilizations, but disappeared - almost - without trace. Charlemagne (I'm working out from that you know roughly who Charlemagne was). Re-discovered, searched for and possibly found by mad Nazis, they were then searched for again, the searchers were abandoned but possibly discovered twice, by the Americans. And of course, being Americans, they covered the whole sorry mess up. The main story follows the son and two daughters of a couple of crew members of both the Nazi expedition and the American one. There's also some attempted political intrigue and a ruthless hit-man. And that description, is way more interesting than the actual story.
To be fair, he has done wonders with a very average idea. The idea behind the story is so extremely average, that I really can't suggest any ways it could have been better. This is about as good as this one possibly could be. The problem with the characters is, they have none. And the problem with the way the story is told, is that he cuts about from place to place, from incident to incident, way more than can be justified. He clearly is writing while seeing an hour long tv special in his head. That by having things going on in three or four different places at the same time, will create excitement and suspense. It doesn't. It may do on the tv, but not on the page of a book. Just creates confusion. And 'oh, for goodness' sake - get on with it!' But then when he does, it isn't worth it. And the writing style has got 'made for tv script' written all over it. It looks like I know a film/tv script looks. Like you write a proper story, then remove half of the 'unnecessary' words. Except they are necessary. To a reader.
Then there's the end credits, citing sources and background and justification for some of the scenarios he writes about. It's just window dressing. You really can't polish a you-know-what. The end credits can list all the historical 'facts' and precidents it likes, it still doesn't raise 'The Charlemagne Pursuit' anywhere near above the extremely average.
And finally. The characters' names in books like these. Always bugs me. What do the authors think happens? That parents know when they give their kids name that they will grow up to be international playboys/girls, super thieves, super heroes or ex-Marine/SAS globe-trotting, just how exactly did they get to be so rich, archaeological experts? Men with names like 'Dirk', or generally men with surnames as Christian names, can be super-intelligent, tall, dark, square-jawed heroes. The Clive Cussler school of story-telling (don't ever, ever read a Clive Cussler book, even the back of one, or even glance at a few pages in a bookshop). Don't they realise that film actor heroes change their names? He wasn't born Kirk Douglas, he changed his name. John Wayne was even christened Marion, for chuff's sake. Which is probably one of the reasons why you can really relate to Liam Neeson in the 'Taken' films. He's called Brian Mills. You probably know a Brian Mills yourself. I know a couple of Brians and I live in Denmark, for goodness' sake. But Cassiopea? No. And I sure as hell can't imagine knowing any one with even a nickname of 'Cotton'. I can't take seriously anyone who even seems to be called 'Cotton' by his own father.
And it's long, way too long. At a readable size on my iPhone (I'm reading these on the bus, at 06.00 on my way to and from work each day) it was up over 1100 'pages'. But the wait for something exciting to happen was a long, frustratingly fruitless one.
OK, maybe the next one will be the one...
The Second World War by Antony Beevor
5.0
At the excellent talk given by Anthony Beevor I was lucky enough to attend this last summer here in Aarhus (Denmark) (just before the release of 'The Second World War', or 'Anden Verdens Krig', if you're Danish), one of the - extraordinarily perceptive, considering English is not their first language - questions asked by the Danish audience went along the lines of: "Given the profusion of World War II books in general and histories in particular, what will make yours' different?"
I won't go into Anthony's reply (look, I met him, chatted with him and liked him a lot, so it's 'Anthony' from now on, ok?), but it is a question that I've been thinking about the answer to, while reading this truly extraordinary book.
But it's immediately obvious.
Histories of - for instance - the Second World War are written mostly from the point of trying to make sense of something that the more historians write about, the less sense it actually makes. Anthony Beevor makes absolute sense of it all, by showing how little sense it all made. At the time and today. I don't think it's a case of not being able to appreciate the thought processes of societies at 80 years distance. It made no sense to the ordinary people at the time. It makes no sense now.
With 'The Second World War', Antony Beevor is at the top of his game. He writes with a sureness and clarity of style, a deftness of touch, that not just for covers the grand scale of a conflict that stretched across continents, but also has a sharp eye for the the telling detail, the splash of colour that adds nuance to the stark facts and innumerable shockingly senseless figures. And to reveal the ordinary human despair of people adrift at the bottom of a world totally out of control.
So, I'll now bore you with how I read the situation after reading 'The Second World War' (and these opinions are my own, and possibly not those of Antony Beevor, or those he intended his reader to form after reading the book). How do I see the Second World War?
There are shocking tales of blunders, mistakes, ignorance, arrogance and total failure to take or give the right orders. Failure to understand the significance of events or moods among the Generals and politicians, that will have you wondering how anyone won this war, let alone the 'good guys'. But by the end, I think most people will draw the conclusion that the real 'winners' were Stalin and his...well, maybe just Stalin then.
In my estimation, German planning and execution of their plans seems to have been better than the Allies' for the most part. But they were eventually overwhelmed by superior, mostly Soviet, numbers and by Hitler's insistence on incompetant interfering where he should have left it to people who knew what they were doing.
I don't really have a frame of reference for the conflict with Japan and in and around the Pacific. I am naturally, because I'm European, more fascinated by the war in Europe. However, one fact and opinion that struck me in Beevor's description of the conflict that shows that even on a different continent, there was no difference:
"It has been estimated that six in every ten of the 1.74 million Japanese soldiers who died in the war succumbed to disease and starvation. Whatever the scale of their war crimes against foreign nationals, the Japanese chiefs of staff should have been condemned by their own people for crimes against their own soldiers, but this was unthinkable in such a conformist society."
So, far from understanding why we won, after reading this and also Max Hastings' 'All Hell Let Loose', it is in my opinion, possibly more accurate to say; how on earth did we win? Well, it's always going to sound glib trying to sum up the unsummable in a sentence. But let's have a go anyway. I have of course never previously questioned, or even thought to question, that we won World War II, because we were right and we better than them. However, one of the things that has impressed me after reading 'The Second World War' and 'All Hell Let Loose', is this: We won, or rather we didn't lose, because our leaders were slightly less incompetent than theirs'.
Even though i know a lot about the Second World War, as my generation must, and have read many other books about the conflict, the enormity of the events brilliantly presented by Antony Beevor here are almost too much. The facts and figures are so large, so brutal, so numbingly shocking, that it's almost too much to comprehend and absorb. Even though he is obviously describing true events, it's almost too much to believe that it actually did happen. The book contains the kinds of examples of deliberate death and destruction that if the author said he was writing about the Middle Ages, you'd believe him. That it happened within the lifetimes of millions of people still alive and around us today, is hard to square. It's like we're reading about another time and place, yet it was Europe, where I live, within my parents's lifetime. For me, that makes it even more shocking.
I did feel almost literally stunned when i finished the book. I had to take some time to let it all sink in and get my views of it put to rest. Yes, it's an exhaustive and exhausting experience, but it's also a richly rewarding one. As I said above, while the book discusses and analyses the broad strategy sweeps of course, but it also makes us think about and remember those individuals less fortunate than us, who were caught at the wrong time, in the wrong place, and were the ones who paid for others' stupidity, incompetence, megalomania, arrogance, intransigence, ambition and more, through no fault of their own, with their lives. Sacrificed on the altar of someone else's ambition. Maybe we will be in danger of learning and even improving, by reading books like this.
If you're only going to buy one book on the Second World War, make it this one.
And Max Hastings' 'All Hell Let Loose'.
I won't go into Anthony's reply (look, I met him, chatted with him and liked him a lot, so it's 'Anthony' from now on, ok?), but it is a question that I've been thinking about the answer to, while reading this truly extraordinary book.
But it's immediately obvious.
Histories of - for instance - the Second World War are written mostly from the point of trying to make sense of something that the more historians write about, the less sense it actually makes. Anthony Beevor makes absolute sense of it all, by showing how little sense it all made. At the time and today. I don't think it's a case of not being able to appreciate the thought processes of societies at 80 years distance. It made no sense to the ordinary people at the time. It makes no sense now.
With 'The Second World War', Antony Beevor is at the top of his game. He writes with a sureness and clarity of style, a deftness of touch, that not just for covers the grand scale of a conflict that stretched across continents, but also has a sharp eye for the the telling detail, the splash of colour that adds nuance to the stark facts and innumerable shockingly senseless figures. And to reveal the ordinary human despair of people adrift at the bottom of a world totally out of control.
So, I'll now bore you with how I read the situation after reading 'The Second World War' (and these opinions are my own, and possibly not those of Antony Beevor, or those he intended his reader to form after reading the book). How do I see the Second World War?
There are shocking tales of blunders, mistakes, ignorance, arrogance and total failure to take or give the right orders. Failure to understand the significance of events or moods among the Generals and politicians, that will have you wondering how anyone won this war, let alone the 'good guys'. But by the end, I think most people will draw the conclusion that the real 'winners' were Stalin and his...well, maybe just Stalin then.
In my estimation, German planning and execution of their plans seems to have been better than the Allies' for the most part. But they were eventually overwhelmed by superior, mostly Soviet, numbers and by Hitler's insistence on incompetant interfering where he should have left it to people who knew what they were doing.
I don't really have a frame of reference for the conflict with Japan and in and around the Pacific. I am naturally, because I'm European, more fascinated by the war in Europe. However, one fact and opinion that struck me in Beevor's description of the conflict that shows that even on a different continent, there was no difference:
"It has been estimated that six in every ten of the 1.74 million Japanese soldiers who died in the war succumbed to disease and starvation. Whatever the scale of their war crimes against foreign nationals, the Japanese chiefs of staff should have been condemned by their own people for crimes against their own soldiers, but this was unthinkable in such a conformist society."
So, far from understanding why we won, after reading this and also Max Hastings' 'All Hell Let Loose', it is in my opinion, possibly more accurate to say; how on earth did we win? Well, it's always going to sound glib trying to sum up the unsummable in a sentence. But let's have a go anyway. I have of course never previously questioned, or even thought to question, that we won World War II, because we were right and we better than them. However, one of the things that has impressed me after reading 'The Second World War' and 'All Hell Let Loose', is this: We won, or rather we didn't lose, because our leaders were slightly less incompetent than theirs'.
Even though i know a lot about the Second World War, as my generation must, and have read many other books about the conflict, the enormity of the events brilliantly presented by Antony Beevor here are almost too much. The facts and figures are so large, so brutal, so numbingly shocking, that it's almost too much to comprehend and absorb. Even though he is obviously describing true events, it's almost too much to believe that it actually did happen. The book contains the kinds of examples of deliberate death and destruction that if the author said he was writing about the Middle Ages, you'd believe him. That it happened within the lifetimes of millions of people still alive and around us today, is hard to square. It's like we're reading about another time and place, yet it was Europe, where I live, within my parents's lifetime. For me, that makes it even more shocking.
I did feel almost literally stunned when i finished the book. I had to take some time to let it all sink in and get my views of it put to rest. Yes, it's an exhaustive and exhausting experience, but it's also a richly rewarding one. As I said above, while the book discusses and analyses the broad strategy sweeps of course, but it also makes us think about and remember those individuals less fortunate than us, who were caught at the wrong time, in the wrong place, and were the ones who paid for others' stupidity, incompetence, megalomania, arrogance, intransigence, ambition and more, through no fault of their own, with their lives. Sacrificed on the altar of someone else's ambition. Maybe we will be in danger of learning and even improving, by reading books like this.
If you're only going to buy one book on the Second World War, make it this one.
And Max Hastings' 'All Hell Let Loose'.
The Isis Covenant by James Douglas
4.0
Despite occupying some of the same historical space as my last outing in this genre - The Charlemagne Pursuit - The Isis Covenant is a much more nuanced, well-written and therefore much more convincing and satisfying read. It reads like a proper book, by a proper author who can write properly and doesn't read like a collection of sketched notes and still the outline of a book, like The Charlemagne Pursuit did.
The plot is reasonably simple, but then all good plots are. It involves the hunt for the Crown of Isis, that has been revered through the centuries, since Egyptian times. Legend has it, that it can give its wearer eternal life, if certain rituals are followed. Mid first century AD, the crown was stolen from the Temple of Isis and its whereabouts became a mystery that has lasted centuries. However, in the depravity, destruction and confusion of the end of the Second World War in Berlin, the artifact comes to light again. Then stolen. Or rather a certain part of it is stolen. Fast forward to today where English art dealer Jamie Saintclair, is contacted by a New York detective investigating a rather unpleasant murder case. Several members of a particular family, who turn out to have had a connection with Nazi Germany, have been murdered in way that seems to resemble an ancient ritual. Investigations unveil a distinctly disturbing and dangerous connection with the Nazis, their modern day apologists, Russian billionaires and a murderous plot to re-unite the pieces of the crown and fulfil the ancient ritual, before time runs out. But for who?
I thought that the scenes where Douglas describes the atmosphere in Berlin at the end of Hitler's Third Reich and especially the inside of the Berlin Bunker, were simply stunning. Very evocative indeed. Coming off the back of reading Antony Beevor's utterly magnificent The Second World War, I must say he surely comes close to capturing the chaos and desparate madness of how it must have been at the epicenter of the maelstrom. You won't come across many better written descriptive passages in any of this kind of historical action thriller. Outstanding.
The plot developments are logical, but never too obvious. The writing style is fluid, effective and satisfying, but doesn't serve everything up on a plate for you. I liked the way I felt like I still needed to do some of the work trying to figure out what was going on and how it all hung together, alongside the main characters. I had to go back over some sections a couple of times, to make sure I'd grasped it and not jumped ahead making connections that weren't there. And shocks and shocking incidents there are aplenty.
The only thing I'd quibble over is Saintclair. His name. I do, as I've said before, have issues over some of the characters' names in books like these. The Isis Covenant looks like the second Jamie Saintclair adventure and it looks likely they'll continue - so I'll say here and now, that James Douglas' next will get another half star on top, if the plot involves Saintclair changing his name by deed poll.
The plot is reasonably simple, but then all good plots are. It involves the hunt for the Crown of Isis, that has been revered through the centuries, since Egyptian times. Legend has it, that it can give its wearer eternal life, if certain rituals are followed. Mid first century AD, the crown was stolen from the Temple of Isis and its whereabouts became a mystery that has lasted centuries. However, in the depravity, destruction and confusion of the end of the Second World War in Berlin, the artifact comes to light again. Then stolen. Or rather a certain part of it is stolen. Fast forward to today where English art dealer Jamie Saintclair, is contacted by a New York detective investigating a rather unpleasant murder case. Several members of a particular family, who turn out to have had a connection with Nazi Germany, have been murdered in way that seems to resemble an ancient ritual. Investigations unveil a distinctly disturbing and dangerous connection with the Nazis, their modern day apologists, Russian billionaires and a murderous plot to re-unite the pieces of the crown and fulfil the ancient ritual, before time runs out. But for who?
I thought that the scenes where Douglas describes the atmosphere in Berlin at the end of Hitler's Third Reich and especially the inside of the Berlin Bunker, were simply stunning. Very evocative indeed. Coming off the back of reading Antony Beevor's utterly magnificent The Second World War, I must say he surely comes close to capturing the chaos and desparate madness of how it must have been at the epicenter of the maelstrom. You won't come across many better written descriptive passages in any of this kind of historical action thriller. Outstanding.
The plot developments are logical, but never too obvious. The writing style is fluid, effective and satisfying, but doesn't serve everything up on a plate for you. I liked the way I felt like I still needed to do some of the work trying to figure out what was going on and how it all hung together, alongside the main characters. I had to go back over some sections a couple of times, to make sure I'd grasped it and not jumped ahead making connections that weren't there. And shocks and shocking incidents there are aplenty.
The only thing I'd quibble over is Saintclair. His name. I do, as I've said before, have issues over some of the characters' names in books like these. The Isis Covenant looks like the second Jamie Saintclair adventure and it looks likely they'll continue - so I'll say here and now, that James Douglas' next will get another half star on top, if the plot involves Saintclair changing his name by deed poll.
The Prophecy by Chris Kuzneski
1.0
This one I got cheap from the Porthcawl RNLI second-hand book section.
And just as well.
I suppose I shouldn't be too harsh on it, as it didn't exactly cost me a whole lot, however...it had been on my Amazon 'Wish List', so it could have been a lot worse.
It's a story based around Nostradamus, both the man and his predictions. But that seemed to be pushed a little too much into the background, for my liking. It seemed just a frame-work for what is really a pretty formulaic (the main bad guy is a refined, super-rich, un-scrupulous but well-mannered killer; the good-guys are one black, one white, Special Forces-trained, rich, good-looking, wise-cracking, with rich friends who are experts in the fields our heroes need expertise from, or well-connected friends, still working where they need them to be and who are experts in the other fields they need them to be experts in) story; everything functions as it should, when it should. And everything is consequently un-realistic and detached from reality.
Whilst it's nowhere near as bad as a Clive Cussler 'novel', the problem I had with it was, it read very quickly, the story was rather slight and it generally felt like a knock-off. It felt like his publishers had said "Quick! We need to get a book out fast! What have you got?" "Well, I'm half way through this one..." "Right, finish it by the weekend and we're good". One would hope that whatever else he was working on at the time this demand came in, is better than this one.
Well worth the 20p it cost.
And just as well.
I suppose I shouldn't be too harsh on it, as it didn't exactly cost me a whole lot, however...it had been on my Amazon 'Wish List', so it could have been a lot worse.
It's a story based around Nostradamus, both the man and his predictions. But that seemed to be pushed a little too much into the background, for my liking. It seemed just a frame-work for what is really a pretty formulaic (the main bad guy is a refined, super-rich, un-scrupulous but well-mannered killer; the good-guys are one black, one white, Special Forces-trained, rich, good-looking, wise-cracking, with rich friends who are experts in the fields our heroes need expertise from, or well-connected friends, still working where they need them to be and who are experts in the other fields they need them to be experts in) story; everything functions as it should, when it should. And everything is consequently un-realistic and detached from reality.
Whilst it's nowhere near as bad as a Clive Cussler 'novel', the problem I had with it was, it read very quickly, the story was rather slight and it generally felt like a knock-off. It felt like his publishers had said "Quick! We need to get a book out fast! What have you got?" "Well, I'm half way through this one..." "Right, finish it by the weekend and we're good". One would hope that whatever else he was working on at the time this demand came in, is better than this one.
Well worth the 20p it cost.
The Bleeding Land by Giles Kristian
4.0
This is a compelling story, thrilling and captivating, and taking place amid the 17th Century frenzy of blood-letting and tumultuous chaos that was the unthinkable; the English Civil War.
However, I think it is actually a love story.
A story about love of family and love of country. And how they came to be incompatible. How love can become so strong - maybe too strong - and turned to hatred for those you know you should love, but seem not to understand your love. Then how the conflict it unleashes, in the country and within the family, despite everyone's best intentions turns that love on its head until it leads to hate.
Phew! Weighty themes maybe, but by homing in on one family, the Rivers, and thus mirroring the conflict in the country at large, Giles Kristian weaves a thoroughly satisfying and exciting tale. One that will surely shock and delight in equal measures. But only 'shock' if you read this with your 21st Century moral glasses on. This is how life was back then. We can't be shocked over something people in the 17th Century thought was just how life - and death - was. Certainly, if it was a film, there are passages where you'd look away, but then, someone was actually employed, for goodness-sake, to hang, draw and quarter people. To rip open their chest and remove their heart (check Wikipedia). We can't judge the 17th Century by our 21st Century standards (they at least had the good grace to kill each other face to face, not while sat in a control room two continents away). So don't go getting all squeamish and pretend to be shocked. Go get your 'history' from Barbara Cartland and Mills and Boon instead, if that's the case. This how it was, no way around it. This is almost touchably real. There are some graphically harsh passages, yes ('barsk' as we say here where I live in Denmark. Possibly also in Norway where Giles is partly from), but this is a vigorous book, about an apocalyptic period for society, for Church, for the State and most of all, for ordinary people and their families. And one with themes that I feel still resonate today.
Each side is of course certain they are right, the other is wrong (sound familiar?) and while the Rivers begin as a tight-knit family of reasonably well-to-do Lancashire land-owners - and supporters of the Crown, we soon see how, from small and seeming innocuous beginnings, their family - and society - implodes as the country explodes with tension and mistrust. And then it spirals out of control.
Giles gives us an excellent insight into how ordinary people were turned into combatants, and got swept away by currents beyond their experience. How they saw the situation at close quarters and merely tried to stay alive. I particularly enjoyed the way he shows how differing viewpoints could spring from the same well of passion and how King-supporting brother could be set against a brother forced away by hate to the Parliamentarian side. How love can turn to passionate, heart-breaking hatred. Then how the period's deep-seated fears of hidden religious agendas, agent provocateurs, witchcraft and devil-worship, burst through and fear and retribution was given full reign. In a land where a suitable punishment for having the wrong religious beliefs, was to be hung drawn and quartered; anything went.
Yeah, obviously I haven't a full understanding of how life really was back then. I mean; I'm old, but not THAT old. But 'The Bleeding Land' - from what I remember of my studies of this period in English History at school - is surely how life really was (we studied this period through analysing period documents. The period before the Civil War, the Interregnum, then the 'climb-down' as we called it, and the re-instatement of the (changed) monarchy to England). It's a hard-edged book about a hard time. Death easier than life, it seems.
'The Bleeding Land' is jam-packed full of the sights and sounds - and smells - of 17th Century English life at its roughest and its rawest, bristling with noisy passions on the edge of reason. Or the abyss - depending on your point of view at the time. A period - as Giles himself notes - people have heard of, but few know much about. Let's face it, even for people of my generation, most when hearing 'Cavalier' will think of a car.
And this is just the mouth-watering start of the Rivers family story. There is surely much more excitement to come.
One more thing: I found the 'Afterward' a thought-provoking read. What I came to think of after reading it - and taking it on much further than is probably wise - is that with 'The Bleeding Land' and the divisive English Civil War, maybe one can see the start of the polar opposite, two-party system that we had/have in England/Britain and which the Puritans took with them too the USA. Where, if it isn't white, it must be black. If you aren't with us, you must be against us. No surprise then, that the US had their own Civil War, I say. As opposed to, as I see it, the much more sensible, cross-party, coalition system of consensus I now enjoy living here in Europe, here in Denmark. It took a bit of getting used to, I can tell you, when I heard that the Government would invite the Opposition to come in and discuss policy the Government was responsible for. But then, they never had their society torn asunder by civil war as England and the (early) US did. They never had to take sides against family and friends. And it shows.
So, as the traditional "We're 100% right. You're 100% wrong" US Presidential battle moves on to its depressingly divisive final conclusion in a day's time, Giles Kristian has written a book about the past, still relevant today. An apocalyptic period for England, for Church, for society; a gift for a writer of Giles Kristian's tremendous narrative abilities. A period that could possibly have shaped how we are now.
However, I think it is actually a love story.
A story about love of family and love of country. And how they came to be incompatible. How love can become so strong - maybe too strong - and turned to hatred for those you know you should love, but seem not to understand your love. Then how the conflict it unleashes, in the country and within the family, despite everyone's best intentions turns that love on its head until it leads to hate.
Phew! Weighty themes maybe, but by homing in on one family, the Rivers, and thus mirroring the conflict in the country at large, Giles Kristian weaves a thoroughly satisfying and exciting tale. One that will surely shock and delight in equal measures. But only 'shock' if you read this with your 21st Century moral glasses on. This is how life was back then. We can't be shocked over something people in the 17th Century thought was just how life - and death - was. Certainly, if it was a film, there are passages where you'd look away, but then, someone was actually employed, for goodness-sake, to hang, draw and quarter people. To rip open their chest and remove their heart (check Wikipedia). We can't judge the 17th Century by our 21st Century standards (they at least had the good grace to kill each other face to face, not while sat in a control room two continents away). So don't go getting all squeamish and pretend to be shocked. Go get your 'history' from Barbara Cartland and Mills and Boon instead, if that's the case. This how it was, no way around it. This is almost touchably real. There are some graphically harsh passages, yes ('barsk' as we say here where I live in Denmark. Possibly also in Norway where Giles is partly from), but this is a vigorous book, about an apocalyptic period for society, for Church, for the State and most of all, for ordinary people and their families. And one with themes that I feel still resonate today.
Each side is of course certain they are right, the other is wrong (sound familiar?) and while the Rivers begin as a tight-knit family of reasonably well-to-do Lancashire land-owners - and supporters of the Crown, we soon see how, from small and seeming innocuous beginnings, their family - and society - implodes as the country explodes with tension and mistrust. And then it spirals out of control.
Giles gives us an excellent insight into how ordinary people were turned into combatants, and got swept away by currents beyond their experience. How they saw the situation at close quarters and merely tried to stay alive. I particularly enjoyed the way he shows how differing viewpoints could spring from the same well of passion and how King-supporting brother could be set against a brother forced away by hate to the Parliamentarian side. How love can turn to passionate, heart-breaking hatred. Then how the period's deep-seated fears of hidden religious agendas, agent provocateurs, witchcraft and devil-worship, burst through and fear and retribution was given full reign. In a land where a suitable punishment for having the wrong religious beliefs, was to be hung drawn and quartered; anything went.
Yeah, obviously I haven't a full understanding of how life really was back then. I mean; I'm old, but not THAT old. But 'The Bleeding Land' - from what I remember of my studies of this period in English History at school - is surely how life really was (we studied this period through analysing period documents. The period before the Civil War, the Interregnum, then the 'climb-down' as we called it, and the re-instatement of the (changed) monarchy to England). It's a hard-edged book about a hard time. Death easier than life, it seems.
'The Bleeding Land' is jam-packed full of the sights and sounds - and smells - of 17th Century English life at its roughest and its rawest, bristling with noisy passions on the edge of reason. Or the abyss - depending on your point of view at the time. A period - as Giles himself notes - people have heard of, but few know much about. Let's face it, even for people of my generation, most when hearing 'Cavalier' will think of a car.
And this is just the mouth-watering start of the Rivers family story. There is surely much more excitement to come.
One more thing: I found the 'Afterward' a thought-provoking read. What I came to think of after reading it - and taking it on much further than is probably wise - is that with 'The Bleeding Land' and the divisive English Civil War, maybe one can see the start of the polar opposite, two-party system that we had/have in England/Britain and which the Puritans took with them too the USA. Where, if it isn't white, it must be black. If you aren't with us, you must be against us. No surprise then, that the US had their own Civil War, I say. As opposed to, as I see it, the much more sensible, cross-party, coalition system of consensus I now enjoy living here in Europe, here in Denmark. It took a bit of getting used to, I can tell you, when I heard that the Government would invite the Opposition to come in and discuss policy the Government was responsible for. But then, they never had their society torn asunder by civil war as England and the (early) US did. They never had to take sides against family and friends. And it shows.
So, as the traditional "We're 100% right. You're 100% wrong" US Presidential battle moves on to its depressingly divisive final conclusion in a day's time, Giles Kristian has written a book about the past, still relevant today. An apocalyptic period for England, for Church, for society; a gift for a writer of Giles Kristian's tremendous narrative abilities. A period that could possibly have shaped how we are now.
King's Man by Angus Donald
4.0
This is book three of Angus Donald's re-boot of the Robin Hood legend. The year is now 1192, and the good news is, that after taking part in the battles of the Crusades in the Holy Land, Alan Dale and Robin Hood have returned to Merrie Olde England. The bad news is, that their King, Richard the Lionheart, whilst also making his way back home, has been captured by his enemies in Europe and is being held for ransom in a castle in Austria. And back in what is turning out to be a not quite as Merrie England as the one they departed from, Alan and Robin discover that Richard's brother, Prince John, has been busy making plans, capturing land and castles and generally making a nuisance of himself planning to be King in Richard's absence. An absence he is intent on prolonging by any and all means possible; assasination, bribery, treason...and that's just for starters.
And the good news for me is, I have to admit; it feels good to have Robin and Alan back where they belong, in England and rampaging through the forests of Sherwood. See, even Alan knows it is good for Robin as well:
"Sherwood was, as it had been for many years, the home of his heart, his spiritual sanctuary, his woodland fortress. He would be quite safe there."
So, isn't he back where his legend belongs, physically and spiritually?
In fact the whole of 'King's Man' feels more of a certain and convincing story for being back in ye goode olde greene and pleasant land (be interesting to see how 'Warlord', the fourth installment, develops the story, as I understand that one to take Robin and Alan over to France). It is a thoroughly convincing tale of 12th Century life, love and death. An emotional rollercoaster ride encompassing desperate battles, last-minute escapes - from of course, seemingly impossible situations - bursting with thrills, surprises, nerve-shredding close combat, huge surprises and fist-pumping "that'll learn ya!" satisfying comeuppances. Phew!
And Robin Hood.
It is worth remembering that while Robin Hood grabs the headlines in reviews and the story does revolve around him, this is actually the tale of Alan Dale. Robin has been, as perhaps befits someone more legend than man, something of a supernatural figure moving in and out the background during much of the story so far. However, in 'King's Man', I feel he steps much more onto the centre stage of the story. There is for me, much more of a feeling of Robin steering events, not events steering him. He is still a harsh, non-PC Robin, but also a more rounded, even likeable character. Even with those silver eyes.
Alan Dale narrates the story, but to be honest, it hasn't always been easy to keep liking him. He can be a rather annoying and cautious worrier, always blaming himself for when heavens conspire and things don't go to plan. For instance, when Robin's brother refuses to do his part in relieving a siege of Robin's castle, Alan wonders if he is actually responsible, for not asking more politely.
But then Alan is more a man of his time than Robin is. Alan's inner doubts and tribulations surely mirror the prevailing zeitgeist. Where religious fervour played up self-doubt, tolerated no contradictions and baseless suspicion chased its own tail. As happens here, fiction was turned to 'fact' because no one dare deny it and so proved itself true in the minds of those looking for that proof. It is a similar environment to that of the time in which Giles Kristian's 'The Bleeding Land' is set, just some 400 years earlier. With ordinary people struggling to come out from under the suffocating blanket of religious fervor and blind doctrine. And their lords and self appointed masters seeking by all means possible to keep them in check with threats of eternal damnation, excommunication - and worse! The ordinary person up to his or her knees in mud in the fields, spoke (what became) English. The ruling classes - Richard himself of course - spoke French. The Church rituals were deliberately all in Latin, so the ordinary person had no idea what was going on, and churchmen could be the only means of getting closer to God's will and the only outlet for His displeasure. Sweet.
Luckily for us, Robin has no time for all that petty-minded religious nonsense and goes his own way. And it is that what has surely endeared him to people through the ages.
"He had that wonderous ability, did Robin, of commanding love in the people around him, no matter what he did." As Alan notes.
But then again, Robin can be as manipulative as the church in using Christianity and other people's beliefs, against them, and for his own purposes:
"I was privately amused that my master, a man who I knew did not have the slightest allegiance to the Pope in Rome, or any high Christian churchman for that matter, should use this law as a justification, I assumed, for executing these men."
Then, when the Templars send him notice that they expect him to appear before a Kangeroo court to answer trumped-up charges concerning his lack of faith, wouldn't we all, in such a position, have loved to have told the messenger to go away and bid him;
"That he ask the huskier novices to refrain from buggering him for a few moments to allow him time to shove this inquisition up his fundament."
Go Robin! Go Robin! Go Robin!
But then, the title, 'King's Man'...hmm...interesting. Which King, which man? Having previously sworn allegiance to King Richard, there's no doubt Alan is King Richard's man. So is Robin. And Robin is actually working to a secret agenda agreed with Richard in the Holy Land. Then there's Prince John, a man who would be King in Richard's absence. Alan also manages to pledge allegiance to John at one point in the story, becoming the would-be King's man. However, in my mind, there is no doubt who the real King of this story is, was and always will always be: Robin Hood. And Alan is his man. Like it or not.
And Alan professes not to like it on many an occasion. Giving rise to the point in the book where I realised I had really warmed to the inner turmoil in the character of Alan Dale. When Alan professes disgust at becoming the man he cannot help loving.
"What was I turning into? Would I become like my master, the most cold-hearted, ruthless killer I had ever encountered? I shivered, though the day was quite warm."
As i said earlier (if you're still with me), Alan is of course recounting his story of his life in the company of the legend Robin Hood, many years after the events took place. The concept of the novels, of a character writing his memories down long after the events occurred, is not a new one. But here, especially at the end of this novel, is one of the most poignant passages I have read anywhere in a long time. After doubts over the intentions of his family have risen, an older, wiser, wistful Alan emerges and (I hope Angus won't mind me quoting him at length) describes the feelings he has about how it is to be looking back over his life and the time he spent with Robin. I'm going to have to admit to have been truly moved when Alan says:
"I remember my glorious past so clearly, and my head is there for most of the day while I write. And where better to spend my last few years on this earth than with my younger, stronger self - with that young man so full of light and love and hope? The indignities of age come to all men who live long enough - but not all men can say that they had the friendship of kings and outlaws and heroes in their prime; that they walked proud and tall, without fear - before the weight and care of years bowed their backs. But I can. I can say, I can swear before God, that I have played my part on the world's stage. And played it to the fullest...And I was a warrior, once, a knight of England."
Simple, dignified, wonderful piece. It reminded me of the heart-breaking scene at the end of 'Shakespeare In Love', where Shakespeare promises Viola; "You will never age for me, nor fade, nor die", because they must go their separate ways and know they will never meet again. She will be forever as he sees her now, forever in his memories.
Jus as Alan sees his Robin, forever young, forever in his Sherwood sanctuary and forever safe in the glow of Alan's memories: "A savage warrior, a lawless thief, a Church-condemned heretic and, may Almighty God forgive me, for many years, my good and true friend."
So, what's not to like?
(This is really a 4.5 book. A 4 for the most, with an extra half for that last section alone. I don't want to give 5 stars, as I want him to try and beat this next time out. Won't be easy, but my philosophy has always been; if you think you can't do better - give up and move on. And I hope Angus stays with Robin Hood for many years to come. 'Cause I'll be staying as well).
And the good news for me is, I have to admit; it feels good to have Robin and Alan back where they belong, in England and rampaging through the forests of Sherwood. See, even Alan knows it is good for Robin as well:
"Sherwood was, as it had been for many years, the home of his heart, his spiritual sanctuary, his woodland fortress. He would be quite safe there."
So, isn't he back where his legend belongs, physically and spiritually?
In fact the whole of 'King's Man' feels more of a certain and convincing story for being back in ye goode olde greene and pleasant land (be interesting to see how 'Warlord', the fourth installment, develops the story, as I understand that one to take Robin and Alan over to France). It is a thoroughly convincing tale of 12th Century life, love and death. An emotional rollercoaster ride encompassing desperate battles, last-minute escapes - from of course, seemingly impossible situations - bursting with thrills, surprises, nerve-shredding close combat, huge surprises and fist-pumping "that'll learn ya!" satisfying comeuppances. Phew!
And Robin Hood.
It is worth remembering that while Robin Hood grabs the headlines in reviews and the story does revolve around him, this is actually the tale of Alan Dale. Robin has been, as perhaps befits someone more legend than man, something of a supernatural figure moving in and out the background during much of the story so far. However, in 'King's Man', I feel he steps much more onto the centre stage of the story. There is for me, much more of a feeling of Robin steering events, not events steering him. He is still a harsh, non-PC Robin, but also a more rounded, even likeable character. Even with those silver eyes.
Alan Dale narrates the story, but to be honest, it hasn't always been easy to keep liking him. He can be a rather annoying and cautious worrier, always blaming himself for when heavens conspire and things don't go to plan. For instance, when Robin's brother refuses to do his part in relieving a siege of Robin's castle, Alan wonders if he is actually responsible, for not asking more politely.
But then Alan is more a man of his time than Robin is. Alan's inner doubts and tribulations surely mirror the prevailing zeitgeist. Where religious fervour played up self-doubt, tolerated no contradictions and baseless suspicion chased its own tail. As happens here, fiction was turned to 'fact' because no one dare deny it and so proved itself true in the minds of those looking for that proof. It is a similar environment to that of the time in which Giles Kristian's 'The Bleeding Land' is set, just some 400 years earlier. With ordinary people struggling to come out from under the suffocating blanket of religious fervor and blind doctrine. And their lords and self appointed masters seeking by all means possible to keep them in check with threats of eternal damnation, excommunication - and worse! The ordinary person up to his or her knees in mud in the fields, spoke (what became) English. The ruling classes - Richard himself of course - spoke French. The Church rituals were deliberately all in Latin, so the ordinary person had no idea what was going on, and churchmen could be the only means of getting closer to God's will and the only outlet for His displeasure. Sweet.
Luckily for us, Robin has no time for all that petty-minded religious nonsense and goes his own way. And it is that what has surely endeared him to people through the ages.
"He had that wonderous ability, did Robin, of commanding love in the people around him, no matter what he did." As Alan notes.
But then again, Robin can be as manipulative as the church in using Christianity and other people's beliefs, against them, and for his own purposes:
"I was privately amused that my master, a man who I knew did not have the slightest allegiance to the Pope in Rome, or any high Christian churchman for that matter, should use this law as a justification, I assumed, for executing these men."
Then, when the Templars send him notice that they expect him to appear before a Kangeroo court to answer trumped-up charges concerning his lack of faith, wouldn't we all, in such a position, have loved to have told the messenger to go away and bid him;
"That he ask the huskier novices to refrain from buggering him for a few moments to allow him time to shove this inquisition up his fundament."
Go Robin! Go Robin! Go Robin!
But then, the title, 'King's Man'...hmm...interesting. Which King, which man? Having previously sworn allegiance to King Richard, there's no doubt Alan is King Richard's man. So is Robin. And Robin is actually working to a secret agenda agreed with Richard in the Holy Land. Then there's Prince John, a man who would be King in Richard's absence. Alan also manages to pledge allegiance to John at one point in the story, becoming the would-be King's man. However, in my mind, there is no doubt who the real King of this story is, was and always will always be: Robin Hood. And Alan is his man. Like it or not.
And Alan professes not to like it on many an occasion. Giving rise to the point in the book where I realised I had really warmed to the inner turmoil in the character of Alan Dale. When Alan professes disgust at becoming the man he cannot help loving.
"What was I turning into? Would I become like my master, the most cold-hearted, ruthless killer I had ever encountered? I shivered, though the day was quite warm."
As i said earlier (if you're still with me), Alan is of course recounting his story of his life in the company of the legend Robin Hood, many years after the events took place. The concept of the novels, of a character writing his memories down long after the events occurred, is not a new one. But here, especially at the end of this novel, is one of the most poignant passages I have read anywhere in a long time. After doubts over the intentions of his family have risen, an older, wiser, wistful Alan emerges and (I hope Angus won't mind me quoting him at length) describes the feelings he has about how it is to be looking back over his life and the time he spent with Robin. I'm going to have to admit to have been truly moved when Alan says:
"I remember my glorious past so clearly, and my head is there for most of the day while I write. And where better to spend my last few years on this earth than with my younger, stronger self - with that young man so full of light and love and hope? The indignities of age come to all men who live long enough - but not all men can say that they had the friendship of kings and outlaws and heroes in their prime; that they walked proud and tall, without fear - before the weight and care of years bowed their backs. But I can. I can say, I can swear before God, that I have played my part on the world's stage. And played it to the fullest...And I was a warrior, once, a knight of England."
Simple, dignified, wonderful piece. It reminded me of the heart-breaking scene at the end of 'Shakespeare In Love', where Shakespeare promises Viola; "You will never age for me, nor fade, nor die", because they must go their separate ways and know they will never meet again. She will be forever as he sees her now, forever in his memories.
Jus as Alan sees his Robin, forever young, forever in his Sherwood sanctuary and forever safe in the glow of Alan's memories: "A savage warrior, a lawless thief, a Church-condemned heretic and, may Almighty God forgive me, for many years, my good and true friend."
So, what's not to like?
(This is really a 4.5 book. A 4 for the most, with an extra half for that last section alone. I don't want to give 5 stars, as I want him to try and beat this next time out. Won't be easy, but my philosophy has always been; if you think you can't do better - give up and move on. And I hope Angus stays with Robin Hood for many years to come. 'Cause I'll be staying as well).