S is for So-So Sansom and Stunning Sutcliff

What I read: Dissolution by C.J. Sansom

The book is a historical mystery, and it does a lot of things right. The author manages to combine a modern voice with a historical perspective. To my mind, this is exactly how historical novels should be written.

For example, I dislike historical novels where everyone speaks "forsoothly." It's one thing to put up with that kind of language from Shakespeare (after all, he has an excuse). It's another to put up with it from a modern writer who will, inevitably, get the "forsoothiness" wrong anyway.

In any case, medieval people didn't sound "forsoothly" to each other. Why not just make them sound like human beings? Especially since human greed and political-mongering ain't exactly new to the human race. It isn't as if everyone hit the Middle Ages and then got all high-minded and archaic about certain behaviors. So why make it sound that way?

A Man for All Seasons is a good example of a play that captures the politicking and even the formalism of court speech while avoiding the "forsoothiness".

The other thing Sansom does right is capture the historical mindset. He is writing about the time period right after Queen Anne was beheaded. Henry VIII, through Cromwell, is attempting to dismantle the Catholic monasteries piece by piece.

Sansom does an excellent job capturing the complexity of the issue. The most remarkable thing to me is how little resistance there was. This was not a case of an entirely Catholic country being turned, overnight, into a Protestant one. Many English men and women were already headed into, or firmly entrenched in, Protestant territory when Henry VIII broke with the Catholic church (a weasly powerplay, if there ever was one).

Which doesn't mean nobody put up a fight (hence priest holes and plotting to put Mary, Queen of Scots on the throne during Elizabeth's reign), especially since Henry VIII and Cromwell were motivated as much by greed and power as by any particular theology. (Dismantle a monastery, get its land, fill your coffers!) Sansom wends his way skillfully through what must have been a quagmire of good, bad, and ambivalent intentions.

And it was boring. It shouldn't have been. But it was. I was so impressed by Sansom's skill with the historical time period, I got out his second book, but it didn't take, and I never even finished the first (I got to within the last chapter, skipped ahead, discovered the murderer, and put the book down with a grateful sigh).

I actually recommend the book if you like well-written, historical, medieval mysteries. But don't blame me if you run out of interest!

2023: Sutcliff's The Eagle or The Eagle of the Ninth

This first A-Z list was originally meant to be an exploration of fiction authors I'd never read before (the second list is fiction books I have read). I have read several of Rosemary Sutcliff's books. 

However, I hadn't read The Eagle. 

I decided to read The Eagle after I learned about it from a Great Course's History Films DVD. I watched the movie, read the book, then watched the movie again. 

Rosemary Sutcliff is a skilled writer. Like Sansom, she captures the time period though her prose is rather more readable. These days, I don't read books as quickly as I used, but I finished The Eagle in record time. In fact, I read it faster than the time I'd given myself, I was so engaged. 

Sutcliff tackles early medieval history, the first four centuries of the C.E. era before and after the Romans occupied Britain. It should be noted: she wrote these books before The Mists of Avalon and other such novels. And she is quite accurate, not only to Roman Britain but to the culture and the mindset. 

Marcus, for instance, casually accepts Esca as a slave right up until someone challenges his decision to travel past Hadrian's Wall with Esca, at which point he frees Esca (I discuss the film change to this detail below). Likewise, although both Marcus and his uncle disparage the "games" (mostly for being lousy--in the movie, Donald Sutherland as the uncle says in his deadpan way, "This is fun. Right?"), nobody stands up and says, "My goodness, killing people for entertainment is so wrong. Stop it, now! Where are the protesters!?" 

In addition, Sutcliff manages--in all of her books--to balance the perspectives of her characters. Marcus and Esca are Roman and Briton. Marcus serves Rome yet comes to realize that he truly doesn't desire to go home--technically to an Italian province, not Rome, a detail Sutcliff gets right. Esca has opposed Roman rule but is willing to move on with his companion and his companion's wife-to-be to the land rewarded by the Senate. Neither of them is apologetic about their stances. Neither of them sees any conflict between their soldiering and "retirement." 

They are primarily military men in their thinking: We fight. We stop fighting. We do something else. 

The movie captures that mindset extremely well. It is, in many ways, a military film. 

There are a few changes. Marcus doesn't free Esca until almost the end of the film. At first, I thought the filmmakers were trying to make some sort of statement, but actually, after the second viewing, I think they were heightening tension about Esca's motives. 

The ending of the movie is exciting but I found the book's ending more suspenseful and interesting. However, I don't  hold the difference against the filmmakers. I thought it was clear that whoever wrote the script honestly loved and admired the book. Most changes seem to be visual/plotting alterations rather than a desire to "improve" the book. I was quite touched since I love to see a book given due tribute. 

I do think the film should have used the book ending for the eagle--rather than trying to do one ending with an alternate--but I like the movie ending anyway for the mutual look of "you are not a soldier, dude, so shut up" the two young men give the Roman politician. 

I recommend the movie and the book!