Lewis Weinstein's Reviews > Wolf Hall
Wolf Hall (Thomas Cromwell, #1)
by
by
I just started Wolf Hall, and I find the relentless use of "he" to be extremely irritating. In the first several chapters, there are dozens of instances where it is not clear who is speaking. Every once in a while, as if recognizing the problem she has created, Mantel uses the phrase "he, Cromwell." Why not just say Cromwell?
Unless there is some good reason which I can't imagine, this sort of obfuscation is just lazy writing which disrespects the reader. May I re-think that, based on a comment by another reader. It's not lazy writing. It's very purposeful. And very distracting.
... later ...
I just read some of the amazon reviews. There are actually quite a few readers who found the "he" business as disconcerting as I did, and who expressed their displeasure in rather strong terms, along with many *-star ratings. However, many others really liked the book, as do many Goodreads readers, so it must not bother them as it does me.
Another Goodreads reader suggested that the use of "he" all the time created a closer intimacy with Cromwell. Perhaps, but I see it differently. If you want to create intimacy, use the first person. Then it is clear that everything is seen and felt by the single protagonist, and the reader can share that character's viewpoint, thoughts and feelings. What Mantel has done is not to bring us close to Cromwell, but to inject herself, the author, between the reader and the prime character. She does this on practically every page and I find it jarring every time it happens.
Before my final negative notes, let me say that Mantel clearly has an exquisite command of the language. Even in the few chapters I read, her elegant choice of words often made me reflect and smile. She can paint a picture when describing a character or a setting that is truly wonderful. And, when she chooses to do so, she writes a vivid scene that has power and emotion.
Such continuity of story, however, is the exception rather than the rule. The constant switching of time and place, often without the merest hint of transition, made the reading much more difficult than it had to be. Just a word here or there would have made a huge difference.
Finally, the breezy style in which much of the book is written is entertaining, as many have noted and I agree, but it had the effect of making me wonder if Mantel was as true to the history as I think a historical fiction should be. Of course the dialogue and many of the personal incidents are made up, but does the author, when portraying actual events, present them accurately? I think such concern for the truth is an obligation of an author when writing about historical characters and events. Mantel left me unsure.
I think I've had enough of Wolf Hall, and perhaps other Goodreads readers have had enough of my criticism of what is surely a popular book. I don't usually write negative opinions, but this book just seemed to drag them out of me. I hope I have not offended anyone.
Unless there is some good reason which I can't imagine, this sort of obfuscation is just lazy writing which disrespects the reader. May I re-think that, based on a comment by another reader. It's not lazy writing. It's very purposeful. And very distracting.
... later ...
I just read some of the amazon reviews. There are actually quite a few readers who found the "he" business as disconcerting as I did, and who expressed their displeasure in rather strong terms, along with many *-star ratings. However, many others really liked the book, as do many Goodreads readers, so it must not bother them as it does me.
Another Goodreads reader suggested that the use of "he" all the time created a closer intimacy with Cromwell. Perhaps, but I see it differently. If you want to create intimacy, use the first person. Then it is clear that everything is seen and felt by the single protagonist, and the reader can share that character's viewpoint, thoughts and feelings. What Mantel has done is not to bring us close to Cromwell, but to inject herself, the author, between the reader and the prime character. She does this on practically every page and I find it jarring every time it happens.
Before my final negative notes, let me say that Mantel clearly has an exquisite command of the language. Even in the few chapters I read, her elegant choice of words often made me reflect and smile. She can paint a picture when describing a character or a setting that is truly wonderful. And, when she chooses to do so, she writes a vivid scene that has power and emotion.
Such continuity of story, however, is the exception rather than the rule. The constant switching of time and place, often without the merest hint of transition, made the reading much more difficult than it had to be. Just a word here or there would have made a huge difference.
Finally, the breezy style in which much of the book is written is entertaining, as many have noted and I agree, but it had the effect of making me wonder if Mantel was as true to the history as I think a historical fiction should be. Of course the dialogue and many of the personal incidents are made up, but does the author, when portraying actual events, present them accurately? I think such concern for the truth is an obligation of an author when writing about historical characters and events. Mantel left me unsure.
I think I've had enough of Wolf Hall, and perhaps other Goodreads readers have had enough of my criticism of what is surely a popular book. I don't usually write negative opinions, but this book just seemed to drag them out of me. I hope I have not offended anyone.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
Wolf Hall.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
January 7, 2012
– Shelved
May 31, 2012
–
Started Reading
June 2, 2012
– Shelved as:
fiction-historical
June 2, 2012
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-50 of 210 (210 new)
I also found the "he" thing kind of annoying. Dunno if Hilary Mantel ever commented on it though. Maybe she was trying to maintain some kind of intimacy between the reader and Cromwell?
One of the strengths of her novel is the immediacy she does create regarding the historical events. In my view, the "he" business gets in the way and stops the flow. Instead of just going with the story, the reader is forced to pay attention to the writer and her peculiar style, not usually a good idea.
I know how hard I work in my own novels to make sure things are clear to the reader (where is the action taking place, how did the characters get there, who is speaking, etc.), and one of my "early readers" will always be quick to point out where I have fallen short on that score.
I know how hard I work in my own novels to make sure things are clear to the reader (where is the action taking place, how did the characters get there, who is speaking, etc.), and one of my "early readers" will always be quick to point out where I have fallen short on that score.
Kim wrote: "Lew, I don't think it's a matter of lazy writing. When Mantel uses "He" she is almost always referring to Cromwell. Once I worked that out, understanding the book was easy. What it did for me was e..."
My first reaction was to blame myself for not being a careful enough reader. Then when I realized the author was doing it purposely, I became irritated. Maybe it's still me, since the book is so popular and others don't seem to mind.
My first reaction was to blame myself for not being a careful enough reader. Then when I realized the author was doing it purposely, I became irritated. Maybe it's still me, since the book is so popular and others don't seem to mind.
Lew, stick with this - it's a great book. It's the West Wing of the times - a masterful narrative about politics and political operators that transcends the time that it's about - although it is fabulously interesting on that score too. As one of the other reviewers said, - the "he" is almost always Cromwell. It does require the reader to do some initial work, but once you're in, you're in (rather like some political circles).
Jillwilson wrote: "It's the West Wing of the times - a masterful narrative about politics and political operators that transcends the time that it's about - although it is fabulously interesting on that score too...."
I couldn't agree more. I'm just about to finish Bring Up the Bodies, which I have found equally fascinating. I've been totally immersed in Cromwell's world and will miss the book (and him) when it's over. Mantel's style is not to everyone's taste. I can understand why, but I'm very glad that I love her style as much as I love the narrative.
I couldn't agree more. I'm just about to finish Bring Up the Bodies, which I have found equally fascinating. I've been totally immersed in Cromwell's world and will miss the book (and him) when it's over. Mantel's style is not to everyone's taste. I can understand why, but I'm very glad that I love her style as much as I love the narrative.
Re: accuracy, as mentioned in your review. Being a hobbyist of Tudor history, I can testify that Wolf Hall is generally historically accurate.
Lew,
I read the novel all the way through because of its historical accuracy, and the depiction of Thomas More, but I must admit that it wasn't always easy going.
I read the novel all the way through because of its historical accuracy, and the depiction of Thomas More, but I must admit that it wasn't always easy going.
I agree with your irritation in the use of he. I'm 51 pages in and find myself quite confused a majority of the time as to who is speaking. I wish this was a first person perspective instead.
I recently finished this and found it exhausting to read. I liked the scenes with Moore's family, Mary Boelyn and Jane Seymore. I found the narration to be self- indulgent on the part of the author - inconsiderate of her readers. A helpful hint - whenever someone is speaking just assume it is Moore because most of the time it is.
As an author myself, I am very sensitive to any author's insertion of herself in the story ... making herself more important than the story. I don't find Mantel's writing at all compelling, despite her obvious skill at describing place and people. I think self-indulgent is an accurate term, perhaps even kind.
The reviews to her sequel seem more positive in regard to narration. I'm not interested in reading it, though. Thanks for your comments.
I opened my copy from the library and found a post-it staring me in the face, warning me of the lost modifiers. At first I thought it was a hilarious "passive agressive notes" webpage contender, but then around 20 pages in, I realized it was fair warning. I made it to 25 pages and took it back to the library.
Lewis, I totally agree with your comments on the use of 'he' throughout this novel. I wanted to adore this book, as I know many do, and have slogged my way through to page 427. However I love to lose myself in a good book and whilst Mantel's style is beautiful, the unusual use of 'he' brings me back to reality on nearly every page with an irritating bump! I'm determined to finish this book but I can't say it's been a completely enjoyable experience!
Getting to page 427 is a tribute to your persistence. I really dislike it when an author writes for his/her "art" and not for the reader. I am truthfully amazed at how many people like this book.
I really thought I was the only one having this issue. I just cannot wrap my head around this book. I find myself re-reading paragraphs because i keep getting lost. I love all things Tudor, gruesome and beautiful, happy and tragic. I also find myself pitying Cromwell because I know his fate. I really want to love this book but I am struggling with it.
I'm right there with you.. Totally frustrating trying to figure out exactly which "he" is being talked about. I have to reread a lot of this book and often fall asleep in the process.
I found myself getting angry with the author, who seemed to me to be writing more for herself than for her readers. I stopped reading WOLF HALL and am not inclined to try any other of Mantel's books.
Lewis,
I always know that when I read one of your reviews I'm going to get an honest, refreshing opinion. In the case of "Wolf Hall", this is an understatement. I'll never forget the day I read the WSJ review of "Wolf Hall", it was so glowing, so praising, that I simply had to read it even though I never usually read books set in the Elizabethan era. Thank you for providing a more balanced look at "Wolf Hall". Someday I still hope to read it, but I'll keep your review tucked inside for easy reference!
I always know that when I read one of your reviews I'm going to get an honest, refreshing opinion. In the case of "Wolf Hall", this is an understatement. I'll never forget the day I read the WSJ review of "Wolf Hall", it was so glowing, so praising, that I simply had to read it even though I never usually read books set in the Elizabethan era. Thank you for providing a more balanced look at "Wolf Hall". Someday I still hope to read it, but I'll keep your review tucked inside for easy reference!
Am joining the club of haters of the imprecise 'he' insertions. Never got a clue who is speaking or thinking what. This book is not superior in craft and not superior in story line. Not sure why this got any prices.
Rachel wrote: "Lewis,
I always know that when I read one of your reviews I'm going to get an honest, refreshing opinion. In the case of "Wolf Hall", this is an understatement. I'll never forget the day I read the..."
Thanks. I rarely write negative reviews - but this time I just had to.
I always know that when I read one of your reviews I'm going to get an honest, refreshing opinion. In the case of "Wolf Hall", this is an understatement. I'll never forget the day I read the..."
Thanks. I rarely write negative reviews - but this time I just had to.
I agree with you, Lewis. Her writing style often has me very confused as to which character is speaking, and her transition from one event to the next often has no explanation, and is very abrupt. The only reason I haven't given up on this book yet is because it helps me fall asleep at night.
Too right that the 'he, Cromwell' was beyond overused. It got to the point that is was seriously distracting - when it happened all I could think was 'not again!' and I half missed the point of the sentence.
This book is so unreadable. Waffle and more waffle, unclear, boring. It's as though she wanted to include every possible detail and try to make it poignant..and failed. Use of "he" reminiscent of when religious people talk about God - totally bizarre. Read half and can take no more.
I really enjoy this period of history, and I want to enjoy this book, but I, too, am struggling with the third-person use of he/him. I don't think it's the result of lazy writing, though. I suspect it too a great deal of effort to write in this stilted way; unfortunately for me, it's a failed experiment.
I agree with you totally. I'm at a loss to understand why this novel won the Booker when the reader has to work so hard to understand Hillary's intent. It took me ages before I realised it was written from Cromwell's pov . . . But then maybe I am a bear of very little brain.
Disappointed her sequel also won . . .
Disappointed her sequel also won . . .
Whew...I thought I just wasn't bright enough to figure out who was speaking! I am glad I am in such good company!
Donna wrote: "Whew...I thought I just wasn't bright enough to figure out who was speaking! I am glad I am in such good company!"
Thanks for your comment. It's really strange when an author, no matter what her ability with language and imagery, sets out to purposely make it difficult for a reader to follow her story. I know how hard I work in my own writing to try to assure that the story line is clear and that, at the very least, it is always absolutely clear who is speaking. Yet ... many people seem to like WOLF HALL and it won all those awards.
Thanks for your comment. It's really strange when an author, no matter what her ability with language and imagery, sets out to purposely make it difficult for a reader to follow her story. I know how hard I work in my own writing to try to assure that the story line is clear and that, at the very least, it is always absolutely clear who is speaking. Yet ... many people seem to like WOLF HALL and it won all those awards.
I was so glad to find this thread. I had the same reaction to the use of "he" and I don't think it is almost only used for Cromwell. I also found scenes changed suddenly and without 'notice'. I had to sometimes stop and go back over what I had just read to figure out where and when the action was taking place and who was present. I can't believe Mantel wasn't aware of these things, but she obviously didn't think it was a serious detriment to the books. Given all the praise they have received, that's not surprising. I would recommend these books to anyone interested in this era, but I would warn them that they're not always an easy read.
Lois wrote: "I was so glad to find this thread. I had the same reaction to the use of "he" and I don't think it is almost only used for Cromwell. I also found scenes changed suddenly and without 'notice'. I h..."
There are some authors - McEwan also comes to mind - who do not concern themselves with whether the reader can follow the story. I try not to read those writers.
There are some authors - McEwan also comes to mind - who do not concern themselves with whether the reader can follow the story. I try not to read those writers.
yes! I am halfway through, and almost always finish a book, but this 'he' business is making me crazy! It is constantly bringing me out of the story and forcing me to shake my brain out and remind myself of who 'he' is. It's exhausting! I keep reading mostly for glimpses of other characters, but have to admit I keep finding myself with no clue of exactly what's going on. My knowledge of the history is the only thing saving me!
The use of "he" didn't really bother me, maybe because I was listening to the audio book. I just didn't think it was written in a way that engaged me with the characters.
Jonelle wrote: "The use of "he" didn't really bother me, maybe because I was listening to the audio book. I just didn't think it was written in a way that engaged me with the characters."
That's interesting, if you had a better sense of who was talking on audio than in reading the text. Did the reader use different voices?
That's interesting, if you had a better sense of who was talking on audio than in reading the text. Did the reader use different voices?
Kutter200 wrote: "yes! I am halfway through, and almost always finish a book, but this 'he' business is making me crazy! It is constantly bringing me out of the story and forcing me to shake my brain out and remind ..."
Why do you think an author with obvious skills would write in so confusing a manner? She obviously did it purposely, but why?
Why do you think an author with obvious skills would write in so confusing a manner? She obviously did it purposely, but why?
Jonelle wrote: "The use of "he" didn't really bother me, maybe because I was listening to the audio book. I just didn't think it was written in a way that engaged me with the characters."
It was one reader, who characterized the voices in different manners. It was just quite apparent as he read the book that the 'he' was Cromwell.
It was one reader, who characterized the voices in different manners. It was just quite apparent as he read the book that the 'he' was Cromwell.
I had seen so many rave reviews for this book that I felt I must be missing something. Thank goodness I've read these reviews that agree with me about the "he" use.
'and I find the relentless use of "he" to be extremely irritating'...and this is your review of the book? Fortunately the judges of the Booker prize were not as lazy as you. Your objections to the author's style say more about you thean they do this masterful work of historical fiction.
Matt wrote: "'and I find the relentless use of "he" to be extremely irritating'...and this is your review of the book? Fortunately the judges of the Booker prize were not as lazy as you. Your objections to the ..."
Why make it so personal? Why not just say we disagree? BTW, there are 113 "likes" of my review. Read the comments. You won't like most of them either.
Why make it so personal? Why not just say we disagree? BTW, there are 113 "likes" of my review. Read the comments. You won't like most of them either.
Matt wrote: "'and I find the relentless use of "he" to be extremely irritating'...and this is your review of the book? Fortunately the judges of the Booker prize were not as lazy as you. Your objections to the ..."
Well this comment is a little nasty. I think Lewis has made many valid points. His review is merely his opinion. I don't think he deserved to have his review "reviewed".
Matt, why not simply put your opposing views as a review of your own? It would have much more impact that way. As it stands, all I know about your opinion is that you thought it a "masterful work of historical fiction".
Oh, and I also know you are rude
Well this comment is a little nasty. I think Lewis has made many valid points. His review is merely his opinion. I don't think he deserved to have his review "reviewed".
Matt, why not simply put your opposing views as a review of your own? It would have much more impact that way. As it stands, all I know about your opinion is that you thought it a "masterful work of historical fiction".
Oh, and I also know you are rude
Wendy wrote: "Matt wrote: "'and I find the relentless use of "he" to be extremely irritating'...and this is your review of the book? Fortunately the judges of the Booker prize were not as lazy as you. Your objec..."
Thanks.
Thanks.
Agree totally. This is exactly what confused me..the overuse of the word "he". It a plot that involves a lot of male characters, this is extremely confusing.
I liked Wolf Hall a lot and I'm currently reading the sequel, Bring Up the Bodies. I'm not very far into it, but so far I'm enjoying it very much. However, I appreciate that neither book will be everyone's cup of tea.