Scan barcode
A review by sbbarnes
Revelation by C.J. Sansom
3.0
Another one that snuck up on me. I did not know it was part four of a series when I bought it (about seven or eight years ago) and in fact didn't realize it until I started. I can't say what I would gain by reading the other parts, but I don't think I lost much in this book - there was enough exposition about characters and their relationships to each other that I wasn't lost, although I imagine especially the relationships between Shardlake and Barat and Shardlake and Guy gain a lot of depth in reading the other books because they probably detail their meetings etc.
This book is set during Henry VIII's reign, and follows the lawyer Matthew Shardlake investigating a series of murders that at first look to be aimed at the woman Henry VIII wants to marry - Catherine Parr. This gets Shardlake involved in politics, and eventually religion, because the murders are inspired by the book of Revelations. This ties in to the hot button topic of the time - religious dissension in Britain following the dissolution of the monasteries. There's the leftover catholics, especially disbanded monks. There's the fanatic protestants, and there's the King and his cronies, who are leaning in an anti-Protestant direction currently.
None of these religions come off particularly well. Shardlake is mostly a disillusioned Protestant turned atheist, which I think is a wise choice, because it's a bit less alienating. There are a lot of Protestant extremist characters, especially Adam and his family. Adam has been accused of lunacy and locked in Bedlam, and hist family seek out Shardlake for legal advice. This becomes sort of vaguely related to the remaining plot. All the murder victims are once-active Protestants who have mellowed, including Shardlake's friend Roger.
I was really unsure at first, because I am not in general a huge fan of first-person narrative. I did get pretty into it eventually, but I still think...I don't know, they come with the issue, especially in historical narratives, that everyone else is a dick except our point-of-view guy who is super progressive and great. That kind of got to me about Shardlake. Also how he had all the crucial realisations about the case.
Other issues: Barak was a bit of a dick. Consistently. I think liking him is maybe what I would have gained by reading the previous books. The relationship with Dorothy I found kind of awkward and upsetting from the get-go. Like, she's been widowed a week and Shardlake is already like "oh my god I've always loved her".
In general I did enjoy it though. I liked how long it took for everything to come together - and it did, really well - and I liked that the mystery was pretty gripping. I do think a clear murder motivation might have been more interesting than "madness" but eh, it was also interesting to come at madness from the 16th century point of view.
This book is set during Henry VIII's reign, and follows the lawyer Matthew Shardlake investigating a series of murders that at first look to be aimed at the woman Henry VIII wants to marry - Catherine Parr. This gets Shardlake involved in politics, and eventually religion, because the murders are inspired by the book of Revelations. This ties in to the hot button topic of the time - religious dissension in Britain following the dissolution of the monasteries. There's the leftover catholics, especially disbanded monks. There's the fanatic protestants, and there's the King and his cronies, who are leaning in an anti-Protestant direction currently.
None of these religions come off particularly well. Shardlake is mostly a disillusioned Protestant turned atheist, which I think is a wise choice, because it's a bit less alienating. There are a lot of Protestant extremist characters, especially Adam and his family. Adam has been accused of lunacy and locked in Bedlam, and hist family seek out Shardlake for legal advice. This becomes sort of vaguely related to the remaining plot. All the murder victims are once-active Protestants who have mellowed, including Shardlake's friend Roger.
I was really unsure at first, because I am not in general a huge fan of first-person narrative. I did get pretty into it eventually, but I still think...I don't know, they come with the issue, especially in historical narratives, that everyone else is a dick except our point-of-view guy who is super progressive and great. That kind of got to me about Shardlake. Also how he had all the crucial realisations about the case.
Other issues: Barak was a bit of a dick. Consistently. I think liking him is maybe what I would have gained by reading the previous books. The relationship with Dorothy I found kind of awkward and upsetting from the get-go. Like, she's been widowed a week and Shardlake is already like "oh my god I've always loved her".
In general I did enjoy it though. I liked how long it took for everything to come together - and it did, really well - and I liked that the mystery was pretty gripping. I do think a clear murder motivation might have been more interesting than "madness" but eh, it was also interesting to come at madness from the 16th century point of view.