Scan barcode
oliviakateamerica's review
adventurous
challenging
dark
emotional
informative
mysterious
reflective
sad
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? N/A
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.75
ismemestar's review against another edition
emotional
informative
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
5.0
Moving and epic. Long, but definitely worth the read, the length gives you time to get to know the characters and care deeply about them and not get too bogged down over dates and events, spanning as it does over three decades of people's lives and of English history. Meticulously researched, it doesn't reflect the latest scholarship anymore, as it was written over forty years ago, but it is clearly a labor of love and the attention to detail is immaculate. You can tell it's a first novel, the prose and dialogue don't always read naturally (but when they work, they work) and sometimes there's a tendency to spell out a character's motivations in a way that is not subtle that I find a little annoying, but gosh this is a gem. Took me over a month to read (largely because of life and because I read other books in between) but I could not set it down for large stretches, particularly near the end, dreading the inexorable ending of Bosworth, hoping that this time, THIS time, things would at last be different. This is a Yorkist tale, and specifically sides with Richard, where most of the pathos and the time is centered, but there are many point of view characters, including people on the other sides of conflicts with Richard---Margaret of Anjou (Marguerite in this text to help with name confusion), Somerset, Hastings, Elizabeth Woodville, just to name a few---which lends a more evenhanded approach to the novel. I don't necessarily agree with every characterization choice based on the history, but it's all compelling and well written. I cried solidly through the last...fifty pages? It's about Richard III, but it's about so much more than that, about friendship and honor and justice and personality clashes and fate and Truth. Highly highly recommend. Can't wait to read more by this author, can't wait to reread.
emleemay's review against another edition
5.0
Some historical spoilers in this review
Wow. It's not often historical fiction drastically changes my view of what actually happened in history. Change my perspective? Yes. But have me questioning whether the commonly-held view of what happened is incorrect? Not so much. Here Penman makes a very compelling case for Richard III's innocence.
I now really look forward to reading Penman's Afterwords, where she admits the limitations of her research, explains why she told the story the way she did, and lays out the evidence for or against certain ideas that have trickled down through the centuries. In her Afterword for this book, she stacks up the available evidence and shows some quite tremendous gaps in logic if we are to continue believing Richard III committed all the crimes he is charged with by history. I felt quite disturbed after finishing [b:The Sunne in Splendour|119829|The Sunne in Splendour|Sharon Kay Penman|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1361649213l/119829._SY75_.jpg|2046265], and quite convinced that a loyal brother and good man was deliberately disparaged by his enemies. Fuck Henry Tudor.
Honestly, I'm not sure how widely this is known around the world outside of Britain and small circles of Shakespeare fans, but Richard III has been repeatedly portrayed as a grotesque villain. Historical fact has been distorted to portray him as born under a bad sign and hunchbacked (this was regarded as a sign of a corrupt soul in Europe at the time, though no contemporary accounts of Richard's appearance note a disfigurement other than a mild scoliosis). He is seen as a man who murdered his brother's children and seized the crown for himself. It's funny, though, how such a view grew in popularity under the man who defeated him-- Henry VII.
The disappearance - and assumed murder - of the Princes in the Tower is a mystery that has never been solved, but the popular opinion is that Richard III had them killed to place himself on the throne. As Penman shows, however, this actually makes no sense. Richard III was crowned king while the princes were still very much alive. He was crowned because their parents' marriage was deemed bigamous. He gained nothing from their deaths.
So who did have motive? Well, the man looking to overthrow Richard and legitimize his own claim to the throne. Henry Tudor. Who had opportunity? Lord Buckingham-- the man who appointed the guards in charge of watching the boys and the man who later betrayed Richard and fought for Henry.
But let's go back. Let's argue Richard might have had motive because he wanted to remove any chance of an uprising from the delegitimatized youngsters. What, then, of his track record, his personality? Contemporary accounts portray a man steadfast and loyal to his brother Edward, a man loved by the people he oversaw in Yorkshire, a man who had never sought lands and personal gains, a man who had introduced legal reform, founding the Court of Requests so that poor people could obtain legal representation.
I'm very moved and unnerved by this book, in case you couldn't tell. Penman convinced me with her account, and I then went to do some more outside reading on Richard to get a balanced view of the facts. I know they say "history is written by the victors", but I was quite shook to have such a stark reminder of it here.
This is not just a 900-page debate on Richard's guilt, though. It's an epic life story, that follows young Richard through unbelievable horrors and loss, through political backstabbing and betrayals, and then an older Richard through the deaths of virtually everyone he held dear. Penman seems to suggest that when Richard III rode out into battle against Henry Tudor at Bosworth field, he was going out to die.
We will likely never know exactly what happened more than 500 years ago, but whether Richard was guilty or not, this book shows one thing for certain: the evidence against him was minimal, and arguably nonexistent. No jury worth their salt would have been able to convict him. Yet the masses have again and again. A disquieting thought.
Wow. It's not often historical fiction drastically changes my view of what actually happened in history. Change my perspective? Yes. But have me questioning whether the commonly-held view of what happened is incorrect? Not so much. Here Penman makes a very compelling case for Richard III's innocence.
I now really look forward to reading Penman's Afterwords, where she admits the limitations of her research, explains why she told the story the way she did, and lays out the evidence for or against certain ideas that have trickled down through the centuries. In her Afterword for this book, she stacks up the available evidence and shows some quite tremendous gaps in logic if we are to continue believing Richard III committed all the crimes he is charged with by history. I felt quite disturbed after finishing [b:The Sunne in Splendour|119829|The Sunne in Splendour|Sharon Kay Penman|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1361649213l/119829._SY75_.jpg|2046265], and quite convinced that a loyal brother and good man was deliberately disparaged by his enemies. Fuck Henry Tudor.
Honestly, I'm not sure how widely this is known around the world outside of Britain and small circles of Shakespeare fans, but Richard III has been repeatedly portrayed as a grotesque villain. Historical fact has been distorted to portray him as born under a bad sign and hunchbacked (this was regarded as a sign of a corrupt soul in Europe at the time, though no contemporary accounts of Richard's appearance note a disfigurement other than a mild scoliosis). He is seen as a man who murdered his brother's children and seized the crown for himself. It's funny, though, how such a view grew in popularity under the man who defeated him-- Henry VII.
The disappearance - and assumed murder - of the Princes in the Tower is a mystery that has never been solved, but the popular opinion is that Richard III had them killed to place himself on the throne. As Penman shows, however, this actually makes no sense. Richard III was crowned king while the princes were still very much alive. He was crowned because their parents' marriage was deemed bigamous. He gained nothing from their deaths.
So who did have motive? Well, the man looking to overthrow Richard and legitimize his own claim to the throne. Henry Tudor. Who had opportunity? Lord Buckingham-- the man who appointed the guards in charge of watching the boys and the man who later betrayed Richard and fought for Henry.
But let's go back. Let's argue Richard might have had motive because he wanted to remove any chance of an uprising from the delegitimatized youngsters. What, then, of his track record, his personality? Contemporary accounts portray a man steadfast and loyal to his brother Edward, a man loved by the people he oversaw in Yorkshire, a man who had never sought lands and personal gains, a man who had introduced legal reform, founding the Court of Requests so that poor people could obtain legal representation.
I'm very moved and unnerved by this book, in case you couldn't tell. Penman convinced me with her account, and I then went to do some more outside reading on Richard to get a balanced view of the facts. I know they say "history is written by the victors", but I was quite shook to have such a stark reminder of it here.
This is not just a 900-page debate on Richard's guilt, though. It's an epic life story, that follows young Richard through unbelievable horrors and loss, through political backstabbing and betrayals, and then an older Richard through the deaths of virtually everyone he held dear. Penman seems to suggest that when Richard III rode out into battle against Henry Tudor at Bosworth field, he was going out to die.
We will likely never know exactly what happened more than 500 years ago, but whether Richard was guilty or not, this book shows one thing for certain: the evidence against him was minimal, and arguably nonexistent. No jury worth their salt would have been able to convict him. Yet the masses have again and again. A disquieting thought.
chem244's review against another edition
dark
emotional
informative
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.25
Very informative book with great depth and interesting characters.
akglaurung's review
5.0
Βαρεθηκατε να περιμενετε να βγαλει ο κυρ-Γιωργης τους "Ανεμους του Χειμωνα";
Θελετε μια δοση μεσαιωνικου ιστορικου μυθιστορηματος;
Υποψιαζεστε πως ο κυριος Ουιλιαμ ο Σαιξπηρ εγραφε ψεματα για τον Ριχαρδο τον Γ';
Ε, τοτε αυτο το βιβλιο ειναι για εσας.
The REAL Game of Thrones.
Θελετε μια δοση μεσαιωνικου ιστορικου μυθιστορηματος;
Υποψιαζεστε πως ο κυριος Ουιλιαμ ο Σαιξπηρ εγραφε ψεματα για τον Ριχαρδο τον Γ';
Ε, τοτε αυτο το βιβλιο ειναι για εσας.
The REAL Game of Thrones.
73pctgeek's review against another edition
3.0
The Sunne in Splendour by Sharon Kay Penman was both interesting and well-written. I found it particularly interesting as it deals with a time frame I'm not very familiar with as most histories, biographies, and novels I've favoured previously have covered the Tudor period.
Obviously reading it for the first time in 2024 changes how I came to it as a reader. The de-villianisation of Richard III has been going strong for a few years now, but I can imagine this would have been a very different and interesting take when first published.
In conclusion, my short, very reductive review of this book is that I did not expect to finish it having the hots for Richard III, but here I am.
Obviously reading it for the first time in 2024 changes how I came to it as a reader. The de-villianisation of Richard III has been going strong for a few years now, but I can imagine this would have been a very different and interesting take when first published.
In conclusion, my short, very reductive review of this book is that I did not expect to finish it having the hots for Richard III, but here I am.
amna99's review against another edition
5.0
Spoilers for historical events
”He fell, regained his feet. Richard’s banner still fluttered, St George and the Whyte Boar, but as he stumbled toward them, they disappeared from sight, were dragged down into the surging red tide.”
I knew even within the first 100 pages that I had reached the peak of historical fiction on the Wars of the Roses. I even suspected it before I started the book, having read When Christ and his Saints Slept last year.
This book takes us from Richard of York’s life as a small child to his tragic death at the Battle of Bosworth. Penman is a master at characterisation. Apart from Richard, I was so invested in Francis Lovell, George Plantagenet, Elizabeth of Woodville, Warwick and, most surprisingly of all, Edward Plantagenet. Penman truly illustrates him as enigma, a ruler who likes to appear like a passionate and impulsive man but is actually one of the most rational and level-headed people in the entire book.
I can see why this book changed so many minds about the villainy of Richard III. The British Education system does tend to teach us the Tudor perspective of his reign but it makes me laugh that all modern fictional retelling I’ve come across prefer Richard Plantagenet to the less likeable Henry Tudor, and I agree with them. I was biased towards Richard III already going into this and that feeling has only intensified. I finally teared up, after the buildup of betrayal after betrayal, when the North of England reacted against their best interests, and in defiance of Henry Tudor, to mourn the last Plantagenet king.
What an epic this book is! If you’re looking for just one novel to read on the Wars of the Roses, I highly recommend this one.
”He fell, regained his feet. Richard’s banner still fluttered, St George and the Whyte Boar, but as he stumbled toward them, they disappeared from sight, were dragged down into the surging red tide.”
I knew even within the first 100 pages that I had reached the peak of historical fiction on the Wars of the Roses. I even suspected it before I started the book, having read When Christ and his Saints Slept last year.
This book takes us from Richard of York’s life as a small child to his tragic death at the Battle of Bosworth. Penman is a master at characterisation. Apart from Richard, I was so invested in Francis Lovell, George Plantagenet, Elizabeth of Woodville, Warwick and, most surprisingly of all, Edward Plantagenet. Penman truly illustrates him as enigma, a ruler who likes to appear like a passionate and impulsive man but is actually one of the most rational and level-headed people in the entire book.
I can see why this book changed so many minds about the villainy of Richard III. The British Education system does tend to teach us the Tudor perspective of his reign but it makes me laugh that all modern fictional retelling I’ve come across prefer Richard Plantagenet to the less likeable Henry Tudor, and I agree with them. I was biased towards Richard III already going into this and that feeling has only intensified. I finally teared up, after the buildup of betrayal after betrayal, when the North of England reacted against their best interests, and in defiance of Henry Tudor, to mourn the last Plantagenet king.
What an epic this book is! If you’re looking for just one novel to read on the Wars of the Roses, I highly recommend this one.
kirstenrose22's review against another edition
4.0
It took me the better part of a week (of total dedication to doing little else) to read this. It was good, and ultimately satisfying, but so long that it was hard not to get bogged down in the middle. (That said, I can't think of what should be cut. It's just a long story with a lot to fit in.) The first half in particular does an admirable job of setting the scene and explaining the War of the Roses, and handling the cast of thousands that goes along with it - and that is not easy to do. The last few hundred pages are so sad though, so full of doom and inevitability.
emilydehaven's review
challenging
emotional
informative
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0