Scan barcode
maura15's review
5.0
I find myself having a hard time writing a review for this book. I am at a loss for words because I can't wrap my head around how brilliant this story is. This is definitely one of my favorite books of all time. Penman is an amazing author. I love her writing style and how she spun a beautiful story about the war of the roses. I learned a lot from this book, but I still like that it was a novel. The fiction aspect of the story breathed it new life, especially with a person as controversial as King Richard III. Although I did love Richard, I must say that Anne was my absolute favorite, and their love story was to die for. I was enraptured from start to finish. I highly recommend this book!
yarrowkat's review
4.0
Engrossing. i am usually undaunted by 900+ page historical novels, and this solid tome is a fine example of why they're worth it. The Sunne in Splendour is incredibly detailed, well-researched, loaded with brilliant (and actual!) intrigue, compelling characters who experience finely textured emotional layering & growth. i never thought i'd grow so fond of Edward IV. but i am coming to know these people very well, and to find myself deeply appreciating their nuances and the finely-rendered detail of their lives. this is a must for any lover of medievals, British history, or political intrigue.
caitibeth's review
5.0
Absolutely THE Ricardian novel, as far as I'm concerned. Holds up just as well on re-read as it did the first time around. Beautifully written and elegiac.
Be prepared, it's a wee bit epic. This is historical fiction writ LARGE.
Be prepared, it's a wee bit epic. This is historical fiction writ LARGE.
hoopoebird's review
adventurous
dark
emotional
informative
mysterious
reflective
sad
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
Content Warnings
Graphic: Confinement, Death, Infidelity, Violence, Grief, Death of parent, and War
Moderate: Adult/minor relationship, Child death, Domestic abuse, Infertility, Mental illness, Miscarriage, Terminal illness, Blood, Murder, Injury/Injury detail, and Classism
oliviakateamerica's review against another edition
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
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
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 against another edition
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.