Winter King

The Dawn of Tudor England

Thomas Penn, 2011

(November 2012)

So I’m going to start this by ragging on the blurb again. It’s becoming something of a habit, for which I can only apologise. There’s an interesting twist to the usual SPOILERZ!!! NOES!!!11!!! complaint this time around though, what with this being REAL HISTORY and so, theoretically, being immune from spoilers. Unless your name is Biff.

Specifically it’s a quote from this review: ‘Imagine Wolf Hall written by John le Carré…’ which is placed not so subtly below a quote from the author of Wolf Hall herself. I get that there’s a need to sell these books, and I certainly don’t begrudge someone trying to make an honest buck, but is it really that necessary to jump so slavishly onto the popular culture bandwagon to promote a book largely about the 16^th century? If we’re having to explain REAL HISTORY by comparing it to works of fiction, are we not putting the cart before the horse? ‘Jeffery Dahmer? Imagine Hannibal Lecter being played by Heath Ledger.’ The tail, I feel, is wagging the dog, and other animal based metaphors.

I know it’s hardly an original complaint, but in the case of this book it’s especially relevant, because what’s striking here is the depth and endless, almost fractal, levels of detail and connection that actually occur in the REAL HISTORY. The more epic High Fantasy stuff often gets lauded for its depth and complexity, but that’s nothing compared to how it actually was during REAL HISTORY. There are more characters, intrigue, politicking, and betrayal in a single chapter of Winter King than in an entire volume of A Song of Ice and Fire, just to pick the most currently visible example.

‘It’s so complex, just like real life!’ Bollocks. It’s got nothing on real life. Holding grimdark medieval fantasy fiction up to REAL HISTORY only serves to highlight just how much of a pale, diluted interpretation it really is.

Of course, complexity doesn’t necessarily make for a good story, and I’m certainly not trying to lay claim to non-fiction being inherently superior to fiction in that (or any other) regard. The comparison is unfair both ways, but in slapping that quote on the cover the comparison is explicitly invited and does the author a huge disservice.

Penn handles his material very well, and all that mass of detail only rarely becomes overwhelming, as can often be the case. He manages to carve the blocky mass of material at his command into a clear narrative, which is easier said than done; real life, REAL HISTORY, doesn’t come in neat chapters with beginnings, middles, and ends. The scholarship is used to reinforce the story being told not the other way around, which for a popular history is exactly as it should be.

It would have been even better with dragons, though. Everything’s better with dragons.