I feel like I have a love-hate relationship with Hilary Mantel’s Cromwell books, and that in the past I’ve perhaps been too generous in how I’ve rated them.
I love Mantel’s attention to detail. She has picked apart Cromwell’s life in her research, and woven a story of vivid colours, from the most famous matters of state down to his family and home life. One feels that she knows the lanes of London where Cromwell walks, understands the earnestly held opinions of the day rather than trying to force modern values on her historic characters, and has memorised the customs and culture; everything from scribbled poetry to popular dishes to a local village’s superstitions. This is probably her biggest strength, not just in this book but in the whole trilogy. Such intimate knowledge renders the world of Renaissance England with a high degree of authenticity and fidelity – at least, in comparison to other less strenuous novels with the same setting. Note that the two are not the same – authenticity and fidelity. By fidelity I refer to the facts known to history, and by authenticity I describe the willingness of the reader to believe the world that the story creates, to deem it plausible and not scoff in incredulity. This pleases me, both as a reader and a historian. That said, clocking in at 864 pages on Kindle, and, truly, packed with so much detail and digression into Cromwell’s past as well as his present, I can understand how it might be seen as too much for some.
I hate Mantel’s structural eccentricities. I don’t think the choice of present tense was a good one, as I find it only adds confusion and makes meaning muddier here. In Wolf Hall, Mantel seemed to be allergic to using her protagonists name, leaving her readers flailing for which “he” was whom. This is something that she corrected in Bring Up the Bodies to “he, Cromwell”, and continues here, but while this elucidates scenes, it then renders “he” redundant and comes across as clumsy and maladroit. It doesn’t help that, in The Mirror and the Light in particular, Mantel diverges into stream-of-thought writing, not occasionally but frequently, delving into Cromwell’s consciousness in sudden reminiscences or connecting thoughts and subjects that are not immediately apparent to the reader. Like a river bursting its banks, this kind of writing feels like it lacks direction and is difficult for a reader to track. It can be effective when employed judiciously, but I thought it was overused. If you’ve read some of Mantel's other works outside of this trilogy, you’ll know that this isn’t common to her writing as a whole. I therefore can only assume that it is a deliberate stylistic choice Mantel made with this trilogy, perhaps in order to stand out from what others are doing and present something more unconventional. I have seen some praise this as “edgy” and therefore good. I myself am of the opinion that edgy does not necessarily equate to good, and frankly I find these peculiarities of structure to be bewildering and headache-inducing. Maybe it could work in another book; but it doesn’t work for me here.
I love that Mantel takes on Cromwell as her protagonist. Cromwell has been a side character in a lot of novels, and he has often been villainised. To be fair, I definitely do not find everything the historical Cromwell did to be laudable, and certain things I would consider to be absolutely reprehensible. That said, however, I do not think that everything he did was driven by nefarious intent or had a bad outcome. Cromwell had his qualities, and in many ways he was a highly competent minister. His very rise encapsulates a key turning point in the Renaissance where merit began to be valued more highly than bloodright, and this revolution was something that princes found at once to their immense benefit, but also deeply threatening. I find that poor quality novels tend to reduce history down to stereotypical tropes, misunderstanding contemporary social mores, and painting some figures as moustache-twirling villains while raising up others onto pedestals of perfection. As a historian I’m aware that this is deeply unrealistic and fails to do justice to real people who once lived; but as a reader I’m just plain exasperated and tired of reading such a simplistic model which is boring, predictable, and not fun. Mantel gives Cromwell a modicum of justice for his achievements, and she manages to do so without creating a saint. Particularly in this book, Cromwell spends a good deal of time dwelling on his mistakes, failures, and the times when he caused injury to others.
I hate the fact that Mantel does not treat other characters with the same degree of humanity and objectivity. Particularly the Boleyn family and their adherents. In Mantel’s version of events, Mark Smeaton was never tortured into making confession, merely locked inside a cupboard full of spiky Christmas ornaments. Come on. Are we really expected to believe such a bare-faced free pass? Mantel borders on becoming Cromwell’s apologist. In her version, Jane Parker, George Boleyn’s wife, is still the shrewish voyeur who bore false witness against the husband and sister-in-law she hated, the same Jane Parker you’ve seen or read about in a dozen other lazy stories which all ignore the considerable evidence that their marriage was amicable and that it was not Jane but another lady, the Countess of Worcester, who committed the deed. In Mantel’s version, Anne Boleyn is still driven purely by naked ambition, a scheming hussy who lost her virginity in France, her father power-hungry and her brother a fatuous boor. There is nothing of Anne’s unusually rigorous Renaissance education, the conviction of her reformed faith, or her initial disinclination to the king. There is nothing shown of her father’s many successes as ambassador on his own merit, long before either of his daughters caught Henry’s eye, or of her brother’s intelligence and talents. Mantel derides silly, frothy renderings of Henry’s court in fiction, with their 21st century attitudes and gross oversimplification of events and conflicts, but beyond her own research on Cromwell she repeats many of the most spurious, flimsy, and disproven myths about some of his peers.
I would like to say that I have no misgivings about Mantel’s Cromwell trilogy and recommend it wholeheartedly. Her rich and human portrait of Cromwell is fresh and certainly appealing. And I feel under a lot of pressure to conform to majority opinion which has been dealing out 4 and 5 stars aplenty. But while these reviews praise Mantel’s genius, they seem to make little or no mention of her shortcomings. That is something I cannot do.
6 out of 10