The earlier chapters were comparatively slow, but wow, the later ones rushed by with the speed of a novel. I admit I couldn't keep track of all the people whose lives intersected at the long-running siege of Basing ("Loyalty") House, but also I really didn't care because I just enjoyed being along for the ride. The quality of the prose is A+ -- Childs clearly has an eye (or an ear) for connections and puns that are clever, not silly. My personal favorite came when she described how the almsfolk who lived at a hospital near Winchester had their possessions taken from them by repeated Royalist requisitions:
"They didn't complain at the time, but the following March they were forced to petition [Ralph Hopton] after royalists had broken in and taken all their seed barley and every bit of wood -- the gates, doors, wainscot, tables, cupboards, even the pews and communion table in their chapel. 'Your poor petitioners," they wrote, 'being very aged and impotent persons', are 'thereby made destitute of the means of having either temporal or spiritual food.' Hopton signed a protection order, but by then there wasn't even a stable door left to close." (p. 124)
Ugh, it's just so good. There's also, somewhere, a sentence about the soldiers called "lobsters" scuttling away from the battle, which was likewise excellent.
In terms of content, SIEGE took me pleasantly by surprise. The book has the appearance of a popular history, and so I was not expecting either such a depth of research or such an evenhanded approach to the controversial aspects of the English civil wars. I kept flipping back to her Endnotes to follow up on some fascinating piece of information Childs mentioned, and it made me very happy to see the wealth of unpublished archival material she consulted - everything from William Lilly's papers to parish poor relief account books. Then there's an anonymous printed "siege diary" and a family history and letters and oodles of other great sources. Childs also brings in the newsbooks, and anyone who's ever done anything with the newsbooks of the English civil war knows they're not easy sources to navigate and use to tell a story like this. She seems to have hunted down every scrap of information she could find, whether archaeological or monumental or textual, to bring this episode to life. Not only that, but she has a historian's sense of source criticism paired with a story-teller's ability: able to comment on the value and credibility of any given source without allowing that commentary to overwhelm or stunt her narrative.
Of course, that does all mean there's a wealth of tangential information, which will not appeal to everyone. We learn about bananas and herbalism and astrology and early modern military medicine and the beginnings of Britain's involvement in the trans-Atlantic slave trade. For that reason I'm not positive whether I'd recommend the book for those who don't already have some background on the Wars of the Three Kingdoms: it could be overwhelming. But if you do have a basic framework already, then this "story of the English Civil War" really fleshes out the picture and makes it much more real. Though Childs is obviously alive to the very real hypocrisies and ironies of the age, she is remarkably sensitive and manages to avoid the pitfall of presentism; she does not seem to be in a rage to adopt either a Parliamentarian or a Royalist party line, but rather to draw out the tragedy of war in the lives of real people. She even says something rather civil about such a character as Hugh Peter, and conveys the spirit of puritan apocalypticism without feeling a need to point a finger at it and loudly announce, "ISN'T THIS ABSURD???" She lets the era speak for itself via the wonderful sources she has brought together, and her own commentary and narration manages to bring you into that world without making you feel she's riding a hobby horse.
I'll be coming back to this book (and its endnotes) again.