Reading the Detectives discussion

Welcome to our Jan/Feb 23 buddy ready of Dissolution by C.J. Sansom (Shardlake #1) first published in 2003.

Dissolution is the first in the phenomenal Shardlake series by bestselling author, C. J. Sansom, followed by Dark Fire, Sovereign, Revelation, Heartstone and Lamentation.

It is 1537, a time of revolution that sees the greatest changes in England since 1066. Henry VIII has proclaimed himself Supreme Head of the Church and the country is waking up to savage new laws, rigged trials and the greatest network of informers ever seen. Under the order of Thomas Cromwell, a team of commissioners is sent through the country to investigate the monasteries. There can only be one outcome: the monasteries are to be dissolved.

But on the Sussex coast, at the monastery of Scarnsea, events have spiralled out of control. Cromwell's Commissioner Robin Singleton, has been found dead, his head severed from his body.

His horrific murder is accompanied by equally sinister acts of sacrilege - a black cockerel sacrificed on the altar, and the disappearance of Scarnsea's Great Relic.

Dr Matthew Shardlake, lawyer and long-time supporter of Reform, has been sent by Cromwell into this atmosphere of treachery and death. But Shardlake's investigation soon forces him to question everything he hears, and everything that he intrinsically believes . . .

The series is as follows:
Shardlake
1. Dissolution (2003)
2. Dark Fire (2004)
3. Sovereign (2006)
4. Revelation (2008)
5. Heartstone (2010)
6. Lamentation (2014)
7. Tombland (2018)

Join us in 2023 to discover, or rediscover, this popular historical mystery series.

Please feel free to post spoilers in this thread.

I was surprised again that a lawyer was so naive about the divisive possibilities of religious reforms - and the greed and corruption likely to result from divvying up the spoils. Poor Mark tried to tell him what was happening in Augmentations, but he didn’t want to hear it. I’ve been so used to Shardlake as a lonely, melancholy character, it was good to refresh my memory on the “early days” when he was Cromwell’s man.

Mark never really worked too well as a foil, did he? I think the author did well to write him out.

I think religious reforms in Tudor England were SO divisive that people were clinging on to safety and had learnt to turn a blind eye. I just read the biography of John Donne, whose mother was the great-niece of Thomas More. He was from a Catholic, land owning family, ruined in the reformation and later became a protestant preacher, probably because he just couldn't advance as a Catholic. His brother died of plague in Fleet prison after hiding a priest. Those were truly times when people were just so unsure of what, or who, to believe that I can see how Shardlake got a little derailed by enthusiasm.

Susan in NC wrote: "I was surprised again that a lawyer was so naive about the divisive possibilities of religious reforms - and the greed and corruption likely to result from divvying up the spoils. Poor Mark tried t..."

He was also very naive about Cromwell’s methods, you just knew there was going to be major disillusionment at some point!

Susan wrote: "Mark never really worked too well as a foil, did he? I think the author did well to write him out.

I think religious reforms in Tudor England were SO divisive that people were clinging on to safet..."

Oh, absolutely, I think you’re right Susan about people turning a blind eye. They wanted some sort of stability in incredibly uncertain times. The author conveys this sense of social upheaval so well.

I don’t think I’m giving anything away by saying this (but just in case), in a later book (view spoiler)[ there’s a glaring example of how the status quo was preferable to the upheaval and bloodshed another change would involve, in a country already reeling (hide spoiler)].

Susan wrote: "Mark never really worked too well as a foil, did he? I think the author did well to write him out.

I think religious reforms in Tudor England were SO divisive that people were clinging on to safet..."

Yes! Honestly, I’d forgotten about Mark, for so many books his right-hand man was Jack Barak, I think his name was!

Susan wrote: "Mark never really worked too well as a foil, did he? I think the author did well to write him out.

I think religious reforms in Tudor England were SO divisive that people were clinging on to safet..."

Very true - it’s easy to look back, knowing what we know now, but I agree, in the moment, people were so unsure, the times were so unsettled and scary!

Julie wrote: "Susan in NC wrote: "I was surprised again that a lawyer was so naive about the divisive possibilities of religious reforms - and the greed and corruption likely to result from divvying up the spoil..."

Very true.

Julie wrote: "Susan wrote: "Mark never really worked too well as a foil, did he? I think the author did well to write him out.

I think religious reforms in Tudor England were SO divisive that people were clingi..."

So right - especially for the “little people”, just trying to buy food, make a living, keep a roof overhead - it all must have seen mystifying and terrifying, not knowing what was coming next, what was treasonous, what wasn’t, who was in favor, etc.

Susan in NC wrote: "Susan wrote: "Mark never really worked too well as a foil, did he? I think the author did well to write him out.

I think religious reforms in Tudor England were SO divisive that people were clingi..."

In books 2 & 3 it’s Jack Barak, you remember correctly!

Susan in NC wrote: "Julie wrote: "Susan wrote: "Mark never really worked too well as a foil, did he? I think the author did well to write him out.

I think religious reforms in Tudor England were SO divisive that peop..."

It struck me some years ago, watching ‘The White Queen,’ that members of the nobility really had no hope of neutrality. One way or another, they would get drawn into conflict, dragging their households with them. I guess at least if you were in one of the professional trades or had some humble but independent occupation (apothecary, tailor etc) at least you had a chance of avoiding that.

Julie wrote: "Susan in NC wrote: "Susan wrote: "Mark never really worked too well as a foil, did he? I think the author did well to write him out.

I think religious reforms in Tudor England were SO divisive tha..."

Thanks!

Julie wrote: "Susan in NC wrote: "Julie wrote: "Susan wrote: "Mark never really worked too well as a foil, did he? I think the author did well to write him out.

I think religious reforms in Tudor England were S..."

Good point - I notice that in all of the historical mystery series I enjoy reading- as a regular citizen with a trade or business, you’d try and just keep your head down and mind your business, and ignore the going’s on of the high and mighty as much as possible, whether fighting wars, pushing through religious reforms, going off on crusades, whatever…

Difficult to do too, if you ended up on the wrong side of the divide. Like John Donne, whose family were Catholic, he had to change in order to make a living. You know that Shardlake was a reformer and possibly quite keen on change. Of course, Anne Boleyn was also a keen reformer (possibly keener for the pragmatic reason of wishing Henry to divorce his first wife) and this novel touches on Shardlake's shock of the queen's execution.

Barak was a much better companion to Shardlake and I think we meet him in the next book, which I have added to our buddy list now.

Susan in NC wrote: "Julie wrote: "Susan in NC wrote: "Julie wrote: "Susan wrote: "Mark never really worked too well as a foil, did he? I think the author did well to write him out.

I think religious reforms in Tudor ..."

There was always something, wasn’t there? Tumultuous times.

Times are usually tumultuous, but definitely those were rockier than most!

Susan wrote: "Difficult to do too, if you ended up on the wrong side of the divide. Like John Donne, whose family were Catholic, he had to change in order to make a living. You know that Shardlake was a reformer..."

Very difficult to do, as politically things were in such a state of flux. I think Sansom shows very well there was no such thing as a ‘safe’ loyalty.

I agree, Barak made a much more loyal and effective companion for Shardlake, though from memory Matthew had to win him over initially?

Susan wrote: "Times are usually tumultuous, but definitely those were rockier than most!"

Indeed. The War of the Roses, after all, wasn’t that distant a memory…

Yes, the Tudors were not comfortable on the throne. Especially as, during this novel, they had no heir.

One thing to bear in mind in this period is that there was no media so ordinary people unassociated with the court, and especially in towns and villages outside of London, were not always aware of what was happening or why. There were royal proclamations, of course, but literacy levels were likely very low.

Fiction tends to focus on the court, its associated bureaucracy and educated protagonists, but that does give a rather skewed view of the period.

Although literacy levels for women, albeit of higher class, was high compared to other European countries. Due to no male heir and the education of Mary and Elizabeth, as well as Thomas More who educated his daughters to the same levels as young men of the period. I believe it became quite fashionable to add Latin to the embroidery lessons.

You're right about royal and aristocratic women, Susan, but that was a tiny percentage of the population in this period. Even rudimentary schooling for ordinary boys, organised and funded by the church or local groups, was only just starting. This was much more of a visual and listening culture than a reading one for ordinary non-elite people.

One of the reasons for the spread of routine basic learning and literacy was the need for men in the burgeoning 'civil service' that allowed someone like Cromwell to flourish.

Absolutely. The Bible in English was first printed in 1535 too, according to my brief internet search, the year Henry was proclaimed (or proclaimed himself!) Supreme Head of the Church of England. Whatever faults the Reformation had, that did aid literacy and reading away from the elite and make it more accessible. Both Cromwell and Wolsey came from fairly common backgrounds, which is pretty interesting, considering how important the aristocracy were then.

Yes, Wolsey and Cromwell both did well out of the centralisation of power around the London court that Henry VII started and which his son continued. Previously there was far more localised/regional power emerging from feudal systems and local lords and that remains contested and fraught.

It's also interesting that despite creating the Church of England, Henry VIII remained essentially Catholic in thought and practise - but with all the benefits of divorce!

Susan wrote: "Difficult to do too, if you ended up on the wrong side of the divide. Like John Donne, whose family were Catholic, he had to change in order to make a living. You know that Shardlake was a reformer..."

Yes, I really think Anne’s execution, the brutality and suddenness of it, were the beginning of his doubts. Then Cromwell’s casual admissions of his corrupt practices to gain his ends tipped him over the edge. I always remember, even years later, the melancholy air that hung over the whole series - the writing was so powerful.

Great, thank you for adding the next book, Susan! I agree, Jack was a much better fit, I honestly forgot about Mark. When I first read this book, loooong ago, it was just another very promising first (hopefully) book in a historical series, I only got really hooked after book 2, I think - hate to get too invested until you know the author is committed to a series! I think that may be why I enjoy old series (like Christie books, and other GA favorites), or series from my teens/early adulthood (Charlotte Macleod, Elizabeth Peters, Lindsey Davis, basically’90s-early 2000s). I read one or totally missed them but was interested, but life got in the way! Now I can revisit them, try again.

Julie wrote: "Susan wrote: "Difficult to do too, if you ended up on the wrong side of the divide. Like John Donne, whose family were Catholic, he had to change in order to make a living. You know that Shardlake ..."

Yes! This claustrophobic fear, of no “safe” loyalty, hung over the series like Matthew’s melancholy - impressive for a historical mystery series. Really brought home what a dangerous place the Tudor court could be - even on the fringes! Maybe more so, the powers that be often hunted there for a sacrificial lamb to fuel their ambitions (like that poor court musician, forced to confess to being Anne’s lover).

Julie wrote: "Susan wrote: "Difficult to do too, if you ended up on the wrong side of the divide. Like John Donne, whose family were Catholic, he had to change in order to make a living. You know that Shardlake ..."

Yes, Barak was skeptical at first, I don’t remember details, look forward to rereading!

Roman Clodia wrote: "One thing to bear in mind in this period is that there was no media so ordinary people unassociated with the court, and especially in towns and villages outside of London, were not always aware of ..."

Good point - I’d like to think out in the provinces, normal people could live their lives in relative peace (well, until Henry’s tax collectors called - those wars won’t pay for themselves!)

Roman Clodia wrote: "Yes, Wolsey and Cromwell both did well out of the centralisation of power around the London court that Henry VII started and which his son continued. Previously there was far more localised/regiona..."

I’ve heard Episcopalian (Anglican for Americans) friends call their faith “Catholic light” for that reason- all the faith, none of the guilt!

I struggled with this book when I read it years ago but may read the second with you lovely people as I'm enjoying the discussion.

I thought this one was too full of anachronisms. I also laughed at Shardlake swinging from the bells in what was supposed to be a tense moment!

Roman Clodia wrote: "I struggled with this book when I read it years ago but may read the second with you lovely people as I'm enjoying the discussion.

I thought this one was too full of anachronisms. I also laughed ..."

I look forward to further discussions, I learn so much! I did not remember much of this book, I believe the second, as for so many authors, is when Sansom hit his stride.

Definitely, this is very much a first novel. However, it has a lot of character building and I like the remote monastery. I am not sure people did get away with things in the provinces. Those pesky people kept coming around asking you to swear loyalty to some new queen or other and I am sure many struggled to maintain their own integrity and also avoid being beheaded, burnt or otherwise despatched.

Susan wrote: "Definitely, this is very much a first novel. However, it has a lot of character building and I like the remote monastery. I am not sure people did get away with things in the provinces. Those pesky..."

Good point, it could be dangerous out in the boondocks, not just in London! Especially if some greedy member of Henry’s court liked your estate, or monastery, or whatever, and wanted it “for the Crown” wink, wink, nudge, nudge…

Well, exactly. Nice bit of land you have there....

Susan wrote: "Well, exactly. Nice bit of land you have there...."

Lol

Great discussion in this thread. I've finished the book now and really enjoyed it - great characters and so many layers of historical detail. I didn't pick up on the anachronisms you mention, RC, but then again I'm no expert on the Tudor period though I do find it fascinating. I do agree about the incident with the bells being rather far-fetched though!

Susan and Susan, great point about the constant fear of saying the wrong thing, or being denounced by someone who likes your house or land etc. It all feels very like the totalitarian regimes of later centuries and puts across how, even though Tudor Britain is sometimes presented as a sort of golden age, it wasn't for most people.

Judy wrote: "Great discussion in this thread. I've finished the book now and really enjoyed it - great characters and so many layers of historical detail. I didn't pick up on the anachronisms you mention, RC, b..."

Very true - and ironically for many periods of history, when the richest were often the most comfortable (if not the happiest), in Tudor times it seemed the more wealth and power you possessed, the more careful and paranoid you had to be - your fall could be more spectacular, if others (or the Crown) wanted what you held.

Also, it was a time when the throne was very precarious. Henry VII took the throne from the Plantagenants. For many, he was a pretender, and it was in living memory of some and only a generation from Henry VII to Henry VIII. There were many looking to usurp the Tudors and no legitimate heir. Now, Henry VIII is often presented as this stupid man who should have realised what he had in Mary and Elizabeth. In reality, he had two daughters, one Catholic and one Protestant, and Europe wondering who could marry them and take the country if they did reign, unexpectedly, as Queen. Troubled times. It is good, I think, that both Mary and Elizabeth lie together in Westminster Abbey, side by side, all their divisions finally set aside.

Susan wrote: "Also, it was a time when the throne was very precarious. Henry VII took the throne from the Plantagenants. For many, he was a pretender, and it was in living memory of some and only a generation fr..."

Oh, thank you for this historic insight, I wasn’t aware; I’m trying to bone up on my English history (and history in general) as part of my personal nonfiction book a month challenge, but there’s so much! Especially about the Tudors in the last several years - need to read up about what (and who) came before. The War of the Roses is still confusing!

It is the reason why, as Queen Elizabeth II's husband, Prince Philip remained Prince and not king - as did Prince Albert with Queen Victoria. If a man inherits the throne, his wife can be Queen (so when William becomes King, then Kate will be Queen) but if a woman is the heir then the man she marries can't be King.

When Mary I married a Spaniard, Phillip II, there was immense fear that, if she died, he would take the throne and be loyal to Spain and not England. It was one of the reasons why Elizabeth I never married, as every possible husband caused those around her to fear what it meant for the country.

Susan wrote: "It is the reason why, as Queen Elizabeth II's husband, Prince Philip remained Prince and not king - as did Prince Albert with Queen Victoria. If a man inherits the throne, his wife can be Queen (so..."

Ok, thanks, that makes sense, I remember reading about the fears of Catholic Spain’s Phillip becoming king.

Yes, he tried to marry Elizabeth after Mary, but she was way too smart.

Susan wrote: "Yes, he tried to marry Elizabeth after Mary, but she was way too smart."

Amazing woman, really, especially for her time. I can’t imagine any royal she could safely marry, who wouldn’t attempt a power grab of some sort, not to mention the descendants of such a dynastic Union, and what they might get up to…

She was in a difficult place, wasn't she? If she married, she risked losing power. If she didn't, she had the same, thorny issue, of who would inherit the throne.

Susan wrote: "She was in a difficult place, wasn't she? If she married, she risked losing power. If she didn't, she had the same, thorny issue, of who would inherit the throne."

Definitely! I think I need to read a good bio of her, she really was fascinating. She definitely relished power, and didn’t pretend or play…well, all the coy “Virgin Queen”, “mere woman” blarney aside…

There is an interesting new biography out in May which is on my tbr list: Anne Boleyn & Elizabeth I: The Mother and Daughter Who Changed History

Finally finished this book and was a bit disappointed because of all the positive reviews. In the beginning I thought that the slow tempo showed how slowly people lived then, especially in a monastery, but then I thought it would never finish. The solution of the crime was in the background, but the rest was very sad - destroying houses of God because people didn´t have the king´s religion. I thought the murders were just a pretence. I also can hardly imagine that Shardlake was as naive as he tells in this book. In spite of this I think I´ll try the next book in the series too, but the Tudor times are a little boring to me in the meantime, though there are many books about that episode.

Susan wrote: "There is an interesting new biography out in May which is on my tbr list: Anne Boleyn & Elizabeth I: The Mother and Daughter Who Changed History [bookcover:Anne Boleyn & Elizabeth I..."

Thanks, Susan! Don’t know how I missed this.

Too many books :) There seem to be greater numbers published each month. I am sure this shows publishing is healthy, but it's a very crowded market.

Susan wrote: "Too many books :) There seem to be greater numbers published each month. I am sure this shows publishing is healthy, but it's a very crowded market."

I agree, and publishers are all trying to stay on top of the latest “thing” - I remember years ago, when my mom was alive at working at Barnes & Noble, she was so tired of the vampire/werewolf romance books. She’d spend the day shelving, in one department or another, and notice if one book caught reader interest, every publisher would rush out a couple copycat books! Became tedious, and then the next entertainment trend would take off…Harry Potter, the Tudors, Scandinavian Noir, one blockbuster set off each trend! I wonder if there will be a bunch of old people solving crime books thanks to Thursday Murder Club?