SA Book & Challenge Lovers discussion

On Wednesday, Barbara, Niecole and I will start our buddy read of the historical mystery Dissolution by C.J. Sansom, no.1 in the Matthew Shardlake series. Anyone who'd like to join in is welcome!

I fulfilled my goal of reading the Imriel trilogy in 6 days. That means I have read a little over 2600 pages in those 6 days, but it also means I am ready to start this book tomorrow.

I am glad you are joining us, Niecole!

WOW - 2600 pages?! How many hours was that?

Tried to buy the eBook today and got an error message from Amazon saying the book is not available for download, try again tomorrow. Which is what i'll do. Hope it works...

About 40-45 hours. I read at a speed of about 60 pages an hour. So that is an average of 7 hours a day. I really wanted to finish those books before I started our buddy read and I got lucky because they were great books. But it is not something I will repeat any time soon :)

I'll wait till tomorrow then too since I read so fast even if I am not trying to complete weird goals i set myself.

BTW Friday I am not going to be online much since it is my Dad's birthday and I am going to visit my parents. Well actually it's his birthday tomorrow but I am going on friday because of reasons we talked about in our emails.

OK, I was able to download the book today without any issues, so I'll start reading later. There's a review I want to finish first, although that's unlikely to happen. I'm not feeling particularly productive.

Happy birthday to your dad, and I hope you have a good time!

Thanks I am sure we'll have fun!

I am halfway through chapter six.

Am I the only one or is this novel very reminisccent of the Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco?
I can even replace characters from that book with members from this book.
Did you guys read The Name of the Rose

P.s my dad said thank you for the congratulations!

:)

I had no time to read this weekend, and I didn't read much on Friday, so I've only finished a chapter or two. I like it so far. Interesting to have a hunchbacked lawyer as a protagonist - few authors would use such an unattractive protagonist, or even a disabled one.

Haven't read The Name of the Rose, although I have a copy.

I am at the start of chapter 11. I didn't read much in this book either this weekend because you hadn't posted anything yet and I didn't want to get to far ahead.

The hunchback lawyer is interesting but I read The Mistress of the Art of Death by Ariana Franklin and that is set even earlier and has a female medical examiner as the protagonist which was even better.

I haven't been able to shake the similarities between The Name of the Rose and this book. Maybe because they are both set in a monastery but there are also similar characters. I like the book but can't decide if I like it on its own merits or because it reminds me of a book I loved.

I'm in the middle of chapter 7.

The mystery is developing nicely now, but I don't really have much to say. However, could you remind me why they have to keep the murder a secret? What are the political implications?

Ok here comes your history lesson:
We are in the middle of religious reform in England. It is the time of Henri VIII who broke with the Catholic church to marry Anne Boleyn. He even pronounced himself to be the head of the church in England. He executed Anne in may 1536 because of treason. She supposedly had sex with 3 noblemen, one commoner and her brother and since she was queen this was considered treason because then it would be unsure who was the father of her offspring. Henri married Jane Seymour two weeks later and she gave him a son in October 1537 and died 12 days later. (in the story we are a couple of weeks after her death) Jane Seymour was a protestant and drove the king even further into the new religion.
The king now has money trouble and sees an opportunity to further his religious reform and get money at the same time by closing all Catholic monasteries. He will then have a lot of land which he can keep for revenue or buy nobles with and also he can melt all the gold objects the monasteries have and keep all their money and valuables. And of course rid his country of the Catholic church.
The people however or not happy with this. They don't understand why the protestant faith is better than the Catholic one that they have always known and loved and they also receive a lot of help from the Catholic church. They have the hospitals and a lot of schools but also do a lot for the poor. Also they are opposed to the new faith because they see it as the faith of Nan Bollen (their name for Anne Boleyn) and they never liked her. She was totally different from the first wife of Henri VIII Queen Katherine of Aragon who was the queen of the people. Anne Boleyn however really likes her power and wealth and is the daughter of a commoner. Well a few generations ago they were commoners/merchants and then their family climbed the ranks untill the married into the Howard family (her mother was a Howard) who were one of if not the mightiest family after the king. And they hate social climbers in those days. So they really don't like the new faith.
Cromwell who is Henri VIII right hand man has sent an investigator to see if there are legitimate reasons to close a number of monasteries. So there will be less opposition when they do close them. For example the Bible has been translated in English and are they using this one or the Latin one which isn't allowed, are masses said in English or Latin but also worse offenses like are the monks celibate, do they commit sodomy etc. etc. If they can find offenses like this they can close the monasteries because they don't follow the law or because they are pervers.
This investigator is murdered on Catholic monastery ground. If this is know this could be the beginning of civil war. Because: was this man murdered because he found something in his investigations that would enable the king to close monasteries, was he murdered because they would like it to seem like he did, was he murdered to prevent him from finding anything, did the catholics murder him or did the protestants etc. etc. etc. This could diveide the country.
Also don't forget this is the king's investigator. A king's investigator has full powers and there is no place he isn't allowed to go. In effect he is the king's substitute. So by murdering him in effect you are commiting treason. This could be potentially very damaging and very dangerous. So they have to keep the murder quiet untill they know what happened.

Ok that is it in a nuttshell. It is not very well explained in the book but I think Sansom expects you to know something of the period and events that are going on. Dissolution the title of the book is also the name of the process of closing the monasteries.

I am at the beginning of chapter 14 and I don't have much to say either. It isn't a book that evokes a lot of emotion in me. I don't love it but I don't dislike it either.

Ah, thank you :) I actually already knew some of that, thanks to (and I'm somewhat ashamed to admit this) that rather dreadful series called the Tudors with Jonathan Rhys Meyers (he's gorgeous but I can't stand him).

Some of the background stuff (like the way the people feel about the Reform) isn't really being covered, but I think it might come up later because other things have come across (like using the relics to make money). I think Sansom is being relatively subtle about explaining these things. They're weaved into the narrative rather than put in info dumps. I always prefer this technique, even if it means I'm a bit lost at first.

You're very welcome. It is my favorite era of English history so I know quite a lot and maybe went a bit overboard with explaining it.
Sometimes knowing is not recalling. At least with me. Sometimes someone just has to point it out to me and then I go like ah of course, I knew that!

Yeah Sansom doesn't really explain it out right. He does show how suspicious everyone is in the beginning when Cromwell implies that Shardlake isn't following the new faith and this scares the *** out of Shardlake. It shows how volatile the situation is. Even at the highest level. He also gives little hints about when we are with telling that everyone is still in morning for the queen.

Don't worry, you didn't go overboard - it was a good summary with all the important information and a bit extra to give me a good understanding :)

I'm not much further along. I fell asleep while reading last night, but that's because it was pretty late and I'd just finished another novel. I just wanted to say that I appreciate what an engaging read this is so far. There's a lot of information to take in, but I'm finding it to be a relatively easy read in that it holds my attention well. I've recently read a few books that were often dull and I'd read it in little bits unless I made an effort to focus and keep going. Dissolution isn't like that, and I'm grateful for it.

Oh great. I am glad you found it a good summerary.

I must say I don't have that feeling. I still can't shake the comparision with The Name of the Rose and it falls short because I think Eco's book the better of the two. I do like it enough to be curious as to the second book in the series. Since that book will probably not be set in a monastery I can read that one on its own merits.

I am at the beginning of chapter 21.
The mystery does expand and leaves me with questions. also the relationships between the various characters are interesting and sometimes puzzling.

You should talk to Lu. We are having a discussion about Angels and Demons. We have an agreement to read 12 chapters a day and she didn't manage it one evening earlier this week because she fell asleep too.

Wow, is it really that similar? That would probably annoy me too, if I'd read the Eco.

Lol, yeah, I've been lurking in your Angels and Demons thread :) I wonder if I should set a goal for myself here too. I've just made a reading schedule for my review books, and I'll have to average 80 pages a day for my next two reads. Once I've achieved that for the day I can read Dissolution.

There's a couch in my library that's a nice spot for reading, but I inevitably fall asleep there; I don't know why. I don't fall asleep as easily when reading on the couch in the lounge or even in bed.

Yes and no. It is different but I can see a lot of similarities too. I will list some of them for you. Don't read the following unless you are where I am in the book since it contains some spoilers!
(view spoiler)[1) They are both set in a monastery with all that that entails.
2) They are both set in times of religious unrest
3) An outsider is asked to investigate a murder
4) The outsider is helped by a somewhat naieve sidekick
5) This sidekick is tempted by a woman
6) Multiple murders are commited and some of them quite bloody
7) in both books there is a madman (hide spoiler)]
These are just 7 points that come to mind without having to think very hard. The Name of the Rose is the better book I think because the mystery is more intricate. Also there is a lot more symbolism and puzzles in that book. Dissolution feels simple when you compare the book. Like The Name of the Rose is for adults and Dissolution is the children's version.
If you like this book I do recommend that you read The Name of the Rose too. Not immediately but next year or so.

I wouldn't also set a goal for Dissolution. It sounds as it is you fun book and you shouldn't set goals for your fun book because then it too becomes a chore and won't be fun anymore.

How do you like our discussion? Have you read Angels and Demons?

Maybe it is because your library is your relaxation spot and you're so relaxed there that your body just shuts down and goes to sleep. It could also be the Earths magnetic field. I don't know if it is possible but have you tried to change the position of the couch? Maybe move it 50 cm to the left or right of forwards or backwards, maybe even turn it around? Sometimes that helps. The oldest of my nieces wouldn't sleep in her nursery and would cry the whole night. Then my sister moved her crib to the other side of the not very big room and she had no problems anymore and slept like the proverbial (and real in this case) baby. Maybe if you move your couch you'll stay awake.

Will check out the similarities when I get to chapter 21 :)

Yeah, I think you're right - perhaps best not to set a goal, since this is my leisure read. I love some of the review books I get, but it's always nice to read something without thinking of having to write about it later.

Dan Brown's books are the kinds of books I'm curious to hear about, because they're so controversial, but which I don't want to read because I've heard such awful things about the writing (I hate bad writing) and I get annoyed with books full of short chapters that all end in cliffhangers. So I like your discussion, but I won't be joining in. That bit about your friend checking out the Vatican vaults was really interesting.

I usually don't read in the library actually. I just go there to get away from the noise of Yaseen's games. Especially racing games or war games. They're the worst. I'll try moving the couch to see what happens. I've also been thinking that maybe I should read in an armchair instead, because you can't lie down on it.

What I really want to do is make a proper reading nook out of the room though - decorate it, make it cosier. At the moment all the furniture in there belongs to the government, except for two shelves, and there's no art or ornaments, so it's a bit boring. I used to display some of the jewellery I'd made there, but then we got the cat and she just played with everything, so I packed it away.

Yeah not before. There aren't huge spoilers in there but still it could spoil some things for you.

You shouldn't read Dan Brown then. He is full of bad tricks to create suspense and in me they just cause irritation. Cliffhangers like he didn't know he would need this knowledge several hours later. Or at one point he explains that the Camerlengo of the pope has had an experience in his youth that made him feel God and doesn't explain what that was. That is something that is explained a couple of chapters later. Or changing viewpoints when a major discovery is imminent. All very annoying and designed to keep readers reading but they feel like the cheap tricks they are. I beleive a good author doesn't need these tricks or if he does use them they won't be as obvious as in Dan Brown's books.

Yeah it was really interesting what he told me. I downplayed it a bit because of Emma but he saw some really pornographic stuff there from cultures all over the world. Stuff I couldn't begin to describe on the internet.

I would love a room to call my library with it's own reading nook. I prefer a couch to an armchair because I liek to change positions when I am reading and I assume the strangest ones. In an armchair my possibilities are limited.

Please let me know what happens when you move the couch.

Cats will be cats. Cicero used to steal a stuffed animal I have from the Star Trek movies. It was on the highest shelf in a bookcase and I never caught her climbing it but I found it several times on the floor without knowing how it got there and then all of a sudden it stayed up on the shelf where I wanted it. Don't know why.

That's one of serious pet peeves about mystery novels, or any novel where people are keeping secrets - when the author uses these really obvious, cheap tactics to create suspense. Ending all your chapters with cliffhangers is one of them, as is that "little did he know" type sentence. Another is making a generally smart or curious character act really dumb and/or blind so that they don't ask the right questions or fail to notice something very obvious and important. That book I read about Alexander the Great used the viewpoint changing tactic all the time and it drove me mad.

Hmm, it's really interesting that the Vatican didn't destroy all that art. I wonder why.

Changing positions on the couch is the problem. I start out sitting up but stretched out, and eventually I'm lying down fast asleep.

Oh, trying to make jewellery with a cat around can be a nightmare. She gets excited when she sees the thread dangling of course, and she's gotten into the habit of stealing little things from my stash of supplies - bobbins of thread, the little containers I put beads in, a rolled-up work in progress. Anything she can carry off in her little mouth.

The Vatican didn't destroy all that art for various reasons. Money is a good one. Also you can't fight what you don't know. It is one of the reasons why I read the books of Erich von Daniken. I don't know if you are familiar with him but he explains everything as being aliens. The pyramids are landing platforms for UFO's, the Nazca lines are landing strips, sculptures and reliefs with weird dimensions are aliens etc. I think the guy is nuts but if I don't read his work I can't deliver evidence against what he is saying.
Also I think earlier popes might have gotten a pervers pleasure out of the objects. In some times in history the papal palace was nothing more or less than a brothel with popes living with their mistresses, appointing their bastard sons as cardianls and giving innocent girls and their virginity to their favorites. So the objects might have been something the found interesting and in some cases educational.

I know. I myself make dreamcathers. And I have all kinds of cloth, and wool and beads and feathers for constructing them and I always have to be carefull the cats don't steal anything. Also every know and then I like to make a jigsaw puzzle. And a favorite passtime of my cats is stealing my puzzle pieces. Very annoying. But then again Cicero will run after anything that you drop accidently on the floor. When our central heating was installed she went of with all kinds of rings the plumber used and even small pieces of piping. But what was most fun was when my mum got pedicures at home. Cicero would steal all kinds of supplies that woman brought, cotton wool, all kinds of polishing heads that had to be mounted on a machine. Wait untill she gets something that she wants to carry off and it is actually to big for her. I can't count the times one of my cats carried something off that was to big and they tripped over it. It is so funny. And the strangest thing is you can't really get mad at them for doing it because they look so cute when they do it.

I just finished the book and I must say that I found they ending very unsatisfactory. I won't say anything more about it because I don't want to spoil it for you but no, I did not like it.

Also there is a motto that is quoted wrong and something about Adam and Eve that I don't understand.

Oh dear, I hate it when books drop the ball at the end.

I'm at chapter 23, so I've read your list of similarities to Name of the Rose. I can see why it would bug you.

At this point I'm enjoying it, although I don't have any suspects. I keep highlighting little details that I think might be important so I can check their validity later.

I thought that (view spoiler)[Shardlake's accusation of Gabriel (hide spoiler)] was a bit rash. How could it not have occurred to him that (view spoiler)[Gabriel's robe could have been stolen and used by the true murderer? (hide spoiler)]. I also think Shardlake can be a bit of a bastard in his official capacity as the king's agent, making sure all the rules are being followed, but I guess that's just his job. Still, I sometimes feel sorry for the monks, even though I'm not really on their side.

Adam and Eve? That reminds me of a conversation between Shardlake and the abbot, about why women shouldn't work in the monastery. The abbot said "Women tempt men, as Adam tempted Eve." That should be the other way around - it's Eve who's known for tempting Adam. Now you're making me wonder if it wasn't a mistake. But don't tell me yet :)

Oh, and would you say that the season plays an important role in this story?
- Shardlake and Mark constantly have to deal with the snow and the cold
- the cold is partly responsible for Simon ending up in the infirmary
- the cold means it takes longer to dig graves for Singelton and (view spoiler)[Simon (hide spoiler)]
- this is just a guess, but the killer could have been counting on the ice (view spoiler)[to keep the sword, robe and even Orphan's body hidden during the investigation (hide spoiler)]. Otherwise he could have found a different hiding place.

Yes, it does. I hadn't thought about that but it does play a part, also in some future events. So you can use it for your challenges. Yeah!

Yay! It's weird since that's what I wanted for this buddy read - a book where the season is important - and we ended up not going for that :)

Well not intentionally. But your good deed of allowing me the choice is rewarded by giving you the book you needed. It is just karma.

It wasn't really a good deed though - I just figured it was your turn.

Well don't do it again because I didn't like the book very much :)

Well Blonde Bombshell didn't exactly blow us away either :)

No, but if I have to choose the I would prefer Blonde Bombshell.
Maybe it is just because I know how this book ends and I really don't like the ending. It spoiled the whole mystery for me. But read on and let me know what you think once you know how it ends.

I hope I don't find it that bad. I like the book so far.

I grew to like it and then the ending came. I haven't made up my mind yet how many stars I am giving it so I haven't posted anything yet. I also would like to hear what you think about it before giving my final judgment. I can't say anymore without spoiling it for you so I will just have to wait.
How far along are you? Just so I can see where you are and if you can help me with one problem I am having about the book?

Still at chapter 23. I might read more tonight, but I want to try and read my review book first. It's another murder mystery actually - an occult thriller called Faustus Resurrectus.

I saw you are on page 303. In my version on the botom of page 276 there is a comment about Adam tempting Eve. When did he do that? Wasn't it the other way around. haven't women been blamed since creation for the first sin of tempting Adam and not listening to God?

Yes, that's the line I was referring to in message 23. Since you are confused about I assume it's a mistake on the author's part and has nothing to do with the mystery.

My Kindle says it's page 303, but I'm not sure how accurate that is since it's an eBook and the whole page thing doesn't really apply. It's more accurate to say I'm 69% done :)

I missed that message, sorry!
I read some messages on my blackberry this morning and I missed it since you posted two messages one after the other. Which is something I do all the time so no complaint but on my tiny blackberry screen I just missed it.
I don't think it is an intentional mistake because there would have been more discussion about it. England at that time is so religious that if someone made an intentional mistake to make a point it should have gotten some debate. I think it is a mistake made by the author or the editor. Especially since later on there will be another mistake in a motto.

The list of similarities were just the first that came to mind. Since I made that list I thought of more.

yeah Shardlake can be a prick sometimes. I understand that he lives with a disability in a time where people treat that differently then they do nowadays, but he also made something of himself so why be such an SOB at times? But then someone else is also being an SOB and he doens't have any reasons at all.

Yeah, I thought maybe if it was intentional then Shardlake would later say "but wait a minute, why did he get it wrong?" and then there'd be a whole discussion and it'd have something to do with the murder. There's no way an abbot would get that wrong. It must be Sansom's slip-up and the editor didn't notice or something.

I'm trying to see things from Shardlake's perspective. He has an important job to do, and he's living in the kind of times where your opinions can get you tortured or killed. So if he doesn't put his foot down he'll be seen to lack authority, and it might look like he's not a true reformist. And with Mark and Alice - he's both jealous and cautious I suppose.

Yeah I agree it is Sansom's mistake.

Well even if you do try to see it from Shardlake's perspective than it is still weird, because on the one hand he accepts that people see him as an omen of ill fortune and on the other hand he can get mad because people treat him differently. It is strange.

I'm more accepting of his behaviour regarding his disability. It's when he gets all uppity about the new church rules that I start to roll my eyes. Like when the priest brought out the statue for dole day and told the people to pray to that saint, and Shardlake yelled at them to take the statue away. Poor monks; it was just a tradition, they probably hadn't thought that it might be a problem.

They just didn't think about it.
I also have a feeling that Shardlake doesn't support the reforms, but that it is better for his political career if he seems to support them. Those kind of people are often more harsch in following the rules because they have to prove something.

I don't know. I think he supports the reform, but he has a somewhat idealistic view of it. He's starting to have doubts, especially since Jerome told his story but for the most part I feel that he sincerely supports Cromwell. I could see him changing his mind in later books, although I don't imagine he would be on the monks' side.

Well we'll see. I have the other books so I am going to read them at some point and we'll see what his points of view are.

Ok, just finished.

I had been suspicious of (view spoiler)[ Alice, because with all that talk of women being deceptive/seductive, I kept thinking about how easily Mark and Shardlake trusted her because she was a woman and they both found her attractive. Anyway, I was never sure and like Shardlake, I'd thought that there might be more than one killer, but I hadn't considered the possibility that they were working separately and didn't know each other's identities. I'd wondered if something might be hidden in that builder's bucket thingy, but I hadn't thought of money. I think in that case Shardlake's nerves just got the better of him; had he been calmer he would have checked it. (hide spoiler)] Actually, I thought his feelings often got in the way.

Overall I liked the book, and I was pleased with Shardlake's change of heart. I feel sorry for the monks too - I don't necessarily agree with their practices, but it is sad that all those old buildings and treasures were destroyed for the profit of King Henry and his cronies. I'd give it a 7/10, so I have to decide if it gets 3 or 4 stars.

I didn't dislike the ending as you did. What was your issue with it? Is it an historical one? Because that is something I probably wouldn't notice.

I found it an easy way out.
You have 3 murders, a theft and a desecration/witch act and 3 seperate perpetrators (did I spell that right) who were oblivious of each other and their motives. It would have been far more interesting if there would have been a solution that would connect all the crimes and have just one person committing them all. Two people I could have lived with but not 3. For me it felt cheap to have so many people involved in the crimes.

The last chapter/epilogue was also unnecessary in my point of view. Why go back to the church and describe how it is demolished? Why would the abbot be sick and be replaced? Why have Alice and Mark write a letter they were ok? Especially without that last one I think the book would have been more interesting.

I did like Shardlake even though I think he can be a prick and I did like him having faults like being influenced by his feelings. A lot of detectives are these emotionless zombies and solve the case without ever getting anything wrong. Shardlake is more human. I will read another of his mysteries because I like him as a character, but because I liked the story.

Maybe I expected too much since I read a lot of reviews that made it out as a terrific book and was let down in my expectations when I discovered it was an average book.

Wait, who's the third killer? Isn't it just Alice and Brother Edwig?

I suppose the epilogue was just to put readers at ease about the fates of some of the characters. I agree that letter from Alice was unnecessary - I thought it would have been nicer to just leave that hanging, so you're not sure if they lived or died, but you're left hoping that they made it. To let you know for sure severs that little emotional connection to the book.

Brother Guy is easily the most likable of the monks, so for him I thought the epilogue was useful. Also, seeing the church demolished just gives a greater sense of the social changes going on. We don't see this aspect elsewhere in the book; it's spoken of, but doesn't occur on the page.

I think Shardlake spoke a few times of the Abbott's weakness, and with the climax of the novel he seemed to go catatonic. After that he just lost the plot, with his whole falling to pieces.

I liked Shardlake too. He's a very human character. I'd read more of the series too.

I didn't think it was a terrific book either, although I think I liked it more than you seem to (I'd say above-average). It wasn't the most riveting of mysteries, but, with my limited knowledge, the historical aspect seemed well done and was easy for me to read.

There wasn't a third killer but a third person involved. Jerome is the one who stole the relic. When Singleton is murdered the rooster is killed and left on the altar and the relic of the hand of the thief that was crucified next to Jesus is stolen. Shardlake goes to the monastery thinking this is a single crime and to investigate this crime. However the murder is done by Alice and the killing of the rooster too but is done to divert attention of the motive for the killing. Jerome sees his chance and steals the relic to safeguard it. While investigating Shardlake another murder is committed and a third body is discovered and these were done by Brother Edwig. So we have 5 crimes, 3 perpetrators and 5 motives because each crime had it's own motive. Actually we have 6 crimes if we count the illegally selling of land for money.

Brother Guy is only the most likable because he has no competition whatsoever. I think he isn't as nice as he seems and it showed at some points. The rest however were so mean that he was the nicest there.

He did speak of his weakness but it didn't seem that severe and then all of a sudden he becomes catatonic. It felt a bit like overkill. But maybe since I don't like the book I am prejudiced and can't seem to find anything good about it.

When are you leaving for France?
Can we fit another book in before then or should we wait till you get back?

Jerome - I see what you mean now. I guess it's not neat, but as far as the mystery is concerned, having three criminals keeps you guessing.

I'm leaving on the 11th, but I have a lot of reading lined up because I want to review the books that are being published in May before I go. So I'd rather wait until I get back, unless we pick something that would make a good holiday read. I can enjoy it at cafes or relaxing on the grass in a park :) The difficulty is in picking a book that is guaranteed to be a good read.

and discussing it. If you are in France I don't think you will be online much.

We'll wait till you get back. Don't worry. This gives us time to pick a good book and time to order/buy it if that is necessary.

Yeah, I guess. I think I could easily finish a novel, but I'm less certain about participating in the discussion.

We can decide on a book in the meantime though :) I may have to buy a copy. It's my turn to choose. Any preferences? Anything in my tbr-pile or owned books that you'd want to read?