Talk:Wolf Hall

Thomas More in "Wolf Hall"

I know the portuguese translation of the novel, and from what I have read, it really shows Thomas More in a bad light. I hope those who know the original english text can provide some direct quotes. In the novel, Hilary Mantel says that Thomas More God has a "love of carnage", he puts Richard Rich shouting to him almost the exact relation of him having tortured people that his found in John Foxe, "Book of Martyrs", despite being a highly biased source, due to his anti-Catholicism. She also ends by saying something like Thomas More was "joking" with the executioner before his death. Those who have read the novel can provide much more evidence that Thomas More is portrayed in a very negative way in the novel. This is also mentioned in the Wikipedia article about Thomas More, where it says: "The novelist Hilary Mantel portrays More as a religious and masochistic fanatic in her 2009 novel Wolf Hall, which is written from the perspective of Thomas Cromwell, whom it portrays favourably."85.243.69.92 (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like the Portugese translation is pretty faithful to the original! Yes the book portrays More joking with the executioner: "More is at the block, he [Cromwell] can see him now...He is speaking to the headsman, apparently making some quip to him, wiping the drizzle from his face and beard...." [p.649] An example of portraying More in a bad light: "He [Cromwell] cuts in on him [More], incredulous. 'You do nobody harm? What about Bainham, you remember Bainham? You forfeited his goods, committed his poor wife to prison, saw him racked with your own eyes, you locked him in Bishop Stokesley's cellar, you had him back at your own house two days chained upright to a post, you sent him back to Stokesley, saw him beaten and abused for a week, and still your spite was not exhausted: you sent him back to the tower and had him racked again, so that finally his body was so broken that they had to carry him in a chair when they took him to Smithfield to be burned alive. And you say, Thomas More, that you do no harm?'" [p.629] Bluewave (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I have read the book, thanks, 85.243... and where your opinion comes into it is the description of More as "the archetipical religious fanatic." This seemed to me to represent a point of view as to what an archetypical religious fanatic is like, and also makes the portrayal of More seem rather one-dimensional which is a disservice to a great book by a fine writer. The wording you have now is better. pablo 20:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

We also shouldn't forget that many serious historians dismiss the claims of torture made by John Foxe in his "Book of Martyrs" as anti-Catholic inventions, because the author of it supported torture and execution by hanging, drawing and quartering of Catholics. More always denied to have used torture and even swore for God that he never used it. This is another point to make in the sense the novel is controversial in the way it shows More.82.154.84.245 (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.154.84.245 (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

counter point

Is there any evidence from people who didn't like the book (even though it was a prize winner)? because it would be good to balance it's reception under "Critical reaction". Thanks Manytexts (talk) 07:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I have attempted to give evidence of the negative reaction but have had my posts repeatedly edited out, censored out in my opinion. Apparently there is a strong bias out there to keep this novel and TV series free from any negative comments or criticism. BealBoru

BBC adaptation - needs expansion and more details

I added a few bits about the BBC Two production including recent casting news, but I am not a regular editor and someone else should probably proof it. I know I've also read other bits about it, such as HBO involvement. Thanks! --24.106.177.2 (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm also not a regular editor. Can someone who is add this article? (Link) Woodnwheel (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Catholic

The author is known for her criticism of the Catholic Church and this has led to speculation as to whether Wolf Hall is anti-Catholic, but I reverted the addition of a selection of quotes on the subject because I believe it fails our policy on neutrality, and suggested the editor (with fewer than 50 edits) who added it should discuss the topic here first. As I've reverted it twice now I won't do so again, but if the information returns I will tag the article as non-neutral. I'd also appreciate a more experienced editor reviewing the information. This is Paul (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Citing examples of other commentators - one a very well respected historian Eamon Duffy - naming the author and the book as anti-Catholic is not an example of non-neutrality. It's an example of what is being written about publicly about the author of the book and the book. It's not just the reputation of the author that has led to charges of anti-Catholicism, it is the actual content of the book that has done this.

The fact that I am an infrequent editor should have no bearing on what I have to say if it is a valid, cited addition, which it is.

BealBoru

Regardless of how often you edit, if you wish to add controversial material to articles, then you need to to be familiar with our editing policies. An argument citing anti-Catholic bias should be counterbalanced with sources that attempt to offer an opposing view. Are there others who have argued the book is not anti-Catholic? What we have at present are a couple of random quotes that don't really add any depth to the article, and for this information to be retained you need to present the other side of the argument. I have now tagged this article as being non-neutral, so someone else will be along to review the material. This is Paul (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I was adding information under an already established heading of 'Controversies' which had already mentioned her anti-Catholicism without giving much further information on it or making it central to what the central controversy about her novel was in fact about. I merely added to this by giving citations to articles where this was pointed out by respected, established historians. There was nothing 'random' about my quotes. And in your assertion here you gave as 'support' for your censorship of my points the fact that I had 'fewer than 50 edits' and a gave a call for a 'more experienced editor'. I don't think that my knowledge should depend for validation on how many times I have come onto Wikipedia and edited articles.BealBoru

Generally the more edits someone has the better it is when making edits such as these. You still need to present a balanced argument, which means finding other noted scholars who present the other side of the argument. I can't make it any clearer than that. This is Paul (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Your first reason for censoring my contribution was - you stated in the 'edit' page - because the issue only concerned the TV series and not the novel. When I pointed out to you that the quotes I gave were about the novel and the author you changed your tack and said well then you have to give an opposing view. So which is it? It seems to me that you are very concerned to keep this valid, cited criticism off the wiki page for whatever reason[s] you can come up with. BealBoru

The articles were published in response to the TV series, so seemed to be more relevant to that. I doubt we would be having this discussion without the dramatisation and the interest it generated. Now, instead of banging on about this, why don't you use your energy to do some more research into the topic. I have no objection to the information per se, just feel that it should be presented as part of a well rounded argument. This is Paul (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree it needs to be more rounded. That a number of people during the period under discussion were unpleasant in terms of their religious fanaticism is neither anti-Catholic nor anti-Protestant. It's just fact. Let's try and be specific. Thomas More was enlightened in some ways (considering the times) but he was also pretty blood-thirsty and was directly responsible for torture and executions. That he ferevently believed he was doing the work of God in the interest of the State is neither here nor there. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Panther306 (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC) When I introduced the "Controversy" section I intended it to reflect what several historians and journalists had said about Wolf Hall and its adaptation, and I deliberately left out views from Catholic clergy which would naturally be partisan. If other users wish to introduce new quotes, including from the clergy, then I suggest using the existing format for ease of reading.

In my opinion, it is quite remarkable that a number of historians have criticised the adaptation, and it is important that audiences are kept well informed of various conflicting perspectives on history, particularly in an age when media is saturated with sanitised press releases and political correctness. In many previous books and television shows (for example The Tudors on BBC) there have been accusations of historical inaccuracy and it is right that these are drawn attention to for the sake of education.

Unfortunately, already on this talk page, users are debating the nature of More and Cromwell by relying on very specific, well timed quotes to support their point. This does nothing for clarity, and completely misses the point of this section, which is to present historian's views on this interpretation of a historical period. Panther306 (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Personally I'd take the anti-Catholic stuff out. It's incredibly one sided, and no attempt was made to present a counter argument. I only left it in to prevent an edit war and because the user started screaming censorship at me. This is Paul (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I whole-heartedly agreed with talk. The "anti-Catholic" claim is a storm in a tea-cup.

Contaldo80 (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The anti-Catholic 'stuff' is no 'storm in a teacup'. It has happened both in the UK and in the USA. It's a legitimate reaction from not only clergy but also from historians such as Professor Eamon Duffy who has made valid points about the ahistorical bias in the book and the series. Yet each time this is introduced here it is wiped out.

Why do I get the strong impression here that this matter is being censored out of Wikipedia pages? BealBoru

Why do I get the strong impression someone has an axe to grind? Could it be their edit history, perhaps? This is Paul (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

That's right change the subject to a personal attack on 'someone'. The only 'ax' here is yours - I am axing nothing. Edit history? What does that mean please? BealBoru

"Legitimate reaction from clergy". Give me a break. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Now whose bias is showing? If you read what I wrote and not 'edit' what I wrote I mentioned legitimate reaction 'not only from clergy' but from historians - and it was this historiographical material that was censored out. Apparently legitimate reaction from historians is not allowed if they don't reflect your personal bias or are not congruent with your world view.

And I must add - I was answering the initial editor of the paragraph who suggested [and I quote him/her directly] "If other users wish to introduce new quotes, including from the clergy, then I suggest using the existing format for ease of reading." ( BealBoru (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC) )

Relevant and irrelevant debate

Panther306 (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC) When I introduced the "Controversy" section I intended it to reflect what several historians and journalists had said about Wolf Hall and its adaptation, and I deliberately left out views from Catholic clergy which would naturally be partisan. If other users wish to introduce new quotes, including from the clergy, then I suggest using the existing format for ease of reading.

In my opinion, it is quite remarkable that a number of historians have criticised the adaptation, and it is important that audiences are kept well informed of various conflicting perspectives on history, particularly in an age when media is saturated with sanitised press releases and political correctness. In many previous books and television shows (for example The Tudors on BBC) there have been accusations of historical inaccuracy and it is right that these are drawn attention to for the sake of education.

Unfortunately, already on this talk page, users are debating the nature of More and Cromwell by relying on very specific, well timed quotes to support their point. This does nothing for clarity, and completely misses the point of this section, which is to present historian's views on Wolf Hall Panther306 (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

It is a work of fiction, and has always been presented as such. The historians views seem entirely based on their viewing of the initial episode in what they reference. Cromwell was a bastard by the end, his heart will get colder in 2016. The centre cannot hold. Schama did go on to say that "I don't much mind that historical novels and films take liberties with the facts, commit sins of omission or make imaginative interpolations provided they do not pretend to claim the same kind of authority in telling you how it really was as accounts based on documented fact seek to do." [1] Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

No 'historical' work of fiction can claim to be entirely treated as fiction if it uses the names and neo biographies of real historical figures. This is where the issue comes in of bias, distortion of the real historical record or even, charges of propaganda. But the voices of protest are told to be silent as can be seen from the posts here and the constant censoring out on the page of any material suggesting this. Even comments from well respected historians have been censored out.

In the UK there was blue murder over a 'fictional' series that misrepresented life in WWII. These were minor aberrations - like the wrong uniforms being worn or the wrong insignia - but it caused a national stir because WWII is holy ground. Yet the major distortions in Wolf Hall get overlooked because after all it just doesn't matter or it feeds into a national bigotry anyway.

And the issues with Wolf Hall go beyond the depiction of Thomas More - the script is full of anti-Catholic bias and erroneous claims that have no basis in any historic source material. It's Whig history at its worst. BealBoru

Useful material here, I'm sure, for a column in the Catholic Tablet or some such periodical. But not really helpful for the debate on the editing of the article. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

It is absolutely pertinent to the editing because it points out the legitimate material that is being censored out and the inherent bias that is causing this reaction. I am not giving my own opinion on the page - I am using the cited material of others' analysis to make the point that the book and the series have both come under much criticism from scholarly sources.

The outrage that this negative criticism has caused here is bemusing. Apparently all the praise in the world is allowed stand - but anything negative has be cut and censored. ( BealBoru (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC) )

You'll have to forgive me for not personally considering the Bishop of Shrewsbury an intellectual heavy-weight when it comes to English ecclesiastical history in the early modern age. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe Henry 8 was not over-keen on Catholics from wife 1 onwards. Nor was he fond of anyone who challenged his right to a) rule or b) head up his own church. Cromwell worked enthusiastically for Henry. Catholics suffered. The novel and TV series both rightly reflect this. pablo 10:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't have put that better myself. That Catholics got a bad deal during that time is historical fact, and any accurate work about the period should reflect this. I think it's time for Bealboru to rest their case and move onto something a bit more constructive. This is Paul (talk) 11:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

In fact the period is even more nuanced. Henry VIII always regarded himself as an orthodox Catholic - he simply rejected the right of a foreign sovereign (the pope) to be involved in ecclesiastical matters within his own jurisdiction. He wavered between the reform cause and the traditionalist camp depending on what wife he was married to. The Act of Six Articles clamped down on protestants in the kingdom and was deeply pro-Catholic. Also, wife one was Catherine of Aragon - so it's incorrect to say he was "not over-keen on Catholics" from then on. This was the period in which he was awarded the title Defender of the Faith by Pope Leo X for his refutation of Martin Luther. Protestants suffered as much as Catholics, and Catholics made sure they got their own back on protestants when Mary Tudor came to the throne. And reformers of the church saw themselves as Catholics looking to improve the way the church was run so there isn't really one side or another. I am agreed that we should nevertheless move on and stop pretending there is anti-Catholic bias in a historical novel seen through the eyes of one man (Thomas Cromwell). Contaldo80 (talk) 08:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Point taken - (though I meant from the time he decided he was fed up with wife one onward) - it was the influence of Rome rather than the catholicism per se he didn't like. pablo 14:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I politely dispute what some users have said above as being not completely accurate so I make a stronger case that the issue of historical inaccuracy should be clarified on this page. If you think it has no merit whatsoever then I refer you to The Satanic Verses controversy which covers in great detail the very real controversy of a book, a religion and the issue of historical revisionism. Since that precedent has been set, I think it is merited that the very real controversy surrounding Wolf Hall and Catholicism remain on this page for readers to engage or ignore at their leisure. I see no reason why the issue should be entirely censored here, while comparable dilemmas are found all over Wikipedia. Furthermore to accuse other users of pretending to be offended by religious bias is a sure sign of an immature editor, particularly when countless non-partisan sources were provided that demonstrated the extent of such bias.

Crucially as I explained in the paragraphs above I introduced the "Controversy" section to reflect what several historians and journalists had said about Wolf Hall and its adaptation, and I deliberately left out views from Catholic clergy which would naturally be partisan. However some users have since made the section totally partisan by replacing many of the journalistic comments with those from the clergy. I intend to update the section to demonstrate a more independent perspective which will actually benefit readers.

At risk of being accused of trolling I believe these reversions are justified as some primary contributors have not engaged in consensus building, despite several others explaining in detail why this issue deserves to be published. It's not good enough to ask that users rest their case and move onto something a bit more constructive if their contributions are completely removed. However to balance the accusations of historical inaccuracy I will explain why historical accuracy may not be strictly necessary.

Anyone is entitled to refute the claims of historical inaccuracy, but I ask that you do so in subsequent paragraphs rather than removing whole passages of referenced material. Panther306 (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

"Highly" fictionalised ?

The statement in the lead that the novel is "highly" fictionalised (my emphasis) seems questionable to me.

It seems to me that a series like The Tudors could well be described as "highly" fictionalised.

In contrast, Mantel is known for working very closely with original sources and the accurate historical chronology, albeit the particular take on characters and motivations are very much her own.

(So, for example, the exchange in this 2015 interview [2]: "Q: Would you ever change a fact to heighten the drama? Mantel: I would never do that. I aim to make the fiction flexible so that it bends itself around the facts as we have them." Or later in the same interview: "Mantel: People say to me—and with good reason—why don’t you just make things up? It’s just not in my nature, if the facts are to be found. It’s very perverse of me to be a novelist because I really don’t like making things up." Similarly, reported by the New Yorker in 2012: "I cannot describe to you what revulsion it inspires in me when people play around with the facts. If I were to distort something just to make it more convenient or dramatic, I would feel I’d failed as a writer", giving as an example: "She couldn’t always be sure that a character was in the place she said he was in at the time she put him there, but she spent endless hours making sure that he wasn’t definitely somewhere else." Much the same again, in another 2015 interview [3] she says "I don’t knowingly ever falsify a date or a place or any item of information, but where I do operate is in the vast area of interpretation... This is the whole business of a historical novelist: the world of intention and motivation." This 2012 Q&A also gives quite a lot about Mantel's development process. [4].)

As Eamonn Duffy wrote in The Tablet [5] (2012): "Though she eliminates characters and events in the interests of narrative flow, she mostly sticks close to the sources". But what she does especially do, as Colin Burrow noted with several examples in the LRB in 2009 [6] "is to pick out tableaux vivants from the historical record – which she has worked over with great care – and then to suggest that they have an inward aspect which is completely unlike the version presented in history books."

To quote Eamonn Duffy again: "This is fiction with a purpose, which Mantel herself has described as making the reader “a proposal, an offer” about what might really have been the case... Tablet readers are unlikely to endorse Mantel’s take on the rights and wrongs of Reformation England, least of all the idealised portrayal of her monstrous central protagonist." Nevertheless there is a real engagement and sensibility for history that sets it well apart from "dramatised chronicle, or a “factional” travesty" -- "this is historical fiction which, in its passionate engagement with the Tudor age, and in the power and beauty of much of its prose, transcends mere genre writing", he concludes.

Mantel's characterisation of Cromwell is certainly very different to the traditional portrayal, appears to run against the views of most current historians, and rests primarily on her own inventions. But her presentation of the historical background and sequence of events is accurate. (And here's an interesting rebuttal from her as to whether she and the TV series misrepresented Thomas More: [7]).

The bald statement that Wolf Hall is a "highly" fictionalised biography, with the word "highly" added by an anon in this edit without discussion in September, standing unquestioned in the lead, seems to me inappropriately strong. Mantel's approach, and her work, is a bit more nuanced than that, and cleaves rather closer to the historical record than that would seem to me to imply.

I therefore propose changing "highly fictionalised biography" to "sympathetic fictionalised biography", as a more appropriate formulation for the lead. Jheald (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Block quotes instead of encyclopedic writing in Critical Reception?

I suggest that the block quotes under Critical Reception be summarized, in appropriate encyclopedic style. This takes some thought, so I leave it for later; at the moment, I think the Critical Reception section looks like a series of blurbs, like you'd find in the front of a paperback. Useful data, but we should summarize these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtbhive (talk • contribs) 02:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

POV

I don't mind reading the POV of the author in "process".

I DO mind seeing ONLY this POV.

Especially when knowing that, despite what she says, she DID distort history to fit her silly narrative, according to real historians.

Gem fr (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

If you have something to add to the article/section from quality RS then do; there is a separate "critical reception" section for other views on this work. However, I find it hard to see that other views need to be included in a "process" section when it is primarily about how the author went about writing it?

In relation to your own POV comment, there are plenty of historians who believe her work is accurate (i.e. The Mirror and the Light: Hilary Mantel gets as close to the real Thomas Cromwell as any historian, The Real History behind Hilary Mandel's The Mirror and the Light). 46.7.85.200 (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Cap inits

I'm intrigued to note in the current article that "the Cardinal" is consistently capitalised while "the king" is not. In both instances a specific person is referenced. so it's reasonable to treat both as proper nouns. Bjenks (talk) 06:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)