I was at my Aunt’s house this evening and noticed a book tucked away in a reading rack. It caught my eye because of the size (this is a meaty book) so I picked it up. The title was Sarum and the author, Edward Rutherford. The copyright is 1987, so this isn’t a new book, but somehow it’s managed to stay under my radar until tonight.
The blurb on the back made it sound quite interesting.
It goes on to explain that it’s a saga of five families, telling their histories, as well as the history of the land.
It sounded really good and I was wondering if anyone here has read this book and has an opinion on it they would like to share?
I really enjoyed the book, but imho it requires a fairly large suspension of disbelief to buy the genetic predispositions that tie the characterizations of the differant bloodlines together through succesive generations. Free will anyone? A fun read though, and I actually enjoyed learning about medieval cathedral construction. It was worth my time. YMMV
I owned this book and finally sold it at a garage sale a few years ago. I could never get into it at all - I tried and failed to make it past the first few chapters. IIRC, something about the writing style bugged me.
I liked it while I was reading it – I’m not a very critical reader, actually – but it’s really hard for a writer to do that many generations, that much of a time span, and do it justice. You almost feel like you’re reading a Reader’s Digest version.
In historicals, I like more detail to give me a better feel for the place and the people.
I’m trying to think of an exception – a satisfying historical covering a big time span – and the only one I come up with is The Tontine, and I think that was originally published in two volumes.
It’s definitely not a waste of reading time though.
It’s a pretty entertaining read, as Huge-Ass Historical Novelstm go. The best chapters are the ones set in the Middle Ages, I think – which is true of most of Rutherfurd’s stuff – the earliest and latest ones didn’t do much for me at all. Certainly worth reading, though.
I read that back in the late 80’s and loved it. Someone borrowed my copy and never returned it to me. Thanks for the reminder so I can get another copy and read it again.
Heh. By sheer coincidence, I just finished re-reading this book last night. I’d read it years ago, and found it tucked away on a book shelf when I was hard-up for reading material. It’s entertaining enough, and I agree that the Middle Ages chapters are the best.
I enjoyed it – I’ve also read London and The Forest by the same author. Of the three I probably liked London* best, then [u[Sarum. In all cases, the sheer scope of the time-frames involved led to the stories feeling somewhat condensed. But the books are enjoyable and informative, nonetheless. Worth the read, IMO.
I liked it. It’s along the same epic, multi-generational lines as a James Michener book, some of which I can get into, like Texas and Hawaii, and others, like Alaska, that I couldn’t.
I just finished Lord John Grey and the Private Matter by Diana Gabaldon, and I’m rereading Scruples by Judith Krantz until I can get to the library. I may look for other Rutherford books on my next trip.
I liked Sarum but agree with several other posters. The early chapters were the best, the idea of character traits persisting in a family line over hundreds and hundreds of years is kinda squishy, the pace is staggering after awhile and Rutherford seems to lose steam towards the end. The worst of his books was Russka which starts out with a charming scene of incest between a brutish father and his orphaned daughter. Lovely. I lost my taste for his books after that. But Sarum is worth the time.
I thought it was OK. He had one writing quirk that really got on my nerves after a while, though. Every so often, in an attempt to link historical events to the lives of his characters, he’ll have a line or two of dialogue that’s just incredibly clunky and fake-sounding.
“Gosh, I sure hope the Parliament passes that new tax law they’re debating,” said Mr. Jones one day to his wife, “Because, as the owner of that mill of mine, it will really give me the freedom to participate more in local politics.”
That type of thing. Other than that, though, it was worth reading.
Thanks, everyone. I’m not afraid of a thick book, in fact if it’s a good book, I prefer them, but I was reluctant to invest the time (and the money) on a book if it was poorly written and dull. I love history, English history especially, so it sounds like what I thought: this should be an enjoyable read.
Of couse now that I know there’s a London version - I might have to get that one first!
Well, yikes, Mauvaise, don’t buy it! Even in paperback, any of Rutherford’s monsters would set you back a pretty penny – borrow it from your aunt or the library first. If you aren’t a library patron, at least find one of those used-paperback shops and buy it there. If you have to go to Barnes and Noble or some such, check out the Bargain section – I bought my hardback copy of The Forest* there for less than the mass-market paperback was going for at the time.
