I’ve been meaning to post this all week, but somehow not getting around to it. Anyway: as Martin noted, the most popular fiction books in this year’s Strange Horizons best of the year round-up were, first, The City & The City by China Mieville, second, In Great Waters by Kit Whitfield, and third equal, Ark by Stephen Baxter and Cloud & Ashes by Greer Gilman. (And wouldn’t those four be a good start for a Hugo shortlist?) I’d been meaning to link to Hannah’s appreciative post about In Great Waters anyway, but it picked up this fascinating comment:
I happened to read this just this week because sovay told me to, and it staggered me. It’s set in a period where I do know the history very well, and one of the things that absolutely blew me away was the way it uses the real history to create suspense. After the marriage, I was absolutely terrified for everybody, simply because of the names of the characters, because she’s Anne and he’s Henry and the ramifications of that. Anne and Mary are the Boleyn girls, with Philip changed from brother to uncle, incestuous implications and all. I sat there going oh, God, do not be Anne of the thousand days, it would be so easy, with the most significant man Anne Boleyn was accused of adultery with (other than Philip) cast as Henry’s foster-brother… and I knew what kind of trouble Henry was going to have most violently on coming to the throne, and couldn’t guess how they were going to get out of it. Because of course Samuel is Saint Sir Thomas More, and that was a trainwreck coming.
I can’t recall seeing another novel that has done this particular thing, where it isn’t a one-to-one AU but the resonances of our history shape the tensions of the plot without being either obtrusive or implausible. The expectations that come from knowing what ought to happen to these people make the last half of the book almost unbearably cruel, but then also pull off what I experienced as a genuine eucatastrophe, also an incredibly rare bird.
This book gets my Hugo nomination this year, and I need to write a long review in hopes of drawing the attention of more people towards it, because I’ve seen almost no buzz, which is a damn shame.
The long review has, sadly, not appeared yet, but I’d love to hear more about this side of the book; history is very much not my thing, so my appreciation for In Great Waters — it’s getting my Hugo nomination, too — is independent of any of these resonances.
Also of note: Faren Miller’s Locus review.
While Whitfield’s strong sense of character gives life and complexity even to the schemers, arrogant power-mongers, and borderline maniacs who collectively make life for Henry, Anne and other relative innocents more dangerous than any ocean current swarming with sharks, her two young protagonists stand at the heart of the book. Still it’s not just their tale. She interweaves the story of their trials and maturation into a mixture of real and imagined political and cultural history (both English and in a larger European sphere) that manages to be thoroughly compelling, even without the drama of those later revolutions.
Go on, pick up a copy of In Great Waters. You know you want to.
12 thoughts on “History and In Great Waters”
…not till it comes out in paperback.
Early March, apparently. (Nice cover!) That gives you a whole week to read it before the Hugo nominating deadline! Not that you’ve got nominating rights, I imagine…
That is a nice cover. But the price… ouch. £8.99 says to me that Vintage aren’t expecting it to sell very well.
Books are getting more and more expensive anyway. £30 for a hardback is now quite common.
At least there is a paperback edition due, unlike certain ACCA-winners I could mention.
It is a pound more than most other Vintage paperbacks, it seems, but yeah, it certainly doesn’t strike me as unusual these days.
“£30 for a hardback is now quite common.”
Fiction or non-fiction? I couldn’t tell you the last time I saw a fiction hardback for £30. Most seem to range from £12 to £20, I think; the hardback of In Great Waters was £12.99.
“It is a pound more than most other Vintage paperbacks, it seems, but yeah, it certainly doesn’t strike me as unusual these days.”
For huge, doorstep books, or non-fiction books, maybe. But £8.99 for a fiction book barely over 400 pages is pretty unusual. As I said in my previous comment, it usually indicates that the publisher isn’t confident that it’ll be a popular seller. Or, to put it another way, it’s the same price as the paperback of 2666 – which is twice the length of IGW.
And I’m sure a lot of people will choose 2666 over In Great Waters precisely for that reason!
For the record, the paperback edition of In Great Waters is already available at Amazon US for $10.80, which is ~£6.75.
A quick scan of upcoming Vintage titles on amazon.co.uk suggests £8.99 is going to be rather more common for their paperback fiction in the next year or so – both new and classic (Toni Morrison’s Beloved, for example, is neither long nor a poor seller, but £8.99 is the list price of the Sept 2010 reissue nonetheless. Which seems crazy, but there you go).
Still, this conversation has made me realise just how many of the new fiction books I’ve bought recently were £7.99 (took me quite a while to find anything at £6.99); seems to have become the standard without me noticing. Sigh.
Got it from Amazon US. How’s that for peer pressure? Next thing you know, you lot will be talking me into smoking.
Hooray! I look forward to your enraged diatribe on the subject soon. ;-)