You haven't seen WWII like this since a Cary Grant movie: A Historical Novel Review

The Sentinels: Fortunes of War
by Gordon Zuckerman

Cover: Meh... The six stars that appear to be "hanging" off the top of my cover seem a bit pasted-on, in a last-minute style because maybe the designer thought there wasn't enough going on, but otherwise it is suitably dark and no-nonsense for a wartime thriller.

Summary: We have all heard the phrase "money makes the world go 'round," but we haven't seen it come to fruition quite like this. In this first novel in a projected series by Zuckerman, six post-grad students act like the "Cassandra" of World War II; under the tutelage of the mysterious and powerful "Dr. Tom," they were brought together to solve the equations behind the "Power Cycle." They believe they have predicted the beginning of a massive war based on the patterns of industrialists and their manipulation of international finances. We all know they're right: World War II breaks out, and German steel, weaponry, auto, and shipping magnates are secretly behind much of it... even Hitler himself is unaware of just how fundamental is their influence.

Fast forward to 1943, and the six students had gone their separate ways. They themselves are each descendants of powerful bankers and capitalists, so they are easily occupied. One, however, the Swiss banking heiress Claudine, has kept tabs on several of the Germans, and doesn't like the patterns she sees. She reenlists the help of her old cohorts to track the movement of their funds, and together they realize they must take matters into their own hands. In their bravado and self-sacrifice, they name themselves "The Sentinels," and they will do anything they can to prevent another hellish tragedy, even if it means risking life and limb.

My Review: I got an ARC from the author and was excited to get to it because a) I love a good thriller and haven't read one since May, when I read Jurassic Park again in the wake of Michael Crichton's death, and b) I like WWII stories quite a bit and haven't really sat down to one since Atonement several years ago. So, The Sentinels: Fortunes of War was ending quite a few reading droughts for me.

For a thriller, this novel has quite a large cast of main characters. There is Jacques, who apparently likes wine, women, song, and combatting "imperialistic conquest." Henri Demaureux and his daughter Claudine are bankers from Geneva, who pursue skiing the Alps as much as fightin totalitarianism. Mike Stone is boxer, banker, and expert embezzler (at least when it comes to stealing from the "wrong kind" of people, like those bent on world domination). Cecelia Chang is brilliant, forthright, and first in the U.S. line of defense against financial destruction. Tony is a cool heir to an Italian vinery and Ian heir to an auction house fortune, but we don't see much of either of them.

And so on and so forth. We meet the colorful cast of The Sentinels themselves as well as their allies, and one thing is certain: everyone is powerful and also happens to be incredibly attractive. We hearken back to a time when "the men were men and the goils were goils," so there's a little bit of romance mixed in with the spying escapades. While counterfeiting the German industrialists' financial deposits, Jacques finds himself in the middle of a love triangle: does he stay with Natalie, the charming actress, or Claudine, his old friend and trusted coworker? None of his friends seems to care about this predicament. Thus, I was more intrigued by the relationship between Mike and Cecelia. They are both driven, ambitious, and energetic. Mike treats Cecelia like an equal, even in this period before feminism, and that makes sense amongst this group of progressive, intellectual friends. They would do anything for each other, and that was fun to read about.

The book is a little heavy on the exposition. There's quite a bit of "But surely, you can't mean..." going on and "As I said already, and for some reason feel the need to restate...", but it's the most prevalent in the first third of the book. Zuckerman paces his story so that the Sentinels must bring themselves to become spies and actually go out on covert missions. They are dealing with incredibly rich individuals and organizations, after all; they know that discovery could mean certain death. So, I would say that the first part of the book is like a Greek drama in that the action happens off-stage and everything must be "spelled out" for the audience, but later on we get to see things happening. It also means that a little time on characterization goes missing, since we go from exposition directly to action; there's not much room to endear us to the heroes. We agree with their mission, and we want them to succeed, but the more minor characters, like Ian and Tony, lose out on earning much interest from the reader.

As for the subject matter, which on the outset seems a bit heavy: Zuckerman handled it deftly and with enough skill that one doesn't need a finance degree to understand what's going on. I happen to be an Economics student, so I agree with his theories on money being the prime mover of wars and history. Technically, and from what I know of political science, this is Marxist theory, where history is a progression of markets and workers, and of course the financial giants work into that (it's only Marxist in that he was the first theorist to talk about History with a capital H in purely Economical with a capital E terms, not in reference to that it promotes pure Marxism, and by that I mean what we would typically term "communism," and... oh my lord, I'm DONE). Regardless, it made for an exciting premise and made sure that this was something of an "intelligence thriller", as well.

Overall, I liked the subject matter, the setting, and the basis of the characterization. There were some narrative issues, with the pacing and the minor characters, and it's not John Le Carre, but on the whole a fine debut thriller. It will be interesting to see if Zuckerman continues on with "The Sentinels."

Visit the author's website (and read the first chapter free!)

Buy this book on Amazon

Before the Da Vinci Code, there was The Daughter of Time. A Historical Novel Review.

The Daughter of Time

by Josephine Tey

Cover: I don’t know if you can tell from the picture here, but in the painting there is a pair of feet coming out from underneath a tapestry. This is irrelevant to anything that happens in the book, but quaintly intriguing, in that old “whodunit” sort of way.

Summary: Did Richard III really murder “the princes in the Tower”?

Inspector Grant of Scotland Yard is laid up in hospital for months with a leg horribly broken in the line of duty. He is dismayed to be without any sort of stimulating activity, grumbling to nurses and visitors alike, until one of his old friends presents him with a series of historical portraits. Knowing that he has a knack for discovering characters by examining faces, she implores him to study the portraits and see if he can resolve famous crimes of history. He lights upon one portrait of a man he claims could not be guilty of a crime, and is surprised to learn that it is Richard III, famous for brutally slaying his nephews and hiding their bodies toward the end of the Wars of the Roses. Everyone he consults seems to see something different in the face, but none conclusively see it as that of a murderer, much less a cold-blooded one. With the help of his friends, Grant sets himself to the task of vindicating the story of Richard.

My Review: This is a short book (about 200 pages), but I didn’t want to put it down for a moment… and the whole thing technically takes place in Grant’s hospital bed. It is a brilliant “literary thriller,” and for all I know it was one of the first of the genre, having been written in the 1940s. While the main character himself is never in any danger, I kept turning each page as fast as possible to find out what else the characters were going to find out… would they ultimately be disappointed? How could these two discover something that vigilant historians and royal scholars had not discovered over the last several centuries? I was hooked.

The novel acts as a great “gateway drug” (hehe!) to becoming addicted to Ricardian lore. I currently understand very little about the Wars of the Roses (being more of a Tudor reader, myself) and now I want to see if I can uncover for myself whether or not Richard could be guilty of the murder of the princes.

The main evidence—and I don’t think I’m spoiling anything here if it’s 500 year old information, but just in case… SPOILER—rests on the fact that there is no contemporary record of an accusation against Richard during his lifetime. Inspector Grant points out that the murder of the princes should have acted as a rallying cry for Henry VII’s troops as he headed into the final battle at Bosworth. Furthermore, there were other heirs besides the two boys… in fact, there were nine others. Richard would have had a lot more killing to do.

And so on. I don’t know if I believe yet that Henry Tudor killed them, as Grant concludes, but he puts up a great case that makes it practically impossible to believe that Richard could have done the deed.

If you have ever done research, I think you’ll sympathize with the characters’ struggle for the perfect evidence for their theory, and if you enjoy British humor, I think you’ll like it even more.

Some notes I took while reading:

• This is the portrait referred to in the novel, which is now part of the Royal Collection. According to this terrifically helpful article from the Richard III Society, it was definitely painted about 100 years or so after Richard's lifetime, but was likely a copy from a portrait painted from life. There is apparently evidence that the painting was later revised, probably to make Richard slightly uglier and more in fitting with the Tudor "mythology." The shoulder that we see on the left was repainted to look higher than the one on our right, and the eye that we see on the left was made to look narrower. The lips may have been thinned as well. All in all, this is what created the hunchbacked, monstrous character we all know and love.
• While waiting for more primary document research to be conducted by his friend, Inspector Grant consults a novel on Cicely Nevill. On P. 59 of my paperback copy: "It was, moreover, the almost-respectable form of historical fiction which is merely history-with-conversation, so to speak." Heeeeey... I see what you did there, Josephine.
• I love the ending, when Grant's research assistant comes to the devastating realization that he was not the first to absolve Richard of the murders. It's such a great moment that everyone has every once in a while, where you realize it's really hard to be original. But you have to keep going and keep searching and keep working at what you love, and Grant's assistant knows he must carry on in his mission.
  

I highly recommend this book. I read it for the first time years ago when a teacher recommended it to my history class, and reading it for the second time now, knowing a bit more and having done research for school, I got even more out of it. I want to go and read more about the Wars of the Roses and Richard, so I picked up a history book and an Elizabeth Peters mystery, The Murders of Richard III, at my last bookstore/library visit. Look for those reviews here in future.

Buy this book on Amazon