"Richard Sharpe - What's the Attraction?" Topic

It's not my intention to start a flame war, but the recent mention of the excellent historical fiction novel: Seven Men of Gascony got me thinking about why I loved that novel and the two C.S. Forrester novels about the Peninsular War and yet why I can never make it more than a quarter of the way through a Sharpe novel despite a real hunger for a good novel about the Napoleonic Wars. One thing I know I dislike, and question the historicity of, is the casting of Sharpe and his gang as a Napoleonic SAS squad. Aside from sniping during a sieges, were Napoleonic soldiers, even well trained Rifles, really tasked with long range espionage missions? And the videos are even worse. Recently a good friend, a trained historian, whose opinions I respect, lent me Sharpe's Waterloo on DVD. Again, I could not make it through the video. The production values were so low, it looked like it was shot in someone's backyard. And low budget is not an excuse. Look at what Ridley Scott did with The Dualists on a shoestring budget. And why can't Sean Bean wear a shako? As late as the 1950's, a man in public without a hat was either considered a madman or the survivor of a terrible accident. Sorry for the rant. I'm just getting excited about the impending bicentennial of Waterloo and I am sadly disappointed in the paucity of suitable fiction to feed my enthusiasm.

Well, I have to admit that I was never taken with the Sharpe novels. I'd be tempted to say that's because I'm a bit of a Bonapartist, except that I loved Hornblower, loved the Aubrey-Maturin novels, but the one Sharpe novel I read left me cold. I've never seen any of the videos.

I hear you about the TV series. Personally, I enjoyed the novels however.

Have you tried the Adrian Goldsworthy series? I just got it and will start reading the first one tomorrow.

Now if you want a really bad series of Napoleonic novels, check out the ones by Geoffrey Watson with a brigade later division roaming the Peninsula with breech loading rifles, explosive howitzers, and commando training!

The first book in the series that I bought had a truly garish cover.
It showed our hero (with RED facings!) and side vignettes of a flag I do not recognize, our stalwart hero clutching a heaving bosom lady, cuirassiers…
I bought it and soon another.
They're Harlequin Romances for men.

What annoys me is the Puritan Ethic that something must be USEFUL. Why? It's entertaining. So what if there are only two basic plots in the whole series? They're fun.

Oh, if you didn't like Sharpe's Waterloo on DVD then you're really going to struggle with the early episodes – which were filmed at wargame scales i.e. 1 actor = 33 real men, so a Regiment is just a dozen guys. And one of those still has to be an officer, and there's a drummer boy.

I think I read about the first half dozen Sharpe novels – and they were getting a bit "meh" after two or three. My take on the big-to-do with Sharpe is that Bernard Cornwell pretty much kicked off the whole "historical fiction for men" genre – notice in his later books how there are less and less of the lovely ladies…'cos we just don't care, the truth is we want a battle scene and the romantic bodice rippers already had the hunky historical heroes covered for the ladies.

That does read a little (a little !) sexist – but I've never met a female who reads all the Cornwell, Scarrow, Sidebottom, etc etc. There must be some (M.C. Scott being a female writer in the same genre kinda suggests it's more than a possibility). But, in straight sales terms – these are books for blokes. And Sharpe is the pack-leader because he was the first (in modern times).

Just my 2Euro-cents.

20thmaine, that's what originally put me off the entire TV series. The South Essex Regiment marches by and it's 12 guys!! Excuse me!?!

I've a soft spot for the series.
11/12 year old boy when it started and it along with Zulu and Waterloo lead me away from Warhammer to historical figures.

The series has dated. And of course doesn't stand up to historical scrutiny. But then it's not aimed at wargamers it's aimed at laymen who only want to see the Heroes killing bad guys and the odd attractive woman get her boobs out.

The books were ok. Some were good. Some were average. His Uthred books are better.

I bought the entire boxed set at a bargain price but after watching a few episodes I gave the whole lot away. I did not even want them in the house. They were complete rubbish as far as I was concerned.

I don't read novels so I cannot comment on the books.

Ed von HessFedora, thanks for the tip on Adrian Goldsworthy. My library only has his Roman novels, but, reading the positive reviews on Amazon, I'm going to gamble $5.00 USD on a used copy of his first Peninsular War novel.

Try the Allan Mallinson books – the first kicks off with Waterloo and I'm sure one or two of the later ones dip back to the Peninsular War. The hero is an officer in the Light Dragoons and they have a very different feel to the Sharpe books.

I have a soft spot for Sharpe as I grew up reading them as a teenager – they make fine airport/holiday reading though. The TV series was 'of its time', and sure as hell beat Eastenders or whatever slot ITV pitched it against!

C'mon… Elizabeth Hurley's magnificent boobage on display, the fake Wellington noses (at least I hope they're fake.. wow), Brigadier Lupe channeling the Constable from Young Frankenstein (that dude looked JUST like him!), La Haye Sainte on the wrong side of the road and all of the Hougomont drama playing out inside of it.. what's not to love about the Sharpe videos?!?

I certainly enjoy them. :)

They're fun but they don't stand up to rereading/rewatching the same way that Brigadier Gerard or Hornblower do.

Some of the videos are dreadful.

Sean Bean w/o headgear and his rifles acting like the SAS are an anachronistic sop to modern audiences.

I've read all the books & have the videos, I like them, and yes I know they aren't historical but I think they are entertaining.

I recently finished all the movies shown on YouTube. If nothing else it finally got me to start my 1/95th Rifles but a fellow TMPer talked me out of making my Sergeant Harper.

Even as a child I thought the Sharpe books were e. I've never understood how people with an interest in the period can stomach them.

I liked them the first time around but now find I can no longer watch or read them.

I love the Sharpe books I read them once a year. The love of the series got me into buying the rule set Sharpes practice and 28mm figures.

I've read all the books and seen the videos. While they aren't necessarily good history, they are good stories and certainly good sources for skirmish scenarios.

I find the videos entertaining. I've never read any of the books.

Have read a few of the books – OK but I do like CS Forester better – have the same issue with the videos as above (a square of fifteen guys)

Like Winston, I have read and enjoyed all the books.
I think winston exaggerated how many plots the series has. It's really only one.

They are what Graham Greene called "an entertainment", and Greene wrote damn good entertainments. I would not put Sharpe in the same class as Greene, but they entertained me.

Get over yourself, People. You are as bad as the Wrong Tank Syndrome brigade. You can't watch Patton because the movie got the ing tanks wrong. There is a reason Hollywood does not listen to wargamers, and it's because you/we/they are all loons.

Never watched the series, because I am afraid that I will expect Sean Bean to die. He never dies in the books.

He doesn't wear a ing hat, and that makes it dreadful.
Geez….

I liked the first few I read as a kid, but found the later TV show not to my taste for reasons such as those already described. I expect the books would be the same these days.

Nothing against those who still appreciate them though!

link

I don't blame him. His hair is much too nice to be wearing a hat.

I read the books as a young teenager and loved them. I realize now that the series is about as historical as the History Channel. BUT, to be fair,those books did help me develop an interest in the period and seek out more academic resources.

I read them because I can turn my brain off and just have a bit of fun.

Read all the books, and watched all the TV series. Loved them because they were entertaining and fun. Ok, not as historically accurate as they could be but positively PhD material when compared with popular big budget dross such as The Patriot, Troy, U571 and Pearl Harbor :)

btw my wife has read and enjoyed the books too :)

Oh, if you didn't like Sharpe's Waterloo on DVD then you're really going to struggle with the early episodes – which were filmed at wargame scales i.e. 1 actor = 33 real men, so a Regiment is just a dozen guys. And one of those still has to be an officer, and there's a drummer boy.

That is probably the best description of a Sharpe TV series battle scene I have ever read. Perfect. Why I am not too worried about which side my Kings Colour is on – the two standard bearers in my 24 man regiment represent 20-50 men depending on the rule set.

I enjoyed the Sharpe books and the TV series. If you look for historical accuracy you will be disappointed. A bit like watching "Vikings" on the History Channel. But if you are after a matinee adventure story – they are not too bad.

War and Peace they are not.

Napoleonic's was always my older brothers interest and did little for me. I enjoy watching the Movie Waterloo but trying to game it leaves me a little cold.

However watching and reading Sharpe (and also Hornblower) really got my interest so I started painting up some Spanish Forces and British Sailors/Marines. I have some riflemen to paint up and a few French as well when time permits. I also intend painting the South Essex Regiment as I came from there.

Historical? no not really but I like Robin Hood, Pulp and Cowboys so this fits in with my fun interests.

Tried Hornblower and a Sharpe on DVD the same week. Hornblower was fun. Sharpe was unwatchable. Bought one of the Sharpe books and I think I finished it.
Using Cornwell and Grahame Green in the same sentence is like comparing Colleen McCullough to Jackie Collins.

"It's not my intention to start a flame war but…"
Jeeze, you people. This thread moves right up to being evidence "exhibit A" for why Napheads are viewed as condescending snobs.
Now…"get off my lawn!!"

: )

The world shall end, i agree with the OFM. I like Sharpe for what it is. I have other things to watch or read when i want bewtter history, but sometimes I am just in the mood for something light. Or top tired to plow through some of the less excitingly written history.

And, i could start a thread about Oman, Chandler, Nafziger, Gill or any of a dozen( or hundred) authors and somebody will tell me they are ALL messed up and this other guy got it so much better, and so on, in normal TMP fashion. So yes Sharpe is not totaly accurate but then apperently neither is anybody else, dso it is just a matter of degree, right?

Grinning and ducking……..

The opening passages of Sharps eagle where he is redressing his maggot remedied sabre cut to the thigh was pretty good. It went down hill from then on. The Sharp series was crap from the off. Sean Bean

They are entertainment, sure I feel your pain, but in the end (like 99.9% of military drama), they are not aimed at wargaming history geeks but at the wider public. The bottom line of any book/tv programme is to make money, not please to you or me.
I'm afraid (as my young niece would say) "get over it"

Spot on badger22! I would also add that I am sure there are not a few people that have gotten into Napoleonic wargaming because of these novels. As a general introduction to the period for the layman, they are superb in that regard. I say that with my favorite novel of the period being The Charterhouse of Parma to establish my not TOO lowbrow credentials!
(I would also demand that we fork this thread. Lumping the novels and the TV series together is merely exposing the illiterati for what they are. i.e. TV viewers please refrain from expressing opinions about the novels if you have not read them. I assure you, the battalions did not have just 12 men in the books.)

The opening passages of Sharps eagle where he is redressing his maggot remedied sabre cut to the thigh was pretty good. It went down hill from then on. The Sharp series was crap from the off. Sean Bean was nothing like the scar faced, dark haired, six foot Londoner portrayed in the book. And as for the red epaulette and plumed Voltiguers….Utter tosh. Which reminds me. I brought Barney White Spunner's latest 'Of Living Valour' (The Story of the Soldiers of Waterloo) He was allowed to get away with some of the old myths in the first quarter of the book, I stopped reading it though when he stated that the Cuirassier's helmet had a face guard. I couldn't believe it! Especially coming from an ex Commander of the Household Cavalry,who has written an excellent history on the Horse Guards, who surely must have not be that ignorant, but is!

Paul :)

There weren't (aren't?) that many fictional works set in my favourite period: the Napoleonic Wars. The Sharpe books could have been a lot worse & I'd have read them.

Ditto the TV series.

To me they're adventure stories not historical novels. Though I've heard people talk about the historical research that went into them, I always found they had only superficial sense of the period. For a real sense of the period I turn to Patrick O'Brian though I know that for some these are not action packed enough. I've always loved the Gerard stories as well, completely different in tone of course but they too manage to capture something of the spirit of the age.

I've read a lot of the Sharpe books and enjoyed most of them. I always go and research the "real" history behind the stories and fully realise that they are "adventure" stories rather than history books.

That said, I found a copy of Honours of War by Kenneth Campbell in the local Oxfam, and read the book twice on the same holiday. If you want a good peninsular war story you should get this, but be warned… he writes a lot of the dialogue in proper Scots.

link

He also wrote a novel set during the retreat from Moscow, but I haven't read that yet as I can only find it on Kindle.

link

They're just escapism, not history books. Same with the tv series, it's just "boy's own" adventure stories. I think they're quite good, and has been said, Bernard Cornwell got a lot of people into history. And there'd be no Sharpe Practice!

The TV series was good fun. Our dashing heroes, evil Frenchies and some lady interest for Sean.

It had a cast of dozens? well, so what.

Even as escapism they're crap. Wooden characters, anachronisms galore, lazy formulaic writing ……

Watched a good number of the TV shows, they're a bit daft but then again it never claimed to be a documentary. It's good for entertainment but I don't see the point in running a fine-tooth comb through all the details.

Not trying to start a flame war, really!

btw my wife has read and enjoyed the books too :)

They are what Graham Greene called "an entertainment", and Greene wrote damn good entertainments. I would not put Sharpe in the same class as Greene, but they entertained me.

And that's fair enough. Greene could really write.

But – the question is "why the big fuss?" – and I think that's fair. Sharpe got parodied for Flintloque, there are plenty of Sharpe stand-in figures, and punning rules references (e.g. Sharp Practice) and so on.

So, why not Macro and Cato? Or Pantera? Or Nathaniel Starbuck ? Or Hornblower? Or Marcus Flavius Aquila & Esca ?

I don't blame him. His hair is much too nice to be wearing a hat.

Lol!

Never read the books, but have the tv show on dvd, perfectly okish stuff, Sharpe is james bond in 1810 spain.

He kills the bad guy, gets the lady.

But yes the Battle of talavera with 40 men was fun…

Or how Sharpe destroyed a french Brigade(mabye 60 guys) with rifles and rockets.

But Hornblower is a far superior tv show, I wish they had made more of them.

Sharpe is just for fun, and in that it is fine. I agree, the whole thing is a cliche, but in that it isn´t charmless. The writing is not close to O´Brian, but not too much out there is.

What I absolutely hated was Cornwell´s non-fiction book on Waterloo. The writing is so terrible I nearly couldn´t finish. I can forgive him explaining what a square was meant to do and so on, as I am sure he was writing for those folks who are only interested because it is fashionable now, but his style, especially his use of the present tense, is really annoying.

Never been a fan, too predictable and recycled as the "Copperhead" series.