Q

I bought this book (English edition) in Rome several years ago, not realizing it was a translation from the Italian. I read it once then; it wasn't easy. I've read it a couple more times since; it's a lot easier second time around. I've also read most of it in Italian, and enjoyable and valuable as that was, I have to say, I don't think the English reader is missing much reading this translation. I don't know if it's really the "greatest novel ever written", as one reviewer said, but I can understand why (s)he said that. The people who wrote negative reviews about this book simply have no clue. I agree that there are some jarring anachronisms of speech in the translation, but it's a trivial flaw. I would imagine that rebellious peasants, soldiers, criminals, brothel keepers, did swear a lot, just as in this book, just as in the Nixon White House, just as on "Deadwood", and if they didn't say "wtf" they certainly said something equivalent. They may not have said things like "touched a live nerve", but who cares? And remember, it's a translation for frak's sake! (And I would say, an excellent translation; I'm just saying, while you're picking nits, don't blame the authors for the trivial pecadilloes of the translation). The number of times our hero changes his name, identity and location, along with the interleaving of Q and the polynomial hero, and the interleaving of different times-- those things do make it difficult, especially if you are, as I was and as some of these negative reviewers obviously are, utterly clueless about the history under consideration. Probably if you know a little about it it's not quite so difficult. That's why it went better for me on second reading. Also, this time around there's Wikipedia, and a lot of other useful sources of information about things like the Diet of Worms, Council of Trent, Cardinal Carafa, and so on, and I consulted them frequently, so my knowledge of this history is greatly enhanced, in a way that never would have happened otherwise. It's true that many of the characters-- and there are a lot of characters-- aren't developed, but that makes sense given the way the book is structured. Or maybe it's even a flaw, but a minor one. This novel contains riches of a kind you won't find in most novels. It is difficult, but extremely well worth it.

I loved this book, I just don't see the negatives with it that other reviewers have. Yes, the short, episodic-like nature of the chapters often meant that it had to cut around the action a lot. But I never felt disconnected from the action or the ideas. No, it's probably not 100% historically accurate (having studied the reformation myself, i could see some flaws, mainly conceptual rather than factual), but few historical novels (or works of history, for that matter) are 100%. But there are lots of allegorical overtones in this book, as can be seen with the illustrations at the end that are often accompanied by quotes from political prisoners and petitions from the last decade or two. I would imagine many conservatives and those on the political right would have major problems with some of the issues raised in this book. And all this aside, I thought it was just a bloody good read (despite guessing Q's real identity about a hundred, hundred and fifty pages in).

Many today indentify Martin Luther, Hulderich Zwingli, and John Calvin with the Reformation. Blisset uses a Roman Cahtolic spy, Q, to show the various strands of faith still making up churches claiming the Reformation. He desn't mention Zwingli, a major oversight. But, one spy could only deal with so many reformers in a lifetime. Blisset also shows the difficult times of the Reformation. He does well to show hte bloody mess the ears olf religion really were and can still be. All in all, a wonderful ficional tour into the real Reformation. You'd also do well to read a history of the Reformation afterward.