On my first attempt to read Wolf Hall, I tossed it after about 200 pages as simply too tedious and lacking in narrative pace, characterisation or outstanding writing. Its sequel, "Bring up the bodies" is better in that the story, such as it is, moves more quickly and with some point, although it ends by threatening a third book in the series to finish Cromwell's story. After that, I am trying "Wolf Hall" again, but alas, it is heavy going indeed -- the confusion of pronouns so many reviewers have commented on and which causes the reader to double-take and have to backtrack to work out which 'he' Mantel is talking about now -- the lack of pace or authorial selection of relevant scenes. The book seems to have had no or little editing. Would anyone unfamiliar with the history really bother to wade through huge sections on politicking and conspiracy? That said, I have certainly read worse historical fiction, and am glad to see the genre being taken seriously, but how "Wolf Hall" won the Man Booker beats me. Was it a particularly weak field that year? And now the sequel has won yet another Booker. It's as if the Booker Prize judges have only just discovered genre fiction, and got carried away by Mantel's reputation rather than the actual book. Cut to half its length and tightened up, "Wolf Hall" would be readable, even enjoyable, but as it is... tedious and pretentious.