I soooo wanted to love this book. I mean, what's not to love? The last gnomes in England who live on a Warwickshire riverbank go in search of their brother who has been missing for a couple of years. These Little People encounter all sorts of adventures, unexpected hazards and new friends before returning home. It's a thrilling ride, with some pretty fine descriptions of nature added in for good measure.
The trouble is, it's very much a book of it's time, and it displays a lot of the characteristics and views of that time. The benign tolerance of foreigners, who, if they step out of line are ridiculed and castigated for the fact they are foreign and consequently less entitled to respect and tolerance (I refer, of course, not to people but to animals like the red squirrel, who, if you're not aware, adversely impacted the indigenous population of grey squirrels by the anti-social behaviour of being better able to surive - being better able to store food over a wider area, amongst other things); the condescending sexism - women can't be trusted with anything mechanical; and the glorification of animal cruelty (ok, that one's a bit tentative, I admit, but it leaves a bad taste when a seven year old boy is given the brush of a fox as a glorified memento following a fox hunt).
Now usually I'm able to put those sort of primitive attitudes into perspective and they don't bother me in the slightest: they were pertinent at the time, they're no longer credible. They may have reflected the opinions of an insular and myopic Little Englander at the time (or they may not). That same author today would likely have different views.
But I really didn't expect those sentiments to appear so vividly in a story about gnomes! Or in a story where all the animals, with a few exceptions, live in harmony. Harmony, until you step out of line and are foreign, it appears. It quickly and easily destroyed the whole ethos of the story and consequently the integrity of the story itself.
Comparisons with The Hobbit have been made, but if you've read The Hobbit, don't expect anything approaching its quality. The descriptions of nature come close (though always seem to come down to lists of growing things and the way light reacts with them.) And it's a quest story, it's There And Back Again with the charm diluted and the backstory and history virtually non-existant. So no, it stands comparison with The Hobbit in only the most superficial way.
Would I recommend it? No. Certainly, for the basic storyline alone, it stands up fairly well despite the main characters being somewhat two-dimensional and twee, and it's nowhere near Salar The Salmon or Tarka The Otter in its narrative, but it has its merits. For example I enjoyed the meandering nature of the storyline which for me reflected the route of the stream they followed; a nice, if not deliberate, touch.
The problem is, it's demerits outweigh all the rest of it.