Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe

by Walter Scott, Ian Duncan (Editor)

In Ivanhoe Scott fashioned an imperial myth of national cultural identity that has shaped the popular imagination ever since its first appearance at the end of 1819. With the secret return of King Richard and the disinherited Saxon knight Ivanhoe, Scott confronts his splendid and tumultuous romance, featuring the tournament at Ashby-de- la-Zouche, the siege of Torquilstone, and the clash of wills between the wicked Templar Bois-Guilbert and the sublime Rebecca. Based on the 1830 text of Ivanhoe, this is the first edition to make corrections against Scott's working materials and incorporates readings from Scott's own manuscript.

Genres: Classics, Fiction, Historical Fiction, Adventure, Historical, Literature, Romance

618 pages, Paperback

First published December 20, 1819

About the author

Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name.

Sir Walter Scott was a Scottish novelist, poet, historian, and biographer, widely recognized as the founder and master of the historical novel. His most celebrated works, including Waverley, Rob Roy, and Ivanhoe, helped shape not only the genre of historical fiction but also modern perceptions of Scottish culture and identity.

Born in Edinburgh in 1771, Scott was the son of a solicitor and a mother with a strong interest in literature and history. At the age of two, he contracted polio, which left him with a permanent limp. He spent much of his childhood in the Scottish Borders, where he developed a deep fascination with the region's folklore, ballads, and history. He studied at Edinburgh High School and later at the University of Edinburgh, qualifying as a lawyer in 1792. Though he worked in law for some time, his literary ambitions soon took precedence.

Scott began his literary career with translations and collections of traditional ballads, notably in his Minstrelsy of the Scottish Border. He gained early fame with narrative poems such as The Lay of the Last Minstrel and The Lady of the Lake. As the popularity of poetic storytelling declined, especially with the rise of Lord Byron, Scott turned to prose. His first novel, Waverley, published anonymously in 1814, was set during the Jacobite rising of 1745 and is considered the first true historical novel. The success of Waverley led to a long series of novels, known collectively as the Waverley Novels, which blended historical events with compelling fictional narratives.

Over the following years, Scott produced a remarkable number of novels, including Old Mortality, The Heart of Midlothian, and The Bride of Lammermoor, each contributing to the romantic image of Scotland that became popular throughout Europe. With Ivanhoe, published in 1819, he turned his attention to medieval England, broadening his appeal and confirming his status as a major literary figure. His works were not only popular in his own time but also laid the groundwork for historical fiction as a respected literary form.

Scott married Charlotte Genevieve Charpentier in 1797, and they had five children. In 1820, he was granted a baronetcy and became Sir Walter Scott. He built a grand home, Abbotsford House, near Melrose, which reflected his passion for history and the Scottish past. However, in 1825, financial disaster struck when his publishers went bankrupt. Rather than declare bankruptcy himself, Scott chose to work tirelessly to pay off the debts through his writing. He continued to produce novels and non-fiction works at a staggering pace despite declining health.

Walter Scott died in 1832, leaving behind a literary legacy that influenced generations of writers and readers. His works remain widely read and studied, and he is credited with helping to revive interest in Scottish history and culture. Abbotsford House, now a museum, stands as a monument to his life and achievements.

Reviews

[Bill Kerwin · Rating 4 out of 5]

I believe Ivanhoe just misses being a great novel for two reasons. First of all, its characters, although not without subtlety, lack depth. (The exception to the rule is the “Jewess” Rebecca). Secondly, Scott’s style—at least as demonstrated here—suffers from a wordiness that continually dissipates the novel’s power. It is nevertheless an impressive achievement, original in conception, rich in themes, formidable in architecture, and powerful in its effects.

[Luís · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ivanhoe! Ivanhoe!
When these credits sounded in the 1960s, we children were eager to be in front of our black and white screens to follow his adventures where this handsome knight on his white horse came to the underprivileged aid.
I have found several heroes who rocked my childhood, Ivanhoe and Robin de Locksley, known as Robin Hood, King Richard the Lionheart, and the evil Prince John.
Ivanhoé is a great actor who has disappeared from Roger Moore (born in 1927 in England and died in 2017 in Switzerland). So I pay him a warm tribute for all these hours of true happiness, especially the adventures he made me live in my childhood, with this bit of note.

[Mike (the Paladin) · Rating 5 out of 5]

I love(d) this book and was torn between 4 and 5 stars. Can we call it 4.5? Heck, let's just say 5! I read it first long ago and it holds up well over the years (its and yours). A classic for a reason.

You'll find synopsis after synopsis here and elsewhere. But if you like adventure, heroism, romance, loyalty, betrayal...any or all of the above you won't go wrong here.

King Richard the Lion Heart...Robin Hood (Locksley)...Knights Templar...Saxons vs. Normans...Gentiles vs. Jews....Knights from the Crusades....Tournaments...jousts...melees...treachery...single combat...love...loss...reconciliation...heroics! This thing has more to offer than The Princess Bride! Well, no one gets murdered by pirates...and it is a "kissing book", but it's still a great read, and it's a classic so you get extra points!

Okay, so my sense of humor got the best of me for a second there.

While this book may not appeal to some, as it is definitely dated, it was written in 1819, and its syntax and construction aren't what modern readers will be used to, that won't bother most I'd think. I read this book first when I was 13 or 14. I stumbled across it in a grandparent's house one summer, and it captured my interest. The book is a historical fiction and an action adventure of it's day and while it may not move as today's action adventures do, there is so much more than that here. The depth of the prose blows away what we might call "action adventure" today. There is high adventure here that should please adventure lovers and the romantics among us. (When "Sir Desdichado" challenged the entire field at the joust I was hooked!)

Yep, on second thought no question, 5 stars. This book is highly recommended.

[Mir · Rating 4 out of 5]

In Ivanhoe, Scott skillfully undermines the alienating characteristics of the medieval gothic while taking advantage of its familiarity to and popularity with nineteenth-century audiences. Although containing elements reminiscent of the earlier gothic, such as the corruption and intrigue of religious orders, the madness of Ulrica and the burning alive of Front-de-Beouf in his castle, it also pokes fun at some of the wilder elements of this genre: the resurrected phantom of Athelstane, for instance, turns out to be quite alive and in search of a decent meal. Scott is clear in his rejection of supernatural devices, and rather than the scenes of emotional breakdown and overwhelming passion common in earlier gothics, his characters by and large behave with the rationality and self-control that would have been regarded as admirable by the author’s contemporaries. Throughout the story, Scott attempts to have his characters behave as modernly as they could without ahistoricism. By avoiding the distasteful areas of superstition, madness, and popery, Scott made it possible for nineteenth-century readers to sympathize more fully with the actors and to imagine themselves in the characters’ places without uneasiness or mental strain.

Ivanhoe was presented, in the overtly fictional voice of the translator Templeton, as a medieval account rendered into modern language. Historical anachronisms are thus not authorial errors but deliberate attempts to make the text more accessible to contemporary readers. Scott constructed a debate between Templeton and the likewise-fictional antiquary, Dr Dryasdust, who accuses the translator of “polluting the well of history with modern inventions.” Scott replies, in the person of Templeton: “I may have confused the manners of two or three centuries… It is my comfort, that errors of this kind escape the general class of readers, and that I may share in the ill-deserved applause of those architects who, in their modern Gothic, do not hesitate to introduce, without rule or method, ornaments proper to different styles and to different periods of art.” Scott this warns his audience that Ivanhoe should not be read as an attempt to recreate, nor to modernize as Leland did (and as Scott had done when he wrote in Middle English a Continuation of the poem Sir Tristem, which was intended to be a believable imitation of the medieval text), a medieval romance. Although Scott was widely read in medieval romances and often alluded to them, he did not model Ivanhoe on a particular medieval tale and makes no attempt to imitate an authentic medieval style. Neither his language, his plotting, nor his ideology are, or were intended to be, genuinely medieval.

The plot of Ivanhoe and other of Scott’s works likewise reveals less nostalgia than is often assumed. It is commonplace to state, as Alice Chandler does in her seminal work A Dream of Order: The Medieval Ideal in Nineteenth-Century English Literature, that Scott’s medievalism “brought to an increasingly urbanized, industrialized, and atomistic society, the vision of a more stable and harmonious social order, substituting the paternal benevolence of manor and guild for the harshness of city and factory and offering the clear air and open fields of the medieval past in place of the blackening skies of England.” While this was indeed a part of the appeal of Scott’s tales, it oversimplifies Scott’s complex attitudes toward the Middle Ages and ignores the conclusion with which several of his novels end.
Scott was far from giving unreserved approval to the medieval past. Even in regards to his most sympathetic characters he offers points of criticism. In describing the heroic Richard, for example, he remarked on the “wild spirit of chivalry” which urged the king to risk unreasonable dangers. “In the lion-hearted king, the brilliant, but useless, character of a knight of romance was in a great measure realized and revived… his feats of chivalry furnishing themes for bards and minstrels, but affording none of those solid benefits to his country on which history loves to pause, and hold up as an example to posterity.” Scott goes so far as to imply that the sullen fidelity of the serf Gurth is more admirable than the reckless courage and self-pleasing and licentious chivalry of the royal Richard; freedom and honor rest for Scott on responsibility and loyalty to the social covenant, not on personal glory.

Whereas in medieval tales the focus is almost always on individual heroism expressed through valor and strength of arms, these qualities play a large but ultimately superficial role in Ivanhoe. In the final anticlimactic duel at Rebecca’s trial, for example, Ivanhoe does not defeat the tempestuous villain by skill; in fact, the other characters all agree that Bois-Guilbert would certainly have won the contest were he not so conflicted in his feelings for Rebecca that he collapses on the field without being struck by his opponent. Beneath the exciting trappings of jousts, abductions, and political intrigues, the central motivating tension of Ivanhoe rests on the disruption of familial relationships and the struggle to restore those relationships to their proper order. Even the political struggle between King Richard and Prince John is a fraternal conflict; and Richard recognizes that his royal duties include reconciling Ivanhoe with his father. This reconciliation is, in fact, his most important success: insofar as Scott suggests that Richard is a good king, it is because he unites England in loyalty to his person as he unites the disrupted families he encounters on his adventures.

The emphasis on familial order gives a different role to women than would be found in a genuinely medieval tale. In medieval chivalric romances concerning male competition the female figures occur secondarily, as lesser prizes to be won in addition to glory or honor. The nineteenth-century ideal of domestic harmony, and its association with political order, gave women a more important role than did medieval political ideology. In the jousts and duels of Ivanhoe, Rowena is the primary object of the struggle between the main character and his opponent. Rowena’s genealogical importance to legitimate Saxon claims of rule is emphasized by Cedric, but in the end she encourages Saxon assimilation rather than independence by marrying Ivanhoe, who has cast his lot with Richard. Her rejection of Athelstane signals the end of Cedric’s plan for renewed Saxon dominance, a plan which Scott marks as backward-looking and unrealistic, if understandable.

If Scott in fact advocates a medieval revival, it is not of the feudal system or of Anglo-Saxonism, but of what he understood as medieval virtues: self-sacrifice, emotion rather than sentimentality, loyalty not only to one’s leaders but also to one’s followers. These attributes were based on an integrated system of personal relationships: between members of a clan or family, between lords and vassals or serfs, between subjects and ruler. Scott depicts these relationships as essentially personal and familial, rather than abstract and national or bureaucratic, which they were rapidly becoming in his own lifetime.

[Charles van Buren · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of my favorite novels in junior high. This began a life long affection for the work of Sir Walter Scott, even those whose language was difficult to read. I found the rewards to be worth the effort.

Here is a very good quote from the Goodreads description of the book: "The gripping narrative is structured by a series of conflicts: Saxon versus Norman, Christian versus Jew, men versus women, played out against Scott's unflinching moral realism."

Ivanhoe is one of Scott's best known and best loved works. Movies, TV programs, radio, etc have often been based on this novel of adventure and romance. There was even an anachronistic 1960's British TV series starring Roger Moore, the future Saint and James Bond. It is currently available on Amazon and free with Amazon Prime.

[Sara · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is hard to know what to say about Ivanhoe. It is part Robin Hood style adventure, part history and full of thematic richness. I was surprised that Ivanhoe himself figures into this tale somewhat sporadically. There are many characters who receive more in depth development, and the Jewess Rebecca is more fully developed than the heroine, Rowena.

The attitudes toward Jews in the novel make one uncomfortable in the same way that you feel when reading The Merchant of Venice. It is obvious that Scott himself does not sanction this view of Jews, but even the characters who admire and are helped by Rebecca make comments regarding being defiled by her presence or touch. I constantly had to attempt to put myself into the time in question and remind myself that this is history and to have written it any other way would have been false.

It is easy to see why Sir Walter Scott was a popular writer in his time and has survived. The story is fun, in the same way tales of King Arthur and his Knights are. The descriptions of the lists and tournaments are vivid portrayals. There are plot surprises, there is laughter, particularly in the forms of a jester and a Thane, and there is familiarity in the characters that we have seen time and again from this era, Richard the Lion-Hearted, Robin Hood and his Merry Men, and the evil King John.

[Melindam · Rating 3 out of 5]

Narration by David Rintoul: 5 stars

Story by Walter Scott: 3 stars-ish



Had so many conflicting feelings while re-reading this book after more than 30 years. And even after considering this carefully, I am still confused and would really like to be able to pick Scott's mind while he was writing this.

As a modern reader, I could say that this is a mixture of The Merchant of Venice, A Game of Thrones (without the dragons, the sex and the gore, lol, but nevertheless there is the struggle for power) and the movie A Knight's Tale and Robin Hood (the Errol Flynn version).

It is also an example of (non too accurate) historical fiction: Scott presents us a pastiche of some historical facts, lots of folklore and myth. Putting it into historical context: the novel was published in 1819, depicting the long gone period of 12th century England under the rule of Richard Lionheart viewed through the pink lens of romanticism.
I guess there were certainly some ideas and messages he intended to pass on to his contemporary readers (maybe along the line of "conciliation is better than fighting") and wanted them to draw some parallels between the "then" and the "now" for sure.

My biggest problem was with the eponymous hero, (Wilfred) Ivanhoe.

He is an archetype of the knight in shining armour. Scott hung lots of literary attributes on him (courage, nobility, honesty, courtesy, etc), but nothing that would make him stand closer to the reader – he is hardly ever present in the book and when he is, he is distant and inhuman.
He is either fighting with his identity, face, thoughts/feelings utterly hidden behind his armour or lying injured.
He hardly utters any sentences and those only in the last third of the book. He has two miniscule scenes with his beloved (?) Rowena, but actually they do not exchange a single sentence between them (at least not when Ivanhoe is openly himself vs disguised as some monk), which may be the oddest thing I ever came across in a book.

The dubious honour of actually talking to Wilfred goes to the unsung, Jewess heroine of the book, the awesome Rebecca, but to what avail? In the anti-Semitic fashion of the 1200s (the question is: is it only from the 1200s or also from the 1800s?) what she gets from Ivanhoe is patronising. In a way I am glad she does not get together with him: she would deserve so, so much better! but obviously and Scott is very clear about it: only young, good looking, white Christian knights are worthy to be considered. As a Jewess, Rebecca is obviously not deserving, no matter her personal qualities. And herein lies the great hypocrisy of the author!

For all I know WS may have come out as the preacher of religious tolerance with this novel. Very hard to decide. Making Rebecca the shining star of the whole Medieval circus stands in favour of this. Scott also does not hesitate to show the difference between bad Christians (the Templars and the Norman knights) and the good ones (King R, Ivanhoe, Cedric and the Saxons). Maybe he wanted his audience to draw parallels (in Scotland at least) between the Scottish and the English people. The Jacobite uprising was not far away when he wrote the novel.
On the other hand there is Isac of York, representing all the repulsive clichés medieval Christian society attributed to Jews, but possibly WS and his contemporaries did so as well. The sanctimonious behaviour of the “good Christians” is also there: they are feeling repulsed and behave condescendingly to Jews.
It is all assumptions on my part, but either this was the accepted norm in WS’s time and he thought he was historically accurate or he was afraid to show more support.

Another issue for me was that all the good characters were passive and it was the baddies who took action.
Secondary characters were much more interesting than the supposed main ones.

So, here I am right now. This is not a very coherent or logical review, rather a collection of my thoughts and feelings as I was reading the novel.

[Werner · Rating 5 out of 5]

Note, March 17, 2014: I posted this review some time ago, but just finished tweaking the language in one sentence to clarify a thought.

Obviously, this novel won't be every reader's cup of tea: the author's 19th-century diction will be too much of a hurdle for some, those who define novels of action and adventure as shallow will consider it beneath them, and those who want non- stop action will be bored by Scott's serious effort to depict the life and culture of his medieval setting. But those who appreciate adventure and romance in a well-realized setting, and aren't put off by big words and involved syntax, will find this a genuinely rewarding read.

Ivanhoe is a quintessentially Romantic novel, and that school stressed appeal to the reader's emotions rather than, or at least more so than, their intellects. But this does not mean it's devoid of a philosophical or moral point of view. Novels of action and combat appeal to emotions of fear and excitement, etc., but at their best, they often presuppose a code of conduct between humans that differentiates between good and evil, and cast the conflict in the story in those terms, with the writer on the side of good; and the various characters may model genuine virtues. This is definitely the case here. And the (small-r) romantic aspect of the plot in this book is not a simple tale of "boy falls for girl," either; the above description identifies Rowena as Ivanhoe's "true love," but in fact he comes to have very definite romantic feelings toward Rebecca as well, and the question of how how this triangle will be resolved contributes to the story's interest. Rebecca's character also brings an added depth to the novel --she's a strong, courageous lady who excels in a male-dominated profession in the midst of a sexist society (and the 19th-century culture of Scott's readers was scarcely less sexist than Rebecca's medieval world). Scott's treatment of her, as a Jewish character, also exemplifies genuine tolerance (in a much different sense than the inverted one popularized today, in which we simply proclaim ourselves as apostles of "tolerance," but then hate and anathematize anyone who disagrees with us, because their different beliefs identify them as "intolerant"); as an Anglican, he has honest differences with her religious beliefs, but he can enthusiastically affirm her as a person anyway, and, as an author, allow her to remain true to her own beliefs. So, there's a lot here for the discerning reader to appreciate!

[Murray · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you can deal with Scott’s flamboyant style and purple prose here is a story many girls and boys used to read of the days of yore 🏰 ⚔️ 🦄 🛡️ I judge it as I recall the adventure as a youth not as an adult scrutinizing its flaws.

In fact, I never return to books I read in my youth. Those were magical, uncynical, uncritical reading experiences I was wholly and wonderfully caught up in and that’s how they shall remain in my spirit. There is no need to despoil them with an adult’s wary eye ✨ ✨ ✨

[Marc Lamot · Rating 4 out of 5]

Perhaps my rating is too flattering, but this was a pleasant surprise! I knew Ivanhoe from my youth from the boys' books and from the black-and-white films, but the original version really has much more to offer. And while reading you gradually notice more and more aspects and themes that rightly make this novel world literature. It starts off quite Chaucerian (including the motto's at the beginning of the chapters), with a clearly medieval setting, strong anti-clerical accents, and an antagonism between Norman and Anglo-Saxon nobles.

At a certain point I thought this predominantly was a nationalistic novel because of the pronounced anti-French slant (it is no coincidence that the book was written shortly after of the struggle against Napoleon). A bit further on, the very emphasized rejection of anti-semitism became apparent. Of course, the knightly ideal is also fully addressed, although with a sting: Scott clearly emphasizes how outdated this obsessive adherence to the exalted values of knighthood is, how flawed and counterproductive. He even lets his characters reflect on this.

And so it turns out that almost all the characters are people with shortcomings: the lust for power and the cynicism of the Normans, the nostalgic clinging to the past of the Anglo-Saxons, even the so sympathetically portrayed Jew Isaac confirms to the cliché of avarice, and also the ‘good’ knights Ivanhoe and Richard the Lionheart do not escape this critical treatment: Scott regularly puts them on display with cunning irony. Two exceptions: the ladies Rowena and Rebecca; Rowena is portrayed a bit too angelically for my taste, she hardly weighs on the story; but Rebecca, on the other hand, is a woman who stands firmly; she even seems – more than Ivanhoe – to be the most important character, and therefore gets the last word.

Of course there are the ‘Romantics’-aspects: the extensive descriptions of castles, forests and tournaments.; the sometimes very pathetically escalating emotions of the characters, and a number of very improbable twists, including the predictable and quickly reeled off happy ending. But Ivanhoe is more than a simple novel, and certainly much more than a boy's story. I enjoyed this very much. Rating 3.5 stars

[Lee (the Book Butcher) · Rating 5 out of 5]

Put down "lame of thrones" and pick up a true epic. ok, that was a little strong this book is not for everyone and hard for modern audiences to appreciate. once Considered one of the greatest novels ever printed in English. It's influence on the culture of the English speaking world is monumental. I might be true that the influences might have surpassed the masterwork in entertainment. Lord of the rings, Robin Hood, Princess Bride I could go on. Robin Hood for one is very popular in modern entertainment. you mention Robin Hood people get excited, mention Ivanhoe most people make a face. Princess Bride is a very beloved adaptation or at least in style.

a Heroic Epic that includes Romance, Chivalry, Racism, sexism, cultural approbation, and intertwining of different cultures. I believe it has something for everyone a truly complete book. the Saxons vs. Normans dynamic might be obsolete with little genetic relatives today. but it reflect a common dynamic that has been played out by cultures all over the world. the pride of the Saxons is visceral and relatable. the fact that Walter Scott is bias to the Saxons is a bit of a turn off. he skews the historical facts a bit. the pacing is also dated and not what we have become accustom to in action adventure. but it's folly to me to call it boring. the worldbuilding is superb you really can experience medieval England. your emersion into that world is critical to enjoyment. if you have trouble with historical emersion stay clear. this is a classic which bring reading challenges but is fantastic if you approach it the right way. not sure why this book as lost it's critical shine. maybe we think we have learn all the social lesson we can from it. maybe those influenced by it surpassed it. maybe a little to historical fantastic regarded as historically accurate. maybe it's boring. all I know is Ivanhoe is the best book I read in 2019!

[Metodi Markov · Rating 5 out of 5]

Един от най-добрите рицарски романи, който съм чел - редом ми е с "Черната стрела" на Стивънсън и "Кръстоносци" на Сенкевич!

[Fernando · Rating 4 out of 5]

"La venganza es una fiesta para los dioses."

Sir Walter Scott, fue el fundador de la novela histórica romántica, y es con "Ivanhoe" en donde el género se instala para siempre en la literatura. Este prolífico autor inglés posee una veintena de estas novelas y con cada una de ellas iba perfeccionándose, logrando con esto, ejercer una marcada influencia entre sus pares y los autores que quisieron seguir dicha influencia.
Con el correr de los años fueron apareciendo grandes ejemplos de novelas históricas en todos los países, tal es el caso de la monumental "La guerra y la paz" de Lev Tolstói y "La hija del capitán" de Alexandr Pushkin en Rusia, de "Nuestra señora de París" de Víctor Hugo y "Los tres mosqueteros" de Alexandre Dumas o "Salambó" de Gustave Flaubert en Francia y de una lista interminable que ocuparía varias páginas.
Al igual que Cervantes, Scott debe haber recalado en varios libros de caballería, incluidos el Orlando Furioso y el Quijote para escribir el suyo ya que, aunque publicado en 1820 se ubica en la época medieval para contar la historia de este enfrentamiento entre normandos y sajones en la Inglaterra de la época de los templarios.
Más aún, todo transcurre durante los años del reinado de Ricardo I, Corazón de León quien está cautivo en Palestina y presuntamente muerto, mientras su déspota hermano Juan sin Tierra ejerce una tiranía despreciable debido a su unión con los normandos para someter al pueblo sajón.
Los duelos entre caballeros medievales, con sus lanzas y armaduras, los salteadores de caminos, las bellas damas y los bosques presuntamente encantados y los castillos imponentes son los condimentos esenciales de esta novela y su ambientación por parte del autor es indispensable y habitual.
Los personajes que llevan a cargo las distintas aventuras son de lo más variopintos y cada uno de ellos cumple una función esencial, desde Juan sin Tierra, pasando por Brian de Bois-Guilbert (el caballero Templario normando y rival de Ivanhoe), Maurice de Bracy, Frente de buey, Cedric de Rotherdam, padre de Ivanhoe y por supuesto Ricardo I Corazón de León y muy especialmente el arquero Locksley quien es nada más y nada menos que el famosísimo Robin Hood de Sheerwood. Gurth el porquero y Wamba el bufón, aunque al principio parecen secundarios, se transformarán en roles principales de toda la novela. Son como versiones mucho más combativas de Sancho Panza.
Como no podía ser de otra manera, sobresalen dos personajes femeninos que son el sostén de toda la lucha entre estos caballeros, me refiero a la bella Rebecca, hija de un comerciante judío, Isaac de York y hermosa Rowena, una hermosa sajona adoptada por Cedric. El contrapunto entre estas dos damas es brillantemente llevado a cabo por Scott, más puntualmente en el último capítulo.
De todos los sucesos que ocupan la novela, el mejor es la toma del castillo normando de Frente de buey llevado a cabo por los sajones en una sangrienta lucha para rescatar a la bella Rowena.
Un tema que me llamó mucho la atención es el tratamiento que Scott hace del judío Isaac de York y de los judíos en general, ya que por momento pude notar una especie de aberración a los hebreos que por momentos se torna bastante violenta por la discriminación y el desprecio que sufren Isaac y Rebeca tanto de parte de los normandos como de los sajones.
Los judíos, que a lo largo de la historia y desde la época del mismísimo Jesucristo, han deambulado por el mundo, sufriendo la persecución de los romanos, de los templarios (como en esta novela), de los rusos, los daneses y los bretones, la persecución y expulsión de España a cargo de los moros y ni que hablar de las atrocidades que los nazis les hicieron durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial.
No es la primera vez que me encuentro este tipo de desprecio literario en libros de autores clásicos. En una parte de esta novela se dice de ellos: "Ten presente que hablas de un judío, de un israelita, tan incapaz de soltar el oro que una vez ha tocado, como lo son las arenas del desierto de devolver el agua que ha derramado en ellas el viajero." Esa frase me remite a otra, bastante racista de la novela Tarás Bulba de Nikolai Gógol: "Lo primero que brilló ante los ojos del judío fueron los dos mil ducados de recompensa por la cabeza del cosaco; pero se avergonzó de su codicia y pugnó por reprimir dentro suyo esa eterna fijación en el oro, que habita enroscada como un gusano en el alma de todo judío."
El tratamiento que se hace de los judíos es el punto más flojo y reprochable de la novela, y para colmo de males, es uno de los temas principales del libro.
También he de decir que en cierto modo me sentí defraudado con Ivanhoe el personaje, y más puntualmente por la manera en la que el autor hace salir al personaje de escena después de un duelo, dejándolo casi muerto, ya que gran parte de la acción mal llevan adelante los otros personajes, para reaparecer recién en la acción en el capítulo 31 de los 35 que tiene el libro.
Algo similar sucede en la "Ilíada" de Homero en la que Aquiles también desaparece para volver hecho una furia cuando Héctor asesina a su amante Patroclo.
En líneas generales, "Ivanhoe" es un libro entretenido a medias, ya que por momentos se torna tedioso y es realmente extenso, pero que en ciertos tramos posee aventura, mucho humor gracias a la intervención de algunos de sus personajes, lo que le valió a Sir Walter Scott para fundar la novela romántica que aún hoy se sigue publicando y leyendo en todo el mundo.

[Piyangie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ivanhoe is a good adventure story of medieval chivalry. It centers on Sir Wilfred of Ivanhoe, a Saxon who turned a supporter of Norman King Richard, the Lionheart. This angers his Saxon father, Sir Cedric who disowns him.

Scott's storytelling brings wonderfully to life medieval tournaments, where knights fought one another to demonstrate their courage and skills, and characters that we've heard from our childhood, like Ivanhoe, Robin of Locksley (Robin Hood), Friar Tuck, the brave and fair King Richard the Lionheart, and vile Prince John. However, the underlying theme of this story which narrates many adventures is the conflict between the native Saxon nobility and the invading Normans. Saxons, led by Sir Cedric, find it hard to accept a Norman king and secretly entertain a futile hope of restoring a Saxon king to the throne. His son, Ivanhoe's acceptance and support of a Norman king are hard on him. But Ivanhoe's support of Norman refined ways and customs and his ultimate marriage to Saxon Lady Rowena unites the two races and symbolises the unity of the old (Saxon) and the modern (Norman).

The story is quite engaging and Scott is a wonderful storyteller. But the violence of medieval times and the strong antisemitism impaired my enjoyment of it. It was particularly hard to read Knight Templars' cruelty to Rebecca. I'm not passing judgment here. The morals of that time are quite different from now. Yet, that doesn't make it any easier to read.

More of my reviews can be found at http://piyangiejay.com/

[Helene Jeppesen · Rating 2 out of 5]

I have decided to put down this book and not finish it 2/3 of the way in, the reason being that while it was interesting to read about the old times of knights, tournaments and great battles at castles, it wasn't in any way interesting enough for me to keep on reading. I feel like being this far in, I've already gotten out of the story what I possibly could, and I don't really care about how everything's going to end.
Funnily enough, I was originally under the impression that this was going to be a children' story written in a somewhat easily accessible language. Turned out I was completely wrong. It's a classic story for adults written in a rather dense 1820s-language. Maybe my disappointment is part of the reason why I don't really feel like finishing it.

[Apatt · Rating 3 out of 5]

“Hearken,” he (Brian de Bois-Guilbert) said, “Rebecca; I have hitherto spoken mildly to thee, but now my language shall be that of a conqueror. Thou art the captive of my bow and spear—subject to my will by the laws of all nations; nor will I abate an inch of my right, or abstain from taking by violence what thou refusest to entreaty or necessity.”
“Stand back,” said Rebecca—“which portion of “no” dost thou not comprehend? Kindly desist from thou crapulous Trumpery posthaste!”

Some of the above quotes hath indeed been tampered with from Sir Walter Scott’s original text. Apologies to all purists. Honestly, I cannot stand that longwinded de Bois-Guilbert. What a silly bunt (as Eric Idle would say).

Brian de Bois-Guilbert and poor Rebecca

Took me one month+19 days to read this (audio) book. I would have read it faster if it had been more compelling. but Ivanhoe is not an easy book to read, the olde English dialogue takes getting used to, and while some of it is quite entertaining it often drags, especially when that damned de Bois-Guilbert is delivering his interminable gabble.

It is hard to summarize what the novel is about as it is so fragmented. Set in the 12th century the novel (sort of) follows Wilfred Ivanhoe as he returns from the Holy Land after the Third Crusade has ended. He soon entered a jousting tournament and jousted the asses off the other competitors. Ivanhoe wins the tournament but is gravely injured after his foes ganged up on him; fortunately, a mysterious Black Knight shows up to aid him. He is then taken to Rebecca the Jewess. Ivanhoe, his Dad, Rebecca, and others are soon kidnapped by dastardly Norman Maurice de Bracy, a friend of the verbal diarrhea afflicted de Bois-Guilbert. They are taken to Torquilstone, the castle of Front-de-Boeuf (another antagonist). The Black Knight soon comes to the rescue with the help of the sharp shootin’ Robin Hood, Friar Tuck, and many other hipster outlaw types. Many more events follow and await your discovery.


The Black Knight (though he retains both arms in this book)

OK, now I am going to get medieval on this book. Actually, on reflection, I quite like Ivanhoe, though I was often frustrated when it grinds to a halt (shut up, de Bois-Guilbert!). By the end, I felt it definitely outstayed its welcome. I am surprised we don’t see that much of the eponymous hero, he does not show up until page 50 or so, after his jousting injuries he disappears from the narrative for many pages, only to become active again towards the end. His climactic battle with that damn de Bois-Guilbert is a disappointment and very WTF.

Wilfred

Sir Walter Scott's prose is a thing pf beauty and I even like the olde English once I got used to it. The story, while fragmented, is good, and not hard to follow. My only complaint is that for a “Romance” (as in “a medieval tale dealing with a hero of chivalry”, not a story of smooches and heartbreaks) it is not very thrilling. Sir Walter does write very good fight scenes but those are too few and far between to effectively liven up the narrative. There is just too much dialogue and that damn de Bois-Guilbert just goes on and on and on, repeating himself in his attempt to get into poor Rebecca’s pants. Apart from him, the characterization is generally very good, I particularly like Wamba the jester, and Robin Hood, especially when he is showing off. The humorous bits work for me but, again, there is too little of them.

I can’t really recommend Ivanhoe, personally, I will stick to Alexandre Dumas for medieval badassery.

Notes:
• The Normans and the Saxons have an acrimonious relationship but they agree on one thing, their disdain for the Jews. The most put upon characters in the book.

• Richard the Lionheart really lives up to his name, and seems to enjoy ass kicking more than ruling the land.

• Audiobook from Librivox, read by various readers, some are pretty good, some are not so good but bearable. Whatchoo want for free, eh?

Quotes:
“I pray thee, uncle,” answered the Jester, “let my folly, for once, protect my roguery. I did but make a mistake between my right hand and my left; and he might have pardoned a greater, who took a fool for his counsellor and guide.”
Wamba is the best!

“And now,” said Locksley, “I will crave your Grace’s permission to plant such a mark as is used in the North Country; and welcome every brave yeoman who shall try a shot at it to win a smile from the bonny lass he loves best.”
“Formed in the best proportions of her sex, Rowena was tall in stature, yet not so much so as to attract observation on account of superior height. Her complexion was exquisitely fair, but the noble cast of her head and features prevented the insipidity which sometimes attaches to fair beauties. Her clear blue eye, which sat enshrined beneath a graceful eyebrow of brown sufficiently marked to give expression to the forehead, seemed capable to kindle as well as melt, to command as well as to beseech.” (etc.) That is the most elaborate description of a woman I have ever seen.

“To all true English hearts, and to the confusion of foreign tyrants.”

Here is a de Bois-Guilbert special:
“No, damsel!” said the proud Templar, springing up, “thou shalt not thus impose on me—if I renounce present fame and future ambition, I renounce it for thy sake, and we will escape in company. Listen to me, Rebecca,” he said, again softening his tone; “England,—Europe,—is not the world. There are spheres in which we may act, ample enough even for my ambition. We will go to Palestine, where Conrade, Marquis of Montserrat, is my friend—a friend free as myself from the doting scruples which fetter our free-born reason—rather with Saladin will we league ourselves, than endure the scorn of the bigots whom we contemn.—I will form new paths to greatness,” he continued, again traversing the room with hasty strides—“Europe shall hear the loud step of him she has driven from her sons!—Not the millions whom her crusaders send to slaughter, can do so much to defend Palestine—not the sabres of the thousands and ten thousands of Saracens can hew their way so deep into that land for which nations are striving, as the strength and policy of me and those brethren, who, in despite of yonder old bigot, will adhere to me in good and evil. Thou shalt be a queen, Rebecca—on Mount Carmel shall we pitch the throne which my valour will gain for you, and I will exchange my long-desired batoon for a sceptre!” STFU!

[Sasha · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sometimes I'm in the middle of complaining to Joanne that some book, which I told Joanne before I started was probably going to be boring and stupid, is indeed boring and stupid, and I plan to complain about it being boring and stupid for the next week because it's also long, and Joanne says silly things like "Why would you even start a book that you think will be boring and stupid?" Ivanhoe is why! Sometimes I'm wrong. I thought Ivanhoe would be boring and stupid, but it's a blast.

Flesh Wounds
Here's the test for whether you'll like it: have you ever liked any story - even just one story - with a knight in it? If you're not totally immune to knights clanking about flinging gauntlets at each other, you should like Ivanhoe. It's the apotheosis of knight-bashing. There are:

- damsels in distress, and a terrific response by one of them;
- a great scheming old crone in a tower;
- a wicked prince;
- a thrilling castle siege (and note: those are usually not thrilling, it's just super hard to write large-scale battle scenes that work, but here you go!);
- mystery knights in black;
- a lusty brawling priest;
- even an outlaw bowman dressed in green. (Is his identity supposed to be a secret? Because it's not, neither is the Black Knight's.)



If none of those things sound fun to you....well, we can still read Mansfield Park together.

Apologetic Anti-Semitism
The one thing I should mention that doesn't sit perfectly with me is (sigh, here we go again) Isaac the Jew. And look, Scott's major point, which he makes again and again, is how awful bigotry towards Jews is. "Except the flying fish," he says, "there was no race existing on the earth, in the air, or the waters, who were the object of such an intermitting, general, and relentless persecution as the Jews," and you're like yeah! Good point! But then he follows that with "The obstinacy and avarice of the Jews...seemed to increase in proportion to the persecution with which they were visited," and you're like waaaaaiiiit a minute here chief. It's a sortof apologetic anti-Semitism that you run into sometimes with 1800s writers: "There was no angle left to them but to become money-lenders," they seem to say, "So of course they became greedy and wicked as well." Harriet Beecher Stowe has similar ideas about Black people in Uncle Tom's Cabin. I think they're trying, but it doesn't age well.

Walter Scott in Context
Scott is sometimes called the inventor of historical fiction. He's also sometimes called shitty; EM Forster says that "To make things happen one after another is his only serious aim." Scott can't do characters; he can't even do plots. He just presents a series of scenes. "He has the power to present the outside of a character and to work from the outside to the inside," says Pritchett. "But once inside, he discovers only what is generic." But then there's David Lodge calling Scott "the single Shakespearean talent of the English novel."

All of these things are hyperbole. It's true that characterization is not Scott's strong point - lot of archetypes here - but everyone's entertaining and memorable enough; it's okay not to be a psychologist. Scott's super fun to read, and that's great.

...and in Central Park
For some reason Central Park has a statue of him, which I went to visit as I read Ivanhoe. Here it is:



Over on the other side - in shade, so the pic I took from that side doesn't show it at all - is his dog. He looks like a nice guy, doesn't he? I like him.

[Gary · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ivanhoe by Walter Scott, is set in England during the reign of King Richard , who is away on the Crusades to the Holy Land , leaving the administration of the country to his scheming brother , John , and his corrupt court cronies like Waldemar Fitzurse , Malvoisin and Front-de-Bouef.
Meanwhile a mysterious Disinherited Knight, aided by another anonymous Knight in black amour (Le Noir Fainéant) defeats all of King John's favorite knights at the jousting tournament at Ashby.
The challenger is revealed as Wilfred of Ivanhoe, the disinherited son of the Saxon nobleman, Cedric, who is the beloved of his father's charge, the comely Rowena.
The character who was for me, the most interesting, was the beautiful `black eyed' Jewish beauty, Rebecca, the daughter of the merchant Isaac of York. Compassionate and yet fiery, humble yet proud, sensual and yet modest, it is not hard to understand the passion for her felt by the Knight Templar, Brian De-Bois Gilbert. She and her father must try to survive in a violently anti-Semitic society, in which they are rendered defenseless, as members of a humbled nation. Rebecca, faced with a horrific fate, refuses to renounce her faith, right until the end.
Rebecca thus says during her trial by the order of Knights Templars: " ` To invoke your pity' said the lovely Jewess, with a voice tremulous with emotion `would I am be aware, , be as useless as I should hold it mean...Nor will I even vindicate myself at the expense of the oppressor which seem to convert the tyrant into the victim."

So you see how timeless words of wisdom can be.

Also thrown into the book are Robin Hood and his Merry Men, and the witty Jester Wamba . A quotable quote from Wamba from Wamba is " To restrain them by their sense of humanity is the same as to stop a runaway horse with a bridle of silk thread.

The book is a pleasure to read. As Herbert Strang wrote in an early 20th century edition of Ivanhoe: "In introducing this great story to a new generation of boys and girls, I find myself wishing that I too, where about to read Ivanhoe for the first time"

After having read Ivanhoe , I can understand exactly why he wrote that.

[Olive Fellows (abookolive) · Rating 2 out of 5]

That was...a painful reading experience.

[Brad · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ivanhoe. Seriously?! Could there be a more arbitrary title to any famous book in the English language? It would be like naming Lost "Benjamin Linus," or naming the original Dragonlance Chronicles "Caramon Majere." This isn't a book about Ivanhoe, it's a book with Ivanhoe in it.

Sir Walter Scott must have been sitting around his room with his D&D dice to come up with Ivanhoe.

Random Title List for Unnamed Book I Just Finished Writing About King Richard's Return From the Crusades and the Defeat of His Slightly Crazy Brother Prince John
Roll 1d20

1. Lady Rowena
2. Brian de Bois-Guilbert
3. Front de Boeuf
4. Friar Tuck
5. Isaac the Jew
6. The Black Knight
7. Cedric
8. Ivanhoe
9. Richard Coeur-de-Lion
10. Prince John
11. Athelstane
12. Wamba
13. Rebecca
14. Albert Malvoisin
15. Waldemar Fitzurse
16. Gurth
17. Maurice de Bracy
18. Locksley
19. Ulrica
20. Me

And by the way...I liked it. It was fun.

[Marta · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the original, the classic romantic adventure of chivalry, tournaments, damsels in distress, noble knights, evil villains and daring rescues. It is full of exciting action, lofty ideals and beautiful maidens, jousts and battles to the death. In fact, this is THE novel that originally put the buckle in the swash.

The tale is set during the reign of Richard the Lionheart, who is absent on a crusade, and his weak, greedy and changeable brother John rules in his stead. The ruling Normans are opposed by the oppressed Saxons, lead by Cedric, the old stubborn Saxon lord who even disowned his own son for following King Richard, a Norman. He is guardian of Rowena, the beautiful princess descended from the old Saxon kings, and wants her to marry Ethelstan, the last male Saxon heir to the throne.

We have a large cast of colorful characters, among whom the titular Ivanhoe shows up probably the least. We see way more of Cedric, his father, John and his norman courtiers, the Knight Templars, and the Jew Isaac and his beautiful and talented daughter, Rebecca. King Richard also appears, and entertainingly makes acquaintence with Friar Tuck, Robin Hood and his merry men. Scott spends quite a bit on character development, and we are treated to several humorous bits involving Friar Tuck, Robin Hood, and Ethelstan and his appetite.

Sir Walter Scott’s language is quite readable and the action and scenery are well described. However, most characters talk in long and circuituos sentences, never neglecting using fifty words where five would do… so this makes it a bit tedious. On audio, with a good narrator, this is not so much a drawback, but I probably would have skipped quite a bit if I was reading it.

With a work this old there are always problematic parts. This one drips with antisemitic characters. While Scott feels for his Jew and his beautiful daughter and laments how despite their money, they could any time be robbed, expelled or worse, he lets his characters abuse and shame the Jews in pretty much every scene. They go on and on about how dirty and infidel they are and they don’t even want to touch them. I am sure in reality the Jews were way cleaner than most Christians…

The other is the terrible misogyny. We know that damsels were supposed to be beautiful, modest and needing to be rescued, I expected that. And Scott does speak out against the terribly flimsy excuses and lies with which a female good at healing could be declared a witch whenever she became inconvenient to someone. But the scene where Cedric despises Ulrika for sharing the bed of her abductors and still being alive just really made me angry. She was raped, she had no choice in the matter! She needed sympathy, not shaming.

Overall this work stands the test of time - it is still entertaining, and if I could get over the antisemitism and the misogyny, I would give it five stars.

[Savasandir · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ladies and Gentlemen, il Romanzo Storico è servito!

Sir Walter Scott è universalmente noto per aver inventato il romanzo storico moderno (e per questo da due secoli frotte di lettori gli cantano lodi sempiterne); fra le sue tante opere, la più celebre di tutte è senza dubbio Ivanhoe, il cui folgorante successo internazionale ne determinò una subitanea trasposizione in opera lirica musicata da Gioacchino Rossini, l’equivalente ottocentesco dell'odierno blockbuster hollywoodiano diretto da Steven Spielberg.

Eppure, è cosa nota, quando si vuole lanciare una nuova moda, il rischio di fare un buco nell'acqua è dietro l'angolo; lo capì fin troppo presto Isabella Gilbert, inventrice della pratica museruola-crea-fossette-sulle-guance, e dovette temere il peggio anche il nostro Walterone che, infatti, pensò bene di piazzare prima dell'inizio vero e proprio del romanzo una fittizia lettera dedicatoria indirizzata al Rev. Dott. Dryasdust, una dichiarazione d’intenti ad uso e consumo dei lettori più puntigliosi, una sorta d'excusatio non petita in cui spiegava con altrettanto puntiglio come fosse giunto a concepire e a realizzare questa straordinaria novità, una narrazione al contempo storica e romanzesca, in cui verità e finzione coesistono, il romanzo storico, per l'appunto; ossimoro letterario usato per esporre tematiche contemporanee traslandole in un'epoca passata, nel caso specifico, la lotta fra unionisti e indipendentisti scozzesi trasformata nel confronto fra Sassoni e Normanni nell'Inghilterra medievale.
Letta oggi, dopo oltre duecento anni di sovrabbondante proliferare indiscriminato di romanzi storici d'ogni fatta, questa lettera in cui l'Inventore illustra le sue fonti e tenta di giustificare le molte licenze alla Storia che troveremo lungo il percorso suscita quasi commozione nel suo essere così ingenua e, a paragone della quale, l’audace escamotage narrativo dell'Anonimo seicentesco trasforma istantaneamente Alessandro Manzoni nel Christopher Nolan dei romanzieri.

Come ognun se n'avvede, infatti, dobbiamo sempre a Scott anche l'esistenza de I Promessi Sposi (e per questo da altrettanti secoli frotte di studenti gli lanciano maledizioni altrettanto sempiterne). Sandrone copiò Walterone e, come lui, fecero prima Victor Hugo e poi Alexandre Dumas in Francia. La lista dei figli e figliastri di Scott sarebbe così lunga da arrivare sino ai giorni nostri (gli deve tantissimo anche Tolkien), ma noi ci fermeremo a questi tre ingombranti soggetti, bastano e avanzano.

Ognuno di loro, bisogna riconoscerlo, seppe interpretare con una buona dose d'originalità la lezione di Scott: Hugo ne esaltò la componente storica, arrivando a sfornare trattati sul passato mascherati da romanzi; Manzoni ne ricalcò solo l’impostazione generale, l'idea, sostituendone l'aspetto più avventuroso e dilettevole con precetti pedagogico-moralizzanti; Dumas più di tutti ne colse le potenzialità romanzesche e le portò alle massime vette mai toccate da scrittore.
Lo stile di Scott, in certa misura, li ricorda e racchiude tutti e tre, possiamo dire che Ivanhoe è l'opera seminale di un filone che ancor oggi gode di chiara fama, seppur ormai spogliato di ogni suo intento primigenio; raramente, infatti, gli autori dei romanzi storici odierni adoperano la Storia per riflettere sulla contemporaneità, come invece fecero magistralmente quei quattro signori là.


Piccola postilla finale

Vi sarete accorti che ho taciuto ogni informazione sulla trama, l'ho fatto in parte perché ritengo che questo sia un romanzo ricchissimo che merita d'essere scoperto durante la lettura, ma principalmente perché non volevo entrare in competizione con la mia pessima insegnante d'inglese, che così mi presentò i quattro libri d’epoca Regency fra i quali io e i miei compagni avremmo dovuto trovare la nostra prossima lettura, a seguito della mia spaesata richiesta di lumi per orientarmi nella scelta: "Se ami le storie d'amore romantiche che partono male ma finiscono bene, leggi Orgoglio e Pregiudizio; se ami le storie d'amore tenebrose che partono male ma finiscono malissimo, leggi Cime tempestose; se ami le storie complicate che poi si complicano ancora di più, leggi Ivanhoe; se vuoi ridere a crepapelle fino alle lacrime, leggi Northanger Abbey, uhuhuhuh! scusami, ma rido al solo pensiero, uhuhuhuh!"

Purtroppo scoprii a mie spese che la mia pessima professoressa d’inglese aveva anche un pessimo sense of humor.
Oggi, dopo oltre vent'anni da quel lontano giorno, possiamo certificare senza tema di smentite che era pessima anche nel presentare le trame dei romanzi.
Ah, se solo mi avesse detto: "Se ami i castelli, i cavalieri e Robin Hood…", non mi sarei privato così a lungo di questa meravigliosa storia complicata che poi si complica ancora di più.

[Axl Oswaldo · Rating 1 out of 5]

2024/14

Boring, tedious, plain, confusing, are just a few adjectives that would accurately describe this novel. To put it mildly, Ivanhoe has been my most disappointing reading experience in years, as a matter of fact, I can't remember another book at the moment that was even worse than this mess.

To begin with, it is wise to recognize one's mistakes. Mine was simple: believing that I was about to read an adventure novel, such as those written by Alexander Dumas, Jules Verne, Arthur Conan Doyle—The Lost World—H. G. Wells, and of course, Homer and his Odyssey. Little did I know that Ivanhoe wouldn't be an adventure classic by any means; rather, it is a historical book with lots of 'dialogue' that might remind you of a gathering with your pals, but where almost everyone is already drunk and starts saying nonsense. Actually, the entire book—around six hundred pages—might be divided into two sections: one, unnecessary descriptions where the author goes on and on about what each character is wearing, once and again, and again, what a random room or place looks like, food—I can't recollect how many times he mentioned it in the book, but eventually it became tiring and overwhelming—and so on, instead of depicting his characters and giving them particular roles and personality, or describing important events, facts, episodes that were important during that time, and two, monotonous conversations where you have no idea who is talking—every single character has exactly the same 'voice,' so to speak—and, most importantly, what they are talking about (for instance, the editor pointed out in the footnotes that the author came up with some characters' names, 'characters' that were not a part of the story to begin with). The constant repetition of things along with the sketchy dialogue were crucial elements that made my whole experience a nightmare.

Sometimes I thought I was in a scene from Hairspray—I mean no offense to such a sweet movie—as the characters start to sing completely out of the blue! Other times I got distracted a little—I was listening to the audiobook and following along with a copy—and as soon as I was back to the story I didn't have to bother to go back a few minutes or so, since the 'story' was still understandable. As a matter of fact, you could get rid of at least three hundred pages or more and the story wouldn't change at all. That reminds me that Scott loses focus quite a few times, and starts rambling about things that have barely anything to do with the plot.

There is more, don't worry. Towards the end of the book Scott is laughing at us, his readers, as he is doing the unthinkable fiction-wise: he writes something that doesn't make any sense, just because he can, maybe he wanted to finish the novel right away, I read he wrote it just because he needed the money from its sales as soon as possible, he needed it to purchase a commission in the army for his son, and his quill and ink allowed him to do so. I was laughing too, and not because I thought it was funny, but because it was enough. I had had enough of this piece of...literature.

My rating on a scale of 1 to 5:

Quality of writing [1.5/5]
Pace [0.5/5]
Plot development [1/5]
Characters [0.5/5]
Enjoyability [0.5/5]
Insightfulness [1/5]
Easy of reading [1.5/5]
Photos/Illustrations [N/A]

Total [6.5/7] = 0.92

[John Anthony · Rating 4 out of 5]

Set in the reign of Richard I; the Lionheart being on crusade much of the time, leaving England to the mercy (no chance!) of his brother, the odious Prince John and some rather nasty Norman barons. I found it quite a page turner. Of particular interest to me was Scott's portrayal of relations between the subjugated and resentful English and their Norman conquerors. English = liberty, Norman = tyranny.

The position of the Jews in England is fascinating too and two of them have an important part in the story. Regarded as less than animals on one level; on the other hand they were the bankers and so we couldn't do without them.

Lots of fighting here and the art of chivalry. Ivanhoe the English knight takes on a few Normans, we meet Robin Hood and his fellow bandit Friar Tuck. The latter compares favourably with the princes of the church in England. Richard puts in the odd appearance at crucial points. (Scott is balanced in his assessment of him. R's heart was in the right place but he neglected his country). Lurv figures in it too of course.

I enjoyed reading it and want to read more on this period of history.

[Jesús De la Jara · Rating 4 out of 5]

"El amor por la batalla es nuestra razón de vivir. El polvo de la melee es el aire que da sentido a nuestra vida. No vivimos ni deseamos vivir más allá de nuestras victorias y reconocimiento."

He leído por fin este súper conocido clásico de la novela histórica de Walter Scott que creo se podría resumir de forma muy somera con un "Qué malos son los templarios".
El autor nos ilustra una Inglaterra del siglo XII que aún se encuentra muy dividida por la reciente conquista de la isla por los normandos. Guillermo el Conquistador (a quien conocía por haber leído textos de historia e incluso uno sobre la Batalla de Hastings) fue el que desde Francia conquistó a la Inglaterra gobernada por los sajones. Es así que estas dos razas conviven con un gran resentimiento por parte de los sajones.
De estos su líder espiritual viene a ser Cedric quien protege al supuesto heredero de la corona inglesa el dubitativo Athelstane a quien por su linaje respeta y sueña con que reconquiste el trono de los "afrancesados" normandos. Sin embargo, respeta al rey actual que viene a ser Ricardo "Corazón de León" quien se sabe está prisionero en Austria luego de haberse teñido de gloria en las Cruzadas.
Esta situación es aprovechada por su malvado hermano, el príncipe Juan llamado "sin tierra" quien como muchas tradiciones tratan, intenta hacerse de un grupo de nobles aliados para poder gobernar en vez de su hermano. Entre ellos están Waldemar Fitzurse, Mauricio de Bracy y otros. Juan es retratado como un déspota cobarde y ambicioso que a pesar de todo "engrandece" la figura de Ricardo quien es reconocido hasta por sus enemigos como valiente y aventurero.
La introducción en sí me pareció un poco larga y creo es la parte más pesada del libro pero luego ya se cuenta la historia de forma más amena y también las acciones son más interesantes.
Hay en la historia un gran rechazo a los franceses, pues se consideran invasores en gran medida, y este rechazo está enfocado en la novela sobre todo contra los caballeros templarios. Esto podría haberme ganado la animadversión pues tengo preferencia histórica por ellos pero es una licencia que puedo aceptar sin problemas. Scott hace ver a los templarios como gente en su mayoría hipócrita y blasfema incluso. Y lo resumen en un personaje que viene a ser un gran antagonista Brian de Bois-Guilbert. Este caballero es más ateo que el peor pero ha tenido un gran desempeño en tierra santa luchando contra los sarracenos.

"¿Cuando el hálito de un templario no ha ocasionado sino crueldad a los hombres y oprobio a las mujeres?"

El grupo de buenos de la historia está liderado por Ivanhoe que viene a ser un hijo despreciado en la sociedad sajona quien luego de acompañar con entusiasmo al rey Ricardo vuelve a limpiar su honor. Tiene la misteriosa ayuda del Caballero negro cuya identidad será algo que llama mucho en la trama y me resulta muy bien manejado.
No soy de los que reclaman demasiado con "lo correcto" de nuestra época actual o algo muy evidente que quizás antes no se consideraba, pero debo decir que me sorprendió en este libro la cantidad de veces que le dan con palo a los judíos, me refiero hablando mal de ellos pero hasta por gusto.
Del lado de las mujeres destaca la hermosa y orgullosa Lady Rowena (me gusta cómo suena su nombre jaja) que pertenece a la nobleza sajona y la judía Rebecca hija del codicioso y mendaz Isaac.
Hay muchas mini historias por dentro aunque debo decir que una de las cosas que me gustó del libro fue su pequeño desarrollo. Se nos cuenta una historia simple que siempre tiene un hilo conductor y que se desarrolla en un espacio pequeño. Eso lo hace bastante llevadero y ayuda a entender la dirección. Sin embargo, hay torneos, asedios, luchas, juicios y un largo etcétera si bien es cierto estos temas no llegan a ser muy épicos porque no son tratados de manera muy profunda o grandilocuente. Encuentro artificialidad por momentos y una gran parcialidad inglesa pero como menciono la facilidad de lectura, y la historia bien llevada te hace querer y odiar a los personajes y te graba en la memoria bien los hechos lo que llegas a ver como "clásicos" o de alguna manera inolvidables.
Cada personaje cumple su función en la trama. Hasta el loco Wamba quien viene a ser un bufón del grupo de Cedric que viene a ser el contrapeso jocoso de la novela (es el primer bufón que me cae bien) y no deja de lanzar dardos a todos los personajes por más serios que sean.
Otro personaje que me sorprendió fue Robin Hood, sabía que aparecería pero no pensé que tendría un papel tan importante. No solo él sino su clásica pandilla de Sherwood entre los que está sobre todo el Ermitaño de Companhurst.
Por momentos Ivanhoe pierde terrible protagonismo y hasta podemos darle un poco más de peso al terrible Brian de Bois-Guilbert quien a pesar de todo le da el tono romántico - criminal que llega a ser más intenso que casi todos los personajes de la historia. El final no fue muy de mi gusto

"El sonido de mi voz es aterrador a mis propios oídos. Apenas sé el terreno que pisamos ni con que objeto nos han traído aquí"

[Sergio · Rating 4 out of 5]

Protagonista di questo romanzo scritto dallo scrittore scozzese Walter Scott nel 1819, é il medioevo cavalleresco concentrato nella figura del guerriero assetato di giustizia Ivanhoe che salva la giovane ebrea Rebecca, condannata ingiustamente al rogo e mettendo in risalto la nostalgia del popolo inglese verso re Riccardo Cuor di Leone assente da lungo tempo ormai dall'Inghilterra dopo essere partito per la III crociata. Caratterizzato da una prosa per lunghi tratti lenta e pesante, il romanzo non trova mai l'ariosità del romanzo d'azione e giunge alla sua conclusione senza colpi di scena e impennate narrative.

[April · Rating 2 out of 5]

I can see now, after having read Ivanhoe, where most of our notions of the medieval ways and of Robin Hood originated. It seemed at once both familiar and foreign jumping into this book. I could see the beginnings of certain conventions — and the glaring lack, as well. It reminded me both of the Canterbury tales and of old Hollywood movies; it was actually kind of weird.

It begins with two minor characters, for instance, and not the main character, Ivanhoe. Ivanhoe is actually introduced somewhat late, and he's mostly incognito in his first appearance, so you're kind of thrown into the story with little or no ties to anyone in particular. It's hard to care about the characters or the story that way, so I didn't have much emotion invested into the story and got easily bored. After a few chapters, I found myself watching the 1952 movie adaptation to get me jump started, the one starring Robert Taylor, which, notably, didn't start with the minor characters at all but started with Ivanhoe's back story, him coming back from the crusades, on a mission to raise enough money to free King Richard.

This is what the book lacked in the beginning. It lacked that motor, that thing that gives readers a reason to read through all the descriptive chapters in which nothing really happens just yet. As a result, the book seems a bit aimless and happenstance, and it's hard to figure out who to even care for, until you get deeper into the book and discover some of the whys and wherefores of the situations.

For instance, Ivanhoe and Rowena are childhood sweethearts, and you're supposed to root for them as a couple, but they are apart for most of the book, and you barely see them express their love for each other. There is, in fact, very little that happens in the span of the book that would lead anyone to think that Ivanhoe is better off with Rowena than with any other woman. And there IS another woman, Rebecca, in the book who through her actions seems a more deserving character than Rowena. There's another man as well, for Rowena, but the point is Rebecca is the one the reader would rather root for to win the heart of Ivanhoe. Rebecca actually, genuinely cares for Ivanhoe, not just in an emotional sense, partly out of gratitude for Ivanhoe's kind treatment of her father, but in a medical sense, when Ivanhoe gets mortally wounded in a tournament. She's the one who looks after him and with her exceptional healing skills helps him to get better. She's the one who generously funds him, too, using the jewelry she has inherited from her mother. Not only that, but when Rebecca needs saving, it's Ivanhoe alone who saves her. So Rebecca seems a more likely heroine than Rowena — at least in my eyes. The story revolves more around her than around Rowena.

But Rebecca is Jewish, and I guess that and the fact that Ivanhoe and Rowena were childhood sweethearts, make any relationship between Ivanhoe and Rebecca impossible. The way the book is written, it absolutely makes no sense to a modern reader of romance. If there was more interaction between Ivanhoe and Rowena, or if more of their back story was revealed, then I think it would have made more sense and been more gratifying to have them come together in the end; as it was, you have only the author's word that Ivanhoe and Rowena were already an item before any of the events in the book happened.

So for me, that romance story arc needed more of the usual conventions to make it work.

The action-adventure story, similarly, needed more of the usual conventions, or at least a proper back story to give it more reason to exist. I couldn't figure out, for instance, why Ivanhoe needed to enter the tournament at all. In the movie version, it was because he needed the prize money for King Richard's ransom, but the reason in the book is actually not that clear, and the tournament turns out to be a very big part of the story. The later two parts of the action-adventure makes a little more sense; there seems to be a clear mission, rescue the hostages from within the castle, and later, save Rebecca from a death sentence by being her champion and winning a fight. So I could more easily accept the plotting in those areas. The first third, though, seemed a bit senseless to me.

The language seems appropriate for the time, yet easy enough to read. The characters were nicely drawn, and some of them were actually very engaging. For a main character, though, Ivanhoe appeared only partly drawn — the other characters were better developed and more likable than he was. Also, as he was injured for much of the book, he was absent from a lot of the action and so seemed more like a prop than a main character.

Nutshell ... I can see why some people might laud this book, if it was one of the first of its kind, but at the same time it was kind of baffling and boring by the standards of today. I imagine books in this genre have come a long, long, LONG way since this first came out, and if this book were rewritten today, it would be a very, very different book indeed.

I wasn't wowed, but it wasn't TOO bad.

Finished reading March 25, 2011.

[Brian E Reynolds · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ivanhoe is a historical novel by Walter Scott published in 1819 as the 10th of his 28 Waverley novels. Up until Ivanhoe, Scott's practice was to set his Waverley stories in Scotland and in fairly recent past of the 19th or 18th Century. With Ivanhoe, Scott changes the setting to England and farther back in time to the late 13h Century when Prince John ruled while his brother King Richard was off fighting in the Crusades and then imprisoned on the mainland. Scott did choose to return to such an early time period setting in some later Waverly novels, probably because Ivanhoe became one of Scott's best-known and most influential novels. Ivanhoe has over 9 times the number of Goodreads ratings as the next most rated Scott novel, Rob Roy.

The story is about the life of Sir Wilfred of Ivanhoe, a Saxon knight who returns to England after having fought bravely and loyally beside Richard the Lionhearted in the Crusades. He has been disinherited by his father, Cedric, for falling in love with Cedric’s ward and his childhood friend, Rowena, who was betrothed to another. Ivanhoe travels in disguise and soon becomes a torn in the side of Prince John getting involved with Robin Hood and his Merry Men and rescues wealthy Jewish moneylender Isaac of York and his beautiful and brave daughter, Rebecca.

Soon Ivanhoe, Robin and his men and the mysterious Black Knight are in conflict with a cadre of Prince John supporters as Prince John tries to solidify his rule in the event of Richard’s return. Included in the conflict are forest-set ambushes and captures, an exciting assault on a castle and an Inquisition type witchcraft trial brought by the Knights Templars, a group depicted as fairly evil in this novel.

There is also an exciting tournament with jousting and archery that, along with a few other book events, were used in the 1939 movie The Adventures of Robin Hood. While it seemed like heavy borrowing from Ivanhoe by that movie’s writers, some of these plot vignettes were likely well-known ones handed down in folklore and first published in half-penny pamphlets available to the masses.

The novel’s characters were well-drawn, diverse and a very entertaining group. Ivanhoe is not the most fleshed out character in the novel. He is absent from the action for much of the book. But, while other characters got more ‘stage time’ and more interesting dialogue, Ivanhoe was still the central heroic character that the plot revolved around. As I had been warned of it several times by a Goodreads friend, Ivanhoe’s reduced presence was not unexpected.

The characters and story events all added up to, except for a slow first chapter, a fairly well-paced action-filled adventure. Scott’s writing was splendidly descriptive, but the narrative did get a bit turgid and wordy at times. I did think his style and wording, while smoother than I anticipated, was a bit more reminiscent of late 18th century authors than his contemporary Jane Austen’s.

Overall, it was a surprisingly enjoyable read, even a page turner at times. Out of the three novels I was reading at the time, it was the one I most looked forward to reading. I rate it as 4 stars.

[Wanda Pedersen · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 stars? Give or take.

This was my DWS birthday book selection, Sir Walter Scott being an August baby. I went into it knowing that it was about knights and chivalry, but there is much more to it.

First things first: there is a TON of anti-Semitism. Scott portrays his Jewish characters very schizophrenically, alternating between sympathizing with them and depicting them stereotypically as grasping and money loving. There are scenes directly equivalent to The Merchant of Venice with Isaac of York trying to decide between his daughter and his money. Rebecca is depicted as virtuous, skilled, and possessed of wisdom, while her beauty makes her the desire of lecherous men. Still, she does not receive the affection that she desires from a particular English knight. That two centuries later we still have people who hate Jews and Muslims beggars belief.

I think the reason for this novel's longevity is Scott's incorporation of the elements of the Robin Hood tale. Once I realized that Richard the Lion Hearted and Prince John were involved, I hied me off to Wikipedia to learn more. Sure enough, it was Scott who consolidated the details of earlier legends into the storyline we all are familiar with today. The Merry Men, dressed in green, robbing from the rich and giving to the poor, Friar Tuck, Allan-a-Dale, feats of marksmanship, opposition to Prince John—he melds it all together into a unified story that seems to have grabbed our imaginations.

The part that we have let go of is the Saxon-Norman rivalry which Scott layers into the mix. I'm sure that such discords existed at some point in history, but Scott was apparently trying to make a point about such prejudices to his contemporaries. Nowadays it doesn't hurt the story, but it doesn't really help it much either.

The writing is florid by today's standards, but still very readable. There are some odd sentence constructions and word spellings, but for a book that is over 200 years old, it is still entertaining. There are bits that are predictable to the modern reader, especially those familiar with the Robin Hood story, but it would have been new and exciting when it was first published. I've been nervous of Scott's writing until now, but I have the courage to try more of his work after enjoying this one.

[Tony · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ivanhoe is a fun action-filled adventure set around 1200.  Richard the Lionheart is King, his brother, John, is scheming against him, and Robin Hood is a minor character.  Knights fight and damsels get rescued.  Need I say more?  Well, actually,  I do.  As a book first published in 1820, it has some major differences from a modern novel.  First, ideological discussions that may take only a few paragraphs in a similar work today span multiple pages in Ivanhoe.  These can be very interesting, but also set the book on a markedly slower pace than modern equivalents.  Second, Ivanhoe's sensibilities and mores do not remotely reflect contemporary standards.  Suffice it to say that virtually every page contains at least some antisemitism, which all the characters consider normal, albeit to varying degrees.  A reader who can get past these anachronisms, will likely find this classic quite entertaining.