Fans of British Writers discussion

Since those in the group who want to will be reading Robert Louis Stevenson's The Black Arrow this month as a common read, I've set up this thread as a clearinghouse for our discussion. So this is where you can post your reactions as you read, your comments, sage observations, background information, and anything else you feel is relevant! Remember to use spoiler tags if you need to, since we all read at different rates (and this thread will be up and open permanently, even after April 30). If you've read the book before, and can discuss it without a reread, feel free to join the conversation!

I've read it before myself (back in junior high school), but I've forgotten some significant points of the plot, and plan to read it again with the group. (In fact, I hope to get a start on it as soon as I get offline!)

I have just started The Black Arrow and I'm enjoying it. I just finished reading Virginia Woolf's To the Lighthouse and it's a real pleasure to read a book with interesting characters, a historical setting and a plot.

Rosemarie wrote: "I have just started The Black Arrow and I'm enjoying it. I just finished reading Virginia Woolf's To the Lighthouse and it's a real pleasure to read a book with interesting characters, a historical..."

Well said, Rosemarie (those are my sentiments, too!).

The Black Arrow is set in 15th-century England, against the background of what we refer to today as the Wars of the Roses. For those who may not be very familiar with that conflict, Wikipedia has a good, basic overview entry at this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of... .

Have not started yet. Just need to finish last chapter of Kim (so proud I figured out italics!!!

Carol wrote: "Have not started yet. Just need to finish last chapter of Kim (so proud I figured out italics!!!"

Well done on the italics, Carol!

The villain in this book is truly a heinous villain. I do hope he gets what he deserves!

We hear ya, Rosemarie! (That's John Amend-All's sentiment, too!)

Wikipedia has a good article on the novel, which could serve as an interesting background source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bla... . However, you should be warned that the plot summary is a spoiler by definition.

Stevenson's geographical setting here is Suffolk, in southeastern England (Norah Lofts country, for NL fans!); Tunstall is an actual village there, in an area which Stevenson had visited, which really did have a nearby woods. The geography depicted in the book is for the most part real; but like Thomas Hardy, Stevenson tends to change most of the place names.

Some reviewers, and some members of this group, have noted that the language of the story, especially the medieval language of the dialogue, is challenging. This thread can be a good place to ask questions about it; there's no guarantee someone else in the group will have an answer, but it's always worth a try! At the time of the novel, ca. 1460, the language of the day would still have been what we call Middle English; but at this period, it was gradually developing into the early Modern English that would replace it.

The Goodreads database entry for this book, as usual, has a sidebar for information about the author, and this one has an interesting and revealing observation: "Most modernist writers dismissed him, however, because he was popular and did not write within their narrow definition of literature. It is only recently that critics have begun to look beyond Stevenson's popularity and allow him a place in the Western canon." [The "narrow definition of literature" referred to is the dictum that legitimate "literature" must be set in the present time, confined to ordinary events, and treated with strict realism; anything else is "escapist," and escapism is BAAAAD.]

Any given work of literature can become popular --that is, earn the approval of a large number of serious ordinary readers over a span of time-- only if it's well-written, involving, accomplished in doing the things that literature essentially does, and dealing with themes and messages that resonate widely with human beings. The assumption by the modern critical establishment that serious ordinary readers are contemptible idiots whose opinions are worthless, and that therefore anything that's popular is to be dismissed as trash by All Right-Thinking People, reveals a world view, IMO, which is intellectually bankrupt, morally pernicious, and socially dysfunctional and dangerous because it's allied to, and feeds off of, an anti-democratic political and economic elitism that's equally dismissive of and hostile to ordinary people. (And our critical establishment in fact maintains its stranglehold on academia and Big Media by a parasitic relationship with the establishment financial interests that control both of the latter.)

Personally, I also have no use for the claim that historical fiction (and mysteries, and fantasy, supernatural and science fiction, etc.) can't be "literature." Just because a novel or story is set in a different environment than ours, or deals with a kind of event that most of us don't normally experience, doesn't mean that it has no ability to convey truths about the human condition that illuminate our everyday lives and the way we look at them.

What do some of the rest of you think? Is Stevenson's work here legitimate "literature?"

There are some people who use the word "literature" to describe boring, pretentious high- brow books-- and they couldn't be more wrong.
A book can be considered literature and tell a good story at the same time. The French writer Balzac comes to mind. His writing can be uneven, but he has unforgettable character and good stories.
That being said, The Black Arrow is definitely literature. Just as there are different genres in literature, there are different types of novels--adventure, fantasy, coming-of- age, historical and so on.
There are always some intellectual snobs who put down anything that is too popular. If a book is still being read and enjoyed more than 100 years after it was written obviously has merit.

Rosemarie wrote: "There are some people who use the word "literature" to describe boring, pretentious high- brow books-- and they couldn't be more wrong.
A book can be considered literature and tell a good story at..."

Well said, Rosemarie!

Werner, first of all thanks for the link to the wikipedia article. I have not looked at it yet, but I definitely will. I like reading about books I have read.

Second, my reaction to The Black Arrow so far. I find the humorous preface fascinating. I am assuming he is referring to his wife, who just could not get into this book of his. What did you think of that preface?

I do not mind the language, although many of the words are not even in a dictionary, but I do not feel much sympathy for the characters yet. I did not know it was going to be a Robin Hood type story. So far, feel like I understand the preface!!!

Thirdly, the question about literature. I think literature can be in any genre. For me, a great piece of literature is writing where I just feel that spark of genius in it. Writing that gives me a greater understanding of the human condition. So far, RLS book Kidnapped is literature whereas I don't feel that way about The Black Arrow. I guess literature for me is a book I can read over and over and I find new nuances in it. Literature for me is a book whose language is so beautiful that I feel like I am looking at a painting. What I am doing is defining literature by my own personal response to it.

Carol, to tell the truth, I didn't discover the preface until after I read your post above! The paperback Airmont Books edition (1963) that I'm reading has the preface, but doesn't include it in the table of contents; that starts with a short Introduction, so the preface is very easy to miss. But I hunted for it just now, and found it!

Yes, the Critic on the Hearth is RLS's beloved wife, Fanny. I could relate to his regard for her input (usually) in the creation of his books; during the long process of writing my only (so far) novel, my wife Barb was my beta reader and invaluable constructive critic, and my work too gained immeasurably by her contributions!

The "particular audience" for which the book was first written were teen readers (it was serialized in one of the younger readers' "story papers" of the day). Interestingly, he notes that these readers liked it better than his earlier Treasure Island; when the latter was first published in the story papers, most of that audience "thought less than nothing" of it. That verdict, he says, was reversed by the book-buying public when it was published in book form; so he wonders if the teen readers' more positive view of the later book will also be reversed? :-)

Kidnapped is written in the first person, unlike the third person narration here. So I think it's easier to feel a connection with David Balfour and get inside his head, so to speak, than it is in Dick Shelton's case.

Yes, I had not thought about it, yes, the difference first person does make!!! Thanks for pointing it out. With Kidnapped, I was so engrossed in the story that I looked up all the Scots words. But with The Black Arrow, I do not have that same interest. What does the exclamation "A murrain" mean in the context of the story? Thanks Carol

A murrain upon someone is a curse, it is an archaic word for plague.
It makes me think of Mercutio's curse in Romeo and Juliet: A plague on both your houses.
Regarding the discussion on literature, The Black Arrow would fit into the children's literature category, since there are many categories of literature. Also, the boundaries between literature and fiction are fluid and often change over time. For example, the works of Balzac, the French writer, are considered literature, but some of his books are not well written, others have the author making too many digressions, and others are very well written. They all have two things in common: good stories and interesting characters.

Being originally published in a "story paper" aimed at teenage boys, The Black Arrow could be thought of, at the time, as a YA book (though the Victorian book trade didn't have that concept). It certainly has teenage protagonists, and I encountered it for the first time in a junior high school library. So, Rosemarie, your designation of the book as children's literature has some justification.

I'd maintain, though (and a great many authors and serious readers have agreed). that good quality, well-written and intelligent "children's" literature can appeal to adult readers on the same grounds; the dividing line between the two groups is far from ironclad. This and other Stevenson books were marketed to both teens AND adults. (A number of modern YA books, too, command wide readerships in all age groups.)

I think that often children's books are of a higher quality of writing than some adult fiction, and I really enjoy reading them. I find that some of the topics they deal with, especially those concerning other cultures and time periods, are written about with skill, interest and understanding. There are, of course, trendy books, just as in adult fiction, but there are many works of lasting quality out there. Even though she is not British, I want to mention Lois Lowry. She has written a set of four speculative fiction books in The Giver sequence. The first book in the series, The Giver is a thought provoking work suitable for all ages. I highly recommend it, as well as the other three: Gathering Blue, Messenger and Son.

I have just finished reading The Black Arrow. It can be considered as only an adventure story until you get to the last chapters, when you discover there is more depth in this novel than first meets the eye.
The themes of loyalty, ambition, trust and learning that there are consequences for every action are developed in this book through the actions of the characters. We see the growth of Richard, we meet a future king of England, and we see the harshness of life in those times.
The description of the battles and the summary justice meted out to enemies seems violent because it is hand to hand, with swords,lances or arrows.
I wonder what Stevenson would have written about trench warfare in World War I?

Rosemarie, on your recommendation, I've added The Giver to my to-read shelf.

I expect to finish The Black Arrow today, and to write a review tonight. Whenever I review it, I'll post a link to the review here.

Hi everyone

To tell the truth, I do not like this book very much, and I would stop reading it if it weren't for being in this book club. For that I am grateful, because I stopped and went back to the beginning, and now it is starting to make more sense.( Just to let you know, the edition with illustrations by N.C. Wyeth makes the book much easier). I love RLS, and I want to read all of his books, so that is a motivation for me. The reason I almost quit is this: I was confused by all the names, and could not figure out who was who. I also do not like not knowing words, and so I now stop and look up the words, and it makes the book more meaningful. I found a photo of a "salet" on the internet. The word "tucket" was not in any of my online dictionaries, and I discovered a wonderful word website called Wordnik. It has almost every word imaginable. So, the frustration of this book led me to a great new resource. Quite frankly, I cannot imagine a young person being willing to read this. These are my thoughts for today. More later. Carol

Here's my review of this book, which I finished reading on Saturday: www.goodreads.com/review/show/17081455 . Maybe my take on it will spark some discussion (and if you're reading it with us, we'd love for you to share your review too, whenever you write one!).

For whatever it's worth, I first read this (and liked it) when I was 14, and I found it in a school library. Of course, I was a somewhat atypical young person in my reading tastes, which back then were pretty eclectic (I was known to read encyclopedias.at times, too --for leisure reading rather than for reference!) Here at the BC library, we have the book in our regular collection rather than the Juvenile section, but it's had 14 check-outs, going back to at least 1961. Not all of those were necessarily to students (two of them for sure weren't), and not all may have been for pleasure reading --but still, some of them may have been.

Here and in other books, I can often deduce the meaning of unfamiliar words from the contexts. (That's fortunate, since I usually read while doing my exercise on a stationary bike, which doesn't make it convenient to get off and consult a dictionary!) Outside of this book, for instance, I'd never heard of a "salet" or a "tucket," and have never looked them up; but I was able to tell that the former is a helmet, and that the latter is a horn, used in military contexts the way a bugle would be. The names here never confused me, for some reason.

N. C. Wyeth (1882-1945) was one of the greatest illustrators of books who ever lived. While I don't have that edition of this book, I've seen examples of his outstanding work in other books. (This library copy is a poor old Airmont paperback, which has definitely seen better days. It probably ought to be replaced with a hardcover; and in that case, I'll try to get the one with the Wyeth illustrations. (Thanks for that tip, Carol!)

I read your review, Werner, and it sums up the book nicely. I am glad you mentioned the main female characters because they both played a vital role in the book. I also enjoyed the lack of sentimentality in the novel. Arranged marriages were the norm for certain classes and both the young people knew what could happen if things went wrong.

Werner, I will wait until I finish the book to read your review and I look forward to it. I realize that I started reading the book too quickly, and now that I am re-reading the first few chapters, I see what I missed. Yes, indeed, the meaning of "tucket" is right there to be deduced because a phrase like "horns blowing" comes quite soon afterwards. However, I am a word lover. Like you, I was an unusual child, starting my own dictionary at age 12. I recently found this little book with my childish handwriting where I would write down all words unfamiliar to me and look up their meanings. I would read the dictionary for fun. So, even though I am now 60 years past that age, I really enjoyed finding out what a "salet" actually looks like.

I am enjoying the book much more now that I am taking my time. I was totally confused by what was going on with the two main characters, plus all the others.

I really like the humor. For example, when Dick says, "marriage, like death, comes to all".

By the way, I love N.C. Wyeth. I discovered who he was when I was visiting the museum in Santa Fe. If I recall correctly, it is run by one of his grandchildren. I knew his illustrations, of course, they are so familiar, but I did not know his story. It is fascinating.

Sorry this is so long. Carol

Rosemarie wrote: "I read your review, Werner, and it sums up the book nicely. I am glad you mentioned the main female characters because they both played a vital role in the book. I also enjoyed the lack of sentimen..."

Thanks, Rosemarie! Yes, the characters here view their world very realistically, as teens back then would. Stevenson is good at giving his characters a medieval, rather than a modern, perspective.

Carol, glad you're enjoying the book more now; and you never have to apologize for a long comment! (I'm sometimes the king of long comments myself. :-) ) Everything you shared was interesting and well worth reading; those are the kind of comments we like. And yes, that "Marriage, like death, comes to all" line was one of my all-time favorite quotes here. :-)

What I like about the book is the writing is fairly vivid. What I do not like about it is the difficulty of suspending disbelief. I find it really hard to believe an 18 year old boy does not realize he was traveling with a 16 year old girl when they are in close contact. He seems to notice her delicate hands and feminine voice, but still thinks she is a boy, a "milksop" boy. It is odd for me because usually I can suspend disbelief easily; (I love science fiction.) So, I don't know why this has happened to me with this book. Well, I love RLS, and I am glad to be reading this. Right now, I have a big family crisis so I am putting it aside.

Carol, best wishes for a good resolution to your family crisis (I'm no stranger to those myself!) We'll be thinking of you.

Interestingly, I didn't have much trouble believing that it could take Dick a while to pick up on "Jack's" real gender identity. Most people "see" what they expect to see, and what we expect is generally what we're told and have no known reason to question. And since it was a capital offense for women to wear male attire (and considered a very grave sin as well), the idea that a female might be disguised as a male wasn't something that would naturally leap to the mind of a male observer in that setting. (That just my thought, for whatever it's worth!)

A very good point. The medieval mindset was very different. And in Shakespeare the gender switch is always happening.

If any of you remember the sixties, you know how hard it was to tell the girls from the boys. When I was a substitute teacher there was a student called Jesse, or it could have been Jessie. I am almost certain it was a boy, but it could have been a girl. And we do tend not to pay as much attention to details in emotional or tense situations. Dick had a lot on his mind.