The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

We get a bit of back story and meet several characters, including Richard Shelton, Sir Daniel Brackley, Old Appleyard, Bennet Hatch, Oliver Oates, and “Master John.”

What kind of person is Sir Daniel?

Who is “Master John” and what are some explanations for Master John's behavior?

Why do you think Dick Shelton did not tell Sir Daniel where Master John was going, and why did he help?

What kind of person is Dick Shelton?

Who were the foresters who ambushed Sir Daniel’s men? Why did they do it?

What did John Matcham’s farewell mean?

I was quite confused in this section and put off by the language, despite having read lots of historical fiction and classics. I also assumed that the first characters introduced would be the "good guys", but apparently, it's not that simple.

I more or less followed who the characters were (though struggled a bit between Selden and Shelton) but became quite lost in the woods, literally, even after looking up Tunstall on a map.

Dick seems awfully honor-obsessed for someone who was brought up by such a venal type as Sir Daniel. It makes little sense to me that he has never before questioned how he came to be Sir Daniel’s ward and how his father died. And what of a mother? Surely he has had plenty of opportunity to observe how Sir Daniel operates—basically as a mafioso, and with no loyalty to his betters—so it seems implausible that a person like Dick would be loyal to him. He’s basically a hostage, held so Sir Daniel can profit from his property.

That said, the sort of maneuvering and side-switching that Sir Daniel engages in seems to have been the norm during the Wars of the Roses. Very few lords at any level chose a side and stuck to it.

Speaking of Sir Daniel’s maneuverings, it seems odd that he should have such a minor estate and so few men at his command if he has been killing and scheming his way to power and profit for years. Duckworth seems to have more men than he does.

John Matcham is obviously Joan, the girl Sir Daniel intends to marry to Dick. Pretty dumb of Dick not to figure this out, especially after they wrestled together and slept in close proximity, not to mention that she’s trying to escape Sir Daniel by going to a nunnery (not a monastery).

I find all the gratuitous violence, toward horses and people alike, hard to take. So much of it seemed arbitrary. Dick runs off to save Sir Daniel’s men but then simply watches while they are slaughtered. The stabbing of the forester who tried to capture them. The fellow on the river island trying to kill him. I am reminded of the scene in L.A. Story when the characters realize it’s the first day of spring and everyone starts randomly shooting at one another.

Ellis Duckworth seems to have accumulated a very large number of followers, considering that he is a dispossessed householder (whether yeoman or gentry is unclear to me). Are they all victims of Sir Daniel’s and Sir Oliver’s schemes? And if he and his band are picking off Sir Daniel’s men as they return to Tunstall, why didn’t they ambush them when they were riding out to meet Sir Daniel? On so many levels the story doesn’t hang together logically.

The language is totally over the top. I have a higher tolerance than many readers of historical fiction for the use of “authentic” vocabulary, but this feels like a cheesy tourist version of medieval English.

Love the Wyeth illustrations, though.

Yeah, I got the idea that Dick is not the brightest bulb in the hallway. There are many things he's good at, but there's a lot that goes right over his head, such as Matcham's identity (didn't Daniel say, to him, that she was a "wench"?) and Sir Daniel's character. To be fair, he's 17, but, yeah...

So far I’m still trying to figure out who is who. It feels very melodramatic to me, and I’ve yet to enjoy the story. The language is a bit off putting

I guess this is a 19th century guess at what 15-century language sounded like. Ivanhoe is a bit like that.

I have read further and the story does pick up and becomes more linear and easier to read. Duckworth seems to be a Robin Hood figure, an outlaw with a band of followers.

i read the Prologue last night and it was all a muddle to me. Today, I looked up the book on Wikipedia and read a bit of the plot description and a character list.
It did help as I reread the Prologue this morning with the character list at my side and understood what was going on. The book is reading fairly smoothly now (at Chapter 3 in Book 1).

I normally avoid looking at character lists and any plot discussion on Wikipedia while reading a novel because even the character descriptions will have spoilers. But this time my need to understand who was who and what was going on trumped any incidental plot spoilers I might encounter. You need to understand the plot in order to have it spoiled.

This book was first published as a serial in "Young Folks; A Boys' and Girls' Paper of Instructive and Entertaining Literature."
I admit to being a bit troubled when I'm befuddled by something written as YA literature - even 19th century ones.

I am also astounded that young people could read this, but maybe it was the equivalent of fantasy/Dungeons and Dragons, etc. where there's a lot of specialized vocabulary and exotic settings. Of course, the young people who could read in the 19th century would have cut their teeth on things like the Bible, so archaic language might not put them off so much.

As Robin said, it does get a bit easier! I did have some trouble with the language throughout but could usually figure out what was going on. There were a lot of characters introduced right away, and I also had to review who was who.

I was actually brought up on books like this, and this one was my favorite as a child, reread many times. Can’t say how much of the language I actually understood when I was eight or nine, but apparently I could follow along with the plot more or less. (Ivanhoe was harder for me and I never really took to it.) I think I liked this story because it involved a girl dressing like a boy and having boyish adventures. I grew up with two big brothers and always felt left out.

I'm enjoying this so far-I do get the characters somewhat muddled but I'm just reading it from Dick's point of view and assuming everyone else will sort themselves out in my mind eventually. If not I might take Brian's suggestion and print myself out a character list.

I agree with Abigail-it wasn't clear to me why Dick has not questioned his loyalty to Sir Daniel, particularly as it seems fairly common knowledge that he was involved in the death of his (Dick's) father. However I suppose that he would have been raised to view Sir Daniel as a father figure and I get a sense that the two have an amicable relationship, and Dick doesn't seem to be one to question much or to pick up on subtleties.

When I initially started reading this, I was quite at sea regarding the characters that where introduced. I was wondering if children reading this would be able to figure out any of this? I also had to look up quite a few of the characters, then things started to make more sense. The language used did not help either. Now I am half through the first part, and things are getting more interesting and easier to follow. In the beginning I thought this is in now way a children’s book. Now I am starting to see why children might like this.

It definitely becomes more of an adventure once it is focused on Dick (and Joan/Jack)

When I started this I was wondering if Dick would be Lancaster (Red) or York (White). It appears that Sir Daniel is for Lancaster, at least at this time, and the Black Arrow is for York. However, it's interesting that so far it appears that which side someone chooses to support depends on local matters - such as who Sir Daniel supports - rather than rabid loyalty to either Henry VI or Richard III/Edward. They do say all politics is local.

As Abigail forewarned there is much carnage as the first part moves on, including "our hero" thrusting his knife several times into the heart of a Black Arrow member who, as Matcham points out while chastising Dick, had refrained from shooting an arrow through him. With the manner in which this action and Dick's attitude are portrayed, like Detlef, I now can see that the book is aimed at 12 to 15 year old males of the time.

Same as Brian :-D I read the Prologue, looked on Wikipedia, then back to the book. I found confusing that the same character is called with different names. Now it is getting better. Lori I liked "Dick is not the brightest bulb in the hallway", I must say I did not know this expression!

I have temporarily changed my profile photo to a Tudor rose in honour of this book. This is because I was born in Lancashire, my grandmother was Welsh and I married a ‘princess’ from Yorkshire.

Having Sir Daniel on my side does not bode well. I hesitate at this stage to call him a villain due to the complicated nature of allegiances but everything I have read so far reminds me of the ‘Sheriff of Nottingham’ from ‘Robin Hood’ (sly, manipulative and utterly ruthless.) Using leprosy as a disguise to save his own skin as well as recapture Jack Matcham is a good example of his cunning behaviour

I agree that Dick is overly naive when it comes to Jack, who has done everything but told him she is a woman, and a woman who loves him. Even the ferryman easily sees through her disguise. Dick comes across as a youth rich in honourable intentions but lacking both reasoning skills and compassion. Jack’s tears disgust him, it’s so unmanly!

Master John is my favourite character so far. Wouldn’t she be far too intelligent for Dick if she married him? Maybe I am jumping to conclusions too soon and they will be well matched but their rapport so far has been anything but harmonious. Jack’s understanding of the complex situation surrounding them all seems well in advance of any of the other characters and I was disappointed when Sir Daniel the leper grasped her once more. No doubt that action will turn out in her favour in the end, however.

My favourite part of this section was Dick and Jack in Tunstall Woods. It wasn’t the gratuitous violence, or even the chases, but the tension when Dick and Jack were hiding in the ruins of the burnt out mansion listening to the threats of the Robin Hood style merry men.

’ “Now I bethink me,” whispered Dick, “this must be Grimstone. It was a hold of one Simon Malmesbury; Sir Daniel was his bane! ’Twas Bennet Hatch that burned it, now five years agone. In sooth, ’twas pity, for it was a fair house.”

That phrase is still used by some Yorkshire folk today.

I am imagining that Jack Matcham will be transformed into a sort of Lady of Shalott figure (of course Dick won’t recognise her) and instead of cuddling in a ditch some sort of enormous gulf will separate her and her beloved Dick.

Joan is smarter than Dick but could work out fine. He is the brawn of the pair and she the brain.

I think Dick is simply very trusting, and takes everything at face value. If he's told Jack is a boy, he just accepts that. He takes his guardian at face value as well-he is starting to question his changing loyalties (in the early chapters) but hasn't quite brought himself to think ill of him.

I agree Frances. Dick may be intelligent enough but is naïve and lacking in "street smarts." It would be consistent with RLS's works to have Dick grow in knowledge and savvy during the story. I do think its interesting that RLS's story of this 'growth' in a lad may only let him catch up to the teenage girl. In balance, as Robin points out, RLS presents Dick as more 'brawny' and brave, but perhaps recklessly brave and savage at times.

Dick won’t believe the condemnations of the ‘The Black Arrow’ or the reasoning of Jack that his guardian is both malicious and the murderer of his father. He knows it was Sir Daniel who burnt down the manor and he has also learnt to be as ruthless as the man who brought him up in the way he murdered the woodsman. Dick’s attitude in sneering at Jack’s protestations after his brutal knife assault tells me that unless he mends his ways quickly he could become another Sir Daniel himself.

I hope that Brian is right about growing in knowledge because Dick, now given leadership responsibilities after the deaths of his colleagues, needs to step up quickly and acquire the mantle of a hero rather than that of a reckless, unperceptive youth.

That's a good point. Given the right circumstances, he could definitely go that way.

I wonder if Sir Daniel actually is the bad guy. I hope we will discover he is not!

It seems that Dick is pretty naive, but then again, at his age he is still very impressionable. He grew up among people that wanted to make sure he knows nothing about his father’s fate. And they want to exploit his estate as much as possible. So, he might not be the brightest, but his naivety is understandable. His violent behavior at times can be explained by his upbringing. It remains to be seen how this pans out. John/Joan knows more about these issues, she likely was exposed to an opposite point of view early on. I think the whole premise of the story is about this changing relationship, and Dick will likely finally see the light. That John tells him that he/she is not going to see him again might mean that John finally will appear as Joan. We will see…

The whole tone is a bit like an action movie or comic book, after the slower beginning. The mindless killing doesn't seem to bother anyone. Again, normal escapist fare for young men (or women, at least Joan/Jack is pretty feisty.)

I think the mindless killing was probably more common at the time so perhaps not a sign of inherent cruelty in Dick-and in fact his not striking Jack at one point and his remaining friends with him despite all their fighting suggests a good heart underneath.

I also wonder if Dick's "cluelessness" about Jack being a girl is RLS's way of allowing them to be friends/companions for this opening section-once Dick realized Jack was Joan, would he continue to behave the same way?

Yes, I totally agree about this being a way for them to become friends, and respect each other in a way they never could have done in normal society. I imagine there were girls reading this book who liked seeing Joan in this active role, even with her weaknesses. (But after all, she was supposed to have a bad foot while they were running, climbing, etc., and she complained very little.)

I had presumed this was written solely for young males but, as Lori noted, it was first published in a periodical called "Young Folks; A Boys' and Girls' Paper of Instructive and Entertaining Literature" so I presume RLS wrote this so to appeal to both sexes.

I think girls who were avid readers often read their brothers' books about adventure, history, etc. It's still true that girls are much more likely to read books featuring boys (or even having boys on the cover) than the other way around.

Robin P wrote: "I think girls who were avid readers often read their brothers' books about adventure, history, etc...."

Robin, that's true in my experience. In grammar school I read all the Hardy Boys, mainly borrowed from a girl with 4 brothers who had the complete set (their dad was a Doctor so could afford it). She would read them too while I didn't read Nancy Drew. If I had, I would have had to hide the book inside a Playboy to avoid peer ridicule.

Robin P wrote: "It's still true that girls are much more likely to read books featuring boys (or even having boys...than the other way around.."

In my grammar school experience, girls are just much more likely to read books.

Robin and Brian I agree, I read both Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew, but my brother read only Hardy Boys :-D

Frances wrote: "I think the mindless killing was probably more common at the time so perhaps not a sign of inherent cruelty in Dick-and in fact his not striking Jack at one point and his remaining friends with him..."

It is not so much the impulsive, mindless killing but more Dick’s sneering reaction to Jack/Joan’s condemnation of it, as if the woodsmans’s life is worth nothing. Isn’t the author making a comparison between the two when he describes their opposing sensibilities about the murder, or is he just emphasising the fact that one is a boy and the other a girl?

I don’t read any contemporary literature directed at our twenty first century teens, but I would imagine that when a large slice is devoted to such subjects as zombie horror and superheroes, quite a lot of mindless killing would take place in those best selling works.

I am thinking about the Harry Potter saga, the killing there was never mindless but perhaps it is an exception.

Daniela wrote: "I am thinking about the Harry Potter saga, the killing there was never mindless but perhaps it is an exception."

In Lucy Worsley’s Wars of the Roses documentary she reminds us that the Battle of Towton, fought in 1461, was the largest and bloodiest battle ever fought on English soil and the death toll was not surpassed in any single battle in either of the two world wars. The archaeology that remains reveals the ferocious nature of the battles and the way people died. It seems that there were not many large battles but continuous smaller outbreaks of fighting over a prolonged period.
Maybe Stevenson wanted to reflect the severity of the brutality that existed during that period of civil war.

I had no idea about that battle, thanks for the info!

I think that Dick was raised not to think, but to follow Sir Daniel's orders. He was probably kept too busy to think about the past.

But he is pretty clueless as to the fact that Jack is a girl.