The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

We are almost there!

Dick and his companion dress as monks to infiltrate Sir Daniel’s domain, and Dick kills a spy amidst some casual racism on Lawless's part. Ellis Duckworth shoots the bridegroom, and Dick gains an unexpected ally.

What was Dick’s plan for stopping the wedding?

Why was Lord Risingham angry about Sir Daniel’s letter?

What do you think will happen next?

Dick continues to muddle his way along, casually killing those who get in his way. I begin to understand the mind-set of a terrorist, if those born into dominant status lead their lives along such lines! His plan to stop the wedding? To call upon more of those dispensable outlaws to lay down their lives for the sake of his romance. And if he gets caught? Summon up the aristocratic code of honor to escape the consequences, as he did with Lord Foxham and does again in this section with Lord Risingham.

This story is a textbook of the mechanisms of privilege. I’m sorry to rant but am becoming quite outraged that innocent youth are fed these myths when they are too young to consider them critically. That I was fed these myths as an impressionable child and lapped them up with a spoon.

The scene with Lord Risingham is a good example. The earl wants to execute Dick at first because Sir Daniel is “cadre.” So Dick shows him that Sir Daniel is a rat (or was a rat six months earlier, when the letter was written); suddenly Dick is cadre, even though he’s on the opposite side politically, because Sir Daniel has not behaved like a gentleman (and Dick supposedly has, even though he’s just being his usual dumb self). Lord Risingham falls back on wanting to kill Lawless, but he can’t because Dick invokes the code of honor: Lawless has helped me so I owe him, and you promised to grant me a boon.

Anyone these days who’s thinking autocracy is appealing—just stop thinking and follow a self-confident leader—read this and think again.

Abigail wrote: "This story is a textbook of the mechanisms of privilege. I’m sorry to rant but am becoming quite outraged that innocent youth are fed these myths when they are too young to consider them critically."

Yes, this is true. A lot of books practically deify royalty and nobility and allow them to get away with anything because the lower classes are expendable.

I too am upset about the high body count in this one. Dick is so callous and unthinking, and not terribly bright either.

This is a much weaker book than Kidnapped.

I just could not stop shaking my head about all this stupidity of Dick. He believes that his privileged station in life gives him free rein to do whatever strikes his fancy. And all these changing allegiances. Class consciousness is a big issue in Britain, up to this day. Here it’s done to an extreme. Like Abigail I am also incensed by the fact that this was considered a suitable read for impressionable children.
I guess Dick will muddle through and in the end get his lady. But at what cost!

Abigail wrote: "Dick continues to muddle his way along, casually killing those who get in his way. I begin to understand the mind-set of a terrorist, if those born into dominant status lead their lives along such ..."

I have just finished reading the last novel of John le Carré (which was Agent Running in the Field) with my local library book club. In terms of political allegiances I couldn’t help noticing many similarities between that book and the one we are reading here. Sadly, I don’t think that much has changed in the corridors of power, even in the western world.

Richard Shelton may be no more than a youth but he has been given powers without the ability to manage them. He continues to endanger all those around him. The fact that those loyal to him are willing to give up their lives for him does not really register in Dick’s emotions. In fact he is almost callous in the way he dismisses their contribution to his welfare.

Dick emptied his purse among them, leaving himself nothing; thanked them for the courage they had displayed, though he could have found it more readily in his heart to rate them for poltroonery;(cowardice) and having thus somewhat softened the effect of his prolonged misfortune, despatched them to find their way, either severally or in pairs, to Shoreby and the “Goat and Bagpipes.”

He seems to value Lawless above all the rest, even if he is a thieving, drunken ex-monk who would rob Dick for his next bottle of whisky if necessary. The magic pencil disguises made me laugh and it was amazing how such a disguise fooled the whole of Sir Daniel’s entourage, except, maybe, Joanna’s maid.

The subsequent reunion with Joanna seemed less romantic on this occasion and this time she didn’t tell him off for yet another mindless killing. Maybe Joanna was too concerned with her rapidly approaching marriage to the bald-headed (RLS’s emphasis) Lord Shoreby. Dick’s muddled plans to rescue Joanna were interrupted by the arrival of Ellis Duckworth practising his archery skills, using Shoreby’s shining pate as a target. Sly, cowardly Sir Oliver, hiding behind his respectable religious piety, reprises his double agent role again despite his confession. He seems to be the type that that all the arrows miss whichever side he is on. Maybe he and Sir Daniel will finally get their comeuppance in the next section.

I hope we get much more of Joanna in the next section as I have had quite enough of Dick and his wayward antics. Joanna has plighted her troth and somehow she must escape Sir Daniel’s clutches. But as I said in week one, I think Joanna could do so much better and will probably soon grow restless if she has to put up with Dick’s stupidity for the rest of her life. However, Dick cannot be destined for such a long life if he continues to act in the way he has so far.

P.S. Joanna fondly remembers herself as Jack Matcham. How much better it would have been if Jack and Dick had swapped disguises at that stage and bold Joanna had led the outlaws instead of dumb Dick. Dick might have made a good Joanna if he had kept his mouth shut.

Trev wrote: "How much better it would have been if Jack and Dick had swapped disguises at that stage and bold Joanna had led the outlaws instead of dumb Jack. Dick might have made a good Joanna if he had kept his mouth shut."

Good point!

Did you enjoy the Le Carre book?

Lori wrote: "Did you enjoy the Le Carre book?"

Our library book group have just finished a zoom meeting discussing ‘Agent Running in the Field.’ The general concensus was that it was not as good as many of the others he has written but those who like the author enjoyed being drawn into the plot and for most of them the ending was unexpected. I don’t usually read this type of book and probably wouldn’t choose another one, but our book group deliberately chooses from a wide variety of types and historical periods. There was a strong political agenda in the book, involving machinations between the Americans, the Russians and the Europeans. So the enjoyment of the book could depend upon the readers’ own political views.

Did Dick have a plan for stopping the wedding? WAs he just going to watch and hope for something? It isn't clear to me why he didn't just try to steal Joanna out of the house-he was able to sneak in with little obstruction, couldn't he have brought her a monk's robe and have her walk out with him-prior to killing the little spy of course.

This novel seems a bit of a muddle, apart from all the casual killing and general treachery. Agree that Dick seems to worsen as we get to know him better!

Frances wrote: "Did Dick have a plan for stopping the wedding? WAs he just going to watch and hope for something?"

That's what I was wondering. I was hoping someone had noticed something I hadn't. Poor guy really wasn't ready for this.

Why was Lord Risingham angry about Sir Daniel’s letter? This is not really clear to me, why he decided so suddenly to free him. In the end, Dick did kill the spy: "soon the spy lay prostrate under his knee, and, with a single stroke of the long poniard, ceased to breathe". Ugh. He was harmless, Dick could have tied and gagged him, there was no need to kill him. And he goes free and innocent! This is really too much for our modern sensibility. Also, the bald and gouty Lord Sheldon was killed only because he was trying to marry a young girl (or perhaps he was a killer and a scoundrel anyway and I missed something), did he deserve to die?
Apart from this, I am curious to see what will happen next.

I think Dick’s “plan” was to slip out of the house and summon the outlaws to risk their lives again to steal Joanna away; but when he encountered Sir Oliver he knew he would be recognized and couldn’t get away. But of course they could have dressed Joanna in boy’s clothes again and tried to get out that way. (It’s odd that the house is easier to get into than out of—you’d think it would be the other way around.) And drag the body of the spy out of the corridor and into a private room already, so it would take longer for the body to be found! Honestly, what kind of stupid criminal is Dick?

Lord Risingham was angry about Sir Daniel’s letter because it showed that Sir Daniel wasn’t really loyal to him, he was trying all the while to cozy up to the other side. He was grateful to Dick for showing him that he couldn’t trust Sir Daniel—but grateful enough to set Dick and Lawless free, even though they’re playing for the other team? (“At least they’re open about it” seemed to be the rationale.) None of the plot stands up to scrutiny.

Good point, Daniela, about the killing of Lord Shelton—more gratuitous violence. And why would Ellis kill him when he was pursuing a vendetta against Sir Daniel et al.? Was it simply that Lord Shelton alive was a threat to Dick’s happiness? And I’m not sure Ellis was in a position to know that. Or perhaps he was just randomly shooting arrows at a crowd because he hoped to kill Sir Daniel. Gawd only knows.

Abigail wrote: "I think Dick’s “plan” was to slip out of the house and summon the outlaws to risk their lives again to steal Joanna away; but when he encountered Sir Oliver he knew he would be recognized and could..."

In the characters list from Wikipedia it describes Lord Shoreby as a ‘Local Lancastrian magnate killed by Ellis Duckworth to prevent his marriage to Joanna Sedley’ so I suppose the fact that he was a Lancastrian on the other side made him fair game for murder.
Like Frances, I thought that Dick would try to smuggle Joanna out before she got to the abbey, using a disguise, especially when his disguise so easily fooled all his enemies. The guards seemed clueless.

Ellis Duckworth’s intervention meant that Joanna didn’t get the chance to throw everything into confusion at the altar. When asked ‘Do you take this man……….’ She could have replied - ‘ No, he’s not my type….I’m not attracted to follicly challenged, swollen footed geriatrics. I have plighted my troth to another.’ During the resulting bewilderment and disorder , Dick could then have produced his poniard, skilfully murdered every Lancastrian in the church and carried off Joanna into the sunset.

LOL Trev!

:)))))

That would be the Game of Thrones version!