The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

We've reached the end of our journey.

Who is Richard of Gloucester and what is Dick’s first impression of him? How does it change and why?

How did you like the book overall?

I found this sentence, in Chapter VI, very telling: "But in these young folk, bred among the alarms of war, and fresh from such a multiplicity of dangers, neither fear nor pity could be lightly wakened."

I mentioned in the "background" that R.L. Stevenson set the novel in 1460 and 1461, with inspiration taken from real events, but there is a major incongruity. Did you find it? (I will post the answer in the second post.)

From Wikipedia, here is the answer to the last question:

It is because Richard Crookback (later Richard III of England) is presented as an adult active in the Wars of the Roses in January 1461 that Stevenson provides the footnote: "At the date of this story, Richard Crookback could not have been created Duke of Gloucester; but for clearness, with the reader's leave, he shall so be called." Richard was born in 1452, so he would have been merely 8 years old at the time of this story. A later footnote emphasises this again: "Richard Crookback would have been really far younger at this date [i.e. January, 1461]." Stevenson follows William Shakespeare in retrojecting Richard of Gloucester into an earlier period of the Wars of the Roses and portraying him as a dour hunchback—Stevenson: "the formidable hunchback." (See Henry VI, part 2; Henry VI, part 3; and Richard III.) This characterisation closely follows the Tudor myth, a tradition that overly vilified Richard of Gloucester and cast the entire English Fifteenth century as a bloody, barbaric chaos in contrast to the Tudor era of law and order.

A thought: Given the bad reputation that the Tudors and Shakespeare gave to Richard of Gloucester I am driven to wonder how future historians and bards will portray today's English Royal family? What will be made of Prince Charles' affaiir with Camilla and Prince Andrew's association with a paedophile etc etc and will those tales undo the so far unsullied reputatation of the second Queen Elizabeth?

Great points, Madge!

The Daughter of Time by Josephine Tey deals with the myth of Richard III. The detective inspector is laid up in the hospital, and having time on his hands, decides to find out what Richard was really like.
It's an enjoyable read.

Another book focused on the life of Richard III is The Sunne in Splendour by Sharon Kay Penman.

This story certainly buys into the myth of Richard III as wicked and vicious, colored as Lori says by Tudor propaganda. After making my way through this sanguinary tale, I would say nobody was innocent and all were guilty in the Wars of the Roses; taking sides was an arbitrary activity, conferring no virtue on the chooser. It would seem that Stevenson was ultimately of the same mind, considering Dick’s belated penance and mercy toward his enemy. But I can’t help feeling that the author wanted to have his cake and eat it too: he comes to peace-loving only after reveling in all the “fun” of indiscriminate mayhem. The violence and “adventure” are far more the point of the story than the moral lesson—as if mere words of apology and a promise of penance, soon forgotten, would undo all the harm that was done.

Another thought: One of the things many authors don't take into consideration when writing about Tudor times is religion and the great emotional divide which arose in society and in families when catholicism was challenged by Luther and others, - by 'protestant'-ism. This was like the left-right divide in our societies today which tears countries and families apart but then, when everyone believed in God, Heaven and Hell, dissent could literally be fatal and it must have affected the behaviour of everyone from cradle to grave. (Penance also meant something in those times because people literally believed in the power of God to forgive or the Devil to damn.)

I did appreciate that Dick came, very belatedly, to regret all of his violence, but more surprisingly to reflect on how his rash acts had such devastating consequences on others. I was particularly struck by the passage (coming after the victory in Shoreby)

The streets were strewn with the dead and the wounded, whose fate, in the bitter post, was far the more pitiable. Gangs of the victors went from house to house, pillaging and stabbing, and sometimes singing together as they went.
From different quarters, as he rode on, the sounds of violence and outrage came to young Shelton's ears; now the blows of the sledgehammer on some barricaded door, and now the miserable shrieks of women.
Dick's heart had just been awakened. He had just seen the cruel consequences of his own behaviour; and the thought of the sum of misery that was now acting in the whole of Shoreby filled him with despair.

in which we are really shown the true misery and cruelty of war and its aftermath, and Dick is certainly awakened to and sickened by what he was so recently quite happy to be involved in. I had not expected this turnaround from the author, and I am left with a somewhat better opinion of the novel than I had throughout the earlier sections.

That passage struck me too; but the focus so quickly turned back to Joanna (granted, she was in immediate peril this time) and yet more lives being squandered in her pursuit. The penitence seemed in the end more of a passing feeling than something that changed his behavior. He was happy enough just to settle down with her in obscurity; I would have liked to see him turn to reparations.

Abigail wrote: "That passage struck me too; …… The penitence seemed in the end more of a passing feeling than something that changed his behavior. He was happy enough just to settle down with her in obscurity; I would have liked to see him turn to reparations.

The ending, particularly for Dick and Jane was not what I expected. I enjoyed being surprised by the ending but still felt let down thinking of the loved up couple living in a wooden shack growing potatoes. Dick once more reminisced fondly when he saw Joanna in the forest camp dressed as Jack Matcham. Maybe he will encourage her to continue to wear such outfits in their woodland idyll. After all he couldn’t cope at all with Alicia and her womanly wiles.

The bodies had to pile as high as the houses in Shoreby before Dick finally realised how rotten he had become. It took the comic, yet sharply perceptive Alicia to shake him out of his murderously catatonic state and realise that he was a rebel without a cause, fighting for both sides and not really knowing why.

As RLS said, Dick was simple minded so didn’t have the gumption to realise that he might be able to right some of his wrongs by using his skills in acts of kindliness and contrition. However his skills seemed to boil down to killing people. At least he didn’t seek profit from his elevation to knighthood and he did offer to reject Joanna and become a monk like Lawless. Also, RLS takes a moral stance about Dick’s wrongdoings during his reunion with the captain who’s ship he stole.

Dick was seized with unavailing penitence and pity; he sought to take the skipper’s hand, but Arblaster avoided his touch. “Nay,” said he, “let be. Y’ have played the devil with me, and let that content you.” The words died in Richard’s throat. He saw, through tears, the poor old man, bemused with liquor and sorrow, go shambling away, with bowed head, across the snow, and the unnoticed dog whimpering at his heels; and for the first time began to understand the desperate game that we play in life, and how a thing once done is not to be changed or remedied by any penitence.

Richard III’s reputation stands or falls on the evidence of history and Lucy Worsley’s documentary showed quite clearly how historians will readily print lies depending upon who is paying them. I am not sure why he and not a lesser Yorkist figure appears in this story, except to emphasise the fact that both sides in the Wars of the Roses had leaders who were ruthless and tyrannical. The episode of the archer following Dick to stick an arrow in his back if he put a foot wrong just summed up the duplicity that permeated the whole story. One of the saddest moments for me was when The Duke of Gloucester sent a Page to ‘Sir Richard’ with a suit of armour.

Dick, with a glow at his heart at being so addressed, got to his feet and, with the assistance of the page, donned the defensive coat. Even as he did so, two arrows rattled harmlessly upon the plates, and a third struck down the page, mortally wounded, at his feet.

Overall I have mixed feelings about the story. Dick and Joanna were united, but at such a cost to human life and suffering. Their life in the forest might be tranquil and serene but all around them the carnage would have continued. There would still be still plenty of time for their children to grow up and become caught up in the Wars of the Roses, maybe on opposing sides.

I wonder whether Dick was ever able to reclaim his estate after Sir Daniel’s death.

The scene where the page was killed really shook me. Did that really need to happen?

Trev wrote: "Dick, with a glow at his heart at being so addressed, got to his feet and, with the assistance of the page, donned the defensive coat. Even as he did so, two arrows rattled harmlessly upon the plates, and a third struck down the page, mortally wounded, at his feet.."

Rosemarie wrote: "The scene where the page was killed really shook me. Did that really need to happen?"

As Trev and Rosemarie point out, that simple passage says a lot - the page's death symbolized the book's atmosphere to me. I realize there is killing in wars, but in this one life was so cheap, the killing so easy that the deaths of the subservient, like the page, were insignificant, less meaningful than the death of a pet dog. The apparent about face to grant Dick a halo of morality at the end doesn't overcome the fact that the vast majority of the book operated in an atmosphere where brutal killing was easy, routine and glorified.
This is a YA adventure tale that is not a book I would expect the Great Books Foundation would include in their Junior Great Books Program. A 2 star book - the illustrations do rate an extra star. Actually, reading the book also has historical value as to the state of YA literature in RLS's time.

Which reminds me that the movie stills that Trev posted indicated that, at least for movie making purposes, fashion was the same in 12th Century England (Robin Hood) as in 15th century England (Black Arrow)

I have to agree with Brian, Dick has a change of heart, to a certain degree, but it’s too little too late. This whole book glorifies senseless killing, and that Dick has some doubts now in no way indicates what he is going to do later in life. It’s supposedly a portrait of the time, but in a way it’s also a portrayal of the beliefs permeating the British Empire, some even to this day. Looking down at someone below your “class” and believing that being a part of the upper class excuses almost anything. Dick feels sorry for his behavior, but why did he do all these horrendous deeds to begin with? Is he going to fight the righteous war after all, I doubt it. I am disappointed by this book, sorry to say.

I finished the book and, apart from all the things we have said about the multiple killings, I liked it, but I will give it three stars, no more.
I have not watched all the Italian series episodes yet, but I think that the end is a little different, especially about Sir Daniel's destiny, I will let you know (and perhaps if it is softer, I will like it better).
I found the end of the story a little abrupt, didn't you? Perhaps it was because my Kindle said 97% (the last pages were advertisements).
I too lament the page's killing, poor boy. Perhaps in the end Dick is truly regretful and changed (I highlighted the same passage as Frances's). He will live his life with Joanna and for all we know without causing more deaths. I would have liked to know more about the rest of his life, perhaps he did something to atone.
Also I think that the character of Joanna is not well developed in the last part.

I also gave it three stars.
One thing I found strange at the ending is that Alicia was so ready to marry a Yorkist just after she was denouncing the Yorkist faction to Dick for probably killing her father. And she was standing right next to the man who probably killed him, though she may not have known that.

Daniela wrote: "I finished the book and, apart from all the things we have said about the multiple killings, I liked it, but I will give it three stars, no more.
I have not watched all the Italian series episodes..

Also I think that the character of Joanna is not well developed in the last part.."

I will watch the 1948 film just to see what sort of ending they gave it as RLS’s ending is not typical of a swashbuckling adventure like this.

I was going to write a paragraph about Joanna in my first post, but thought I had written enough. I agree with Daniela that Joanna was somewhat overlooked in the last part. Indeed it was Alicia who came to the fore in helping Dick to see how his senseless killings were not helping anybody. She also showed how hopelessly unperceptive he was when it came to intelligent argument. I agree with Lori that Alicia deserved better than to be ‘given’ to a Yorkist nobleman as a substitute for Joanna. Both Alicia and Joanna were treated badly in the end.

Joanna’s intelligence, fortitude and obvious wisdom would be wasted scrummaging about a forest for forty years. Why should she just live in ‘exile’ with Dick, she has done nothing wrong? My wish is that she would once more don the alias of Jack Matcham, leave Dick at home with the children, and set out as an undercover agent, righting wrongs wherever she found them.