Subtitle: A Tale of Two Roses
My
History With This Book
This was
yet another Robert Louis Stevenson book that I tried to read as a child and
failed. I checked this book out of the
school library in 4th grade, and struggled through about the first fourth of
it. (For those of you who know this
book, I got as far as the part where Sir Daniel shows up disguised as a leper
in the middle of the forest.) And then
gave up on it.
Although
originally published as a boy’s adventure story back in 1888, like a lot of
Victorian Era children’s stories the prose style is now slightly antiquated,
and it’s no longer accessible for most of it’s target audience.
Added
to the problem of Victorian Era prose is the fact that this story takes place
during the War of the Roses, so Robert Louis Stevenson tries to imitate
medieval dialect in the speech of his characters.
Some
children, of course, are smarter than others, and I know several people who’ve
read through these classics with ease at a very young age. But that was never me. I was ambitious in my reading choices. (I wanted
to be able to read the classics). But I
struggled with this book, and eventually gave it up.
Why
I Returned to This Book
As an
adult, I now find Robert Louis Stevenson much easier than I did as a
child. And so, as regular readers of
this blog know, the past few months I’ve been going back and re-visiting the
popular works of Robert Louis Stevenson.
After reading Treasure Island, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, and Kidnapped and Catriona, I decided it was now time to return to The Black Arrow and finish what I had started back in 4th grade.
The
Review
I don’t
blame myself for struggling with this book in 4th grade. Even though the story was originally written
for 12 year olds, the style of it has aged enough that it’s a tough read for
today’s 12 year olds. So I wouldn’t
recommend this book to any child except perhaps those of exceptional
intelligence.
It’s
definitely readable enough as an adult though.
This
is often one of Robert Louis Stevenson’s overlooked books. It would be inaccurate to say this book has
been forgotten. It’s still being
published and read today, 150 years after it was written, which is saying
something. However, it has nowhere near
the contemporary fame of Treasure Island, Kidnapped,
or Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
I
suspect that this is in part because all of Stevenson’s more famous books have
plots which are very simple and memorable.
A boy fights pirates, a boy is kidnapped, a man has a psychotic chemically induced split personality…
Contrast
that with the very complicated and somewhat convoluted plot of The Black Arrow: Young Dick Shelton finds himself in the
middle of the War of the Roses.
He fights for his guardian Sir Daniel, but Sir Daniel is constantly
switching sides back and forth between the houses of York
and Lancaster.
Meanwhile a mysterious black arrow is taking vengeance on a select group of
people for mysterious crimes that happened long ago. Meanwhile the young Dick
begins to suspect that his father might have been killed by his guardian. Meanwhile Joanna is capture by Sir Daniel,
and escapes disguised as a boy, and her guardian Lord Foxham is trying to get
her back.
It’s
a story in which not all the plot threads are fully realized. (In the beginning much is made of the
mysterious death of Dick’s father, and the reasons that Ellis Duckworth has for
vengeance, but a full explanation of either of these is never given.) And sometimes one suspects that the author
himself didn’t quite know what to do with all the plot threads he had set in
motion.
The
story also does not follow the normal progression of introducing a conflict,
following the conflict to a climax, and then the resolution. Rather, the story shifts gears multiple
times, as characters change sides and form different alliances, new conflicts
are created, and new resolutions need to be sought.
This
is slightly jarring for those of us used to more traditional story telling.
But
at the same time, for those of us who like a bit of a complicated plot to keep
the story from being too predictable, the various twists and turns this story
takes can be all part of the fun.
Plus,
there’s some great classic adventure scenes, daring escapes from castles, and
intense fight scenes.
Notes
* Richard of Gloucester,
who would later one day become the infamous Richard III, plays a major part in
the last fourth of the novel.
In
order to fit the future Richard III into the story, Robert Louis Stevenson has
to take some liberties with the chronology, and pretend that Richard III was
actually older than he was at this point.
(Although I have to confess, I would never have caught this myself if
Robert Louis Stevenson hadn’t felt obliged to confess the anachronism in one of
the author’s footnotes: “Richard
Crookback would have been really far younger at this date.” (footnote to
part V chapter 1).)
Once
you accept this anachronism, however, everything else seems to fit quite
nicely. All the characteristics that
Shakespeare gave Richard III are here portrayed in his younger
self, foreshadowing his later destiny—at least according to the Tudor myth (W).
* According to Wikipedia (W),
Robert Louis Stevenson was self-critical of this book, writing to a friend:
The influenza has busted me a good deal; I have no spring, and am headachy. So, as my good Red Lion Counter begged me for another Butcher's Boy-I turned me to-what thinkest 'ou?-to Tushery, by the mass! Ay, friend, a whole tale of tushery. And every tusher tushes me so free, that may I be tushed if the whole thing is worth a tush. The Black Arrow: A Tale of Tunstall Forest is his name: tush! a poor thing!
I
think tushery refers to the stilted
medieval-esque dialogue. And yes, the
dialogue in this novel is perhaps not its strongest point.
The
story and the action, however, are alright, if you don’t mind following a
convoluted plot.
* This is one of those stories where a girl
disguises herself as a boy, which is a very common trope in story telling. (Perhaps especially in stories set in the
medieval period?)
In
most modern variations on this story, the girl is portrayed as every bit as
strong and brave as her male counterparts.
1888,
however, was before modern feminism, and the girl-disguised-as-a-boy character
is constantly portrayed as weak and helpless.
So be forewarned. The reader
should either be willing to just forgive this, or if not, than perhaps best to
just avoid this book altogether.
Link of the Day
No comments:
Post a Comment