So, I've read another Robin Hood book. I'm rather fond of Robin Hood, and it's really interesting to look at all the different varieties of stories there are about him. I love how he, and other central characters, can be subtly or significantly recast, depending on the author, and how the incidents chosen and the era used to set the story in all alter the books to make many of them quite distinct.
This one, by Simon Green, is definitely one of the better versions I've read. I like the opening, with Robin in prison in the Holy Land, breaking out with the aid of a Saracen, only to return home and find his father executed for devil worship and his house burned down. I'm not entirely sure whether there was still much paganism in England at this point, but it does make a good addition to the story, and unlike in Angus MacDonald's 'Outlaw', Robin isn't involved in it at all.
All the characters you'd expect are there, from the evil Sheriff to Robin, Friar Tuck, Little John (in this one married and with children, which I don't recall seeing in the others, or at least, not as a major plot point), and with the addition of Azeem the Saracen who's vowed to remain by Robin's side until he can save his life and thus redeem himself of that debt. Azeem may be in one of the other versions I've read, but not as a major character like in this one.
It's a good read, there's plenty of action, stirring defences of liberty, and of course the romance between Robin Hood and Maid Marion, which isn't made a great deal of. Also, Maid Marion is nice and competent, which is always good :)
My only criticism is that it felt a bit short, and the ending almost read as if the author had been ordered to keep it under a certain word count, and had to rapidly cram in the last few bits of action in order to meet the target. Other than that, it was certainly an enjoyable version of the legend.
Showing posts with label Robin Hood. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Robin Hood. Show all posts
Friday, 16 September 2011
Sunday, 24 April 2011
Outlaw
I believe I've mentioned (several times...) before that I have a bit of a thing for Robin Hood. I actually intend at some point to write my own version set in a different era to usual (I think Robin Hood would make a good Digger :), and he could be loyal to the 'true king'). At any rate, that was why I finally decided that although the blurb wasn't hugely attractive (I'd rather read about Robin Hood the hero than Robin Hood the terrible bandit, the 'godfather of Sherwood forest') I'd give it a go.
I enjoyed it, but throughout there was a niggling sense that there was something just a little off. There was nothing really that I could put my finger on and say, no, this is definitely not right, this isn't how people would have acted, but it just didn't quite feel right. I think part of the problem was the pagan ceremony (unlikely in that period, as the author does acknowledge at the end), and the distaste for the church that seemed to be a common element of every outlaw apart from Tuck (although even he didn't seem hugely enamoured of it). I'm not saying the church was necessarily perfect, nor am I suggesting that everybody loved it wholeheartedly, but I don't think anti-clericalism was as prominent as what was suggested. Or perhaps more that where there was criticism of the people of the church, that it would be directed towards individual abusers of the power rather than the church in general.
I rather liked the ending, and the idea that Robin then went onto crusade (which is apparently the subject of a sequel). It's set in the reign of Henry II--Richard the Lionheart's father. I'd like to know more about the period. I think of the different versions I've read, there are two particular 'bits' that stand out to me. One is the idea of Robin as a rebel against the usurper John rather than Richard. The other is the tale of Robin's death, where he shoots an arrow and asks to be buried where it lands.
Oh, there was one bit that I wasn't convinced by. When the queen was referred to as reaching sixty, which was a huge age to live to, I wasn't sure whether that's entirely accurate. I don't know that we have a lot of information for the period, I do know that the previous conceptions of everyone dying young in the early modern period are somewhat flawed. Everyone either died very young or tended to live into their fifties/sixties. But I'm not an expert, so that might be quite accurate.
In short, it's not bad. But I think the perspective it takes makes it more of a teenage rather than an adult book (although there's some bad language and bits of quite graphic violence). Because it's from the perspective of a younger lad though, Alan Dale, who joins the band after having been a thief, and it basically charts his growing up against the background of Robin Hood, I would've put it as a teenage one. There's no reason why adults shouldn't read it (and technically, I'm both an adult and a teenager :) ), and I'd say that readers should probably be about 15 or so before I'd start recommending it (obviously that varies depending on an individual, but I wouldn't have a problem recommending it to my brother who's fifteen if I thought he'd actually read it).
I'll probably read the next one too, when I spot it. On the other hand, I won't be hunting about for it. It's a good book, I love Robin Hood (and he's interestingly enough portrayed in this version, though not in a great deal of depth I wouldn't say), and if you see it in a library it's probably worth your time to have a read.
I enjoyed it, but throughout there was a niggling sense that there was something just a little off. There was nothing really that I could put my finger on and say, no, this is definitely not right, this isn't how people would have acted, but it just didn't quite feel right. I think part of the problem was the pagan ceremony (unlikely in that period, as the author does acknowledge at the end), and the distaste for the church that seemed to be a common element of every outlaw apart from Tuck (although even he didn't seem hugely enamoured of it). I'm not saying the church was necessarily perfect, nor am I suggesting that everybody loved it wholeheartedly, but I don't think anti-clericalism was as prominent as what was suggested. Or perhaps more that where there was criticism of the people of the church, that it would be directed towards individual abusers of the power rather than the church in general.
I rather liked the ending, and the idea that Robin then went onto crusade (which is apparently the subject of a sequel). It's set in the reign of Henry II--Richard the Lionheart's father. I'd like to know more about the period. I think of the different versions I've read, there are two particular 'bits' that stand out to me. One is the idea of Robin as a rebel against the usurper John rather than Richard. The other is the tale of Robin's death, where he shoots an arrow and asks to be buried where it lands.
Oh, there was one bit that I wasn't convinced by. When the queen was referred to as reaching sixty, which was a huge age to live to, I wasn't sure whether that's entirely accurate. I don't know that we have a lot of information for the period, I do know that the previous conceptions of everyone dying young in the early modern period are somewhat flawed. Everyone either died very young or tended to live into their fifties/sixties. But I'm not an expert, so that might be quite accurate.
In short, it's not bad. But I think the perspective it takes makes it more of a teenage rather than an adult book (although there's some bad language and bits of quite graphic violence). Because it's from the perspective of a younger lad though, Alan Dale, who joins the band after having been a thief, and it basically charts his growing up against the background of Robin Hood, I would've put it as a teenage one. There's no reason why adults shouldn't read it (and technically, I'm both an adult and a teenager :) ), and I'd say that readers should probably be about 15 or so before I'd start recommending it (obviously that varies depending on an individual, but I wouldn't have a problem recommending it to my brother who's fifteen if I thought he'd actually read it).
I'll probably read the next one too, when I spot it. On the other hand, I won't be hunting about for it. It's a good book, I love Robin Hood (and he's interestingly enough portrayed in this version, though not in a great deal of depth I wouldn't say), and if you see it in a library it's probably worth your time to have a read.
Thursday, 13 January 2011
Robin Hood
I'm quite a fan of Robin Hood. I have three different varieties of the book (since the 'real' Robin Hood is in an epic poem--which I don't have--there are plenty of different versions of the story out there, some of them really rather different), and it's always been one of my favourite legends. So when I saw this in the library, I figured it was high time I watched the film version.
Was it any good? Well, I enjoyed it. But I was watching it with my brother (who gave up about 15/20 minutes in) and my mum (who gave up about half way through). So that's a one in three success rate. Most of it was really rather impressive. I liked the horses, I thought the acting was good, the plot seemed reasoanble enough although I spent quite some time trying to relate it to the book versions, until at the very end discovering that it takes place before pretty much anything in the books (depends which book you read as to whether Robin starts out as an outlaw or is made an outlaw in the first chapter or so). The reason for my confusion was simple: as far as I'm aware, Robin Hood is conventionally set whilst King Richard the Lionheart is still alive, but captured, hence the increasingly high burden of taxes upon the population to pay for the release of the true king, and Robin Hood is not really an outlaw, but rather fighting for the true king of England against his usurping brother. Instead, the film begins with the death of Richard and Robin and his men's return to England masquarading as knights, and the story instead revolves around the Magna Carter. Ish. It's historically somewhat dubious (although I confess my knowledge of the period is scanty).
Most of it, as I said, is good. The big battle at the end, however, made me laugh (for the wrong reasons...). Seriously. Somebody wanted to film Saving Private Ryan, exchanging bullets for arrows and chain mail for body armour and helmets... That part was painful, and somewhat undermined the credibility of the whole film. Landing craft? An all but identical sequence of shots to the opening of Saving Private Ryan? No thanks. The rest of the battle was actually pretty good--if only they hadn't done that stupid thing with the landing craft.
I won't be rushing out to buy a copy, and on the basis of the interest levels within my family, you probably won't be either (unless you're a major Robin Hood fan like me, in which case it is worth watching and I did enjoy it--some parts far more than others). However, if I happen to see it on TV I'll certainly watch it again, perhaps get it from a charity shop in a few years. There are some excellent bits, and for the most part the characters are well developed and believable--Robin Hood in particular.
Was it any good? Well, I enjoyed it. But I was watching it with my brother (who gave up about 15/20 minutes in) and my mum (who gave up about half way through). So that's a one in three success rate. Most of it was really rather impressive. I liked the horses, I thought the acting was good, the plot seemed reasoanble enough although I spent quite some time trying to relate it to the book versions, until at the very end discovering that it takes place before pretty much anything in the books (depends which book you read as to whether Robin starts out as an outlaw or is made an outlaw in the first chapter or so). The reason for my confusion was simple: as far as I'm aware, Robin Hood is conventionally set whilst King Richard the Lionheart is still alive, but captured, hence the increasingly high burden of taxes upon the population to pay for the release of the true king, and Robin Hood is not really an outlaw, but rather fighting for the true king of England against his usurping brother. Instead, the film begins with the death of Richard and Robin and his men's return to England masquarading as knights, and the story instead revolves around the Magna Carter. Ish. It's historically somewhat dubious (although I confess my knowledge of the period is scanty).
Most of it, as I said, is good. The big battle at the end, however, made me laugh (for the wrong reasons...). Seriously. Somebody wanted to film Saving Private Ryan, exchanging bullets for arrows and chain mail for body armour and helmets... That part was painful, and somewhat undermined the credibility of the whole film. Landing craft? An all but identical sequence of shots to the opening of Saving Private Ryan? No thanks. The rest of the battle was actually pretty good--if only they hadn't done that stupid thing with the landing craft.
I won't be rushing out to buy a copy, and on the basis of the interest levels within my family, you probably won't be either (unless you're a major Robin Hood fan like me, in which case it is worth watching and I did enjoy it--some parts far more than others). However, if I happen to see it on TV I'll certainly watch it again, perhaps get it from a charity shop in a few years. There are some excellent bits, and for the most part the characters are well developed and believable--Robin Hood in particular.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)