Recent reading

[luzula]

Waverley by Walter Scott (1814, audiobook read by David Rintoul)
I was a little frustrated by this book, and if I had not been able to listen to it while doing household work etcetera, I probably would not have finished it, but I persisted out of historical interest. I found the narration to be a little distancing, so that I never really got attached to the characters. The audio book reader strengthens this impression with his often ironic tone. The irony is absolutely warranted at times, and funny! But I guess I just prefer a less distanced tone on the whole.

Part of my frustration was that the main character was often carried along by events without much agency: Edward Waverley doesn't choose to leave the government army, but loses his commission when he is away without leave for too long; he doesn't choose to join the Jacobite army, but is kidnapped on his way south and brought to Edinburgh, where he can't say no to BPC; he doesn't choose to leave the Jacobite army, but is separated from the others during the skirmish at Clifton and then finds it difficult to rejoin them again and doesn't try. Arrgh, make your own damn choices!

Also, Edward Waverley takes his job less seriously even than Laurent de Courtomer, and for less reason: instead of ignoring his duty in favor of nursing his almost mortally wounded crush, as Laurent does, he just sort of loiters around visiting people in the Lowlands and then in the Highlands, until long after his furlough runs out and he is fired for being AWOL (I mean, yes, there is the bit where the warning letters from his colonel are stolen, but I don't think it's too much to ask for him to keep track of the days anyway). Keith Windham would not approve.

It's interesting to see how the Highlands are portrayed. I'm getting the impression that Scott is describing a somewhat earlier version of the Highlands than 1745, but I can't pin this down absolutely. For example, I don't think it was the case in 1745 that both Lowland nobles and Highland chiefs considered it a normal and expected thing for the Lowlanders to pay protection money to the chiefs against cattle theft? Fergus McIvor is an interesting character though, and certainly a more realistic Highland chief than Ewen Cameron, who is more romanticized. There's also some good characterization of BPC, who seizes on Waverley and makes much of him as supposed proof that the English Jacobites are going to come out. He absolutely would have done that.

1814 was evidently too early in time to write about actual families who were involved in the war, so that all three families, the English, the Lowlands and the Highlands one, are made up. As regshoe says in her review of the book, Keith and Ewen are really extremely different from Edward and Fergus, though I suppose one can see some things in FotH that might be references to Waverley, like what happens to Fergus in Carlisle.

Comments

[ysilme]

Thank you for this, that's very helpful.

[luzula]

Glad you appreciated! : )

[regshoe]

I agree about Edward Waverley's passivity (clearly the fault of all that unwise reading in childhood :P ). Scott has a tendency to treat his protagonists more as the means of showing the reader the far more interesting characters and events surrounding them than as characters in their own right—I found that less annoying in Waverley than in some of his other books, partly because the historical drama is just so exciting, but it's definitely still there.

Edward Waverley takes his job less seriously even than Laurent de Courtomer

XD

Scott is definitely interested in showing the Highlands as a more primitive past society since swept away—perhaps, though progress is ultimately a good thing, regrettably—by the march of history ('Tis Sixty Years Since, and look how far we've come...!). I remember thinking that some of the descriptions of Fergus's house sounded a good deal less modern than Ardroy. Apparently Scott based Fergus on his friend Alexander MacDonnell of Glengarry, the great-nephew of Pickle the spy! (and a major perpetrator of clearances, so not all that archaic...)

Did you see the link oursin posted recently about Jane and Anna Maria Porter, slightly earlier historical novelists from whom Scott apparently took quite a lot of inspiration without giving them credit? The specifics of Waverley don't seem to have come straight from them—the only Jacobite novel I can find from either of them was published later—but it's interesting context for the 'development of the historical novel' thing.

[luzula]

Scott has a tendency to treat his protagonists more as the means of showing the reader the far more interesting characters and events surrounding them than as characters in their own right
I did notice that, yes! After the first bit introducing the main character, we get a long map exploration part, where Edward visits in the lowlands and then in the Highlands.

Apparently Scott based Fergus on his friend Alexander MacDonnell of Glengarry, the great-nephew of Pickle the spy!
Oh really, were they friends? Yeah, I've read a little about him, and most of what I've read wasn't very flattering. I remember the sign we saw on our trip, about the Caledonian canal, and that he was a bother for the builders…

Yes, I did see oursin's link, and found the article fascinating! Have you read any of their works?

[regshoe]

Yes! Andrew Lang suggests in his book that Scott may actually have known who Pickle was, but refrained from saying anything publicly for the sake of his friend:

A friend of Sir Walter's, a man very ready with the pistol, the last, as was commonly said, of the Highland chiefs, was of the name and blood of Pickle, and would have taken up Pickle's feud. Sir Walter was not to be moved by pistols, but not even for the sake of a good story would he hurt the sensibilities of a friend, or tarnish the justly celebrated loyalty of the Highlands.

I have not read any of the Porters' books yet, but I definitely intend to try the one about Jacobites at least (The Pastor's Fireside by Jane Porter). There's also one about much earlier Highland history, The Scottish Chiefs, which I may read if I like that one!

[nnozomi]

1814 was evidently too early in time to write about actual families who were involved in the war, so that all three families, the English, the Lowlands and the Highlands one, are made up.
Oh, this point is really interesting. Settings long enough ago that no one now remembers them or had family living then get consigned to "historical novels," but of course if Scott was writing in 1814 it would have been like WWI for us now... . Completely obvious, of course, but an interesting thought for me. (sorry, not very coherent yet this morning)

[luzula]

Yes! And he did publish the novel anonymously first, so maybe he was worried about people's reactions, even though he made up the main characters.