I love Scott: I've read, if not quite all, at least the vast majority of his novels. My personal favourites are Waverley and Old Mortality, but I'd give at least a shout-out to Guy Mannering and The Bride of Lammermoor. Redgauntlet is good, but it is overshadowed by the inset short story "Wandering Willie's Tale", which is so magnificently done. I still go back to Ivanhoe, but I'm never quite sure in my own mind whether that might be simple nostalgia, because I read it repeatedly as a teenager: I don't think it has the subtlety of character and ethical complexity that one finds in his Scottish novels, although the plotting is wonderful.
But, that said, I've read a lot of appeals for the revival of Scott over the years, and he is still neglected - and I suspect I know why. Bluntly, Scott is TERRIBLE at beginning books: you have to wade through two or three chapters of historicizing paraphernalia in order to get into the story or even sometimes to be introduced to the characters. He isn't like Austen or Dickens, who grab you from the first sentence. So if anyone is tempted by articles like this to give him a try, I would imagine that nine times out of ten they are instantly deterred.
When they were published that didn't matter - the whole historicizing framework, the whole idea of recreating the past in that way, was so original and so exciting, and it was actually part of what carried the reader along. But after nearly two centuries of development in the historical novel it feels terribly ponderous.
‘Ivanhoe’ was Tony Blair’s book choice on Desert Island Discs. Said he read it at school, at Fettes, in Edinburgh and loved it.
oh nice
"I don’t think I quite believe any of this, but in some moods I do take it seriously…"
Oh this is me, about so many things....
I start to think it is me about everything
Adam Roberts, who is on Substack and is a terrific writer, has penned many a piece on Walter Scott. They’re not on Substack, but here’s an example:
https://medium.com/adams-notebook/walter-scott-a-legend-of-montrose-1819-44fdabd7ca83
Marvellous piece - of course. Scott name check especially welcome!
I’m hoping to read more of him this year!
Hi Henry.. is there a version of Ivanhoe you would recommend?
I love Scott: I've read, if not quite all, at least the vast majority of his novels. My personal favourites are Waverley and Old Mortality, but I'd give at least a shout-out to Guy Mannering and The Bride of Lammermoor. Redgauntlet is good, but it is overshadowed by the inset short story "Wandering Willie's Tale", which is so magnificently done. I still go back to Ivanhoe, but I'm never quite sure in my own mind whether that might be simple nostalgia, because I read it repeatedly as a teenager: I don't think it has the subtlety of character and ethical complexity that one finds in his Scottish novels, although the plotting is wonderful.
But, that said, I've read a lot of appeals for the revival of Scott over the years, and he is still neglected - and I suspect I know why. Bluntly, Scott is TERRIBLE at beginning books: you have to wade through two or three chapters of historicizing paraphernalia in order to get into the story or even sometimes to be introduced to the characters. He isn't like Austen or Dickens, who grab you from the first sentence. So if anyone is tempted by articles like this to give him a try, I would imagine that nine times out of ten they are instantly deterred.
When they were published that didn't matter - the whole historicizing framework, the whole idea of recreating the past in that way, was so original and so exciting, and it was actually part of what carried the reader along. But after nearly two centuries of development in the historical novel it feels terribly ponderous.
I read Oxford classics was good