Blogging Rob Roy chapters 5 and 6
One thing Scott and Austen have in common is their love of creating a Shakespearean array of characters. You raise an issue—in the case of this book a society based on values of credit versus one based on shame and honour—and then you people your drama with people who stand at various points of the spectrum between these two ends.
A sometimes essential element in the Shakespearean version is the transgressive feminine heroine. This the fast-talking, wise-cracking woman who cannot be held within traditional feminine bounds and who is smarter than everyone, including the man who will fall in love with her. She can be serious like Portia and like Elinor in Austen. Or she can be playful like Beatrice whose correspondent in Austen is Elizabeth Bennett. Here in Rob Roy we get Die Vernon.
But lets do some foundation work on the spectrum of values first. Our spectrum runs from credit values or shame-honour values.
A credit society is a variation on a guilt-innocence society. Although we might not think so at first glance, it is a more nuanced version of guilt-innocence. Like a guilt-innocence society, you can be either guilty or innocent but you can also have a kind of honour for your reputation as a person who always pays your debts will earn you credit even if you don't have the money to pay your debt right now. Read even a cursory biography of Sir Walter and you will see how important this last notion was to him.
We might keep in the back of our minds the possibility of redemption for the Christain notion of Forgive us our debts as we forgive those who have debts against us."
Okay, where do the other characters sit on the spectrum? I'll be honest. I'm not entirely sure for some. We can be certain that Owen is far on the credit end for he reduces the Golden Rule to a mathematical equation. We know that Frank ends up on the credit end and that he started off on the shame-honour end. But Frank is not always a reliable narrator, and Sir Walter has made him so intentionally. That brings us to his father and that is a tricky issue.
As a loving son and especially as a son who crossed his father and feels shame about this, Frank is very much determined that we should see his father as a well-balanced man.
Now enter Diana Vernon. That name Diana is not an accident. We meet her on a fox hunt, she is at home in the woods and we will see that she is the embodiment of chastity (although I think Scott raises some doubts on that last matter for those willing to see).
How to get at her character? Here is the question if you ask me: Why are a Shakespeare influenced heroines like Die Vernon not feminist characters? They are strong, independent, not bound by traditional female roles or values and are moral leaders not followers. At first glance, you might think those impeccable feminist credentials but they aren't. Why not?
Well the sheer moral and emotional strength is part of the problem. One of the apparent paradoxes of feminist literature then and now is that it tends to focus on characters who struggle and are overcome by the society around them. When a feminist novel features an unbridled romantic heroine you can sure her end will be tragic or spectacularly dishonest like the end of Thelma and Louise where suicide is presented as some sort of victory.
Diana Vernon is an unbridled romantic whose life is over-brimming with possibilities for tragedy but she is not like that. A big part of the difference is that feminism is always and everywhere a political movement. Even an impractical selfish jerk like Mary Wollstonecraft ostensibly wants to change the lives of women as a class rather than just herself. The actual facts of her life show this to be untrue but she at least pretended to care about improving the position of women in general.
Diana Vernon is an individualist through and through. She seeks her own happiness and although she does not accept the social limitations on women as applying to herself, she has no desire to reform society. Is she just a male fantasy of what men wish women were like? I don't think so. Scott only wrote about people he knew and he knew women like Diana and Flora from Waverley. He knew them and loved them. We'll have to watch closely to see how her story develops.
On the other hand, Sir Walter hated his brothers and they are the source for much of the character of Frank's cousins here. And that is unfortunate because they are one-dimensional and boring. So we won't linger on them.
But there is an interesting hint here worth keeping in the back of our minds as we read on. I said last time that Frank is lying when he presents his situation as bleak. We get more evidence of that here when Frank describes his entry into the border country of England:
They are, of course, also good stage setting for the woodland goddess Die Vernon about to appear.
While one brother does show up in the scene, we have to wait 'til we get to the hall to meet the Uncle and cousins. And we really only meet two of these, the others may as well be cardboard cutouts for all the character we see. One exception is Rashleigh. If this were one of the awful Bronte sisters writing, anyone with a name like "Rashleigh" would be the hero. In almost any other novel, a guy named Rashleigh shows up and you want to lock up your soul and keep him away from the women. What's he like in this story? Well we have lots of foreboding hints but he isn't Rob Roy.
The only other character of note is the uncle Sir Hildebrand Osbaldistone and he seems like a stock character at first. He was Jacobean who rose to prominence under James II and he has been relegated to a life of decadence on his estate ever since. His hunting jacket is a picture of something once elegant and refined now worn and tattered by life.
The question then is, Is he everything the cilché would have him be or does Scott just want us to think of him that way? He spends much more time on the Uncle than anyone but Rashleigh. But before you decide this question is rhetorical, let em assure yout that Sir Walter is a writer who could go either way on this.
The first post in this thread is here.
Next post will be here.
One thing Scott and Austen have in common is their love of creating a Shakespearean array of characters. You raise an issue—in the case of this book a society based on values of credit versus one based on shame and honour—and then you people your drama with people who stand at various points of the spectrum between these two ends.
A sometimes essential element in the Shakespearean version is the transgressive feminine heroine. This the fast-talking, wise-cracking woman who cannot be held within traditional feminine bounds and who is smarter than everyone, including the man who will fall in love with her. She can be serious like Portia and like Elinor in Austen. Or she can be playful like Beatrice whose correspondent in Austen is Elizabeth Bennett. Here in Rob Roy we get Die Vernon.
But lets do some foundation work on the spectrum of values first. Our spectrum runs from credit values or shame-honour values.
A credit society is a variation on a guilt-innocence society. Although we might not think so at first glance, it is a more nuanced version of guilt-innocence. Like a guilt-innocence society, you can be either guilty or innocent but you can also have a kind of honour for your reputation as a person who always pays your debts will earn you credit even if you don't have the money to pay your debt right now. Read even a cursory biography of Sir Walter and you will see how important this last notion was to him.
We might keep in the back of our minds the possibility of redemption for the Christain notion of Forgive us our debts as we forgive those who have debts against us."
Okay, where do the other characters sit on the spectrum? I'll be honest. I'm not entirely sure for some. We can be certain that Owen is far on the credit end for he reduces the Golden Rule to a mathematical equation. We know that Frank ends up on the credit end and that he started off on the shame-honour end. But Frank is not always a reliable narrator, and Sir Walter has made him so intentionally. That brings us to his father and that is a tricky issue.
As a loving son and especially as a son who crossed his father and feels shame about this, Frank is very much determined that we should see his father as a well-balanced man.
Now enter Diana Vernon. That name Diana is not an accident. We meet her on a fox hunt, she is at home in the woods and we will see that she is the embodiment of chastity (although I think Scott raises some doubts on that last matter for those willing to see).
How to get at her character? Here is the question if you ask me: Why are a Shakespeare influenced heroines like Die Vernon not feminist characters? They are strong, independent, not bound by traditional female roles or values and are moral leaders not followers. At first glance, you might think those impeccable feminist credentials but they aren't. Why not?
Well the sheer moral and emotional strength is part of the problem. One of the apparent paradoxes of feminist literature then and now is that it tends to focus on characters who struggle and are overcome by the society around them. When a feminist novel features an unbridled romantic heroine you can sure her end will be tragic or spectacularly dishonest like the end of Thelma and Louise where suicide is presented as some sort of victory.
Diana Vernon is an unbridled romantic whose life is over-brimming with possibilities for tragedy but she is not like that. A big part of the difference is that feminism is always and everywhere a political movement. Even an impractical selfish jerk like Mary Wollstonecraft ostensibly wants to change the lives of women as a class rather than just herself. The actual facts of her life show this to be untrue but she at least pretended to care about improving the position of women in general.
Diana Vernon is an individualist through and through. She seeks her own happiness and although she does not accept the social limitations on women as applying to herself, she has no desire to reform society. Is she just a male fantasy of what men wish women were like? I don't think so. Scott only wrote about people he knew and he knew women like Diana and Flora from Waverley. He knew them and loved them. We'll have to watch closely to see how her story develops.
On the other hand, Sir Walter hated his brothers and they are the source for much of the character of Frank's cousins here. And that is unfortunate because they are one-dimensional and boring. So we won't linger on them.
But there is an interesting hint here worth keeping in the back of our minds as we read on. I said last time that Frank is lying when he presents his situation as bleak. We get more evidence of that here when Frank describes his entry into the border country of England:
I approached my native north, for such I esteemed it, with that enthusiasm which romantic and wild scenery inspires in lovers of nature.Hmmm, the poor boy cast off by his father is actually cast off into what he considers his spiritual homeland. Mind you, it has to be spiritual as he has never been there before. In any case, the first few pages of Chapter 5 are filled with beautiful writing about the countryside and worth the price of the novel all by themselves.
They are, of course, also good stage setting for the woodland goddess Die Vernon about to appear.
While one brother does show up in the scene, we have to wait 'til we get to the hall to meet the Uncle and cousins. And we really only meet two of these, the others may as well be cardboard cutouts for all the character we see. One exception is Rashleigh. If this were one of the awful Bronte sisters writing, anyone with a name like "Rashleigh" would be the hero. In almost any other novel, a guy named Rashleigh shows up and you want to lock up your soul and keep him away from the women. What's he like in this story? Well we have lots of foreboding hints but he isn't Rob Roy.
The only other character of note is the uncle Sir Hildebrand Osbaldistone and he seems like a stock character at first. He was Jacobean who rose to prominence under James II and he has been relegated to a life of decadence on his estate ever since. His hunting jacket is a picture of something once elegant and refined now worn and tattered by life.
The question then is, Is he everything the cilché would have him be or does Scott just want us to think of him that way? He spends much more time on the Uncle than anyone but Rashleigh. But before you decide this question is rhetorical, let em assure yout that Sir Walter is a writer who could go either way on this.
The first post in this thread is here.
Next post will be here.
No comments:
Post a Comment