Ivanhoe

I did the same thing again.  I know I said that I was going to come into Ivanhoe with no expectations but I didn’t do it.  I was so ready to get a story like The Three Musketeers.  Basically, a lads-on-tour type adventure; full of action and featuring Robin Hood.  It’s not a big ask.  I’m not really sure why I was thinking this, I’ve read quite a lot about the period of history the story’s set in and I’ve read books from the time.  It’s all just talking about bloody chivalry and high Romance.  I’m at least 90% sure that every knight of old was all mouth no trousers- or pantaloons or whatever it was they had back then.  Naturally Sir Walter Scott emulates this.

My main issue with the book is Ivanhoe himself.  It takes an age for him to show up in the book, all the while we’re being told he’s marvellously brave- the sixth most brave knight guy in some previous important battle.  The five who beat him bravery-wise are also listed in meticulous detail.  Anyway, Wilfred of Ivanhoe finally rocks up in disguise and is pretty cool.  He goes about brainwashing his estranged father’s surfs, winning tournaments and being a little bad-ass.  That is until he gets injured in one of the (let’s face it) pointless tournaments.  He spends basically the rest of the book being useless and recuperating whilst mooning over his second-cousin before winning a fight by watching his opponent die of a seizure.  The only one who seems to get shit done in the book is King Richard, and according to my year seven history lessons (and therefore in depth knowledge), that’s a wildly inaccurate depiction of how things were.  King Richard was a totally irresponsible king, always razzing off to convert heathens to his religion with his sword and leaving his little brother to collect taxes and generally be misunderstood.  I have a lot of sympathy for King John in history.  I know his crapness was partially responsible for the dissolution of the power of the throne; but if he’d been competent we might not have democracy.

It was also a really uncomfortable book to read while the terror attacks in France were ongoing.  Two of the main characters in the book are Jewish and everyone else is so anti-Semitic that it’s just uncomfortable.  Possibly the most horrible parts of it are the way that Isaac is treated by others and the way his daughter, Rebecca subjugates herself because she feels that she is not worthy of Christian company.  What I disliked so much is that these attitudes aren’t obsolete.  The book’s set over 800 years ago and the persecution remains.  No, it’s not as systemic and it’s certainly not deemed acceptable in modern society, but it’s still there.  It just makes me despair slightly for the future of the human race.  We’re baby-stepping our way to equality and hoping no-one notices by celebrating ever victory.  It’s an utterly depressing thought.

Again, the reasons I don’t like this book boil down essentially to not living up to my expectations or at least my wants from the book.  I don’t doubt that Sir Walter Scott knew his stuff about the time period, but he chose the bloody boring bits to write about.  I don’t care about the high speech, I care about the battles.  By the time there was any action in the book- a siege on a castle- I just didn’t care.  I’m having that feeling again with Ivanhoe that the problem isn’t the book, it’s me.  It’s been pretty popular for a very long time and I’m fairly certain that somebody would have noticed by now if it were actually as terrible as I believe it to be.

My next read is José Saramago’s The Double.  I’m halfway in and thus far it’s really fantastic.