avrilhj's review
3.0
This is fascinating. It’s the first of Trease’s historical stories for children, a genre that he would make his own, and it has all the immediacy and colour of his later books. But the politics are very crude; the outlaws sound as though they’re members of the socialist Sunday Schools that were around in the 1930s in Britain. No female characters with speaking parts; Trease definitely improves there as he gets older. I’m glad I read it, but I don’t think I’ll reread it, unlike others of his books that I first read as a child and still reread with enjoyment.
nairam1173's review against another edition
2.0
Technically, some of the ideas here are interesting but it just wasn't that interesting to read. I also found out afterwards that the author was intentionally working against normal Robin Hood-vibes (basically: WHY WAS EVERYTHING SO HAPPY WHEN THE WORLD SUCKED*) which...worked, but again, didn't make it very enjoyable. I don't read Robin Hood for peasant revolts and castle attacks. It was also weird that all you had to do was hand a peasant armor and voila, they were good at this. ??? I was never fully on board with Robin Hood the anarchist. (that's probably not what was intended but it was sure how he sounded.) Even typing that I can see how it /would/ possibly work, but maybe when it does it is destined to bore me. Eh.
*I've always thought that having joy in spite of the problems of the world was a really cool thing about Robin Hood.
*I've always thought that having joy in spite of the problems of the world was a really cool thing about Robin Hood.
emilyhayse's review
4.0
A simple read, but a good one. The author Geoffrey Trease imagines a slightly more realistic Robin Hood and Sherwood forest seen through the eyes of a young lad, Dickon who falls in with them. A somewhat bittersweet ending (if you know the legends of Robin Hood, you'll know the nature of it) but still an enjoyable little read. It's the sort of book I would give to a son one day.
More...