Scan barcode
A review by cacia
The Black Arrow by Robert Louis Stevenson
2.0
I saw worth in this book, but I did not actually like it, so though I contemplated giving it three stars (“liked it”) for the content I did appreciate, I decided that designation would be deceptive when compared to my ratings of other books — thus my honest rating of two stars. As a historical-fiction adventure story, this was decent, with plenty of skirmishes, drama, and near escapes, but it was not compelling, in part because the characters were not sympathetic. However, they were human, all flawed, and that portrayal, and the literary themes woven in counterpoint of the adventure plot, are the merits of the book.
The characters are an accurate portrayal of life: they are not either good or evil, they are an intricate and inseparable blend of the two. To quote from the introduction to this edition, "Stevenson well understood the complexity and dark psychology of human nature: evil men can justify their behavior in certain circumstances, and good men can commit evil acts with the best of intentions."
The main character, Richard Shelton, makes some really stupid decisions, as well as rash or naive choices, and he faces the consequences, both good and bad, that his actions bring about. Sometimes he makes a move that is not inherently reckless and that achieves what he set out to do, but he finds that the ramifications of what he thought he wanted are complex and painful; success is bittersweet. Throughout the book, he learns from his failures and experiences, but not quite enough to keep from making other stupid mistakes as he goes along (which is an accurate depiction of plenty of eighteen-year-old males).
The question of loyalty is one of the main themes of the book, especially in the latter half, and it is presented as a complex issue to which there is rarely a straight answer and sometimes hardly even a good one. Richard's character growth in the latter half of the book revolves around the two themes of loyalty and the complexity of human nature (no stark good or evil), and he matures enough to declare his loyalty for himself rather than following by default the allegiance of those who raised him. Yet even then, loyalty is a tricky issue: "But as the realm of England goes, if that a poor gentleman fight not upon the one side, perforce he must fight upon the other."
The portrayal of Richard the Third seemed a bit heavy-handed, as if the author, able to look back at the outcome of the historical situation, reflected into his representation of the young duke what would happen later on, painting the lines of the historical character thick with foreshadowing in order to make his point. He made his point, certainly, but it felt blatant.
For all Stevenson’s accurate portrayal of human nature, most of the characters are undeveloped (or at best underdeveloped), without much depth or exploration, and they serve the purpose of the plot without much to set them apart from one another or from similar characters in any given historical-fiction adventure novel. (Moreover, for the first half of the book, the reader must contend with the similar surnames Shelton, Selden, and Sedley.) The one honorable mention is Will Lawless, who, though serving the purposes of sidekick and comic relief, diverges from stock characterization enough to be fairly memorable in his own right. That the author can portray human nature well through characters’ interactions without developing complex personalities for each character probably attests to his skill, but it leaves me without characters to engage in intellectually or viscerally.
The love interest and main female character is bland and, though stubborn, often timorous, but she serves the purpose of the plot and Richard does learn a good deal from her company and from the circumstances surrounding her. Besides the love interest, most of the few women in the book get only a passing or nominal mention, which suits the era in which the story is set as well as, in part, the era when it was written — I have no quibble with it. Besides that, the novel is a boy’s adventure novel, and since it is about boys and for boys, the story doesn’t need many girls or their presence; rather, the inclusion of more females would bog down the action and the adventure, not to mention the historical accuracy.
However, there is one good female character, and she makes up for all the rest of the rather predictable cast. Alicia is the one and only character I truly liked, and she was marvelous fun. With her wit, her cheek, and her teasing, she considerably brightened the chapters in which she appeared — I wished we could have seen more of her.
In conclusion: for the story itself, I would give the book two stars; for its exploration of the themes its sets out to discuss and for Richard's character growth, three stars; for the general run of characters, two stars; and for Alicia, the only truly memorable and congenial character, I would give her alone four stars.
The characters are an accurate portrayal of life: they are not either good or evil, they are an intricate and inseparable blend of the two. To quote from the introduction to this edition, "Stevenson well understood the complexity and dark psychology of human nature: evil men can justify their behavior in certain circumstances, and good men can commit evil acts with the best of intentions."
The main character, Richard Shelton, makes some really stupid decisions, as well as rash or naive choices, and he faces the consequences, both good and bad, that his actions bring about. Sometimes he makes a move that is not inherently reckless and that achieves what he set out to do, but he finds that the ramifications of what he thought he wanted are complex and painful; success is bittersweet. Throughout the book, he learns from his failures and experiences, but not quite enough to keep from making other stupid mistakes as he goes along (which is an accurate depiction of plenty of eighteen-year-old males).
The question of loyalty is one of the main themes of the book, especially in the latter half, and it is presented as a complex issue to which there is rarely a straight answer and sometimes hardly even a good one. Richard's character growth in the latter half of the book revolves around the two themes of loyalty and the complexity of human nature (no stark good or evil), and he matures enough to declare his loyalty for himself rather than following by default the allegiance of those who raised him. Yet even then, loyalty is a tricky issue: "But as the realm of England goes, if that a poor gentleman fight not upon the one side, perforce he must fight upon the other."
The portrayal of Richard the Third seemed a bit heavy-handed, as if the author, able to look back at the outcome of the historical situation, reflected into his representation of the young duke what would happen later on, painting the lines of the historical character thick with foreshadowing in order to make his point. He made his point, certainly, but it felt blatant.
For all Stevenson’s accurate portrayal of human nature, most of the characters are undeveloped (or at best underdeveloped), without much depth or exploration, and they serve the purpose of the plot without much to set them apart from one another or from similar characters in any given historical-fiction adventure novel. (Moreover, for the first half of the book, the reader must contend with the similar surnames Shelton, Selden, and Sedley.) The one honorable mention is Will Lawless, who, though serving the purposes of sidekick and comic relief, diverges from stock characterization enough to be fairly memorable in his own right. That the author can portray human nature well through characters’ interactions without developing complex personalities for each character probably attests to his skill, but it leaves me without characters to engage in intellectually or viscerally.
The love interest and main female character is bland and, though stubborn, often timorous, but she serves the purpose of the plot and Richard does learn a good deal from her company and from the circumstances surrounding her. Besides the love interest, most of the few women in the book get only a passing or nominal mention, which suits the era in which the story is set as well as, in part, the era when it was written — I have no quibble with it. Besides that, the novel is a boy’s adventure novel, and since it is about boys and for boys, the story doesn’t need many girls or their presence; rather, the inclusion of more females would bog down the action and the adventure, not to mention the historical accuracy.
However, there is one good female character, and she makes up for all the rest of the rather predictable cast. Alicia is the one and only character I truly liked, and she was marvelous fun. With her wit, her cheek, and her teasing, she considerably brightened the chapters in which she appeared — I wished we could have seen more of her.
In conclusion: for the story itself, I would give the book two stars; for its exploration of the themes its sets out to discuss and for Richard's character growth, three stars; for the general run of characters, two stars; and for Alicia, the only truly memorable and congenial character, I would give her alone four stars.