MacBeth the False Story
Having just seen the play I thought I’d write a quick piece about it. It didn’t work out that way as I read lots of other reviews and not only did they seem to think the opposite of me they seemed to focus on Lady MacBeth feminist icon. So I digressed a little into attacking this view, for part of the review at least before slaughter the play itself.
“A recipe for happiness: a goal, an ‘A’ a ‘B’ and a straight line.”
Friedrich Nietzsche
Prologue
In researching this article I noticed there has been an awful lot written about Mrs Macbeth, somewhat disproportionately I think to her importance as a character outside or even inside the play. Part of this is because she is female and a lot of the reviewers are female and partly because her character is written by the playwright obscurely enough for her to be somewhat of an enigma.
Sadly modern academia is about the production of new material not the production of material of worth. Fresh works are workman-likely written as part of job requirements and or of requirement for passing higher degrees. These have to have original content, even if there’s nothing new of worth to say on the subject. They all work along similar lines. Invent a wacky theory, give it a catchy name, bring in lots of popularist theories of the day (post modernism, cosmic string theory) and voila “Was Lady Macbeth an Alien?” is ready to hit obscure academic journal (along with 200 hundred others that week alone).
Finding someone who’s actually wrote something sober and sensible, rather than flying off on a wild tangent about the lady in question has proved very difficult indeed. If I hear the words “anti-mother”, “the biological Lady Macbeth”, “menstrual cycle” and “empowered woman” one more time I will found a terror groups called, the Pulp Fiction Liberation Front and campaign to burn plays not by Jeffrey Archer.
A Grandiose Mrs Macbeth
Mrs Macbeth in the plot has a pretty straightforward role, she encourages her husband to kill Duncan when he has doubts. Mr Macbeth is a fearsome warrior but she describes him as “too full of the milk of human kindness”. This is an interesting remark. If she had said he was “too honourable” it would be very normal and but from a plot perspective, no character flaw in Mr Macbeth.
But with too “kind” the question arises, is this something Shakespeare deliberately did making her uniquely see it as question of “kindness” not “honour” or is it just a product of the age Shakespeare was conditioned by and him not realising it?
Mrs Macbeth sees hubby as “too kind” to kill Duncan so takes it upon herself to be his backbone. She uses a number of methods ranging from nagging to witchcraft, however as she does so begins to have serious moral troubles about what she is doing. These troubles she keeps from her husband. For some reason A Picture of Dorian Grey springs to mind as she diminishes while he gets stronger, with Mrs Macbeth as the painting.
It’s not rocket science Shakespeare is writing. Women does something bad, then is wracked by moral guilt, this and a million other plays, movies, drama and soap operas.
So perhaps it’s the way she does it that is of more interest than what she does. A lot of feminist writers have written an awful lot of words on Mrs Macbeth, they see her as an “empowered woman” and very many other coined terms. Another great feminist writer never wrote any words about the lady however it’s his comments to which I would like to turn.
Nietzsche once condemned, “Happiness for a man is, I will. Happiness for a woman is, He will.”
It is worth pointing out at no point in the play does Mrs Macbeth express her own desires for herself. She has no life of her own or role in life and no ambitions for herself, this feminist icon seems to be living her whole life vicariously through a man. She is in fact a rather impotent character and somewhat pathetic creature. Maybe her desire to kill Duncan is just her scream against the world. Bitter and twisted old harridan is probably not most popular analysis one could come up with but worth thinking about.
Mrs Macbeth’s role in the play peters out as the play advances and her importance dwindles, showing she was a flawed vehicle for the writers ideas. Shakespeare seem to have written a too one dimensional and insignificant character to last the whole play.
Her role seems to be best summarised by a Daffy Duck cartoon. In many Daffy Duck cartoons when he is faced by a moral dilemma two small ducks appear one on either shoulder, one a devil the other and angel, they then badger him in each ear, in variably Daffy takes the little devil’s advice and comes a cropper. Lady Macbeth is the little devil duck sitting on Daffy Macbeth’s left shoulder urging him to take the immoral action and come a cropper. I quite convinced Shakespeare would have made an excellent Hanna and Barbera scriptwriter.
A less Grandiose Mrs Macbeth
There could however be another take upon Mrs Macbeth when one disposes of the rest of the play. She looks somewhat lost within it, but once the chaff is picked away, she may be the only substance left.
When viewed as high art, Macbeth seems a withered old tale and its allegory is a complete anachronism. Written in an age where the unshaking puritan belief of divine providence was coming to the historical fore, throw in a few select cuts of the Cassandra Complex, a few chunks of old fashioned fate, some of James I’s love of witches and bake for two hours. To the modern mind which doesn’t believe in pre-determined destiny the whole free will vs determinism debate, allegorically Macbeth is irrelevant, it would be no less sensible seeing a play asking if pigs can or can’t fly.
In comparison to other Shakespeare plays such as King Lear with its proto-postmodern take on ideological conditioning, still at the forefront of philosophy today, Macbeth is an old donkey that needs taking to the glue factory. However Macbeth is much more famous than King Lear, it is worth for a moment considering why? Perhaps it’s in its popularity not allegory Macbeth finds its relevance. What’s behind its popularity?
Dated allegory vs modern one, is one way of looking at it in comparison to King Lear, however another is that allegory vs no allegory, but strong characterisation and powerful drama instead. It’s perhaps here why Macbeth triumphs over King Lear, in the soap opera-age audiences really don’t want to see a play that mimics a Booker Prize novel, bland writing, dull characters, tedious plot development, snooty author and the whole kit caboodle simply for the sake of getting across an allegory, when the writer could have saved the readers all the monotony of reading his book by simply writing a 1,500 words philosophy essay instead**.
A Macbeth theatre like a Romeo and Juliet one is one of excitement, offering the punter something better than a Booker experience, it gives the audience a 20th century soap opera and a thinking free zone. Who’d seriously want to sit through an art movie when you can see a Bollywood film, a wedding, a song and dance routine, a knife fight and an elephant ride guaranteed in each and every one. Macbeth and Romeo and Juliet when viewed as pulp fiction are truly cutting edge, superbitches, sword fights, battles, unrequited love, family feuds, treachery, passion, murder and gossip, it’s like Holly Oaks meets Dynasty.
Mrs Macbeth then comes into her own a soap opera queen, as this she is at the centre of the play, it’s Joan Collins that drew the viewers. We know what Mr Macbeth is and we know what he will do, however actresses playing such an obscurely written character with 500 years of ideas have such poetic licence they can do something unique each time. What does this make Mrs Macbeth’s motivation and character, well something like the ending to a John Fowles novel, the viewer can choose by which version they go to see.
Like all good soap operas Macbeth centres around a husband and wife combo, as usual a strong wife and doubtful husband. They are rowing, having sexual problems, they are minor players in the boardroom but on the make surrounded by seemingly straight and honest people at their level and less competent people above them. They already enjoy a glitzy lifestyle, this is clearly a Dynasty or Dallas rather than Eastenders, the audience is invited into world he dreams about entering but is unfamiliar to him. With Eastenders the writers with their audience so familiar with a subject material they can get away with little creativity. Shakespeare on the other hand is taking the viewer into a world beyond them has great poetic licence with the truth.
Mrs Macbeth is very much a fantasy figure, seen through a window into an idealised version of a world the 16th century play viewer has no access to but dreamed of visiting. She is very much what this paying punter would have wanted to see, having heard tales of Eleanor of Aquitaine, Isabella of France and Mary of Guise.
Mrs Macbeth then is an interesting character, but perhaps one that was more peripheral than interesting when the play was written who has become more interesting as intertextualality from subsequent centuries of philosophy and soap opera gave the view new perceptions of her.
**It is a well known fact the art of writing has long been perfected by Terry Pratchett, so lesser writers such as Shakespeare, Dostoyevsky Joyce are always going to look flawed beside him, and Salmon Rushdie and J.M. Coetzee should really just hang up their word processors now.
The Covent Garden Ladies
Sacrifices to Venus
Miss B____rn. of No. 18 Old Compton Street, Soho;
This accomplished nymph has just attained her eighteenth year, and fraught with every perfection, enters a volunteer in the field of Venus. She plays on the pianofort, sings, dances, and is mistress of every Maneuver in the amorous contest that can enhance the coming pleasure; is of the middle stature, fine auburn hair, dark eyes and very inviting countenance, which ever seems to beam delight and love. In bed she is all the heart can wish, or eyes admires every limb is symmetry, every action under cover truly amorous; her price two pounds.
A scandalous tale of eroticism and vice throughout Georgian England delving into the slums of London, its gambling dens, whorehouses, aristocratic parlours, debtors prisons, seedy porn shops, boudoirs and lowlife taverns.
It was in these very back streets brimming of bawds and harlots that an outrageous publication emerged, that would resonate down the ages in both licentiousness & salaciousness. Harris’s Lists was first published in 1857 by the most unlikely of authors, a young middle class rural poet. The list which revealed the intimacies & habits of the women of ill repute in the Covent Garden area was more than just a directory of whores, in full poetic prose it paid homage to the ‘sacrifices to Venus’, who graced its pages & provided a menu to the sexual theme park that was Georgian London for any gentleman with the inclination, libido and money.
Harris’s List instantly became a best seller, over a quarter of a million copies in its thirty eight year run, making one of the best read publications of its era. What made Harris’s List so remarkable was its author in the early years: Sam Derrick. More than just an adult directory Derrick set about his bold endeavour with both love & vigour to give a stunning window to Georgian London.
While the prose of Derrick may have been poetic, it was nothing but scrupulous in its honesty. The lists show the depth of Derrick’s knowledge & admiration of his subject, as he celebrates each women and their profession and then goes on to individually give us a picture of their lives, personal tales and personalities. Derrick provides us with both an insight into who the whores really were and the hand society dealt them.
Harris’s Lists also show much about the professions itself. The rungs of the profession any girl may be placed on, from kept mistresses of aristocrats to street whores, from part time shop girls to upmarket brothel harlots and even lists middleclass nymphomaniacs who took gentlemen callers for free. The lists themselves served many purposes, they were desirable for any money minded female to get on and Derrick remained astonishingly scrupulous in the face of numerous offers of bribes, seeing his task to help rather than exploit the women he advertised. Derrick was also brutally honest about the girls themselves naming venereal disease carriers and purse snatchers. Finally they provide a vivid insight into the debauchery and sexual fetishes of the age. There’s very little that even the most widely stocked adult DVD shop today would look unfamiliar to a reader of the list.
Convent Garden Ladies tells the story of Harris’s list through three figures who’s lives the lists were to leave an indelible impression.
Sam Derrick was a Dublin born draper’s apprentice. Winning a national prize for poetry in his youth he abandoned his family and inheritance to make it in the literary lights of London. There though the small town boy failed to impress. Despite being both charming and witty, his literary talents were not recognised. Derrick led the ambiguity of through his social charm gradually weaning his way onto the social calendar of the aristocracy and at the same time falling into dreadful poverty, eventually sleeping on the street and living off handouts and freebies from the working girls whom he shared a mutual plight with.
Derrick turned to the only place a failed writer could turn, the notorious Grub Street. Living above a road of sleazy bookshops they became house writer/slaves to unscrupulous hack publishers. Writing whatever they were told to write from puff reviews, exposé to pornography they slaved all hours for little more than board and a meal.
Derrick like all abhorred his plight but even worse lived beyond his means, finally ending when one day the debt collectors caught up with him and he found himself in debtors prison. With no money and no way out, this was usually the end for such people as Derrick. However Derrick managed to remarkably extricate himself. The creation & publication of Harris’s Lists for the first time saw him with a steady income and he managed to pay off his creditors.
As anonymous writer of the capital’s most notorious publication he had a means to continue courting the patron he desired. In his later life Derrick’s carousing of the wealthy and charming of wealthy ladies paid off, when he was voted ‘King of Bath’ the city’s master of ceremonies in the country’s top holiday resort for the rich. There the most notorious pimp in London caroused with the virginal daughters of the society class as their fathers who were the main users of the list kept his secret until his death.
Charlotte Hayes was the daughter of a prostitute raised in a brothel. Having the kind of insider knowledge her mother had, she was determined Charlotte would have a head start over other girls. Charlotte was blessed with looks and would become one of the most famous beauties of her age. Her mother new there was only one role for her, the top rung of prostitution, a concubine, the kept mistress of a wealthy man.
Charlotte was schooled at one of the capital’s better schools and learnt the refinement and graces that would be expected of her in higher circles. When she entered the profession in the 1840’s the sophisticated beauty became an instant hit with the wealthy pleasure seekers of the age, as likely to be taken to the races or a private box in the theatre as to bed. Charlotte had no problem finding wealthy men to put her up in an apartment and keep her in servant and silk. Whilst cynically looking out for a better keeper and abandoning the previous at the drop of a hat.
Charlotte eventually achieved the top of her profession as the concubine of the Robert Tracy, the wastrel son and heir Judge Robert Tracy who had died leaving him his vast fortune to squander on gaming, drinking and whoring. Tracy was also one of the wealthy men who had fallen for Sam Derrick’s charms. Soon Charlotte and Sam began to conduct an affair behind Tracy’s back. However it was Tracy who would have the last laugh, dying and leaving Charlotte nothing in his will. Not a penny to pay for the bulging credit accounts for her silk dresses and lavish wares.
Soon the bailiffs were chasing Charlotte and Sam Derrick who had set up home together and both were to wind up in Debtor’s Prison. Sam was to extricate himself with the publication of Harris’s Lists but Charlotte was to languish there for almost four years until pardoned. Four years in harsh prison and turning the age of thirty hadn’t left Charlotte the most attractive candidate to become a concubine and Charlotte had no desire to become a common whore. So she decided as a madam her future would lie, and not just any madam but of the most expensive and exclusive brothel in London.
Charlotte knew of Parisian Salons and how they differed from London brothels and that was where the future lay. Very quickly Charlotte was owning and running the two most exclusive Salon’s in London. Not in and out brothels but clubs where men socialised, gamed, ate and drank downstairs while nude girls frolicked and entertained for hours before men retired upstairs and were finally billed, not just for the girl but everything they consumed. Charlotte filled the brothel with the most beautiful girls, kept lists of the members particular tastes and preferred activities. She schooled her girls in eloquence and dancing, fitted them out with the finest silks.
On the proceeds of the Salons, Charlotte was able to buy a country estate, a stable of the finest breeding horses. However quickly others cottoned onto her money spinning idea and soon the whole road her Salons occupied became a row of such Salons in competition with one another. With the money drying up at one point Charlotte found herself almost bankrupt but was bailed out by Sam Derrick her ex-lover whom she hadn’t seen for over a decade. The king of Bath had died, as usual living far beyond his means, leaving a trail of debt, but had left his one valuable item to her, the annual proceeds of Harris’s Lists. In a final twist Charlotte was to have a single, child, a daughter, whom she sent to convent school in France.
Jack Harris, Pimp General of England, was the man the lists bore the name of. Jack born in the theatre and vice district of London, Covent Garden. He was the son a well to do middle class country family who came to the city to pursue his father’s political ambitions. His father was a fearless politician and critic but was ruined by a libel suit from one he criticised and died leaving his family penniless in prison.
Jack now the provider embarked on a life of crime, trying both confidence tricking and card sharping, however he quickly found his talents lay in a more amorous criminality. Jack found work as a waiter in more downmarket tavern. Located in a heart of Covent Garden it was more an establishment for dangerous liaisons than ale. The job of a waiter in the 18th century not only involved serving drinks to customers but introductions to willing ladies.
In the days before widespread communications the standard way for a gentlemen who didn’t want to risk a street walker to learn of a prostitute was through a waiter/pimp. Waiter/Pimp’s kept lists of all classes of whores in the local areas, their rates and specialities. For a small fee the waiter/pimp would make the introduction. Waiter/Pimps reputations were made by the variety and quality of whore’s on their lists. Quickly Jack’s lists became second to none.
Waiter/Pimps jealously guarded their lists from rivals and continually sought out new recruits, and it was in the success of this they made their reputation. Jack’s genius lay in his superior ability to procure girls, build a reputation for having a stable of size and quality.
Jack’s girls ranged greatly, he a particular reputation for having the finest Irish girls around. Regularly he would go on recruiting troops to Dublin where he would offer local whores the opportunity of working in London. Being as Irish whores were rarely paid and often beaten by their pimps, most leapt at the chance. Another method he used was less benevolent. Where he would trick a girl into a private room with an offer of a job or marriage and there have her ravaged. Once spoilt the girl was offered a job with him. Few refused, unable to return to decent society.
Pimping was a very lucrative business, every aspect of it was designed to screw money from both the punter and harlot. Jack would parade a line of girls before his client one at a time. For each view the unlucky mark paid. Jack would start his parade ugliest girl first so he would amass a considerable some of money before even the choice was made. Then he would introduce a host of surcharges, often made up on the spot. His girls faired no better and he charged them for the room & for the rent of their fine dresses.
It was in Jack’s tavern the Shakspear where he met Sam Derrick an impoverished poet, popular amongst his girls and often sponging off them. Here Derrick became familiar with the mystique of pimp’s lists & the idea for Harris’s Lists was born. Though they bore his name, Harris’s Lists, were not in fact Pimp General Jack Harris’s List actual list, the publication Harris’s Lists were entirely the work of Derrick. But it was the genius of putting the Pimp General’s name on them that sold them. Derrick gave Jack a one off payment for the use of his name on the lists. At the time Jack probably thought he had a good deal. However the success of the lists that bore his name was to ruin him.
Already the most notorious pimp in the country, Jack Harris was to become the symbol of vice in Britain. When politicians ranted in Parliament about vice, it was Jack’s they cited as an example. When newspapers did expose it was Jack they named. All this attention initially brought Jack both wealth & fame but came back to haunt him when an anti vice movement gained popular support opening the capitals first Magdalene Home usefully lobbying the government for a clampdown.
Jack bore the brunt of the clampdown being jailed for 3 years. It was while languishing in Jail being visited weekly by hack journalist wanting another fill of his pimp anecdotes to print in the Sunday scandal sheets that he realised the Pimp General must die. Upon his release changed his name to John Harrison & ran the tavern next to Drury Lane theatre. Being a haven for harlots servicing theatregoers he returned to his trade as pimp/waiter. Jack was to marry and have a son whom he brought up to be a successful pimp/waiter in his own tavern too.
Harris’s Lists may have destroyed the Pimp General but that was not going to stop him from having his own go. Regretting accepting a one off payment rather than royalties for the publication that bore his name, Jack had a go at creating a rival publication. Ironically the real Harris’s List published by Jack Harris himself were everything that the Sam Derrick lists were not. A simple cold list of whores. The publication failed to sell & Jack quickly abandoned it.
The Covent Garden Ladies by Hallie Rubenhold is published by Tempus and highly recommended
The Flashman Papers
Quite by chance in a household furniture sale in Leicestershire in 1965, one of the most remarkable historical discoveries of recent times was made. A series of manuscripts dubbed, “the Flashman Papers,” were unearthed. They appeared to be the personal diary of Sir Harry Flashman (1822 – 1915), the great hero of the Victorian Age, written by him between 1900 and 1905 and hidden by members of his family.
The Flashman Papers were to immediately raise considerable controversy confirming the rumour that Sir Harry and “Harry Flashman” the bully, cad and drunk mentioned by Tom Brown in Tom Brown’s Schooldays were one and the same.
Brigadier-General Sir Harry Paget Flashman was the most decorated soldier of the Victorian Age. The only person ever to win the Victoria Cross, Chevalier, Legion of Honour and Congressional Medal of Honour and was hero of a dozen military campaigns, from the Burning of the Summer Palace and witnessing the death of Gordon in Khartoum, to acting as liaison to Sitting Bull and being with the French Foreign Legion in Mexico. Sir Harry had already written a series of memoirs in his younger days entitled “Dawns and Departures of a Soldier’s Life.” These seemingly gave the definitive account of his life story, his leading of The Light Brigade, his recovery of the Ko-He-Noor for the British crown, his stand at Rourke’s Drift and his clashing of swords with Custer while serving in Jeb Lee’s cavalry.
The Flashman papers contradict this and cast a huge shadow over the life of the great British hero. Written by Flashman just before his death, he opens by admitting that he no longer has any reason not to tell the truth. Flashman redresses many of his roles in the great military actions of the day. He admits that while Cardigan calmly smoked a cheroot all the way to the Russian guns, he wet himself.
What makes the Flashman Papers remarkable is Flashman’s candid honesty. Flashman openly admits from page one that he is a coward and a bounder, has no morals, cares nothing for anyone but himself and never did anything in a military action but run away. Flashman, however is more than this – he is an honest objective narrator of events of the time caring not a fig for either the British or the enemy, just for his own skin and he gives a totally unbiased account of history. Even more he is a philosopher not swayed by any ideology or ever caught up in any patriotic or righteous spirit, but simply viewing any event from a perspective of personal survival.
The Flashman Papers give uncompromising cynical first hand accounts of some of the most famous events of Victorian history. Standing beside the great men of the day Flashman condemns patriotism filled heroes as damned fools. Flashman also tells of the non military aspects of his life – how he pimped for the Prince of Wales, led a wagon train west in 49, personally smuggled a shipload of slaves from Africa and even became a captive in the harem of the queen of Madagascar. Flashman was also a renown sportsman, in 1843, Flashman played for Rugby-Old-Boys vs England, where he bowled a hatrick, taking out England’s three best batsmen and only cheating in two of his bowls. He was invited to tour with the England team.
Amorist
Apart from Flashman being a great coward, he was one of the foremost amorists of the day. Frequenting brothels from Calcutta to New Orleans and even owning one once, Flashman counted almost every woman he met amongst his admirers, from queen to harlot, and made little personal distinction. Flashman bedded some of the great beauties of the age including Lola Montez and Lily Langtry. He also had exotic tastes and found himself in the beds of Yenola (later Empreress Cixi), the Maharani Jindan and Rani Lakshmibai during diplomatic missions to their courts. On many occasions his amourous adventures would get him into trouble. Once, he tried to hide in Bismark’s cab when fleeing the police who had just raided a London brothel he was in, Bismark immediately called the police and turned him in. Another time, whilst crawling out of the Singapore brothel he bumped into James Brooke, the white Maharaja of Sarawak, and wound up reluctantly pirate hunting in Borneo with him. Flashman also bedded some of the strongest and most independant women of the age, such as the war correspondent Fanny Duberly, Szu-Zhan the Chinese Bandit Queen and even married Sonsee-Array, the Apache Princess, his 3rd wife at the time.
Flashman’s Who’s Who Entry, one of the longest in the publication,
Flashman, Harry Paget. Brigadier-general, V.C., K.C.B., K.C.I.E.; Chevalier, Legion of Honour; Order of Maria Theresa, Austria; Order of the Elephant, Denmark (temporary); U.S. Medal of honor; San Serafino Order of purity and truth, 4th Class. b May 5, 1822, s of H. Buckley Flashman, Esq., Ashby and Hon. Alicia Paget; m. Elspeth Rennie Morrison, d. of Lord Paisley; one s., one d. educ. Rugby School. 11th Hussars, 17th Lancers. Served Afghanistan, 1841-42 (medals, thanks of Parliament); chief of staff to H. M. James Brooke, Rajah of Sarawak Batang Lupar expedn, 1844; milit. advisor, H.M. Queen Ranavalona of Madagascar, 1844-5; Sutlej campaign, 1845-6 (Ferozeshah, Sobraon, envoy extraordinary to Maharani Jeendan, Court of Lahore); polit. advisor to Herr (later Chancellor Prince) Von Bismarck, Schleswig-Holstein, 1847-8; Crimea staff (Alma, Sevastopol, Balaclava), Prisoner of war, 1854; Artillery adviser to Atilik Ghazi, Syr Daria campaign, 1855; Sepoy Mutiny, 1857-8, dip, envoy to HRH the Maharani of Jhansi, trooper 3rd Native Cavalry, Meerut, subseq. att, Rowbotham’s Mosstroopers, Cawnpore, (Lucknow, Gwalior, etc., V.C.); Adjutant to Captain John Brown, Harper’s Ferry, 1859; China campaign 1860, polit. mission to Nanking, Taiping Rebellion, polit. and other services, Imperial Court, Pekin U.S. Army (major, Union forces, 1862; colonel (staff) Army of the Confederacy, 1863); a.d.c. to H.I.M. Maximilian, Emperor of Mexico, 1867; interpreter and observer Sioux campain, U.S. 1875-6 (Camp Robinson conference, Little Bighorn, etc.); Zulu War, 1879 (Isandhlwana, Rorke’s Drift); Egypt 1882 (Kassassin, Tel-el-Kebir); personal bodyguard to H.I.M. Franz-Joseph, Emperor of Austria 1883; Sudan 1884-5 (Khartoum); Pekin Legations, 1900. Travelled extensively in military and civilian capacities among them supercargo, merchant marine (West Africa); agriculturist (Mississippi valley); wagon captain and hotelier (Santa Fe Trail); buffalo hunter and scout (Oregon Trail); courier (Underground Railroad); majordomo (India), prospector (Australia); trader and missionary (Solomen Islands, Fly River, etc.); lottery supervisor (Manila); diamond Broker and horse coper (Punjab); dep. marshall, U.S.; occasional actor and impersonator. Hon. mbr of numerous societies and clubs, including Sons of the Volsungs (Strackenz), Mimbreno Apache Copper Mines band (New Mexico), Kokand Horde (Central Asia), Kit Carson’s Boys (Colorado), Brown’s Lambs (Maryland), M.C.C., Whites and United Service (London, both resigned), Blackjack (Batavia). Chmn, Flashman and Bottomley, Ltd.; dir. British Opium Trading Co.; governor, Rugby School; hon. pres. Mission for Reclamation of Reduced Females. Publications: Dawns and Departures of a Soldier’s Life; Twixt Cossack and Cannon; The Case Against Army Reform. Recreation: oriental studies, angling, cricket (performed first recorded “hat-trick”; Wickets of Felix, Pilch and Mynn for 14 runs; Rugby Past and Present v Kent, Lord’s 1842; 5 for 12, Mynn’s Casuals v All Engand XI, 1843). Add. Gandamack Lodge, Ashby, Leics.
11 Volumes of the Flashman Papers have been published so far. They are edited by George MacDonald Fraser and are published by HarperCollins.
Lord of the Rings
Lord of the Rings was not long ago voted in the BBC poll as the nation’s favourite book. It also topped similar polls in other countries. Being a popular book and a good book are not necessarily the same thing. Lord of the Rings seems to have traversed that ravine and moved from being a popular book to being a good one. But is this reputation deserved or simply a result of its unprecedented popularity alone?
Lord of the Rings has many ingredients to make it popular, a straightforward and non-twisting plotline of good vs. evil, characters who have straightforward goals with little inner conflict or doubts. It is set within a simplistic world of distinct ethnic groups with all members of sharing common values, each group seemingly lacking much dissent or significant number of alternate thinkers within their ranks. The world is one of clear social structure and class stereotype. The races themselves hark back to longstanding and familiar romantic fairy tales to all from childhood stories. The book, though Tolkien denied it, does borrow heavily from previous works of literature that have certain qualities which have made them endure such in time such as the The Nibelungenlied, The Odyssey, King Arthur and Beowulf. Lords of the Rings from its inception has adopted a winning popularist formula.
Tolkien stated the book was not an allegory for anything, but this hasn’t stopped many people over the years claiming it is. Lord of the Rings has been interpreted by people of various political persuasions to be an Anti-Nuclear discourse, The Ring, a weapon that’s too powerful to wield and corrupting the owner as a metaphor for the bomb. The ecologically minded have seen the book as a warning against the evils of industrial society, with the Shire as the green and pleasant land and Mordor the dark satanic mills. Many have seen the racial elements in the book, some romantically and some politically. Tolkien was a Christian and Lord of the Rings a pagan world of magic. Lord of the Rings has been interpreted as a Christian work, something Tolkien always denied. However the values of the book are Christian and Frodo a very Christian figure harking back to the days when the knight was put to the hazard and had to remain true. Christian values such as good, evil, loyalty, fellowship and faith are the predominant themes of the work. Gandalf is even resurrected from the dead to walk amongst his flock once again. Rather than it being a Christian allegory it is not Christian book but a book that demonstrates it was being written by a Christian, well within his comfort zone.
The plot is very straightforward, the forces of good who serendipitously happen upon the main armament of the enemy, have to destroy it. However the destruction lies at the end of a long and difficult journey. Lord of the Rings in this aspect is more about the journey than the plot, so resembles the Odyssey. While there are a few twists and turns in the plot, such as Boromir’s corruption and the splitting up of the fellowship. Tolkien’s decision to make it journey orientated allows his characters to visit lots of alien races and societies and us to see his fertile imagination. This does seem to be Tolkien’s ultimate motive in writing the book, rather than develop characters or plotline, it is a vehicle to show us the races and civilisations he’d created and even sometimes their literature and languages.
The major characters weigh out at different levels of development. With most of the characters despite knowing them for three books we find out very little about them. They don’t tell us their inner turmoil, their emotions, prejudices, vices or most importantly individual their own slightly different takes of any situation, surely they have them? Legolas and Gimli, are little more than extraneous caricatures included only to show the wider context of the world, but contribute little to the main narrative. Aragorn is a most problematic character, his journey from ranger of the north to King of Gondor is the greatest inner journey any character in the story has to make, but it simply doesn’t happen. Aragon is never challenged by Tolkien, his plight never explored, he is rather a dull figure who maintains a rather distant air.
The four Hobbits are Tolkien’s real vehicle for the story. Merry and Pippin are designed in many ways to embody the Shire and the innocent care free world Frodo has left. Taking Merry and Pippin along allows Tolkien to take the Shire with him. Instead of flashbacks, or telling the story of what going on in the Shire parallel to the main plot, Merry and Pippin in their antics and thoughts serve as a constant reminder to the reader of Frodo’s motive. They also allow the Frodo character to be of single purpose. Frodo’s journey is fraught with so much anguish, you would imagine him and his views changing, but he pursues his original intent to the end and holds on to his same rural beliefs. The reader however doesn’t question this because whenever an event that may make the reader think Frodo should question his priorities happens, Tolkien can reintroduce Merry and Pippins and firm the base values back in the mind of the reader
The most complex character in the book is Gollum. For a large part the evil characters are left even less developed than the good ones. Sauron is the figure most in need of development is neglected for the whole book. The evil at the centre of the world seems almost lame in his absence from the book. His proxy the Witch King makes mostly unsatisfying appearances that sell the reader short, being little more than a phantom. Gollum on the other hand we see from his earliest origins, his finding of the ring and murder of his friend, through to his recovery of the ring and death. Gollum shows a capacity to react to circumstance and ability to change no other character exhibits. Tolkien shows us what he is genuinely thinking. He is the only character that doubts his viewpoint and changes it. The Sméagol-Gollum dialogue the strongest written part of the book, though the Gollum character owes a lot to Caliban. Even Tolkien noted this himself when he said, “On the whole Sam is behaving well, and living up to repute. He treats Gollum rather like Ariel to Caliban.” But the similarity goes much deeper than even Tolkien admitted, both characters seem to represent unrestrained desire and lament for something they once had but no-longer hold.
The most troublesome character in the book is Samwise Gamgee. Edmund Wilson in The Nation in 1956 summed up the problem. “For the most part such characterisations Dr. Tolkien has been able to contrive are perfectly stereotyped: Frodo the good little Englishman, Samwise, his doglike servant, who talks lower class and respectful, and who never deserts his master.” Sam certainly does have all the qualities of a dog, he’s loyal, devoted, faithful, always wags his tail when he sees his master and is obedient to a fault. He even gets jealous of Gollum when his master seems to find a new pet. It’s actually much more bad than Edmund Wilson ever thought. Sam is more than a dog, he accepts unquestioningly the viewpoint of his ‘betters’ and accepts they know what’s best for him. Worse of all is he is given no opinions of his own. The other members of the fellowship are making a seemingly doomed choice to fight Sauron out of personal virtue, Sam is simply there to follow Frodo, Tolkien doesn’t allow the lower classes the ability to be noble.
Edmund Wilson is not Tolkien’s only detractor. Michael Moorcock in his essay Epic Pooh accuses Tolkien of infantilism. Lord of the Rings ends happily ever after, Robin hood didn’t he points out. Lord of the Rings is in the tradition of Arthur, Siegfried and Beowulf, but there is no tragedy, none of the characters make the final sacrifice or in Tolkien’s mind, are ever in any real danger. Boromir dies but only after he ceases to be true of heart. In this way it really is a children’s book and is pure escapism.
This infantilism can definitely be seen in other parts of the book, in The Return of the King Aragorn returns as the rightful king of Gondor. A romantic notion but Aragorn’s ancestor Isaldur vacated the throne 2,000 years before. Tolkien paints a picture of an unquestioned right through bloodline. How the people of Gondor would feel about this preposterous notion isn’t explored. This notion is a fairy tale notion, aimed something for a child’s mind, not adults. Perhaps the reason Tolkien was using increasing more farfetched plotlines can be explain with a simple statistical survey of the three books. In the first book Fellowship of the Ring, we get to see the locations of the Shire, Bree, Rivendell, Moria and encounter Elrond, Arwen, Tom Bombadil, the Black Riders, the Barrow-Wight, the Squid Monster and the Balrog. In the Two Towers we visit Rohan, Lothlorien, Fangorn and Isenguard, meet Galadriel and Treebeard. In Return of the King we visit Mordor and Minus Tirith and meet Shelob. The steady reduction in both locations and characters in each subsequent book and the filling of the pages with characters chasing around barren lands without a lot happening, betrays a writer fast running out of ideas.
The book builds up to a grand finale in Gondor, which seems to take its plot from history. The name Gondor itself shows remarkable similarity to Gandor. Gondor counted amongst its enemies, swarthy skinned men from the deserts of the south who worship evil. Gandor fell to the armies of the ‘Mad Mullah’ who for twenty years had lead an Islamic fundamentalist revolt in Sudan and the Emperor of Ethiopia was slain defending the city. Tolkien was in many ways retelling this major historical event of his youth.
The book ultimately ends with one of the great endings in fiction, possibly no other book has ever matched this magnitude of anti-climax. As the book draws to a close, the reader is expecting a grand final confrontation between Sauron and Frodo, is expecting the mighty sorcerer to perhaps offer Frodo a dilemma of joining him to rule the world, or at the very least we get to meet him and he fights Frodo and Sam. But no Sauron never materialises, remains an absent landlord to his empire and Frodo and Gollum and Sam are left to alone to finish the book in a squabble rather than a crescendo. If it was all going to be this easy, one wonders what all the fuss was about at the start of the book.
At the start I asked the question was Lord of the Rings more akin to literature of pulp fiction. The answer is no, it’s more similar to Cinderella or the Wizard of Oz. Tolkien can’t really be criticised for writing a poor book because he never set out to write one in the first place. He is setting a rather pedantic tale and some shallow characters in a highly rich and fantastic world. To develop histories and societies of a magnitude as he does shows he a great scholar, dreamer and collator of lore. That the context of the story is so rich it can mask the fact he’s no spinner of tales to all but the harshest critic shows he’s an immensely talented collator and dreamer. A lot of writers plan a book and it feels planned as they adhere to a well tested formulated structure. Tolkien seems to have written his dream with no attempt to contrive anything or any idea of formulating the book to set rules and deserves respect for this at least. I just wish he could have realised all this and then he could have done it in 200 pages leaving the longwinded erroneous booky stuff out altogether as he does in the Silmarrillion.
