What’s this? I actually came up with the Saturday Note topic on Monday??? SORCERY!
The last two days of the week have been DOOZIES, and I’m hoping going to YALLFest this weekend will be the healing balm that will make it all okay. The rest of this month is going to kick into high gear, and I can’t promise more Saturday Notes. I don’t know what’s going to happen! Probably one more though. We’ll see.
Oh fudge this is going to kill my word count for the month, isn’t it? And my Christamas shopping….
I finished King Raven though! I personally think it’s Stephen Lawhead at his best.
---
King Raven & Royal Power
So Stephen Lawhead, an American Christian author who moved to the UK and became obsessed with Celtic Christianity and pre-Christian mythology/folklore. And he wrote a series about Robin Hood, in which he made him Welsh and set it in the reign of William II because Reasons. (Okay, he does explain it and I think it makes sense but I’m someone who is not a historian or expert or scholar of any sort so I couldn’t say whether or not it’s actually convincing.)
And something I’ve been thinking about ever since finishing the second book, Scarlett, is that Lawhead has a different view of the King of England than a lot of mainstream takes on Robin Hood. To be clear, it’s also a different king--William Rufus rather than Richard the Lionheart. But still, I think there’s something interesting here. Most Robin Hood stories are about restoring the rightful king, and once Richard gets back, or back when he was king (in stories in which his restoration is impossible) everything was much better. An odd take for a story featuring an outlaw, but there you go.
Part of this is because King Richard I has a very popular image in the English-speaking world to this day. Yeah, there are some people who look at him more critically, but overall, opinion of him is pretty good. Outside of the English-speaking world, I don’t quite know for sure--the Arn the Knight Templar trilogy has a whole schtick where the main character declares that the world will know him as an oathbreaker and murderer after the massacre in Acre, but I don’t know if that’s actually how he’s viewed in that book series’s home country.
King Raven does not have a great view of kings in general. Which is not quite what I think most people would expect if I was talking about a historical fiction trilogy with explicit Christian leanings. I don’t think it’s too out there--after all, the Bible is not very kind to kings in general, something a lot of hardcore traditional Catholics seem to forget. When Israel is demanding to get a king like all the other countries, God explicitly tells Samuel to remind them that kings will take all their best stuff and could very well turn out to be a tyrant, as many of them turn out to be.
Lawhead’s books don’t demonize William Rufus, but they also don’t make him out to be that great of a guy? The ending of the last novel has them making their peace with him (after spending like a week filling his knights with arrows), and Bran swears fealty to him, but it’s not because they realize he’s the divinely-appointed ruler of Britain. It’s because that’s the best way they decide to end bloodshed, and William’s got other things he needs to do. Basically, he’s tired of it, and Bran wants an end to the war.
The previous book has another instance in which they help William II by revealing to him the conspiracy against him among his own aristocrats, and use it to try to get the throne of Elfael back. And the characters actually seriously consider siding with William’s enemies. Ultimately they side with William not because they owe loyalty to the throne or English/Norman monarchy, but because they think he’s more likely to be in their corner because of their bargaining chip of information. It’s not out of love, it’s just because William is more likely to get them what they need.
Obviously this is heavily influenced by the characters all being Welsh. Yeah, of COURSE they’re not going to preach about the virtues of the King of England, because the only reason there is a King of England is because of people repeatedly coming in and conquering them. Their attitude is of a people suffering under the colonialism of the Norman warrior aristocracy, after suffering under the colonialism of the Saxon warrior aristocracy. It’s not their king, it’s the king of their oppressors. Their relationship needs a lot more work if it’s going to get anything close to love or patriotism.
Although to be fair other kings aren’t necessarily portrayed that well either. Bran’s father isn’t an evil man, but he’s explicitly distant and he tends to try to use force or stubbornness against any annoyance that pops up around him, which Angharad points out to Bran. King Gruffud (who was a real guy, I just found out???) isn’t evil either, but upon being freed by Bran to get help for Elfael, turns around and says he can’t do that because it’s too much work, even AFTER promising to do anything Bran needs for him. He shows up at the end, basically after he’s convinced that they can win by other folks. And Merian’s father is a good king to his people, mostly, but he bends very easily to the Normans, and he’s happy to send his daughter off to live with a baron who is definitely creepily into her against said daughter’s objections.
Lawhead doesn’t hate kings, obviously--look at his other books and I think that becomes clear. But I find it amusing that a openly Christian author has a much more cynical view of kingship and medieval politics than you’d expect, definitely more so than most mainstream Robin Hood depictions. And I think it’s a more realistic take? And one that, in today’s conversations about colonialism, feels better (though by no means perfect) because it highlights the injustice of the system all the while recognizing the need to work within it.
Or something?
I don’t know, I’m tired. I haven’t been sleeping well.
Maybe the point is that you’re supposed to go into the woods, dress like a bird, and jump on people until you get your house back.
---
No comments:
Post a Comment