Sir Walter Scott is such a little read and neglected author these days that many people would be put off reading this on the grounds that they have no interest in the old reactionary fuddy duddy. That would be a great pity, for this book is an elegantly written and persuasive examination of the all pervasive nature of Scott’s influence on contemporary Scotland: the Scottish tourist industry, and how Scotland is perceived by outsiders and even, to a large extent, by the Scots themselves is - it is persuasively argued – very largely an invention of Sir Walter’s. Hence the aptness of the book’s title.
Carlyle criticised Scott for his lack of interiority. “Scott gives us speech, not thought; costume, not psychology; the glittering surface of life, not its wellsprings and sources.” Is this too harsh? How fake is Scott? His country house, Abbotsford, is to a large extent a fake - “ a three dimensional Waverley novel” – but even its fakeness has a certain power, because “it incarnates and engenders a profound desire to believe.” It’s like those photographs of the Cottingly fairies: years later, the girls admitted the photos were faked, but said they felt justified because “they really had seen fairies.” To me this is part of Scott’s power – he wants to believe so strongly that we too get swept up and want to believe too, even though we all know there is something fraudulent at the heart of it all.
The power of Scott’s self belief has the paradoxical effect of, to some extent, transforming the fake into a kind of truth. Don’t all of us do that? Isn’t Scott the progenitor of every young person who dyes their hair blue and rejects the gender (or the race or even the species) assigned to them at birth? And when Nietzsche talks about living your life as a work of art, doesn’t that echo Scott’s performative persona? And if I cultivate certain traits of character or personality, does that necessarily make me a fraud, or just someone who makes a choice to become more of the sort of person I would like to be? Is Scott the first in a long line of people who demonstrated the power (and danger) of believing in “my truth”? All of this makes Scott much more intriguingly contemporary than may appear at first sight.
The visit of the gluttonous fantasist King William IV to Scotland in 1822 was triumphantly orchestarted by Scott and was the key event which transformed the cultural landscape from Sir Walter’s personal fantasy into a reality which lasts to this day. The fat King, dripping in bling like a kind of Maharajah of the Glens, with his flesh coloured tights hiding his massively swollen legs tottering under his corpulent kilted frame, makes for an absorbing and richly comic spectacle. When our late queen lay in state in Scotland, the coffin was escorted by the bizarrely attired Company of Archers looking like extras from a Hollywood production of Robin Hood. The origin of this cod medieval royal bodyguard, of course, is Scott himself, who invented them for that same royal visit in 1822. To me, they epitomise everything about the Scott project: absurd and more than slightly fraudulent, yet also somehow oddly satisfying and even somewhat touching.
Mark Twain blamed Scott for the US Civil War (he claimed Scott’s reactionary world view contributed to the Lost Cause myth of the Confederacy). I think Twain goes too far, but I take his point that Scotticism, if carried to extremes, can be dangerous. But really – what would you rather have, Presbyterian doom and gloom, or men in tights? Scotland has a Muslim First Minister who has many faults, but the joyfully insouciant way he wears his kilt is not one of them – and I think Scott would have relished that.