From the Bookshelf of Into the Forest…

Robin Hood: A Complete Study of the English Outlaw

Stephen Thomas Knight

Find A Copy At

Libraries

Group Discussions About This Book

No group discussions for this book yet.

What Members Thought

Jan 26, 2019 Samuel Valentino rated it liked it

Shelves: history, heroes

There is a lot that is good about this book. I learned a lot about both ancient and more modern versions of the legend - Thomas Love Peacock's "Maid Marian" is a book I'd never have heard of were it not for this book. Also, his emphasis that there is not a canonical Robin Hood story, like Le Morte d'Arthur is to King Arthur. That actually made me like more modern versions a lot better. Anyone is free to add to the story in any way they want (an especially good example of this is "Will in Scarlet There is a lot that is good about this book. I learned a lot about both ancient and more modern versions of the legend - Thomas Love Peacock's "Maid Marian" is a book I'd never have heard of were it not for this book. Also, his emphasis that there is not a canonical Robin Hood story, like Le Morte d'Arthur is to King Arthur. That actually made me like more modern versions a lot better. Anyone is free to add to the story in any way they want (an especially good example of this is "Will in Scarlet" by Matthew Cody, a book I highly recommend).

However, you know when I start the review off that way, there has to be a "however." The author, while acknowledging that there are a lot of different ways of seeing Robin Hood, apparently has his ONE WAY of seeing him, as an anti-authority figure. I'm not saying that Robin Hood can't be viewed as such, it's just that every other consideration in the book is measured by how Robin's traits relate to this one identity. Any deviation is regarded as "gentrification" - and, lest this seem an ambiguous term, he even adds enfeebling to it on one occasion.

Much more informative was his discussion about Robin's role. In some he is a leader, in others a follower, and in some others a buffoon. I found that sort of interpretation much more interesting than how anti-authoritarian Robin would be, especially from a literary point of view.

And now the biggest critique. He says literally almost nothing about robbing from the rich and giving to the poor! Okay, so he makes the case that that element is not in the original ballads (I myslef would say not stressed, that is, but more about that in a minute). Assuming that is true, you would think at some point, as the author is moving forward in time through Robin interpretations, that it would come up SOMEWHERE. But the only place he mentions it is earlier in the book, and that to say it wasn't part of it at that time. Ya know, when you get to the 20th century (if not WAAAAY sooner, thanks to Parker's 17th century Robin Hood), even if you don't like it since it's not anti-authoritarian, the author could at least talk about it.

For me, I noticed the omission mainly because it does show the author's bias. The big Robin Hood story that historians like to point out, because of its antiquity, is the Gest of Robin Hood. True, there's no robbing from the rich scenes and distributing to the unfortunate in the poem. However, the very last line of the poem is "For he was a good outlaw, and did the poor much good." For me, I'll acknowledge that the original didn't contain our 21st-century ideas of wealth distribution. On the other hand, in the main story it ends with his concern for the poor. I'm no Robin Hood scholar, but I'd bet that it didn't make it into the main story because archery and robbing corrupt abbots is a lot more fun to hear than charitable distribution. Just from a story-telling point of view.

But that rant aside, a well written book, with a lot of scholarship behind it. I may have strong views about it, but it was definitely a good intro to a subject I knew little of. ...more

1 like · Like · see review

Group Home Bookshelf Discussions

Photos Videos

Send invite Members Polls