Three old favourites:

Softly's Plain Jane Welch's For the King Sutcliff's Simon Softly, B. (1961). Plain Jane. London, MacMillan. The key thing is that this book is not actually about the war, it is simply set during it. Jane is a twin. Although her father is cold to both children, her brother receives pride and praise. Jane receives criticisms, and verbal and physical cruelty. Sir John Kester is a Royalist, and when he needs to get a packet of information through the lines he sends his son Jeremy. Things go wrong and Jane ends up taking his place: she is timid but also rather cleverer than Jeremy and is able to hide the papers long enough for them to get to the right person after several misadventures, but both children end up coming into rather frightening contact with the Roundheads, and in particular with Captain Marston, who gradually emerges as a sympathetic figure. When they get home, instead of being a heroine Jane finds herself locked up. She is to be co-erced into a marriage with a much older man in order to pay her father's debts, because Jane is an heiress. Jeremy helps Jane escape by dressing as her, and although it is quickly spotted Jane gets away, is eventually caught y Roundheads and then taken into Captain Marston's family where it emerges that his father was witness to the will that may have caused the trouble-in it Jane's grandfather made her, and any female siblings, his heir, thus depriving her father of the money he had expected. Then, when Captain Marston is captured,, Jane and his sister Anne go to see what they can do. Jane walks into a trap and finds herself agreeing to marry in return for Mark Marston's life. When she marries Mr. Roper however she discovers that her life is at risk. He wants the money, not the bride. Eventually the house is under attack by Roundheads and he takes the chance to do away with her. It fails and she and Jeremy are taken by the Marstons who assume guardianship and commit to getting an annulment (and Softly doesn't mention this but as money would then move from a "malignent" to a Parliamentarian, it would probably be easy to secure). Sir John dies. Jeremy is assured that he can fight for the King when the time comes. And Jane rewrites her mournful little poem. Although the book is mostly neutral there is a distinct sense of sympathy. The clerk hauled in by the Parliamentarians notes "I suppose war became inevitable, what with broken promises from the King and misunderstandings on both sides." (57) And when Jane refuses to sign a document she is not allowed to read, she flings out "And if the King deceives people as my father deceived me, I do not wonder that Parliament went to war with him. Are all Royalists liars?" (104) and certainly we see no nice Royalists. Captain Marston's assurance to Jeremy, that 'I think you have been unfortunate in them... They may be admirable soldiers in spite of the act that they wlll go to ugly extremes to obtain money. There are good and bad on both sides: you must remember not to judge a cause entirely by the men belonging to it." (167), is less than convincing. There is also a noticeably pacifist and irreligious thread running through the book: Jeremy more or less swears off killing after he thinks he has killed Anne's brother, "I did not know a man lile that would have a family, or a home, or a sister that would miss him."(165) And Jane cannot join in with her friends' prayers, "inside herself she could feel nothing of faith and trust, only a growing indignation that that should have happened to a family she had come to love and respect." (185) Welch, R. (1969). For the King. Oxford, Oxford University Press. I was really vey surprised by this book. I have always adored it, but it's called, "For the King" and I've always felt a bit guilty for loving it so much. How did I utterly fail to notice that it's not a pro-Royalist book at all? If anything, it's mildly Parliamentarian. Part of Welch's Carey series (which appealed very strongly to me as a child, even as I headed down an anti-aristocratic, anti-militaristic road) the series as a whole has always been a bit more subversive than it looks: in Knight Crusader, there is a lot of emphasis on wtf were we doing there? In Mohawk Valey, the tensions between settlers, natives, and the exploration of different modes of co-existence, can be read into the book, and the book set in India (can't remember the name just now) is not all that thrilled with Imperialism. In For the King, there is a drip, drip of anti monarchical sentiment. Neil is the second son. Small, slight and studious (not unlike the King in fact), he has an elder brother who is everything a Cavalier should be: dashing, a courtier, engaged directly in court politics. As is often the case in Welch's work a lot of the book is about proving one is not a coward in the face of people who think you are too weak. Neil has his brother to contend with and all his brother's friends. Denzil joins the King because he believes in the cause: Neil and his father the Earl, not so much. When Neil's cousin Frances (who fights and eventually dies for Parliament) challenges him "if you don't agree with Denzil and his courtier friends, you must be on our side', Neil responds, "I am on no side." (5) and cites Plato. "Plato! What can he teach us today?" "Tolerance," Neil said sweetly, and smiled at his cousin's angry face. (6) Neil isn't too impressed with the King either, "a red faced little man in a rich, dark doublet...his prominent eyes under heavy lids" (7) and his troupe frankly repels him. "An arrogant and aggressive collection of men, Neil thought; there would be no compromise or toleration from them." (7) and that his brother is among them only confirms Neil's feelings. And "For the life of him, Neil could not decide which side was in the right, King or Parliament? For every argument in favour of the King, Neil's quick intelligence could find as strong an answer for Parliament. He wished he could se the struggle as simply as Francis or Denzil did. Perhaps toleration was not so fine a virtue after all." (9). His brother is utterly perplexed, but the Earl understands and is also not keen. At first the Earl stands aside, "Let them have their own squabbles, I want no part of it. Nor does anyone in Carmathenshire." (26) and he packs Neil off to London to bring home the family plate, where he reads the London papers. "The London writers, of course, wrote entirely from the view of Parliament, and they presented the King's actions in the worst possible light. But the facts that Neil read were disturbing enough without any need to discount the bias of the writer." (46) In turn the Earl declares openly to Neil, "I istrust both sides. I dislike the motives and their aims." (50) So it is only when the Earl receives the order to muster from both parties that he finally makes a choice,and chooses the King, and even then he leaves Neil's choice to himself. (54) But when forced to choose, with the arrival of SIr Oliver Vaughn and his son Francis, old family friends who are convinced Parliamentarians, we are told, "I am for the King, too"...But he knew that he was for his father. (57) The war proceeds and much of the tale is about military history and Neil's growth into leadership, but by the end of the war more comments emerge. "Neil was not thinking of that wound as he remembered Newberry. For Lord Falkland had died at Newbury. Neil had spoken to him before the battle, and had found him gloomy and embittered, convinced that the war could bring nothing but disaster to the kingdom." (161) "Neil felt now, too, that the war was a futile tragedy; still less than ever did he think that either side was in the right, and but for his pride he would never have left Llanstephan after his visit there during the winter." (162) and throughout the novel there is constant criticism of Royalist strategy and organisation. Neil retires to Llanstephan with relief, but is devastated to discover Francis was killed at Naseby, and when the rebellion comes, what Neil revolts about is the encroachment of military law. "I beieve the present rule of Parliament, the Army and the Puritans, is quite contrary to al the freedoms and rights of the kingdom." (190) but even this, is not enough to put rose coloured glass in front of his eyes. Both he and Owen realise quickly tjat "They're of the New Model, and they've been inthe field for three years. They're soldiers, and we're a rabble." (197). The rebellion is a disaster, Owen's son Hugh is killed, and Neil finds himself on trial for his life because someone has faked his parole. A great deal of what Carey is interested in is how we treat each other; all the betrayals and rescues in this book are linked by personal action. Neil is good to the men around him, and Owen Price the Earl's Captain to whom he presents brand new pistols, and treats as a friend, eventually is the man to come find Neil when he is sick and ill after escape. Evans who resents Neil, because Neil has seen his cowardice, and tries to land him in serious trouble, is betrayed by his lack of friends; and James Tanner, who is Neil's sizar at university and resents his wealth is simiarly betrayed by the men he commanded who resent his snobbery (Tanner is a man who has come down in the world, rather than an ambitious poor boy,and it's interesting Welch focuses on that. In Tank Commander we will see something similar in a brief scene with two lieutenants reprimanded for not looking after their men: it is the ambitious poor boy who gets the lesson, the one experiencing downward mobility who is too busy preserving his own status.) At the end, when Neil is held to have breached his parole in the Welsh rebellion, it is the father of a Roundhead soldier he had saved who clears his name (the word "not" having been scratched out from "parole not given" by Tanner, after Neil's escape from Tanner's capture), and by Sir Oliver Vaughn, for whom the bond of friendship supersedes in the end the political divide. At the very end, Neil heads into exile for two years, longing for Llanstephan. Neil is possibly the nicest of the protagonists Welch ever wrote. Sutcliff, R. (1953). Simon. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Amused to see the fly leaf advertise it as "unbiased" because it is thoroughly parliamentarian. Throughout Amias's recklessness is positioned as a metaphor for the actions of the Royalists. Another very old favourite: we meet Amias and Simon when they are 11 and not quite 11, living in Devon. Amias the son of the doctor, Simon of the local gentry. Amias is all flash and daring, Simon the sober one. Amias gets them into trouble, Simon gets them out. When the story starts they are off to school and there is a lot of background story because really this is more about friendship than about war, although once we begin following just SImon, Sutcliff is superb about the military engagements and life as a trooper. When Amias's father declares for the King, and raises a toast to his standard, there is a breach between the boys. Amias is too passionate even to shake hands. He cannot believe that his friend disagrees with him, because Simon has always been the follower (and in this, Sutcliff really does understand what can happen to children's friendships). Because the story is then told almost entirely from Simon's point of view we see mostly the varieties of Parliamentarian, from Simon's sober father (who loses his leg and eventually comes home), to life in Lord Fairfax's regiment (and the jealousy of Cornet Wainright who tries to get Simon court martialled for rescuing Amias at the end,an the telling comment that the troop had more sympathy for Simon, "a man who had risked everything to stand by a friend in the wrong camp" (239) ).; and the life of a very strict Puritan woman who looks after Simon when he is ill and whose extreme attitides are given little truck, even as her very real kindness is recognised. One of the most fascinating characters is Corporal Zeal for the Lord Relf, who deserts to pursue a private revenge, and eventually redeems himself in one last act for Simon and for Parliament. There is not much about the Royalists, but when Simon does meet Amias again--when Amias invades Simon's home to look for a spy (who is in fact Simon) we get the comment "Simon could not help noticing that Amias seemed to have his disreputable band under better control than most of the King's troops he had seen lately." (174) and in a rare departure from convention, the escaped Prince Charles "seemed by all accounts, to be a wild and rather unpleasant youth" (240) As is not unsual, our protagonist leaves the army with the execution of King Charles (242) and returns to farm, and on p. 252 we have a discussion between Simon and Amias about the Commonwealth.. "England's a dreary place place under the Commonwealth." "Yes, but look here," Simon began, and broke off to get his argument straight in his own mind. "You're a surgeon, leastwise you will be soon. You know how you deal with a man who's sick; you knock off all the things he likes doing, and make him eat plain food, and bleed him and give him black draughts; and maybe he doesn't like you while the treatment lasts, But he's all the better for it afterwards." "Aye, but is there going to be an "Afterwards"?' Amias countered. "Surely. This isn't--natural, somehow, not for England.One day we shall have a King again." "So even you admit that the Commonwealth isn't all honey?' "Maybe," Simon said."There are a lot of good things about it, though. More justice, for one thing, than ever there was under King Charles, and we're getting back our old place among the nations..." (252) This entry was originally posted at http://treaseproject.dreamwidth.org/3981.html . Please comment there using OpenID.

Log in

Three old favourites:

Time flies when there is a book deadline.

Well, that got a bit away from itself...

And now a little comment on Robert Leeson.

Error