Yes, I do have an obsession problem. When I find a subject that suits my fancy, I tend to do a 'deep dive,' learning what I can as quickly as a can. The current focus: Robin Hood.
Like King Arthur, Robin Hood's story has been told many times, in many ways, through the years. I recently read McSpadden's Robin Hood (reviewed here). Pyle's version of the legend, The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood, is similar. Really similar. Mostly the same stories- how Robin became an outlaw, how Robin met Little John, etc.- told mostly the same way. In fact, the tellings are so similar that I stopped after I had read about 25%. I enjoyed McSpadden's version, and I enjoyed (what I read of) Pyle's. Since they're so alike, though, I didn't feel the need to complete the latter. Some minor differences between the two:
- Pyle's language is just slightly more archaic than McSpadden's. Pyle's was published first (1883 vs. 1891), but by only eight years, so I can't necessarily attribute it to that. Perhaps Pyle just preferred the older style.
- Pyle tweaks the tales a bit and has Robin killing only rarely- in fact, at the beginning and end of the book only. Both versions are kid-friendly, but Pyle goes that extra mile to even remove (most) killing.
- Pyle's is longer (327 pages vs. 196).
- McSpadden gives more nod to the original ballads, generally starting each tale with a stanza from the original. Pyle clearly uses the same sources, but doesn't reference them as much.
- Though most of the same stories are featured, there are very slight differences in plots. Mostly minor things- not significant enough to expound upon here.
In the end, you won't go wrong reading either version of Robin Hood- both are good in my book. If I had to choose one, though, the McSpadden telling wins by a hair.
Rating: B+
No comments:
Post a Comment