The Adventures of Robin Hood

Today's review is of the 2021 release, The Adventures of Robin Hood. For 2-4 players, it takes 60 minutes.

Overview

You and your friends live in Nottinghamshire, England, in 1193. The evil Prince John terrorizes the land; your goal is to evade him and his cronies and complete your adventures. Will you be successful?

Components; image from here

The Adventures of Robin Hood is played on an 'open map,' meaning there are no grids or hexes to guide movement. Instead, you use provided wooden pieces of varying lengths to move your character, investigate, and battle. The game is played in chapters, and the included book (212 pages!) guides you, driving the story forward, giving you objectives for that chapter, and presenting options for your turn (initially, your turn may be guided, but after laying the groundwork, your turn option generally is "take your turn," meaning move and investigate/battle as you like to try to fulfill the objective). It has a 'choose your own adventure' feel to it, and you may turn to different pages in the book based on the choices you make. A timer mechanism in the game adds suspense, having consequences if you don't complete the objective in time. I'll say no more to avoid spoilers. 

Review

This is a fun game. Suitable for families, it is simple and quite different than most I've played. The map is unique- not only lacking a grid to guide movement, it has tons of 'cutouts' that you flip over when instructed to change the layout or threats. That mechanism then preserves the board for the next chapter, as the intent is to eventually play through the entire story of Robin Hood. The map & book are of high quality. The initial stage of chapter one was pretty restricted in player choice, but that made sense- they used the opening to teach you the rules. Once through that, your turn options opened up. A cooperative game, it was fun to discuss among the players how each character should proceed. 

I 'ding' it mildly for two reasons:

- I don't know how replayable this is. I've heard you can play the entire story, then go back and make different choices for a wildly different experience. That's cool, but that means it is replayable only if you choose differently- if you make the same choices, you'll know exactly what to do and where to go, giving you a huge leg up against the game. (Of course, if you have a bad memory, you could play this and let it sit for a few years before picking it back up.)

- The map cutouts are done well, but still cardboard. Even flipping them once, you see signs of wear that would only worsen with repeated usage. 

Ultimately, I like this. Though unique, it does have echoes of Lord of the Rings: Journeys in Middle Earth. What the latter does with an app (tracking board state and placing exploration/threat tokens), this does with the map cutouts and storybook. 

Rating: A-

The Chronicles of Robin Hood (Rosemary Sutcliff)

The Chronicles of Robin Hood, by noted author Rosemary Sutcliff, is a straightforward re-telling of the legend.  Here, Robin is a minor landowner who is falsely accused and deprived of his holdings; he turns to the forest, gathers a band of similarly-mistreated peasants (and gentry alike), has numerous adventures, and becomes the famous noble outlaw.  He lives through the reigns of Henry II (1154-89), Richard the Lion-Hearted (1189-99), and John (1199-1216).  During Richard's reign, Robin is pardoned and is restored to property for sixteen years; he returns to outlawry, and the forest, when the cruel John turns against much of England and sows injustice.

As she did with King Arthur (see here), Sutcliff does a good job painting a complete Robin Hood story, closely following the original [surviving] tales and weaving them together in a simple but good way.  Some unique elements of her version:
- Robin has hideouts in both Barnesdale and Sherwood Forests
- There are two Sheriffs of Nottingham (the first is slain)
- Robin does a good amount of nationalist freedom-fighting against King John's foreign mercenaries

A recommended offering for children and adults alike.

Rating: A-

Robin Hood (J.C. Holt)

It's not often that I (knowingly) review the same thing twice, but today's book was first covered two years ago (review here).  This time, it's a newer edition, and I have a newer perspective, being now more well-read on the subject.  I thus wanted to revisit this.

In Robin Hood, professor J.C. Holt tries to separate history from legend and determine who the original Robin may have been.  He looks at the five original ballads, historical persons of interest who may have been Robin (or contributed to his legend), relevant locations and their influence, the various audiences who have listened to the tales (and perhaps inspired elements through popular demand), and later elements that morphed the tales into its present form.  Check the original review for more details.

Holt's main update in this edition nails down that Robin Hood tales existed (and were widely known) no later than 1260.  This eliminates the possibility that he originated in 1320 (as some tales and historians have suggested)- the legend was in place decades before.  While it's still all but impossible to nail down anything else- who he may have been, where he may have roamed, what causes (if any) he championed- at least we know something.

I appreciated this work more the second time (and edition) through.  Holt knows his stuff and has a pretty good delivery (though some comments could be more clear).  This book, combined with Stephen Knight's treatment (review here) are good resources for fans of Robin.  A summary of the "who/when/where/what" possibilities for him can be viewed on my post here, and see here for a list of Robin Hood reading suggestions.

Rating: A-

Robin Hood: A Mythic Biography (Stephen Knight)

Though I no longer live near he was reputed to roam, the story of Robin Hood is still near and dear to my heart.  In A Mythic Biography, Stephen Knight looks at Robin's story.  Others (like J.C. Holt) have tried to determine if the stories were in fact based on a historical figure; Knight, however, focuses instead on just the tales- from Hood's initial mention in medieval times to present day- and looks at how the myth has evolved over the centuries.

Looking at the stories, it's impressive to see the range of roles and themes Robin's story has assumed.  He's either a festive village fertility figure, outlawed yeoman, forest trickster, gentrified outlaw, naturalist, social reformer (standing against oppression), nationalist, romantic, or some combination thereof.  In the late 1800s, Robin's story transitioned to moralistic children's works, adding another dimension.  In addition, Robin has been "a channel for many varied . . . reflections on gender, race, politics, time, and even the supernatural."  It's clear that "elements of the myth have interested creative minds in different periods in different ways, and each has driven the myth in a new direction- essentially, driven it onward, given it new vigor."  That said, there is a common thread- "he always represents resistance to authority."

Towards the end, Knight steps back and does devote a few pages to consideration of a historical Robin Hood.  He concludes- and I concur- that "it seems highly improbable, or at least unprovable, that a Mr. R. Hood ever existed."  That disappointing reality aside, I still enjoy tales of Robin.  Perhaps it's because "to study Robin Hood is to study over five hundred years of the development of modern concepts of heroism, art, politics, and the self."

Overall, this is a great book.  Many other books try to determine the identity of the real Robin Hood.  Largely ignoring the historical investigation frees Knight to focus on the literary variations and transitions mentioned above, and I found that fascinating.  It's clear that he's well-informed (this is a rather scholarly/academic read), and yet he keeps the book is short (210 pages).  Its brevity is both appreciated and disappointing, though- there were times Knight references authors and other Robin Hood scholars without appropriate elaboration for the amateur enthusiast.  It's probably impossible to strike the perfect balance, though, so he did well overall- and an extensive notes and bibliography section is included for further reading.

Rating: A

Maid Marian (Thomas Love Peacock)

The legend of Robin Hood has been told many times in many ways.  Thomas Love Peacock, a satirical author with a hilarious name, delivers his version in Maid Marian.  Peacock's story is largely traditional, but delivered in a very different style.  He begins 'before the Hood:' the wedding of Earl Robert Fitz-Ooth and Lady Matilda Fitzwater is broken up by a knight seeking the former for various crimes against the king (stealing deer, etc.).  Robert flees and becomes Robin; Matilda and her father join him later (and she becomes Marian) when the king turns against them in his hunt for Robin; others join (Friar Tuck, Little John, Will Scarlet, etc.); the merry band has many adventures as they enforce their own brand of justice in Sherwood during the time of Kings Richard and John.  This one ends on a lighter note than most Robin Hood tales: we leave Robin and Marian as they're happily wed and living in the forest.

Thomas Love Peacock is popular enough to have a small society dedicated to him, and I see why.  His wit and writing style are very enjoyable, and this was a fun ride.  It wasn't top-notch- he's not quite a Dickens- but it was very good, and I loved how he sprinkles witty social commentary into this classic tale.  He also includes short, fun poems throughout.  You can read Maid Marian in its entirety here, and see a picture of the author below.

Love his hair!

Rating: A-

A Brief History of Robin Hood (Nigel Cawthorne)

I thought I was done my Robin Hood kick, but I spotted today's title at a bookstore, and couldn't say no.  A Brief History of Robin Hood looks at what truth may have existed behind the modern-day legend.  It covers a variety of angles, from history to literature, includes plot summaries of the earliest Robin Hood stories, and looks at known historical figures (like Fulk Fitzwarin, Eustace the Monk, and Hereward the Wake) who may have had influences on the story development.

This is okay, but there are better out there.  Cawthorne has written a number of books on many topics- so Robin Hood is not his life's ambition or expertise (unlike, for example, J.C. Holt (his work reviewed here).  He includes some irrelevant information, like a chapter on outlaws from the 1800s and 1900s who had Robin Hood-like qualities (who cares?), and when giving backstories of historical figures or summaries of Robin Hood literature, he gives too much detail (it felt like filler).  He also makes some fanciful assumptions, making statements about which Robin Hood historical figures were (or were not) likely to be real, without backing any of his opinions up.  The book is relatively comprehensive, which is nice- the plot summaries of the early works (though too detailed, as mentioned, and boring) are informative- but it's too long, and some chapters appear to be included solely to beef up the book.  In the end, this really isn't "the true history behind the legend"- because many have shown that we do not, and likely can not, know for certain.  At best, this is good for information, and an introduction to the uninitiated, but if you're truly interested in Robin, Holt's treatment is better.

Rating: C-

The Outlaws of Sherwood (Robin McKinley)

One last Robin Hood book before departing the UK.  Today's review: Robin McKinley's The Outlaws of Sherwood.

McKinley's book is in a different category.  Hers is a traditional take on Robin Hood- but only partially.  All the standard characters and locales are there- Robin, Marian, Tuck, Little John, the sheriff, Nottingham, and so forth- as well as the basic plot (Robin becomes an outlaw, hides in the forest, forms a band, robs people, takes on the sheriff, etc.).  However, three main things set this book apart:

1) the motives, personalities and abilities of the outlaws deviate markedly from the norm
Forget what you know about Robin and his band- this time around, things are quite different.  Here, Robin is moody, an average archer at best, brooding, and concerned more about putting others in danger than about leading a merry life in the woods.  Marian is strong-willed, an excellent archer, and clearly in love with Robin, but unsure if the converse is true.  Alan-a-dale is an okay musician, but nothing to think twice about.  Different members of the party have different, if endearing, quirks- and all are flawed.

2) the telling is much richer
McKinley's prose is interesting.  It's good; at times, very good.  She's not consistently eloquent, but there are times when I paused to admire her phrases and use of words.  It's much more vibrant than the straightforward re-tellings of the legend typical of other authors.

3) the focus is on realism
It's hard to categorize this book.  It's not a straightforward legend; neither is it proper historical fiction (though elements of history are present).  I think it's most accurately described as realistic fiction.  Here,you see decent discussion about what life in the forest really would be like- and it's not all fun and games.  Latrine digging, sleeping in trees, scrounging for food; again, a far cry from the merry men in most tales.

Overall, I enjoyed this quite a bit.  It was hard to read a times- the way McKinley phrased things could trip me up- but it was worth it overall.

Rating: A-

Holy Warrior (Angus Donald)

In January, I read (and mostly enjoyed) Outlaw, the first book in an ongoing series on Robin Hood (review here) by Angus Donald.  As I stated then, I'd probably give the second book a try to determine if the rest of the series was worth pursuing.  I got my chance sooner than anticipated, and I started Holy Warrior last week.

Outlaw ended with Robin being pardoned by Richard the Lionhearted and given a modest landholding in central England.  As part of the deal, though, Robin swore to 'take the Cross'- to accompany Richard on the Third Crusade.   In Holy Warrior, we start with Robin making preparations for his departure, a necessary part of which is raising money to pay for goods required on the journey.  With few options, he decides to pursue borrowing from the Jews of York- and unfortunately walks in on the 1190 Jewish massacre in [what is now] Clifford's Tower.  That's as far as I got.  You may have picked up on my unusual wording from the first paragraph.  I started Holy Warrior last week.  I didn't finish it, and I won't.  I gave it a fair shot, reading 33%, but I decided to put it down.

To be fair to Donald, I want to explain my reasons for stopping.  The book isn't bad- I rate the portion I read below.  But my big problem was with the history.  As I commented in book one, I'm not entirely sure Donald is portraying the history correctly.  Recounting the events, yes.  Conveying the correct atmosphere and attributing realistic motives to the participants, I'm not so sure.  If you read it as fiction with some history mixed in, I think the book is enjoyable.  If you just want a Robin Hood story and care little for other elements, go for it.  But if you read it as historical fiction, the book might give you a wrong impression on how and why covered events happened.  Personally, I'd rather have no idea than a wrong idea about a given situation . . . so I stopped reading.  It may be for you, but it wasn't for me.  I'm not saying that Donald is certainly off-base in his perspective . . . I just felt something was lacking in both books one and two, and it was significant enough in my mind to stop.

I believe Donald is up to book five or six in the series, and it looks like subsequent offerings cover the Third Crusade, Richard's return and capture on the way, and other interesting events.  So if this time period is for you, and this history aspect isn't overly important, you may enjoy this series.

Rating: B-

Tuck (Stephen Lawhead)

The third and final book in the King Raven series, Tuck concludes the story of Rhi Bran- a Welsh prince attempting to regain his kingdom from the Norman overlords.  For the record, I review the first book (Hood) here, and the second (Scarlet) here.

Setting the stage of Tuck: at the end of Scarlet, Rhi Bran has revealed an attempt on the king's life by ones currently ruling Bran's ancestral holding, and informed the sovereign.  The king was naturally thankful, and told Bran & co. to meet him in a few months' time at his castle.  They do so, where the king, rather than reward them by returning Bran's lands, turns the lands over to a new set of overlords- the Abbot Hugo and Guy of Gisburne.  Scarlet ends with Bran and his company back in the forest, fuming at the decision and wondering what to do next.

The following contains spoilers.

In Tuck, Bran attempts to gather an army to take back his cantref on his own.  He heads to relatives in north Wales, where he first frees their king (held by the baron in Chester), but finds no assistance from the newly liberated cousin.  Meanwhile, Merian heads to her relatives in south Wales, only to be similarly rebuffed.  Disheartened, Bran eventually hits on a way to take back his kingdom by a series of guerrilla-like raids.  He drives Hugo and Gisburne out of Elfael, and reclaims it as his own.  The two dejected overlords send a plea to the king, who decides to put down the Welsh once and for all by raising an army and storming the area.  The defenders receive help from unlikely quarters, and in the end, are allowed to keep their kingdom, if they swear fealty to the king.

This story arc all happens in the 1090s.  The final chapter, set in 1210, has a descendant of the conflict- Thomas a'Dale (descendant of Alan)- singing of Rhi Bran's exploits to King John and the Sheriff of Nottingham just outside Sherwood Forest.  As was typical of the time, Thomas changes the setting and affected parties to match his current location, heightening interest of the listeners.  Thus, Lawhead implies, the "Robin Hood" legend becomes (mistakenly) associated with that area instead of Wales.

This story was okay- better than Scarlet, but not as good as Hood.  The plot itself was fine, but it suffered from the same things that plagued the first two books- parts of the plot were extremely under-developed, racing through unexpected turns of events with insufficient build-up, and (on a similar note) characters would have sudden, somewhat inexplicable changes of heart.  I really liked the last chapter, though, which was completely plausible.

The overall trilogy was . . . okay.  My enthusiasm after the first dimmed after the next two.  It has a good enough story, but isn't nearly as well-executed as, say, Cornwell's Arthur trilogy.  Though I must admit, Lawhead's series might be considered young adult fiction (which I honestly didn't realize through the first two books), in which case some of my problems with it are more understandable.  I think kids would love it.

Rating: B

Robin Hood Reading Suggestions

 

As I did for King Arthur (post here), today I present reading suggestions for those interested in Robin Hood.

I've already discussed who Robin may have been and where/when he may have lived- see post here if interested- so today's focus is purely on stories about him. 

In literature, we first hear of Robin second-hand.  Early references include mentions in Piers Plowman and the Scotichronicon (both from the late 1300s).  The first stories about Robin we get are from Medieval ballads.  The first surviving date from 1450, and contain some of the elements later Robin Hood tales feature.  A good account here delves deeper into these first tales.  Some early plays feature Robin as well- and a bit later (1600s), Shakespeare mentions him in two of his works.  As time progressed, the thief evolved into the "rob from the rich, give to the poor" hero we know today.  As with King Arthur, in recent years literature on Robin has increased dramatically, and spread to several genres (including historical fiction and romance).  Arthurian books have the upper hand in terms of quantity, but Robin enjoys his share of retellings and reinventions.  

Update (from June 2017): originally, I concluded this post with a list of Robin Hood works.  I've moved that to my main Robin page.

Scarlet (Stephen Lawhead)

Scarlet is book two of the King Raven Trilogy- a historical fiction series which sets Robin Hood (here, Rhi Bran) in the 1090s, in Wales fighting against the Normans.  I reviewed book one here, and won't repeat the background.

The tale is told from the perspective of a new character- Will Scarlet, who joins the band early in the book, only to get captured during a daring kidnapping attempt on the evil Sheriff of the area.  Will tells most of the tale by relaying it to Odo, a priest who visits him in his prison cell and learns his story while he awaits hanging.  Scarlet relays to Odo Rhi Bran's raids on select caravans, robbing the rich to distribute to the poor, and in particular of one such attack which yielded a letter with royal implications.  When Rhi Bran learns of the letter's contents, he decides to take action, hoping to gain Elfael's freedom once and for all.

Book two is okay, but not as good as the first offering.  The story is average, not great.  Telling it from Will's perspective is occasionally annoying.  I'll probably read the third, but I'm not overly excited about it.

Rating: B-

Outlaw (Angus Donald)

2014 begins the way 2013 concluded . . . with a book on Robin Hood.  This time, it's Outlaw by Angus Donald.  The first book of the Outlaw Chronicles, it re-imagines the famous thief as a godfather-type character, ruling the outlaws of Sherwood like a mafia Don.  Like the traditional Robin, he steals, loves Marian (here, Mary-Anne), is at odds with the Sheriff of Nottingham, lives in the forest, serves King Richard the Lionhearted, and is an excellent woodsmen.  Unlike tradition, he shows little charity, will kill gruesomely to make a point, and is a pagan.  His band is mostly familiar- Little John, Friar Tuck, Will Scarlet, and more.  The story is told from the viewpoint of Alan Dale- an impoverished boy who finds his way into Robin's band to escape the sheriff.  Alan's telling Robin's story through recollection- he's an old man winding down his days, wistfully remembering the times he had in the forest with his famous master.  Alan's recollections focus on his own experience, training in the forest to become a worthy helper to Robin, serving in battle with him, and growing up to be a man.  But we also see what you'd expect- a bit about how Robin became an outlaw, how some of the more famous members joined his band, how Robin fought the Sheriff, etc.  Book one ends with King Richard coming to Sherwood and enlisting Robin in the Crusade (which some of the traditional tales do mention).

I'm very conflicted about this book.  It's easiest to list the good and bad:
Good:

• it's fast-paced and interesting; you want to read more.
• you get to see a more realistic portrait of who Robin might have been- this is billed as historical fiction/fantasy.  In that sense, it's akin to Bernard Cornwell's Warlord trilogy on King Arthur.
• Donald does well weaving traditional characters/tales into the story in a realistic way.  
• Robin and other characters are "gray."  They'll do good- or kill without mercy.  Even the narrator, Alan, is suspect at times.  That was an interesting twist.

Bad:

• this is Donald's first book, and it shows.  The use (or lack) of commas in some places tripped me up at times.  
• the characters are a bit shallow- not nearly as developed as they could be.  Sometimes it's hard to nail down who Robin really is, and what he really wants. 
• there's not enough history in here to be true historical fiction/fantasy.  The dialogue isn't that great, either.  It's more of an adventure set in a Medieval fantasy world, with historical figures in it.
• personal preference: not enough time is spent developing Robin's time in the forest.  To me, Robin is attractive because of the woods and the operation he has running there.  That's not covered a lot, and by the end of book one, Robin's already leaving the woods.   Things felt a bit rushed- I wish that was covered more.
• with the series currently at 5 books and counting, you don't get a sense of where/when/how this is going to end, or even what the overall point is. 

If this was a trilogy, I'd read the rest.  My first good point- that it's interesting and makes you want to read more- overcomes a lot of faults.  However, with 5 books published and 2 more announced, I just don't know if there's enough good here to make me to read the entire series.  I'm torn!  In the end, I may give book two a go, and see how I feel then.

Rating: B  

Robin Hood

Having immersed myself in all things Robin Hood for a few months now, I'm at that particularly dangerous stage where I think I'm educated on the topic.  I'm probably not, and so what follows is likely speculative conjecture.* 

Today's post is a quick summary of who Robin Hood may have been.  Let's face reality up-front: he probably didn't exist at all.  Many people named Robin Hood (or something similar) have existed, certainly.  But the Robin Hood- the "rob from the rich and give to the poor" Robin Hood- is likely a creation of man, based on a grain of truth, but so enlarged and exaggerated that he's essentially straight out of the imagination of generations of minstrels.  But still, just for fun, let's consider the possibility that the Prince of Thieves did exist, in something close to the form we know today.  Where did he roam, when did he live, and post importantly, who was he?

Before proceeding- if you want a more informed opinion, see the history of Robin Hood site here.  It has a number of good resources on it.   If you're happy with my "learn in 2 minutes" approach, read on.

Where did he roam?

The main areas proposed are:
- Sherwood Forest/Nottingham area
Where most of the tales place our hero.   Almost all of the modern stories do so, and many of the older ballads, too.

- Barnsdale (in present-day South Yorkshire)
Some of the earliest surviving ballads mention Barnsdale, not Sherwood, as Robin's haunt.  Barnsdale is north/northwest of Doncaster; about 50 miles north of Sherwood Forest.  In Medieval times, however, the forest may have encompassed the entire region.  There are many minor links to Robin in the Barnsdale area today; here is a good overview. 

- The Welsh Marches 
This location is proposed by Stephen Lawhead, in his historical fiction trilogy on Robin.  Lawhead believes Robin originated here for several reasons, but geographically because the Marches of Wales was primeval forest, "while the forests of England had long since become well-managed business property."  Basically, Robin could actually live hidden in the fearsome Welsh wilderness; England's had become more like preserves for game.  An interesting thought.

Sherwood, Nottingham, and the Marches are shown below.  Keep in mind that Sherwood, today, is a much smaller chunk of land than it would have been during Robin's day.  So, though it's (currently) insignificant, it wasn't always.  As an aside, a day out in Sherwood Forest- preferably in summer- is quite enjoyable.

There are a few sites that have Robin Hood claims.  Kirklees Priory, south of Bradford, is privately owned, but on it is a grave that claims to be Robin Hood's.  Little John's grave is supposedly here, in Hathersage, Derbyshire.  Fountains Abbey, the well-known tourist destination, is mentioned in many Robin Hood tales.  All, you'll note, are closer to Barnsdale than Sherwood. 

When did he live?

Historians have suggested Robin was active in one of the following times:

- 1090s
Stephen Lawhead puts this forth, claiming Robin was a Welsh (Briton) fighting off the Normans, who invaded England in the 1060s.  The Normans made short work of England, but it took hundreds of years to conquer Wales.  Lawhead cites the 1095 Welsh Chronicle, which states that the Britons harassed the Ffreinc (Normans) to the point that the latter "dared not go into the woods or the wild places . . ." as evidence for what may have started the Robin Hood legend.

- 1190s-1220s
Most of the stories take place during the reign of Richard the Lion-hearted (1189-1199) and John (1199-1216).  Richard fought in the Third Crusade, and spent very little time in England.  Frankly, I don't think he even liked England, using it mostly as a revenue stream, while he fought and lived in his holdings in France.  Odd, then, that many tales hold him up as loving the land.  After Richard, John ruled for about 15 years, and many stories mention him as well (though always in conjunction with Richard, not after Richard).  J.C. Holt, largely considered the authoritative Robin Hood expert, points out that in 1225, a "Robert Hod" was outlawed in York.  Additionally, he says the name "robynhode" starts becoming really popular as early as 1261, implying that the fame of the name had spread in the years/decades preceding.

- 1300s
Some early Robin Hood ballads mention "Edward, our comely king."  England has seen many Edwards take the throne; the originals, though, were Edward I (1272-1307), II (1307-1327), and III (1327-1377).  Over a hundred years of Edward . . . how do we narrow that down?  We do have one clue, from Michael Dacre's A Little Book of Robin Hood:

Between April and November 1323, Edward II made a royal progress through Yorkshire and Lancashire, ending up at Nottingham.

It's possible Robin was active during this time, as many ballads mention the king meeting Robin (and, in fact, Robin joins his court for a length of time).  It's equally possible that Edward was inserted into the ballads to flatter him.

Who was he?

Ooh, this is the hardest one.  First, let's tackle the generic.

- Basic Yeoman
Most early ballads call him a yeoman- a commoner, essentially, little better than a peasant.  In this regard, Robin is held up as a hero for the common people.

- Simple Thief
Robin may have been just your average outlaw, robbing like many others during the time. 

- Disinherited Noblemen
Later tales make him a wrongly-disinherited noblemen.  Often a Saxon, as well, which would make sense, as after the Norman invasion, the Norman lords dispossessed many Anglo-Saxon nobles of their lands.  Some claim, though, that nobility was added to Robin's past only for the upper crust's increased enjoyment of the tale.

- Knight Templar
In his book The Unknown Templar, John Paul Davis claims that Robin was a former Knights Templar.  The Knights Templar were disbanded and decried as heretics in 1312.  Davis argues that a band of them, to avoid death, could have fled to the woods and made their living as outlaws.  He further contends that their well-published hatred of corruption and helping of the poor points to them being deeply religious, as the Templars were.  An interesting theory.

- Welsh Freedom Fighter
As a final generic note, Lawhead points out that Robin is traditionally a fantastic archer- and the Briton experience with the warbow (longbow) predated that of the English, lending credence to his belief that Robin was a Welsh freedom fighter.  Even the generic is difficult to nail down, as can be seen.

Okay, now let's look at specific names.  Many variations of the name "Robin Hood" have appeared through the centuries.  Here are just a few of the most likely candidates:
- According to J.C. Holt, as mentioned above:
   - in 1225, Robert Hod was outlawed in York
- According to Dacre,
   - in 1317, a Robert Hood was on the court rolls in Wakefield (near Barnsdale)
   - in 1323-4, a Robyn Hode was in the royal service as a porter, employed as such for at least one year.

Conclusion

Nobody knows where he lived, when he lived, or who Robin Hood was.  Deal with it.

*that's probably always true of my posts

Outlaw (Michael Morpurgo)

Michael Morpurgo, author of War Horse, is a prolific author of children's novels- and he was even the British Children's Laureate for a few years (2003-2005).  That said, I was looking forward to his take on the Robin Hood legend.  Sadly, I was disappointed.

Morpurgo's version is pretty standard- same locale (Sherwood/Nottingham), same friends, same villains, and same time frame (Richard the Lion-hearted) as most tellings.  Here, though, Robin becomes the famed leader at a rather young age (early teens), marries Marion (who, for some reason, is an albino) right away, has a child (Martin Hood), and personally travels to Austria to free the King and return him to England.*

Being standard isn't bad, but the story is told poorly, making it uninteresting on top of being unoriginal.  There's little to no character development, and some of the exploits seem just plain silly or unrealistic (even for a legend).  Sadly, Morpurgo's version isn't nearly as good as McSpadden's, Pyle's, or Gilbert's.  Not recommended.

Rating: C-

*Richard the Lion-hearted was captured and held for ransom by the Duke of Austria after the 3rd Crusade.

Hood (Stephen Lawhead)

Having read several versions of the classic Robin Hood story, I looked for a historical fiction offering.  "Historical fiction" is a stretch for Robin, because we know so little about him.  He's thought to have lived anywhere between the late 1000s and early 1300s . . . a rather large swath of time for someone attempting to reconstruct what might have been.  So, what do you do?  You pick a time period and run with it.  That's exactly what Stephen Lawhead does in Hood, the first of a trilogy.

Lawhead sets Robin (or, Bran, as he's called here) in the 1090s, in the Welsh Marches (a strip of land straddling modern Wales and England).  The Normans invaded in 1066, and, while England is firmly in their grasp, much of Wales remains unconquered.  Bran is prince of Elfael, a small cantref in the Marches.  His father the king, along with Elfael's army, is slaughtered at the hands of the Normans, and Bran watches helplessly as many of the village inhabitants flee into the woods.  The Normans soon take up permanent residence in Elfael, effectively enslave any that remain, and conscript them to build large castles, to be used as bases for further subjugation and conquest of the land.  As Bran thinks on what to do, he's chased by these new overlords, hunted down, and left for dead in the expansive nearby forest.  He's healed by a strange old woman (Angharad), who encourages him to lead the refugees and take on the Norman threat.  With that, Robin Hood is born.

I have very mixed emotions about this book.  It's an excellent story, no question, and a believable take on who Robin Hood could have been.  It's the telling that leaves something to be desired. While some chapters were fast-paced, well-written, and gripping, others bogged down the story and made it hard to continue.  Some plot elements were developed very well; others were covered with insufficient build-up.  Lawhead does a great job weaving the traditional characters into the story in plausible ways, yet there were moments when characters had sudden, inexplicable changes of heart.  I didn't always like how it was told . . . but I did want to keep reading, and I look forward to the rest of the story.  That, in the end, overcomes the deficiencies.

This series is to Robin Hood was Bernard Cornwell's Warlord Trilogy is to King Arthur- effectively, historical fantasy.  While I can't help but think that this story would be better told by Cornwell or Ken Follett, I do think Lawhead's work is worth reading.

Rating: A-

A Little Book of Robin Hood (Michael Dacre)

We know the name Robin Hood was captured for history (see here) in the early 1200s.  But, the original surviving tales about Robin Hood (in the form of ballads) come to us much later- the first surviving one, Robin Hood and the Monk, was written around 1450.   Others followed in subsequent decades; a good overview of them is here.  As you'd expect, over time more ballads were recorded, each with their own twist to the story.  With each alteration, the originals were increasingly obscured.

In A Little Book of Robin Hood, Michael Dacre takes us back to these first five surviving ballads (and one play), and rewrites them in modern English.  Really modern English.  Too modern, for my tastes- but more on that in a moment.  He also includes an introduction, which discusses (briefly) the topic of who Robin may have been, if he existed at all. 

Dacre's work brings us back to the foundation of all current Robin Hood yarns.  In that regard, it's valuable.  You see how, in these first ballads, Robin is associated more with Barnesdale (in Yorkshire) than Sherwood, and he's associated with King Edward (early 1300s) rather than King Richard the Lionhearted (late 1100s).  Location and time aside, many elements are familiar- his skill with the bow, his band of merry men, his companions (little John/etc)- all were present even 550 years ago.  It's fun to go back and look at the origin of the modern tales.  Additionally, the introduction is a pretty good overview for those unfamiliar with Robin's potential real-life identities.

Unfortunately, I felt Dacre took the modernization of the language a bit too far.  Extremely modern street slang shows up here, which I felt a bit overdone.  Additionally, he takes it out of the original rhyming verse and creates straight prose, where in many cases modernization of the rhyme, and preservation of the structure, was easily done.

This is a quick read- a fast 160 pages- but all things considered, I'm not sure this was worth my time.  There have to be better re-tellings of the originals.  Speaking of them, some of the original ballads can be read here.

Rating: C

Robin Hood (Henry Gilbert)

Again with Robin Hood.  This time, I read Henry Gilbert's 1912 version.  Don't be fooled by the innocent-looking "kid Robin" on the cover here- this version isn't quite as kid-friendly.

At its heart, this version is similar to the two I've recently reviewed- by McSpadden and Pyle.  The story is basically the same: we learn how Robin came to be, how he met Little John, how he helped Alan-a-Dale and his wedding, how Robin dies, etc.  Like the others, it's set around the reign of Richard the Lionheart, and Robin is obsessed with robbing the rich and helping the poor.  That said, there are some notable differences:
- It's just a touch grittier- Robin isn't quite the happy-go-lucky guy here.  He and his crew don't hesitate to kill people (if they have it coming).
- It's more descriptive and immersive- the prose is more detailed.
- You get more back story.  Gilbert dedicates a little more time to why Robin became an outlaw, and how his band was formed, what happened after he was granted a pardon by King Richard, etc.
- In keeping with the original ballads, Robin is from Barnesdale (here, Barnisdale) rather than Sherwood, though the latter is mentioned a few times.
- Two small humans or brownie-like creatures- Ket the Trow and Hob o' the Hill- feature regularly here, and I'd never heard of them before.  They help Robin and are his eyes throughout the wood.
- You see just a touch more of history.  The Jewish massacre at York is mentioned, for example, and a little more history of Richard and King John is mentioned.

Like McSpadden and Pyle, the Gilbert version of the legend is good.  It's a close call, but I think I liked it a touch more than the former two.  You really can't go wrong with any of them- if you want a classic take on Robin.

Rating: A-

The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood (Howard Pyle)

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+

Robin Hood (J. Walker McSpadden)

Penned in 1891, McSpadden's version of Robin Hood is a straightforward telling, suitable for children and adults alike.  The language is at times antiquated, as you'd expect.  McSpadden does give cursory nods to the original ballads- mentioning locations like Barnesdale (Robin's original haunt, according to the earliest stories)- but this is mostly the classic story we know today.  It's set in the time of King Henry II, King Richard the Lionheart, and King John.  Each chapter tells a story- how Robin (the wrongly-disinherited Robert Fitzooth) becomes an outlaw, how he comes to live in Sherwood with his merry band of men, how certain famous members (Little John, Will Scarlet, etc) join, and how they spend their days robbing the rich, giving to the poor, foiling the sheriff of Nottingham, loving the freedom of the forest, and basking in the thrill of adventure.  It's romantic, light-hearted, short (just shy of 200 pages) and enjoyable; a worthy read.

Rating: B+

Robin Hood: Men in Tights

I had to wash Robin & Marian out of my mind, and I turned to 1993's Robin Hood: Men in Tights to do it.  A typical Mel Brooks comedy, Men in Tights is intentionally ridiculous, spoofing a number of movies (mostly Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves), and incorporating anachronisms for increased comedic effect.  It has the same basic plot as Prince of Thieves, so I won't expound on that here- it's the story of Robin Hood, plain and simple.

Like Monty Python, people tend to love or hate Mel Brooks comedy.  I enjoyed it, mostly.  Of course it's stupid- that's the point- but some of the gags elicited a chuckle or an amused groan.  It's not something you'll watch over and over, but it is good for a viewing every decade or so.

Rating: C+