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

Epic (John Eldredge)

The subtitle of Epic pretty much sums it up: this book is about "the story God is telling."  Eldredge shares the basic Bible story: that we were created perfect, fell into darkness, required rescuing by a merciful God, and now have a choice to follow Him or not, with eternal consequences.  Eldredge frames the book by comparing the story of life to many other stories that we tell, discussing common elements and showing how many of the tales we create as humans are simply reflections of the ultimate story.  He then claims that our resonance with such stories is a (mild) proof that the real story- life's big picture and ultimate truth- is along the same lines.

The book is okay.  It's main point is relating the gospel, and the creation-fall-redemption story with which Christians are well familiar.  It's always good to be reminded of that, but I didn't learn anything new from that portion (though a nonbeliever would).  The part I enjoyed more was the reflection on stories in general.  Eldredge says that many of us feel as though our lives are stories we don't quite understand- either where it's going, or our part in it.  He frequently references common epics of our day- The Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, The Chronicles of Narnia, Braveheart, etc- and discusses their common elements.  Things like the world was once okay, something happened (evil entered the world), now it's not what it should be (the bad is mixed in with the good), and restoration requires sacrifice of one (or many), and we can be a part of one side or the other.  That basic plot is extremely common, and it never fails to draw us in.  Eldredge's point [after preaching the gospel] is: why?  Why is that so enticing?  Everyone agrees that our world isn't all it should be today, and everyone wants to see it get better.  Many believe it used to be better.  And so Eldredge hypothesizes that these epic stories resonate so much with us simply because it's the same story being acted out now, in our lives, and that we should be aware of that story and our role in it.  It's an interesting and valid point.  He's saying "if you're lost, learn the main story, and you'll see the way."

Here's the bottom line: you either believe that there's a point to life- an overall story- or you don't.  Either life has meaning, and you have a part to play in it, or life came about by chance, will end by chance, and there's no overall point to it.  God exists, or He doesn't.  Either belief has epic, life-affecting complications.  Which side are you on?

Rating: B-

Night (Elie Wiesel)

Elie Wiesel was 15 when he and his family arrived at Auschwitz.  Night is his account of his time both there and at other concentration camps before the allies liberated him.

Night is a fast read (120 pages), and, as you'd expect, is horrifying, poignant, and unforgettable.  Wiesel manages to describe things well and yet moves the story along at a fast pace.  Growing up in Hungary, he and his family are soon sent to the camps.  Separated from his mother and sisters at Birkenau (the women would be killed there), he remains with his father through so many trials until the father, too, passes, just months before liberation.  Elie describes those tribulations, as well as daily life (the food, clothing, sleeping, working, etc).  He paints a horrible, yet invaluable, picture of life in a concentration camp.

Like many, Wiesel lost his entire family, and his faith along with them.  What was impressed upon me most wasn't the brutality towards the Jews from others- with which I was already familiar- but the brutality of the Jews against themselves, as they descended into an animal-like frenzy in the scramble for survival.  Son against father, brother against brother- dignity was lost in the horror.  Wiesel confesses his own selfish thoughts of survival as his loved ones lay dying, and the regret he subsequently feels for those thoughts.  He feels his humanity slipping away as he abandons all hope and is reduced to nothing.  It's a very vulnerable admission of his own failings as well as the failings of the monsters who held him. He's brutally honest about everything- for which I commend him.  It's easy to overlook our own failings in the face of much greater faults.

This is a fantastic read on many levels.  If you haven't yet read this, do it.  But brace yourself.

Changing the topic somewhat: Wiesel won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986.  During his acceptance speech, he said this:

 . . . I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation.  We must take sides.  Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim.  Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.  Sometimes we must interfere.  

Wise words, and ones that force us into a dilemma: do we, as nations or individuals, have a right to interfere in the affairs of others for the sake of ending suffering?  It sounds like an easy question, but digging deeper, we see the difficulties inherent in such policies.  When should we interfere?  How?  I don't have the answers- but there are those suffering today, while the world watches silently (or turns a blind eye).  Is that okay?

Rating: A+

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-

Green Street

"Put this on."  My friend handed me a Manchester United scarf.  I, an Arsenal fan, was repulsed.  "No."  "Let me put it this way," he continued, "we are watching this game in United's stadium.  We are sitting in United's section.  You will wear the scarf, you will cheer for Man U, and you will not cheer for Arsenal.  If you do, I'll hit you myself."  Thus was I introduced to soccer, or football, in the UK.

British football fans take their sport seriously.  The ardent ones are appropriately called hooligans, and their fame is legendary.  For a time, British fans were even banned from European continental football games, given their inclination towards violence.  At games in the UK, if you're rooting for the away team, you must be in the away team section.  Which is surrounded by police.  For your own safety.  People caught in the home section cheering for the away side will be escorted out- again, for their own safety.  I've attended three football matches here, and in each case, though I was never personally threatened, I felt the tension in the air between home and away fans.  People are out for blood.  They're drunk and they're looking for a scrap.  Like I said- British football fans get into it.

So, this is supposed to be a movie review.  Green Street is a movie about British football hooligans.  Specifically, about the 'firms'- essentially gangs that attend every game, regardless of location, looking to fight.  Elijah Wood plays an American- framed for drugs and kicked out of Harvard- who goes to visit his sister (Claire Forlani) in London.  There he ends up in the West Ham United Firm, and experiences first-hand the horror and 'thrill' of violence.  He learns when to stand his ground- and when to walk away.  Sadly, it's an expensive lesson.

Green Street is an excellent film.  It's violent, the language is foul, but it felt so real.  It hit home because I could see it happening here- it must happen here, based on police levels at games and other observations.  I was repulsed, horrified, and saddened.  On the edge of my seat the whole time.  It's so sad that humans will do this to each other- at all, and especially over a game.  If you want to 'get' the darker side of British football, watch this film.  Don't do it with kids, though.  Or squeamish adults.

I need to go watch Care Bears or something.

Rating: A

Clone Wars: Season 3

It's season 3 of the Clone Wars animated series, and it's more of the same.  More large-scale battles between clones and droids, more Jedi action, and more adventure. Among other things, we see a new Sith weapon- Savage Opress, Darth Maul's brother, who's empowered by the Nightsisters (Sith witches) and sent to Count Dooku for training.

I felt this season had more ups and downs than the prior two.  Some episodes were outstanding- among the best of the series so far.  Some were flat-out duds, or super-strange.  Overall, though, I think it was the best season so far.

Rating: B

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+