The Talisman by Sir Walter Scott, 1825

Captain Picard as Richard--go figure.

The Talisman concludes the quartet of books by Sir Walter Scott on the list of children's literature I've been reading. On the whole, I can see why Scott was so wildly popular in Scotland and England in the early 19th century. His stories all involve bitter enemies, true love, aggressive action, wrongs unrighted, bad good people (like an evil priest) and good bad people (like a noble outlaw).

The Talisman continued Scott's habit of mistaken identity and disguise. Sir Kenneth, our hero, has at least four identities during the book, including, and ... I can't go on due to spoilers. Except for the royal family, consisting of King Richard (the Lion-Hearted) and his queen and Richard's cousin Edith, almost every principal character is either concealing something or is in concealment (disguise). (Even the king's most loyal servant talks in double meanings all the time.) It's fun! And in this book, each layer pealed off of Kenneth's identity took me totally by surprise. That's delightful for an old veteran reader like me. Especially in children's literature, I can often identify the surprises ahead of time.

The Talisman is set in the Middle East, probably Syria--certainly somewhere in the vicinity of Jerusalem, since that's where King Richard and his armies were headed. The Crusades. The Middle Ages (in the 1100s). King Richard led armies from several European nations on a holy quest to take Jerusalem back (back?) from the infidels (meaning the people who had always lived there?). Sir Kenneth is a loyal knight from Scotland, which places him at a disadvantage because Scots are scorned. Still he fights valiantly to establish a reputation for valor, courage, and honor. He fights for the love of his lady, Edith Plantagenet, who he loves from afar.

The book's backdrop is the disunity of the crusaders. The various countries get into power battles with each other and with Richard. Do they serve beside Richard, or do they serve under him? In the end, a final joust is held that decides the fate of many. To settle a dispute, a tournement is held far out in the desert; the result of the joust will reveal God's truth about the guilt or innocence of an accused (almost typed "accursed") knight.

Scot again presents a strange introduction to the book (all four books have strange introductions) in which he begs forgiveness for creating such an authentic piece of writing from his own imagination rather than from direct experience. He couldn't very well go back 700 years to verify his facts. But in spite of this, the settings in the book seem real. The descriptions of the desert landscape (see left, from the movie Lawrence of Arabia) and the tent city of the Crusaders and the costumes of the characters have a feel of authenticity, make a believable backdrop for Richard and Kenneth and the infidel characters also (Saladin, the doctor, others).

The difficulty of the two armies in understanding each other was almost comic, almost sad. The Christians knew their god, the Moslems knew theirs, and they had little real knowledge of each other. Their various religious practices were often seen through the eyes of someone from the opposite faith. Scott was relatively gentle with the infidels. He did not mock or condemn any of their practices. This is not a book for bigots. Take your faith as you find it and leave other people to find theirs, he seems to say. He holds a mirror up to both sides, and each is a bit embarrassed by what it sees of itself.

As usual, Scott's secondary characters are more interesting than his wooden and predictable main characters. An old hermit, a strange healer, a dwarf, even a dog, are painted beautifully. They weave into and out of the action like strands of gold thread in cloth.

I had trouble with King Richard, son of Henry II, absent monarch in the Robin Hood legends. I remember him so starkly from the movie Lion in Winter, with Peter O'Toole as Henry II and Katherine Hepburn as the queen, Eleanor of Aquitane. The secondary characters (and the secondary actors) paled next to Henry and Eleanor. Son Richard was portrayed as a brutal soldier, which was seen as a reaction against his implied homosexuality. That's Richard (Anthony Hopkins) at the right, with purported lover King Phillip. Richard was most governed by wrath. (Which, indeed, Scott did show in his book.) This makes it hard for me to see him as noble and lovable (nobody was lovable in Lion in Winter--everyone was pretty much a pig). Richard's brothers and parents are mentioned in the book, and I think to myself, "I knew what they looked like when they were young."

I also used Lawrence of Arabia, another Peter O'Toole movie, as a touchstone for the landscapes and peoples of the desert, the camels and caravans, oases and wastes. So, the creations of my mind added to and morphed with Scott's descriptions, taking the story even further into the world of the imagination, and at the same time made it more REAL! I must remember that the truth of imaginationo is true, but it is only one truth of many and not the whole truth of any.

Scott's writing got better as he aged. He was writing furiously at the time The Talisman was written, to publish enough to clear himself of debt. I think the speed helped him pick up the pace of his plot and descriptions. The Talisman was fully 100 pages shorter than the second and third books I read (Ivanhoe and Guy Mannering--Rob Roy was pretty short), but just as filled with action.

Women's roles? Meh. They live to inspire the men to deeds of duty and death. Edith is beautifully drawn as a demi-saint. Richard's queen is a little sex kitten who pouts at all the men. Alas. I crave the wonderful Rebecca from Ivanhoe, who was so real I could almost feel her heart beating.

Thumbs up, though, for The Talisman and for Sir Walter Scott. Reading these four books was a my own quest, my own crusade. Richard wanted to take Jerusalem; I want to get through my children's literature list before I die. We are both ennobled by our endeavors.