Re: Should I re-read Peter Duck, Misee Lee etc


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Start New Thread ] [ TarBoard ]

Posted by Jack Eckert on November 08, 1998 at 14:59:51:

In Reply to: Should I re-read Peter Duck, Misee Lee etc posted by John Richardson on November 06, 1998 at 22:53:15:

I think this subject of the two (or three) "stepchildren" volumes in the S&A canon is one of continuing interest. In my own opinion, yes, of course, you should reread and will probably reassess your own favorites over time. I'm 37 now, only started reading the Ransomes in graduate school when I was 21, and can't say for certain how many times I've read them all. A few observations:

Certainly the first time around, PD seems peculiar. It interrupts the realistic flow between SA, SD, and WH and, because it is a fantasy, appears to be less interesting than the realistic stories. But I confess that PD is now one of my favorites, partly because it is unusual and partly because it is so well done. There are some splendid passages (the sailing in the fog, the earthquake) and the resolution of the treasure theme is both clever and not so far-fetched as to be completely incredible. I think of the three, PD is the one which most merits rereading and reassessment, particularly, as you point out, it does have a strong link to SD.

ML is really a matter of taste. It's always been one of my favorites, principally because of the Latin theme. If you've never studied Latin, you might well have some real difficulties with the excessive humor in the book. But it's also very well plotted and well paced--less choppy and episodic than most of the Ransomes. The standalone aspect was probably the greatest appeal to the reviewers when ML and PD first appeared; these two are easiest to evaluate on their own without reference to the rest of the series.

My own confession: I've always disliked GN? It seems tired, and there's just not enough plot for so long a book. Oddly also, it seems to be neither one thing nor the other. It's too naturalistic to be one of the over-the-top fantasies but not outrageous enough to be set aside from the realistic stories. The inability to fit GN? in logically and chronologically with the rest of the series is also troubling. I've recently reread it with a more modified enjoyment; there are some good parts but certainly I think it the least interesting of the whole canon.




Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Existing subject (please edit appropriately) :

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

post direct to TarBoard test post first


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TarBoard ]