Scott was both a historian and novelist. He needs to be seen in the context of the historiographical background of the C18th Scottish Enlightenment. He was greatly influenced by the “conjectural” history propounded by Adam Smith and, most notably, Adam Ferguson, author of the “Essay on Civil Society” and the father of Scott’s best friend and now seen as one of the founders of sociology.The conjectural historians saw history as the progress of society from hunter/gatherers, to shepherds/herdsmen, to farmers and finally to the latest age of commerce. Ferguson as a Highlander was acutely aware of these stages; he had experienced them all. There were other C18th historical schools. Hume, Gibbon and Voltaire were writing traditional political narrative history. In his novels Scott was writing in the new philosophical, sociological analytical tradition.Scott is often seen as an ultra- romantic novelist but this was a misreading. David Daiches said “Scott’s best and characteristic novels might with justice be called anti-romantic. They attempt to show that heroic action is, in the last analysis, neither heroic nor useful”. Daiches argued that Scott’s real interest as a novelist was “in the ways in which the past impinged on the present and in the effects of that impact on human character, in the relations between tradition and progress”. These themes were best realised in the novels dealing with the Scotland of the not too distant past of the C17th and C18th, ie Waverley, Guy Mannering, The Antiquary, Old Mortality, Rob Roy, The Heart of Midlothian, The Bride of Lammermoor, A Legend of Montrose, Redgauntlet and Chronicles of the Canongate.Looking at the novels in this way, a discernible conjectural model of a pilgrim’s progress could be described. An Englishman or Lowland Scot wandered into the Highlands, or an equivalent, from civilised to barbarian society and became involved with passionate partisans, often Jacobites for example in Waverley, Rob Roy and Redguantlet. The “heroes” ( Francis Osbaldistone in Rob Roy) were essentially dull, insipid, amiable young men who were disinterested, passive observers of the historical forces in conflict. Activity therefore depended upon other sources of energy - “dark heroes” (Rob Roy in Rob Roy) - whose intentions were good but mistaken. These contrasting pairs represented passion against reason, romantic emotion against sober judgement, the “passionate Scot versus prudent Briton”. Often the passive heroes became involved with the forces of barbaric society but they retained personal links with both sides and eventually put heroic ideas behind them and returned to civil society.Scott was also the first great writer to be interested in the common people as well as the great. His “low life” characters were often the most real and best drawn, not least because he was able to use Scots idiom and dialogue in a dramatic way. This interest had been appreciated by many commentators, eg the Hungarian Marxist George Lukacs in “ The Historical Novel”.Turning now briefly and specifically to Rob Roy, it was the most clear articulation in any of his novels of the economic basis of conjectural history. Economic theory was central to the novel. The influence of Adam Smith’s ideas are obvious. Baillie Nicol Jarvie was a brilliant illustration of Smith’s idea that the selfishness of the individual pursuit of wealth can be reconciled with social obligations to one’s fellow men and country. Scott showed considerable awareness of the technical aspects of the regulation of trade and of banking and credit. The plot barely touched on the armed struggle of the ‘15 but centred on whether the Jacobites can use financial means to destabilise the British Government. Frank told us on his return to London that: “ We immediately associated with those bankers and eminent merchants who agreed to support the credit of the government, and to meet that run on the Funds, on which the conspirators had greatly founded their hope of furthering their undertaking, by rendering the government bankrupt”.The ability of the British Government to fight wars was based on its ability to finance them. The development of an efficient national finance system and London as a financial centre allowed the government to borrow what it needed. This was a major advantage not just in 1715 and 1745 but also in the series of wars against the French in the C18th.In Rob Roy Scott was comparing an advanced commercial society alongside a traditional patriarchy. Readers were invited to conclude that the Hanoverian state offered new opportunities and that life in Northumberland and the Trossachs was nasty brutish and short. This was a Scott Hanoverian not Jacobite novel.Scott had not just invented the historical novel, but had set a template for the great nineteenth century novels that were to follow.There was no direct example amongst the English novels to date that he could model himself on – the epistolary novels such as Richardson; the comic picaresque novels of Fielding and Smollett; the gothic novels such as those of Mrs Radcliffe; and the novel of manners emerging with Jane Austen. Scott produced a new synthesis that took some elements from other novelists but drew most heavily on Shakespearean drama. He offered a serious exploration of social, economic and historic themes. He combined this with an exploration of character, with adventure, with humour, and with an early example of evocative writing about the natural world. And he had little truck with sentimentality in this novel – no sooner is the happy ending offered in one half of the sentence than the heroine is killed off in the second half.Why Scott’s reputation had declined in the C20th? You might lay the blame squarely on F. R. Leavis. Leavis had excluded Scott from his “Great Tradition” of English novelists, dismissing him in a footnote, and argued that the great tradition ran through Austen, Eliot, James, Conrad, and Lawrence. Leavis’s influence had been considerable and malign in respect of Scott’s reputation. The whole idea of a “great tradition” to which one had to belong was flawed, but Scott had been hugely influential on the great C19th English writers, with a clear line flowing through the Brontes, Dickens, Eliot and Hardy to Lawrence. Half of all novels bought in the C19th were by Scott….This is an extract from a review at http://monthlybookgroup.wordpress.com/. Our reviews are also to be found at http://monthlybookgroup.blogspot.com/
I picked up the Everyman edition of this for 3 quid when I was browsing at a bookshop in Edinburgh; the Scottish scenery had inspired me to explore the classic literature a bit. It turned out to be my big summer read for the year. Dense and absorbing, it certainly satisfied my desire for some 19th century literature. It required me to try to develop some understanding of British politics circa 1730 or so (the exact year it takes place is not clear, and the book contains a number of anachronisms), particulary the Jacobite rebellion and the circumstances attending it. I still am not clear on exactly what part the characters played in this situation - an uprising of Catholics, possibly assisted by some Highlanders, against the Protestant king - but at least I got a bit of a history lesson.This is Scott's most popular book. He was a very popular and celebrated novelist during his life. He was crippled by an early childhood disease, but lived a full life, working as an attorney as well as a writer, and raising a family and living very well. I am not totally sure what his place is in literary history, i.e. in what ways his work was unique or influential or what movement he may have been a part of. He wrote literary adventure stories (which may have been called romances at the time) which were mostly set in Scotland during the 1700s. To what degree he was the first or the best among writers of such works I do not know. He began as a poet, and had some success at that, before turning to fiction. The love of the English language and the written word is apparent in "Rob Roy". It makes one wonder whether most literate people of that time placed a greater value on eloquent verbal expression than people do today - probably.This is primarily a very well-written, if not always convincing, work of historical fiction. The language is frequently magnificent. As one of the supplementary essays pointed out, it has a number of fascinating characters that have captivated many readers over the centuries. There is a bonus too - a very interesting essay by Scott on the real Rob Roy and his life and times. The narrative focuses on Francis (Frank) Osbaldistone, a young, wealthy Londoner whose father sends him to the north of England to visit his uncle and cousins. His first cousin Rashleigh turns out to be a remarkably shrewd, cold, and nasty individual, and he quickly becomes Francis's nemesis and the villain of the story. There is a love interest too - Diana Vernon, who also despises Rashleigh. Frank gets the word that he has to go to Edinburgh, and on the way there he encounters not the hero, but the fulcrum of the story, Rob Roy, a Highland ruffian and clan leader, who is both wise and warlike, compassionate and hard, fundamentally decent but on the outside of the law. The story than moves to the Highlands, where there are encounters with mountain roughnecks, and battles between Rob Roy's forces and the English military. One of the Jacobite rebellions breaks out and the characters get embroiled in it.It was interesting to read this, to dip into literature that has meant so much to so many, and that opens a window onto a very different time and place. I very much enjoyed many of the descriptive passages, discussions of natural scenes or clothing or everyday things. Of course, there is not very much of this - Scott, like most authors, assumes that his readers are already familiar with the world that they live in. This reader, however, is not, and therein lies one of the great pleasures of reading a book by Scott.
What do You think about Rob Roy (1995)?
This wasn't quite what I was expecting. I've given it four stars as I really like Walter Scott and I enjoyed the style. However Rob Roy himself is a marginal character. It is the through Frances' eyes we see the story and I found him to be a bland and not especially engaging character. His observations on other people were acute and well delineated but when it came to himself, he was far less insightful. His clumsy courtship of Diana Vernon was only interesting because she was interesting - and it was hard not feel that she had been shoe-horned in for no other reason than to act as a romantic interest for Frances. Frances was such an unlikely Romantic hero that every time he said something along the lines of ' I reached for my sword...' me immediate thought was 'Where did he get a sword? Can he actually use a sword? Surely he'd be better off running away.' Which sums up how I felt about the narrator in a nut shell. That said this is described as one of Walter Scott's great Romances and deservedly so. He did after all create the entire genre and this is a good example of it. Not one of my favourites, however this still have much to recommend - not least of which Scott's beautiful descriptions of the landscape and of a time now lost.
—J.A. Ironside
Absolutely marvelous! Full of non-stop adventure and intrigue. Pure genius! There's more humor than Scott usually adds in, and the characters are deep and colorful. It exceeded my expectations in every respect.I just laughed, and ached, and nearly cried, and sat on the edge of my seat. I gasped in surprise, and exclaimed, "I knew it!" sometimes. I recoiled in horror and bit my lip with frustration. I was so immersed in the whole world of Rob Roy and Frank Osbaldistone, that I forgot that I was in the year 2008 where "pretty" gentlemen of that sort are scarce.
—Kailey
First a warning: the movie “Rob Roy” has little to do with the novel “Rob Roy,” except that they share the titular character. I was 250 pages into this book before I finally realized this was the case. I wouldn’t want the rest of you to make a similar error. The story is a bit complicated. The book jacket says this is a tale set in the Jacobite Uprising of 1715, which sounds exciting, but is true only to the extent necessary to sell this book to you. The plot is much more subtle than that. The hero is not Rob Roy, but young Francis Osbaldistone (wha?), the callow son of a London tycoon/merchant whose business is what we would now describe as “import-export.” Dad has been trying to teach Francis the family business, but exiles his son to northern England after discovering that Francis has been writing poetry. Francis is sent to live at Osbaldistone Hall with his drunk uncle, 5 drunk cousins, and the uncle's beautiful-yet-mysterious ward Diana Vernon. Francis’ sinister cousin Rashleigh goes to take Francis’ place at the family firm. Rashleigh steals some bills of lading and absconds with them to Scotland where he hopes the resulting credit crunch will lead to armed insurrection and chaos (note how this plot manages to be torn from the headlines of two eras!). Francis, eager to prove himself to his father, follows Rashleigh into Scotland, where he eventually falls into the hands of Rob Roy, the Scottish version of Robin Hood. After a lot of running around among the Moors and Highlands, everyone lives happily ever after. The virtues of this novel are immediately apparent. Scott’s descriptions of the book’s settings – whether a London counting house, a musty library, an underground church, downtown Glasgow, an isolated loch, a smokey tavern, etc – are simply masterful; and, I would say, some of the best descriptive writing I have ever read. Only Dostoyevsky and George Eliot are on the same level. The characters are also masterfully developed, with each character having a quirk or a quality that makes them vivid and three-dimensional. The love interest, Diana Vernon, is one of the great female characters in English literature – a beautiful intellectual with a mysterious past and a penchant for secret plotting, and a skilled horsewoman to boot. Scott’s tone gives this book a moral depth that is rare in literature. Even the death of the book’s most obnoxious character is treated as a mini-tragedy. The real triumph of this book is Scott’s description of Scotland, which was, in 1715, a wild and chaotic land (interestingly, my research on the Internet indicates that Scott’s readers considered the Scots to be equivalent to American Indians). Much of this book is a travelogue of Scotland with plenty of descriptions of Scottish religious practice, clans, social customs, and even clothes and weaponry. There is also an extended sequence in Glasgow. Scott’s descriptions of the Scottish landscape add immeasurably to the tone of menace and mystery that the entire book is shrouded in from beginning to end. His rendering of Scottish dialect is also excellent. One imagines a young William Faulkner getting some of his ideas about dialogue from Scott’s example. The book has some weaknesses. For one thing: who foments a rebellion in Scotland by stealing some shipping papers in London? It seems like a roundabout way to bring about the “Jacobite Rebellion” that is the book’s main plot point. The plot itself develops slowly (the first 200 pages could be described as expository), and then finishes in a rush of multiple denouements. The character of Rob Roy looms over the book, but he is not much in it until the last half. More often then not, he spends his time giving speeches justifying his life as an outlaw, which probably seemed very important to Scott, but doesn’t resonate much in the 21st century. Of course, none of this should stop you from reading this book, or any others by Scott. He is one of the earliest novelists whose books can still be read for pleasure, and Rob Roy is one of his good ones.
—Howard Olsen
