(no subject)

[skygiants]

I reread Robin McKinley's Outlaws of Sherwood because I had a dream of writing a Yuletide treat for it, but then I grabbed two pinch-hits instead so this did not happen. However, it still meant I got to reread Outlaws of Sherwood!

Outlaws of Sherwood wasn't my formative Robin Hood story -- that was actually Mel Brooks' Robin Hood: Men In Tights -- but after that DEEPLY ICONIC film, it's probably my favorite variation. Robin McKinley basically sticks to the classic Robin Hood plot as outlined in Howard Pyle's Merry Adventures, but very consciously lays it onto sturdy realist bones by making her Robin a gloomy pragmatist who has zero illusions about the long-term feasibility of lurking in the forest stealing other people's money.

ROBIN: Crap, I accidentally murdered a king's forester!
MARIAN AND MUCH: OK, it's cool, it's fine, you can go live in the woods with a band of outlaws and strike a dashing political blow against the Normans!
ROBIN: .... why would you think this is a good plan. This is a terrible plan.
MARIAN AND MUCH: Well, buddy, right now it is your only plan. And hey, it'll be symbolic!
ROBIN: OK, fine, I will go live in the woods and be an outlaw, but please don't tell people to come live in the forest with me ---
MARIAN AND MUCH: Hey who wants to come live in the forest with Robin and be symbolic! Come on guys it'll be fun!
ROBIN: *FACEPALM*

(Robin McKinley is grounded in realism when it comes to the details of living in a forest but really does not care about the historical verisimilitude of the Saxon/Norman conflict. Norman oppressors are plot-conveniently oppressive and that is fine.)

Anyway, it turns out Robin is also not a very good archer -- Marian is significantly better than he is -- and is not very good at or interested in being dramatic and dashing, but he is extremely good at developing forest infrastructure! And when various oppressed persons come to seek him in the forest he is also very good at finding them other places to go and be less oppressed, unless they have really good reasons to stay. I appreciate all of this a lot.

I also appreciate how McKinley handles the women in her story. There are three main female characters: Marian, Cecily and Marjorie. Marian is, of course, Marian, who spends most of her time juggling her role as noble lady with her desire to run off and be nobly dashing (which she is rather better at than Robin is). Despite the fact that she is better at most things than he is, Robin, who feels gloomily guilty about all the time she's spending in Sherwood Forest, spends a lot of time telling her to stay away, it's too dangerous, she shouldn't be there.

Then Cecily turns up, because Robin McKinley felt very strongly that it was necessary to add a cross-dressing girl OC to her cast list (AND I AGREE, well done that woman, always needs more cross-dressing girls.) Cecily is a lot of the reason I imprinted on this book when I was a teenager. In a reread now, I still love Cecily for all the reasons I loved her when I was fourteen, but what I love most is the truth bombs she launches at Robin & Co. when her cunning disguise is revealed and they all ask her why she felt the need to disguise her gender. "What, we've got girls! Look, Marian comes and it's fine!" At which point Cecily requests that they all take a hard look at all the ways in which Marian and the few other women in the band are treated differently, and the underlying assumptions they've all got about what, exactly, she might have expected had she turned up under her own name.

(I also find it continually hilarious that she hides from her brother for like months, despite being in the same band of TWENTY PEOPLE, just by conveniently ducking behind a tree every time he shows up. ACE STEALTH, CECILY.)

And then there is Marjorie, a lovely and delicate flower whose equally delicate minstrel boyfriend asks Robin to help him rescue her from an unwanted marriage. Suddenly, Marjorie is hanging out in a forest! with outlaws! under a tree! GREAT. And Robin & Co. are all like "GREAT, yeah, this ... this will go awesome. >.< Man, she is NOTHING like Marian." And then ... Marjorie copes. She copes and she copes and she copes, and it's obviously not the life she imagined or expected, and whether she's happy or not is an open question, but she's determined to live it, all the same. I love Marjorie. Marjorie is wonderful.

And then there is the ending. The ending is not cheerful, because Robin McKinley agrees with her protagonist that this zany outlaw life is just not sustainable! There's a big battle with Guy of Gisborne and several people die, and then King Richard returns, and is like "....well y'all are charming but you're also SUPER breaking the law, like, SO MANY laws," and orders everyone off to the Crusades, which as we all know is not exactly fun times.

...ok there is a moment of hilarity in there when the question arises of what to do with Marian and Cecily and Richard's like 'eh, it's fine, there's cross-dressing girls under like EVERY ROCK in the army of the Crusades, it might as well be Monstrous Regiment out there.' Which, OK! Sure! If you say so, King Richard!

But mostly, it is not hilarity. It's a dark and uncertain future -- and hopeful, in that they do get to stay together, and, you know, the Third Crusade was terrible but it only lasted three years, they might outlast it. Or they might not. When I was younger I did not like this ending at ALL. Now ... I don't know. I mean, I get why people don't like it, and I get why Younger Me did not like it. But I have a lot of respect for it.

Comments

[chordatesrock]

So much this. This is a Robin Hood version that needs to exist, because it's missing the point of Robin Hood legends in exactly the right way.

[skygiants]

Yes, exactly! It's not exactly a deconstruction, because there's a lot of stuff it gleefully embraces, and, like, Robin McKinley likes the Robin Hood legend and is happy to have Little John and evil Normans and a sympathetic King Richard and all that. But it definitely wants you to think about things at a slant.

[ceitfianna]

Oh I might actually read this one as it sounds like it might work for me.

[skygiants]

I really like it! Will Scarlett is definitely not your Will, but he's fun nonetheless.

[ceitfianna]

Few Wills are my Will so that's not an issue for me, its more my weird Robin Hood thoughts, but I like McKinley sometimes.

[kate_nepveu]

Huh. I could never get into this--no idea why, I'd just read two pages and wander off--but infrastructure, sounds good.

[skygiants]

Interestingly a lot of people seem to have had that reaction! I wonder if there's something about the very beginning that's off-putting that I've forgotten?

[sophia_sol]

Huh, I think I need to reread this book. I bounced off it pretty hard when I read it as a teenager, and I'm curious now what my current self would think of it

[skygiants]

I'd be curious too! I think it's definitely a book I appreciate more as an adult than a kid, although I liked it as a kid too.

[sovay]

Outlaws of Sherwood wasn't my formative Robin Hood story -- that was actually Mel Brooks' Robin Hood: Men In Tights -- but after that DEEPLY ICONIC film, it's probably my favorite variation.

So this is the McKinley I completely bounced off as a child, despite reading everything else of hers that wasn't nailed down and the one book (Deerskin) that was. And I had read several retellings of Robin Hood—I am currently a little perturbed that I cannot find my copy of Parke Godwin's Sherwood (1991) when Firelord (1980) is sitting right there on my shelf and I don't even like it that much—and I did archery at a professional, competitive level from seventh grade until college; my point is that it's not like I didn't care about this myth-cycle. I can't even remember why I bounced. But I tried it twice and nothing. Perhaps if I try it again while keeping logistics in mind.

[intothespin]

FWIW, when I read it as a teenager, I couldn't get into it until the Cecily section started.

[sovay]

FWIW, when I read it as a teenager, I couldn't get into it until the Cecily section started.

So noted. Now that I know to expect her, I will keep an eye out.

[skygiants]

It seems you're not alone! I'm kind of surprised how many people seem to have had that reaction. For me it falls pretty firmly into Classic McKinley range, and I remember it much better than I do many of her other fairy tale/legend retellings (I know I did read Rose Daughter and Beauty and Spindle's End, I can visualize them sitting on my library shelf, but ask me anything that happened in them and I would not be able to answer.)

[sovay]

(I know I did read Rose Daughter and Beauty and Spindle's End, I can visualize them sitting on my library shelf, but ask me anything that happened in them and I would not be able to answer.)

Beauty was a very early, very strong imprint for me; I know I was old enough that I recognized the twists she was putting on the fairy tale, but I can't remember reading it for the first time. I've always been convinced it influenced Disney's Beauty and the Beast and while I went through a period of finding the ending a cop-out, I now rather like that the novel has both of them effectively transforming.

Rose Daughter and Spindle's End were both lost to me by lending to someone who later moved (so, too, went my copy of Sandman: Season of Mists, which I still resent), meaning that I haven't re-read either of them in years. Primarily I remember Rose Daughter for its ending, because you still don't see too many versions of the story where the Beast remains a beautiful monster. I can remember almost nothing about Spindle's End, except vaguely I think it's canonically set in the same world as The Hero and the Crown because Damar is mentioned.

I don't know how Deerskin reads to survivors of incest or other sexual abuse; my mother warned me that it was a difficult book and, at the time when I read it, it was. I still think it's very good. For a long time, it was one of the only novels I knew that focused more on the process of healing—of going on with life, of having a life after damage—than on being hurt, or being destroyed. The Hero and the Crown has this quality, too, though it took me years to notice. The skull of the dragon Maur is a very accurate representation of depression.

[thistleingrey]

Oh, interesting--I loved this to bits (age 15 or so?) because of Cecily but was a bit lukewarm about the other McKinley books I found, and more so as I've aged. (I like the idea of Blue Sword but find its realization off-putting--worldbuilding issues.) The only other McKinley I've liked as well as Sherwood is The Door in the Hedge. So much variation in these comments--it's fascinating to see.

[sovay]

but was a bit lukewarm about the other McKinley books I found, and more so as I've aged.

Her early work was important and imprinting for me; I started to drift away after Sunshine, bounced completely off Dragonhaven, enjoyed everything about Chalice right up until the end which I hate passionately—especially since she already avoided its major problem once with Rose Daughter—and have mostly stayed away since. This saddens me, but I don't think there's anything to do about it.

(I like the idea of Blue Sword but find its realization off-putting--worldbuilding issues.)

I am a little worried that I will not be able to re-read The Blue Sword—the last time was in grad school—because so much of what I remember about the worldbuilding is British Raj mashup with magic. The Hero and the Crown stands alone much better in that respect. I have similarly positive memories of her short fiction collection A Knot in the Grain, which I believe is all Damarian, but it's not on my shelves here, so I can't easily check. The one contemporary Damar story in Water: Tales of Elemental Spirits has the same issue as The Blue Sword, being written from a Homelander point of view. I understand how this happens when you write idfic and it gets published, but that doesn't make it not a problem.

[skygiants]

For me Deerskin, The Hero and the Crown, The Blue Sword and Outlaws of Sherwood are Classic McKinley; everything else from the early years kind of drifted past me (but I always had a harder time with short stories, when I was young.) I like Sunshine, but it's hard for me somehow to associate it with The McKinley Of My Childhood -- it feels so different in tone -- and then Chalice didn't stick in my head at all, and I've not read anything of hers since. I'm also a little bit afraid to try and reread Blue Sword.

[sovay]

For me Deerskin, The Hero and the Crown, The Blue Sword and Outlaws of Sherwood are Classic McKinley

Agreed. Even if Sherwood didn't click with me, I can recognize it as being part of the same generation.

I like Sunshine, but it's hard for me somehow to associate it with The McKinley Of My Childhood -- it feels so different in tone -- and then Chalice didn't stick in my head at all, and I've not read anything of hers since.

Sunshine is very recognizable to me on a prose level and in the way she conceptualizes the world's magic, although I agree that it contains many more tropes of paranormal romance than her early novels. (Initially I wrote "baking and sex," but I don't think that's actually true.) It frustrated me that she never wrote a sequel when it seemed to demand one—not just in terms of narrative what-happens-next, but structurally; it was like half the book got left in her head somewhere. Chalice I really, really liked until the ending, when I just wanted to punt it. That was frustrating in a completely different way!

My mother liked the premise of Pegasus, but was increasingly annoyed by the handling of it, and even more annoyed that the book ended on a pure cliffhanger. I think of her as being a much more tolerant reader than I am, so, argh.

[thistleingrey]

I think that for both McKinley and (differently) Tamora Pierce, a large chunk of my subjective issues is not having met their work early enough. (I would've had to leap upon the first Tortall book the year it was published.)

British Raj mashup with magic

That sounds right from memories of 12-15 years ago, when I read both the Damar novels.

[sovay]

I think that for both McKinley and (differently) Tamora Pierce, a large chunk of my subjective issues is not having met their work early enough. (I would've had to leap upon the first Tortall book the year it was published.)

That's fair. I read Tamora Pierce in seventh grade and did not imprint, but that's definitely the age at which it would have happened if it was going to. Similar experience with Mercedes Lackey a couple of years later, now that I think of it. Possibly I had other authors taking up the necessary id-space in my brain.

That sounds right from memories of 12-15 years ago, when I read both the Damar novels.

Dammit!

[wakuchan]

The only reason this isn't my favorite McKinley is because Beauty exists! It's my favorite version by far, and it's interesting that so many people seem to have bounced off it. Or maybe I just really had a thing for cross-dressing girls, I believe I first read it around the time I was really into Tamora Pierce.

[skygiants]

I don't really remember Beauty at all! I think -- REGRETTABLY -- it sort of got chased out of my head by the much more dramatically cracked-out Sheri S. Tepper book of the same name. I should maybe try rereading it one of these days. (I totally also read Outlaws of Sherwood around the same time I was reading Tamora Pierce. FORMATIVE CROSS-DRESSING GIRLS FOREVER.)

[lacewood]

I LOVED THIS BOOK. It's the only Robin Hood story I've read/watched so I can't claim it's formative there but - it's probably a pretty formative story for me anyway.

I loved how Robin was so cranky and constantly horrified at the insane directions his life was going in! I loved that Marian was totally more heroic and he was totally fine with that! I loved how everyone took Robin's Heroic Reputation more seriously than he did! I loved all the inconvenient logistics involved in long-term camping in a forest! I loved Cecily and Little John so much.

Also, Cecily hiding from Will for months by climbing trees was THE GREATEST.

I even liked the ending! I think I was fine with it being depressing because it fit the overall mixture of realism and hope, and it wasn't ALL depressing. They still had each other and they'd already survived so much, I refused to believe they couldn't find a way to survive the Crusades somehow.

[skygiants]

Yes! I also love all those things, oh man! I cracked up at the "CALL ME ROBIN OF THE HOOD *glares at dripping rain cape*" scene, because it's such a terrible pun and Robin McKinley is so very proud of it. And Cecily and Little John are so great! (I also cracked up at the scene where Little John literally makes Cecily oil his back for wrestling and Cecily is like ARE YOU EVEN KIDDING ME. WHAT EVIL ROMCOM GOD IS LAUGHING AT ME RIGHT NOW.)

Yeah, that's pretty much how I feel about the ending now too -- like, it's not great, but there's still a chance! And then Marian can come back and be Sheriff of Nottingham.

[lacewood]

HAHA YES, THAT PUN. Robin is SO DETERMINED to be the uncoolest outlaw but the Marian-Much PR team is SO DETERMINED to thwart him, and of course Robin just can't win.

That back oiling scene was a thing of beauty, I remember it well *cackle*

Possibly I am a sadist but I think my favourite part about King Richard was when he basically trolled them into their punishment by being all, OR I COULD MAKE MARIAN SHERIFF BY MARRYING HER TO THE CURRENT SHERIFF AND THEN ASSASSINATING HIM, YES??? :D? Everyone: WE'LL TAKE THE CRUSADES THANKS

[Aurgh, the comment posted by accident, I hope the edit gets through]

[skygiants]

oh my god, right? And meanwhile I'm sitting there like "...I mean...it's not a terrible plan..." (SORRY MARIAN I realize you'd have a pretty un-fun few months. Maybe you could pull an Attolia and time the assassination for the wedding!)

[lacewood]

Marian would be an awesome sheriff, YOU CAN'T REALLY BLAME HIM FOR BEING TEMPTED, RIGHT?

I feel 100% confident that Marian would have assassinated him by the wedding night, LATEST, assuming the rest of the gang had not already crashed the party to do it for her.

[pedanther]

I liked Outlaws of Sherwood a lot. I loved the way nearly everyone is better at being Robin Hood than Robin himself is, and the ending didn't bother me (I think I'd been told about it in advance, which probably helped).

Robin Hood: Men in Tights is an interesting one as a thing to point to when talking about the game of telephone that is oral tradition. It is, among other things, a parody specifically of Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, which was written by someone whose knowledge of Robin Hood more or less literally consisted of having seen a few episodes of Robin of Sherwood and who wasn't aware that Robin of Sherwood was itself not a straight telling of the legend.

(Every modern telling with a Saracen or Moorish merry man traces back, directly or indirectly, to Robin of Sherwood, and the funny thing is that they didn't mean to do it either: their Saracen was only supposed to be a one-episode villain, but the showrunner liked how he turned out and had the end of the episode changed so that he turned over a new leaf and joined Robin.)

[skygiants]

Yeah, the whole evolution of the Robin Hood story is pretty fascinating (I did not know that about Robin of Sherwood introducing the first Saracen team member, actually!) and I came to Men In Tights without having seen any of those prior incarnations. So by rights none of it should have made sense, but, you know what, Cary Elwes was there and he DID speak with a British accent and THAT WAS APPARENTLY ENOUGH FOR ME.

[sovay]

So by rights none of it should have made sense, but, you know what, Cary Elwes was there and he DID speak with a British accent and THAT WAS APPARENTLY ENOUGH FOR ME.

Eh, I have still never seen Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves and I enjoyed Men in Tights. I think mostly it requires familiarity with the existence of Robin Hood.

(It was impossible to avoid. In 1993, I was doing archery. The entire range could spontaneously sing the title song. And did. Frequently.)

[sovay]

(Every modern telling with a Saracen or Moorish merry man traces back, directly or indirectly, to Robin of Sherwood, and the funny thing is that they didn't mean to do it either: their Saracen was only supposed to be a one-episode villain, but the showrunner liked how he turned out and had the end of the episode changed so that he turned over a new leaf and joined Robin.)

That's pretty cool. I had no idea.

[rymenhild]

Apropos of nothing:

Once upon a time, in a far off dukedom, lived a young noblewoman and her cousin, (I wish...), two pairs of very confused lovers (I wish), and a childless Scotsman and his wife.

[skygiants]

OMG I SAW ON TUMBLR. Someone is ... amazing. Amazing is the word.

[mneme]

I have no idea what my formative Robin Hood was. Probably the LP of the Disney version, since I know I had that, growing up.

Have you seen the 1938 Flynn/de Havilland Robin? Having finally seen it...yeah, it's kinda amazing.

I think I read McKinnley's Sherwood, but it was a long time ago, alas.