Difficult, but interesting read. Slight glimpse into Scottish history and the effects of the failed Jacobite rising.

It was not good.

“A masterpiece,” Arthur Conan Doyle said of this book, and perhaps it is. On the surface it contains the adventure elements that I love in Stevenson, but it also contains the deeply complex explorations of human character dynamics of relationships that he excels at depicting. What I maybe love most about RLS, though, is his explorations of good and evil. Evil is never quite so evil as it might initially appear, and neither is good ever purely good. This rings more true to the human experience than more black and white portrayals.

The story is delivered using another device that I love — the unreliable narrator. Nearly 100 years before [b:my favorite novel|28921|The Remains of the Day|Kazuo Ishiguro|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1327128714s/28921.jpg|3333111] used that device, Stevenson was already paving the way. The result is a ride that is dark, sometimes confusing, but eminently worthwhile. My trek through Stevenson continues to be amply repaid at every turn.

Brotherly love?

When Bonnie Prince Charlie arrives in Scotland in 1745 to reclaim the lost Stuart crown, the Durie family of Durrisdeer must decide where their loyalties lie. If they make the wrong choice, they could lose everything, but pick the winning side and their future is secure. The old Laird has two sons. Jamie, the eldest, known as the Master of Ballantrae, is attractive and popular but evil, while Henry, the younger, is dull but good. The family decides one son should join Charlie's rebellion while the other should declare loyalty to the Hanoverian King George II, a kind of hedging of bets in which many noble families would indulge (so says Stevenson, and I have no reason to doubt him). By rights, as the younger, Henry should have joined the rising, but the Master thinks this is the more exciting option so claims it for himself. When the rising fails, word reaches Durrisdeer that Jamie died in battle. Henry gains the estate but is vilified by the townspeople for, as rumour has it, betraying his more popular brother, while his father and Alison, the woman he is to marry, make no secret that they loved Jamie best and mourn his loss extravagantly. So things are bad for Henry... but they're going to get worse when news arrives that Jamie didn't die after all...

I freely admit I thought this was going to be a story about the Jacobite rebellion, but it isn't. The enmity between the brothers had begun before long before the rising, and although it is used to set up the conditions for further strife between them, in fact it's a minor strand in the book. This is actually a story of two opposing characters and their lifelong struggle against each other. It's told by Ephraim Mackellar, steward to the estate of Durrisdeer and loyal supporter of Henry, who was present for many of the main events and has gathered the rest of the story from witnesses and participants. It will involve duels, smugglers and plots, love and hate, loyalty and betrayal; it will take us aboard a pirate ship and all the way across the Atlantic to the little town of New York in the far away American colonies. And it will end with a terrifying journey through the wilds of (Native American) Indian country on a quest for treasure!

It would be possible to read this, perhaps, as some kind of allegory for the Scotland of the time, divided in loyalty between the deposed Stuarts and the reigning Hanoverians, but I don't think that can be taken too far since neither brother seems actively to care who wins, nor to be loyal to anything or anybody very much, so long as they come out of it with their lands and position intact. The things that divide them are personal, not political. There's also a kind of variant on the Jekyll and Hyde theme going on – the two brothers opposite in everything, one tediously decent, the other excitingly bad.

However as we get to know the brothers over the long years covered by the story, we see that the contrasts between them are not as glaring as they first appear. The same flaws and weaknesses run through all members of this doomed family (not a spoiler – we're told they're doomed from the very beginning) – they just show themselves in different ways. Poor Mackellar – while his loyalty to Henry never fails him, as time goes on he becomes a solitary and unregarded voice of reason in the middle of their feud, and grows to see that, to coin a phrase, there are faults on both sides.

Stevenson always writes adventure brilliantly and there are some great action scenes in the book, many of them with more than an edge of creepiness and horror. But there's much more to this one than simply that. The characterisation is the important thing, of the brothers certainly as the central figures in this drama, but equally of the other players – the old Laird, Alison and not least, Mackellar himself. Stevenson does an excellent job of showing how the various experiences they undergo change each of them – some becoming stronger, better people, others giving way to weakness and cruelty. I admit none of them are particularly likeable, (though despite myself I developed a soft spot for poor, pompous, self-righteous Mackellar – he had a lot to contend with, poor man), but they're so well drawn that I was fully invested in their fates anyway.

Each of the settings is done brilliantly, from the life of a middle-ranking Laird of this period to the growing settlements in the New World. The pirate episode is especially good, as is the later voyage to America – Stevenson always seems to excel once he gets his characters out on the ocean wave. There are dark deeds a-plenty and not a little gore, but there's also occasional humour to give a bit of light amidst the bleakness. There's a lot of foreshadowing of doom, and a couple of times Mackellar tells us in advance what's going to happen, but nevertheless the story held my interest throughout and the ending still managed to surprise and shock me. Though the adventure side means it could easily be enjoyed by older children, it seems to me this has rather more adult themes than Treasure Island or Kidnapped, in the sense that the good and evil debate is muddier and more complex, and rooted in the development of the characters rather than in the events – again, the comparison to Jekyll and Hyde would be closer. Oh, and there's very little Scottish dialect in it, so perfectly accessible to non-Scots readers. Another excellent one from Stevenson's hugely talented pen, fully deserving of its status as a classic, and highly recommended!

www.fictionfanblog.wordpress.com

It is hard to remember a sadder and more despairing book than this one, despite the fact that it was written by the same author of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, which also does not shine with its positive and optimistic message. Still, I am glad I read it because I know little of this writer other than the well-known titles, and I must admit that I like his style despite feeling the weight of years.

Difficile ricordarsi un libro piú triste e disperato di questo, nonostante lo abbia scritto lo stesso autore del Dr. Jekyll e Mr. Hyde, che pure non brilla per il suo messaggio positivo ed ottimista. Sono comunque contenta di averlo letto perché di questo scrittore conosco poco a parte i titoli noti e devo ammettere che il suo stile mi piace nonostante si senta il peso degli anni.

The only RLS story I’ve read but not enjoyed. An overwritten, Dickensianly-dull tale of a tedious family feud. Features the most boring pirates ever,

Not a winner, RLS

First of all, RLS is a vastly underappreciated writer. He is not just a Victorian adventure writer, which I fear is his reputation. The the characters' psychology and motivations are complex and believable. In particular, I was struck by James, the villain. I came here to ask other readers: Is this the first literary description of narcissistic personality disorder? I was intrigued by the fact that even people who knew they were being charmed by a rascal (such as the narrator Mackellar) found themselved succumbing to his spell.

When I picked the book up I nearly put it aside because of the dense, old-fashioned writing. But after a few pages, the writer's sensibilities overcame me and I was glad I stayed. The writing is not hard, just different, like listening to someone with a heavy accent. You will pick it up soon enough, and then come to love it. It is one of those things that those reading it NOT in translation should see as a bonus, as it is filled with Scottish turns of phrase that I am now glad to understand. I believe this is the book that reintroduced the word "eldritch" to modern English.

The only reason I didn't give the book five stars is that I had the distinct feeling that RLS had lost the plot at the end. Not literally, the book has a coherent, plausible ending, but I felt that he was distracted and not giving the last section his full artistic attention. Regardless, there were multiple times while reading the book that I said to myself "This guy is a really good writer. Why didn't I know that?"