Esta é uma excelente aventura, uma excelente história, e um magnífico romance histórico. Muito bem escrito, e interessante do princípio ao fim. Contudo, e infelizmente para mim enquanto leitora, o efeito surpresa estava comprometido por já ter visto a versão cinematográfica. Devo até ter visto o filme mais do que uma vez, dada a clareza dos pormenores que a memória me ia entregando, à medida que avançava no livro.

Considero também que este será um livro mais "apropriado" para a fase infanto-juvenil. No entanto, e para quem gosta de romances históricos, porque não ler este que é o trabalho mais popularizado de Walter Scott, considerado o pai deste género?

Não irão encontrar um mau livro, isso eu garanto.

Perhaps my rating is too flattering, but this was a pleasant surprise! I knew Ivanhoe from my youth from the boys' books and from the black-and-white films, but the original version really has much more to offer. And while reading you gradually notice more and more aspects and themes that rightly make this novel world literature. It starts off quite Chaucerian (including the motto's at the beginning of the chapters), with a clearly medieval setting, strong anti-clerical accents, and an antagonism between Norman and Anglo-Saxon nobles.

At a certain point I thought this predominantly was a nationalistic novel because of the pronounced anti-French slant (it is no coincidence that the book was written shortly after of the struggle against Napoleon). A bit further on, the very emphasized rejection of anti-semitism became apparent. Of course, the knightly ideal is also fully addressed, although with a sting: Scott clearly emphasizes how outdated this obsessive adherence to the exalted values of knighthood is, how flawed and counterproductive. He even lets his characters reflect on this.

And so it turns out that almost all the characters are people with shortcomings: the lust for power and the cynicism of the Normans, the nostalgic clinging to the past of the Anglo-Saxons, even the so sympathetically portrayed Jew Isaac confirms to the cliché of avarice, and also the ‘good’ knights Ivanhoe and Richard the Lionheart do not escape this critical treatment: Scott regularly puts them on display with cunning irony. Two exceptions: the ladies Rowena and Rebecca; Rowena is portrayed a bit too angelically for my taste, she hardly weighs on the story; but Rebecca, on the other hand, is a woman who stands firmly; she even seems – more than Ivanhoe – to be the most important character, and therefore gets the last word.

Of course there are the ‘Romantics’-aspects: the extensive descriptions of castles, forests and tournaments.; the sometimes very pathetically escalating emotions of the characters, and a number of very improbable twists, including the predictable and quickly reeled off happy ending. But Ivanhoe is more than a simple novel, and certainly much more than a boy's story. I enjoyed this very much. Rating 3.5 stars

The book is entertaining, with lots of action and adventure. I found that the minor characters, like Gurth and Wamba, had more personality than the title character, Ivanhoe. In fact, the villains of the book were more interesting than the nominal hero.

This book, for me, is like the 19th century version of a Marvel movie—simple, exciting, fun, and ultimately forgettable. Though the descriptions are long-winded, a a great chunk of the book is immensely and effortlessly enjoyable. There is very little in the way of character development, and not much in the way of social commentary or philosophic reflection, either. Scott’s portrayal of his Jewish characters—at times sympathetic, and yet employing the crassest Anti-Semitic stereotypes—will likely make the modern reader squirm (they can hardly go a sentence without exclaiming “Great God of Abraham!”). Other than that, however, there is very little to trouble the conscience or even tickle the brain in this thrilling tale of high chivalry. Just mount your steed, grasp your spear, and charge.

I really, really loved this book when I read it several years ago! I loved how this story was also connected to the story of Robin Hood. The witch was my favorite character besides Ivanhoe and so was one of the antiheroes. I forget what their name was. I remember that shortly after reading this novel, I went onto reading several other Walter Scott novels including: Rob Roy and Waverly. I read more of his books but I forget what they were because I read them so long ago.

Sometimes I'm in the middle of complaining to Joanne that some book, which I told Joanne before I started was probably going to be boring and stupid, is indeed boring and stupid, and I plan to complain about it being boring and stupid for the next week because it's also long, and Joanne says silly things like "Why would you even start a book that you think will be boring and stupid?" Ivanhoe is why! Sometimes I'm wrong. I thought Ivanhoe would be boring and stupid, but it's a blast.

Flesh Wounds
Here's the test for whether you'll like it: have you ever liked any story - even just one story - with a knight in it? If you're not totally immune to knights clanking about flinging gauntlets at each other, you should like Ivanhoe. It's the apotheosis of knight-bashing. There are:

- damsels in distress, and a terrific response by one of them;
- a great scheming old crone in a tower;
- a wicked prince;
- a thrilling castle siege (and note: those are usually not thrilling, it's just super hard to write large-scale battle scenes that work, but here you go!);
- mystery knights in black;
- a lusty brawling priest;
- even an outlaw bowman dressed in green. (Is his identity supposed to be a secret? Because it's not, neither is the Black Knight's.)



If none of those things sound fun to you....well, we can still read Mansfield Park together.

Apologetic Anti-Semitism
The one thing I should mention that doesn't sit perfectly with me is (sigh, here we go again) Isaac the Jew. And look, Scott's major point, which he makes again and again, is how awful bigotry towards Jews is. "Except the flying fish," he says, "there was no race existing on the earth, in the air, or the waters, who were the object of such an intermitting, general, and relentless persecution as the Jews," and you're like yeah! Good point! But then he follows that with "The obstinacy and avarice of the Jews...seemed to increase in proportion to the persecution with which they were visited," and you're like waaaaaiiiit a minute here chief. It's a sortof apologetic anti-Semitism that you run into sometimes with 1800s writers: "There was no angle left to them but to become money-lenders," they seem to say, "So of course they became greedy and wicked as well." Harriet Beecher Stowe has similar ideas about Black people in Uncle Tom's Cabin. I think they're trying, but it doesn't age well.

Walter Scott in Context
Scott is sometimes called the inventor of historical fiction. He's also sometimes called shitty; EM Forster says that "To make things happen one after another is his only serious aim." Scott can't do characters; he can't even do plots. He just presents a series of scenes. "He has the power to present the outside of a character and to work from the outside to the inside," says Pritchett. "But once inside, he discovers only what is generic." But then there's David Lodge calling Scott "the single Shakespearean talent of the English novel."

All of these things are hyperbole. It's true that characterization is not Scott's strong point - lot of archetypes here - but everyone's entertaining and memorable enough; it's okay not to be a psychologist. Scott's super fun to read, and that's great.

...and in Central Park
For some reason Central Park has a statue of him, which I went to visit as I read Ivanhoe. Here it is:



Over on the other side - in shade, so the pic I took from that side doesn't show it at all - is his dog. He looks like a nice guy, doesn't he? I like him.

On my short list of books I am actively reading, I include a "bucket book," defined as a book I really should have read by this time in my life, but which for various reasons, I have not. In this category, I just finished Ivanhoe, which I found quite enjoyable. I think it was also my first Scott novel. Fun.

Audible.com 18 hours 59 min. Narrated by Simon Prebble

I award 4.5 stars to the book by Walter Scott and 5 stars to Simon Prebble for his masterful performance which brought the book to life for me. My only previous knowledge of Ivanhoe was the classic movie made in 1953 starring Robert Taylor as the knight and Elizabeth Taylor as Rebecca. To say the movie was based on the book is an overstatement.
In 73 years I have never desired to read the book because I thought it would be too ponderous. When I read the historical fiction books about King Richard by Sharon Kay Penman Lionheart and The King's ransom, I decided I wanted to finish Richard's story with a book written by an English writer who lived 200 years closer to Richard to get another perspective.

This was the right time for me to listen to Ivanhoe. Both of Penman's books about Richard were captivating but filled with so much depressing hardship and death. Scott's novel is lightweight in comparison. I loved that his first chapter gives his readers background information on the changes in the English language due to Normans conquering the Saxons. Even 200 years ago our laguage was misunderstood. Having grown up reading the King James translation of the Bible, I had no difficulty understanding the grammar patterns. Simon Prebble read this lyrical prose as if were the culmination of a lifetime of practice. So much for being "ponderous."

The characters of Ivanhoe brought such delight!
The Black Night, or Richard the Lionheart. Both Penman and Scott viewed Richard through the same lens. They showed his quick wit, love of a good story or ballad, his wreckless courage, his fidelity to the knights who served under him, and his ability to overlook the betrayal by his brother John but his relentless wrath that fell upon countrymen who were a part of the same acts of betrayal.
The characters fall into groups including the Saxons, the Jews, Robinhood and the men of Sherwood Forest, the Normans following traitorous John, the Templars, and the obligatory priests. My personal favorite was Wamba, Cedric the Saxon's jester or fool. Wamba is quick-witted not half-witted. He is clever, courageous and truly devoted to his master and exchanges places with Cedric when it seems that life is in jeopardy. Wamba plays a key role through most of the book and was one the more memorable characters evoking smiles, chuckles and laughs. And then there were the Jews. Throughout history they have been hated, slandered, abused and killed. Scott made their story central to the plot. Issac of York is the elderly "penniless" merchant who is the sterotype of a Jewish money-loving money lender always alert to lend if a profit can be made. He doesn't care if you're Saxon or Norman and is willing to lend to both sides. Rebecca is Issac's beautiful daughter who has studied healing and has powerful herbs and ointments that she uses freely and generosly to help the sick and injured.
What about Ivanhoe? He is Cedric's disinherited son who returns home from Richard's Crusade at beginning of the story hoping to regain good standing with his father. Cedric spurns him. So Ivanhoe whose chief aim is to be the picture of chivalry determines to win favor with beautiful Rowena and to get revenge on a Templars knight by winning a joust. He succeeded only to be seriously injured. Rebecca came to his aid, saves his life and sadly falls in love with him. Ivanhoe's opinion of Jews is no higher than that of others. While Ivanhoe is healing, the story goes on without him! At the climax, Ivanhoe returns to health and rides in on old, nearly dead horse just in time to save Rebecca from being burned at the stake as a witch. Then through the stroke of Scott's pen and a big surprise ending, Rowena is free to marry Ivanhoe.
I am so glad this novel is the conclusion to my reading about this period. It left me smiling!

Audible.com 17 hours 42 min. Narrated by David McCallion

I enjoyed Ivanhoe so much that I listened to it again read by a different narrator. Of course this time there were no surprises, but the story still worked. Since Audible is now owned by Amazon, why can't the audio books be included in Goodreads? I also listened to Black Gold by Teresa Edwards, both the youngest and oldest member of US women's Olympic basketball team. Another short book (4 hours) I can't include.

Dit is het bekende verhaal van Ivanhoe, origineel van Walter Scott. Dit boek echter is een verkorte uitgave voor de jeugd. Maar ik vind het wat te veel ingekort, zodat het soms moeilijk te volgen is, vooral de relaties van de verschillende personages onderling. Er moet veel meer aan de hand zijn dan in dit boekje wordt verteld.
De illustraties zijn ook niet mooi, het zijn eerder ruwe schetsen. Een tegenvaller.

“Hearken,” he (Brian de Bois-Guilbert) said, “Rebecca; I have hitherto spoken mildly to thee, but now my language shall be that of a conqueror. Thou art the captive of my bow and spear—subject to my will by the laws of all nations; nor will I abate an inch of my right, or abstain from taking by violence what thou refusest to entreaty or necessity.”
“Stand back,” said Rebecca—“which portion of “no” dost thou not comprehend? Kindly desist from thou crapulous Trumpery posthaste!”

Some of the above quotes hath indeed been tampered with from Sir Walter Scott’s original text. Apologies to all purists. Honestly, I cannot stand that longwinded de Bois-Guilbert. What a silly bunt (as Eric Idle would say).

Brian de Bois-Guilbert and poor Rebecca

Took me one month+19 days to read this (audio) book. I would have read it faster if it had been more compelling. but Ivanhoe is not an easy book to read, the olde English dialogue takes getting used to, and while some of it is quite entertaining it often drags, especially when that damned de Bois-Guilbert is delivering his interminable gabble.

It is hard to summarize what the novel is about as it is so fragmented. Set in the 12th century the novel (sort of) follows Wilfred Ivanhoe as he returns from the Holy Land after the Third Crusade has ended. He soon entered a jousting tournament and jousted the asses off the other competitors. Ivanhoe wins the tournament but is gravely injured after his foes ganged up on him; fortunately, a mysterious Black Knight shows up to aid him. He is then taken to Rebecca the Jewess. Ivanhoe, his Dad, Rebecca, and others are soon kidnapped by dastardly Norman Maurice de Bracy, a friend of the verbal diarrhea afflicted de Bois-Guilbert. They are taken to Torquilstone, the castle of Front-de-Boeuf (another antagonist). The Black Knight soon comes to the rescue with the help of the sharp shootin’ Robin Hood, Friar Tuck, and many other hipster outlaw types. Many more events follow and await your discovery.


The Black Knight (though he retains both arms in this book)

OK, now I am going to get medieval on this book. Actually, on reflection, I quite like Ivanhoe, though I was often frustrated when it grinds to a halt (shut up, de Bois-Guilbert!). By the end, I felt it definitely outstayed its welcome. I am surprised we don’t see that much of the eponymous hero, he does not show up until page 50 or so, after his jousting injuries he disappears from the narrative for many pages, only to become active again towards the end. His climactic battle with that damn de Bois-Guilbert is a disappointment and very WTF.

Wilfred

Sir Walter Scott's prose is a thing pf beauty and I even like the olde English once I got used to it. The story, while fragmented, is good, and not hard to follow. My only complaint is that for a “Romance” (as in “a medieval tale dealing with a hero of chivalry”, not a story of smooches and heartbreaks) it is not very thrilling. Sir Walter does write very good fight scenes but those are too few and far between to effectively liven up the narrative. There is just too much dialogue and that damn de Bois-Guilbert just goes on and on and on, repeating himself in his attempt to get into poor Rebecca’s pants. Apart from him, the characterization is generally very good, I particularly like Wamba the jester, and Robin Hood, especially when he is showing off. The humorous bits work for me but, again, there is too little of them.

I can’t really recommend Ivanhoe, personally, I will stick to  Alexandre Dumas for medieval badassery.

Notes:
• The Normans and the Saxons have an acrimonious relationship but they agree on one thing, their disdain for the Jews. The most put upon characters in the book.

• Richard the Lionheart really lives up to his name, and seems to enjoy ass kicking more than ruling the land.

•  Audiobook from Librivox, read by various readers, some are pretty good, some are not so good but bearable. Whatchoo want for free, eh?

Quotes:
“I pray thee, uncle,” answered the Jester, “let my folly, for once, protect my roguery. I did but make a mistake between my right hand and my left; and he might have pardoned a greater, who took a fool for his counsellor and guide.”
Wamba is the best!

“And now,” said Locksley, “I will crave your Grace’s permission to plant such a mark as is used in the North Country; and welcome every brave yeoman who shall try a shot at it to win a smile from the bonny lass he loves best.”
“Formed in the best proportions of her sex, Rowena was tall in stature, yet not so much so as to attract observation on account of superior height. Her complexion was exquisitely fair, but the noble cast of her head and features prevented the insipidity which sometimes attaches to fair beauties. Her clear blue eye, which sat enshrined beneath a graceful eyebrow of brown sufficiently marked to give expression to the forehead, seemed capable to kindle as well as melt, to command as well as to beseech.” (etc.) That is the most elaborate description of a woman I have ever seen.

“To all true English hearts, and to the confusion of foreign tyrants.”

Here is a de Bois-Guilbert special:
“No, damsel!” said the proud Templar, springing up, “thou shalt not thus impose on me—if I renounce present fame and future ambition, I renounce it for thy sake, and we will escape in company. Listen to me, Rebecca,” he said, again softening his tone; “England,—Europe,—is not the world. There are spheres in which we may act, ample enough even for my ambition. We will go to Palestine, where Conrade, Marquis of Montserrat, is my friend—a friend free as myself from the doting scruples which fetter our free-born reason—rather with Saladin will we league ourselves, than endure the scorn of the bigots whom we contemn.—I will form new paths to greatness,” he continued, again traversing the room with hasty strides—“Europe shall hear the loud step of him she has driven from her sons!—Not the millions whom her crusaders send to slaughter, can do so much to defend Palestine—not the sabres of the thousands and ten thousands of Saracens can hew their way so deep into that land for which nations are striving, as the strength and policy of me and those brethren, who, in despite of yonder old bigot, will adhere to me in good and evil. Thou shalt be a queen, Rebecca—on Mount Carmel shall we pitch the throne which my valour will gain for you, and I will exchange my long-desired batoon for a sceptre!” STFU!

Set in the reign of Richard I; the Lionheart being on crusade much of the time, leaving England to the mercy (no chance!) of his brother, the odious Prince John and some rather nasty Norman barons. I found it quite a page turner. Of particular interest to me was Scott's portrayal of relations between the subjugated and resentful English and their Norman conquerors. English = liberty, Norman = tyranny.

The position of the Jews in England is fascinating too and two of them have an important part in the story. Regarded as less than animals on one level; on the other hand they were the bankers and so we couldn't do without them.

Lots of fighting here and the art of chivalry. Ivanhoe the English knight takes on a few Normans, we meet Robin Hood and his fellow bandit Friar Tuck. The latter compares favourably with the princes of the church in England. Richard puts in the odd appearance at crucial points. (Scott is balanced in his assessment of him. R's heart was in the right place but he neglected his country). Lurv figures in it too of course.

I enjoyed reading it and want to read more on this period of history.

There is something unique about a novel written 200 years ago about a point in history that’s 600 years before that. With most modern historical fiction works, the relationship between the past and the present are at least half-way understood. But with Ivanhoe, this relationship is obscured by the years since it writing.

My interpretation is that Scott used this story to reflect upon religious irony between the two time periods. He depicts medieval religion as self-serving, power hungry, and especially antisemic. It may have been Scott’s hope that the depiction of such deplorable behavior 600 years ago would have created a place where these acts could be contemplated in isolation from Scott’s present world. The hope being that a condemnation of people in a fictional 12th Century England would carry subconsciously into judgements of similar behavior in Scott’s 19th Century world, where all of these afflictions still existed. To this end, Scott shows his cards with a single solitary line in the novel: “Will future ages believe that such stupid bigotry ever existed!” Anything more than that would risk breaking the seal between Scott’s fictional world and Scott’s reality where humanity actually lived.

The overall story is typical 19th Century writing. Long narrative passages that tend to overly stretch out the story. The writing is filled with vocabulary that is seldom in use today. Making matters worse, is the 12th Century dialog of the characters, which amplifies the antiquated English. But at moments, Scott does a good job bringing knights of the medieval England alive. He even brings the legendary Robin Hood to life, which may have been anticipated by his readers due to time period. In short, there’s entertainment and contemplation here for readers of any century provided that you have the patience to make it through to the end.