Wily Walter may have been engaged on his first prose narrative, but he knew what he was doing: "I must remind my reader of the progress of a stone rolled down a hill by an idle truant boy (a pastime at which I was myself expert in my more juvenile years:) it moveth at first slowly, avoiding, by inflection, every obstacle of the least importance; but when it has attained its full impulse, and draws near the conclusion of its career, it smokes and thunders down, taking a rood at every spring, clearing hedge and ditch like a Yorkshire huntsman, and becoming most furiously rapid in its course when it is nearest to being consigned to rest for ever. Even such is the course of a narrative, like that which you are perusing; the earlier events are studiously dwelt upon, that you, kind reader, may be introduced to the character rather by narrative, than by the duller medium of direct description; but when the story draws near its close, we hurry over the circumstances, however important, which your imagination must have forestalled, and leave you to suppose those things, which it would be abusing your patience to narrate at length." (page 331). Indeed, in the second and third volumes the narrative does smoke and thunder. Once Waverley is in Scotland and in the midst of the action, the pace picks up, and when in the final volume there is the added interest of the ladies and whether Waverley will at last realise which lady holds his best interests at heart, and all the intrigue is at last uncovered, and the rebels must be punished or pardoned, well, then it takes on a spanking pace that hardly allows you to draw breath. The contrast is made all the greater by the slow, slow drag of those infamous first seven chapters. I'm not the first to bemoan their dullness, and I daresay I won't be the last.

Nor is it particularly original of me to point out that this is considered the prototype of the historical novel, especially in the use of a 'middling' character as the main protagonist, one who could enter both the higher echelons of society and yet still be at home with the ordinary foot soldier. Scott claims in his preface of 1829 that the story was put together "with so little care that I cannot boast of having sketched any distinct plan of the work.", but that claim must surely be disingenuous, as this middling character, Waverley, is involved in what can only have been seen by his sovereign as a treasonous uprising, but is exculpated and pardoned as he was duped and tricked into joining the rebels in a plot that is carefully laid down and swiftly, nay even perfunctorily explained in the last few chapters.

So with this carping how come I still give it four stars? Well, for one thing I find the portrayal of that period fascinating, to gain a glimpse of those Highland clans and their quite different culture. It must be remembered that the Highlands of Scotland really were remote in the middle of the 18th century, their loyalties were based on the structure of the clan, it was in no sense a modern society. In fact that was an interesting aspect: in our time we tend to think only in terms of ideology when taking sides in any kind of political conflict, but here the idea of personal fealty is still the strongest factor, homage given in return for favour expected. And the attitude to the ladies also shows up the demarcation between an archaic and a more modern society: Waverley's friend Vich Ian Vohr thinks nothing of deciding for his sister who she is to marry, since he is her legal guardian, whereas Waverley cannot consider taking a wife who does not give her hand freely.

A tough read, but rewarding for those interested in British history or the development of the historical novel.

The first chapter was amusing and well written, where Scott humorously explains why he named the book as he did. However once he begins to tell the story, yee gads, everything becomes bogged down: "But the wealthy country gentlemen of England, a rank which retained, with much of ancient manners and primitive integrity, a great proportion of obstinate and unyielding prejudice, stood aloof in haughty and sullen opposition, and cast many a look of mingled regret and hope to Bois le Duc, Avignon, and Italy."
So dry, so dull, so overblown. Not my cup of tea.

All right, all of you, I'm calling it: this is a DNF for me. I know, this is something I usually wouldn't do—and I won't be counting it towards my reading challenge for the year since I only made it 160 pages
in. If I'm honest, the step of deciding I will not finish this book is honestly giving me anxiety, but I refuse to waste my time any longer. I have read the summary of what will happen next, and I'm not interested in continuing.

I was dreadfully, honestly bored for the first 100 pages. Now, I am a classics lover. I adore Austen. MIDDLEMARCH and LES MISERABLES, these long epic novels that go into devastating historical detail or range decades, are my jam. So the language was not the reason I could not finish WAVERLEY, nor was the subject matter, which is the part I found fascinating—the politics of the Highlanders and the description of the highlands. The problem was Scott's writing in particular, which I found heavy, with a focus on description over narrative to the point of madness—my word for that half-dialogue where characters say things aloud in this way: Leah said to her readers that, 'if she were to finish this book, she would feel she had wasted too much time she could be reading other things.'

I found the main character to be very bland white boy. There was a lot of potential in a romantic who grew up raised by both his father, a political government man, and his uncle, a Tory, and yet the narrative states that Edward had never much cared for or followed politics. The main narrative turns are often rushed over in favor of description of history, characters, or landscapes. I loved the character of Flora but was frankly disenchanted by the clear beginnings of a love triangle, and I am frankly even less enchanted after reading the summary of where the novel goes from here. I have little interest in having this language and narrative form describe a battle to me—Victor Hugo's battle descriptions are long-winded and a chore, but I loved his writing, and it was all to get somewhere for dramatic effect, and I find Scott's historical fiction dry and over-factual. The novel often succeeded in being funny in the clashing of cultures, and I won't pretend—I do see the romance, glimmering in the corner there—but that's also the problem. I see where it's all going, but I can't follow the whims of Edward himself, or the political intrigue, because Scott manages to over-explain while letting turns of narrative just happen without explanation. I am going to try and hold myself to it: I will not finish WAVERLEY when I could be reading other things.

In between the French phrases, Latin idioms, and Highland Dialect, Scott had quite a few gems in this book. I found his perspective on the personalities of the Scots and the Brits interesting and sometimes humorous.

I enjoy the history and the location of Scotland, but there were times I almost gave up on this book because Scott can be wordy!

However I am glad I trudged on because I did enjoy the plot (once Scott finally laid the groundwork).

I would probably only recommend this book to someone who obsessed over the Jacobite Uprising in '45 and liked Classic literature. Others should read at their own risk.

An early historical novel set in 1745 at the Jacobite rebellion to restore Bonnie Prince Charlie to the throne.

I liked the plot but the text was difficult to read, like a role-playing tabletop game where not only the game but the kibitzing is recorded. The author pops us in and out of the flow of the story so often that I started skipping anything that looked like poetry, a note, Latin, or an unintelligible rendition of a Scottish accent. Skimmed a bunch of historical over-explaining and speeches. Oh boy. Such speeches.

Scott's writing is dated, but comparing it to Jane Austin's (who wrote at the same time) shows Scott's as being more than just dated, but blathering. Nevertheless, a good adventure with a good heart.

Recommended for writers, readers who love digging in the past and lovers of the old silent film Fairbanks version of Robin Hood.

Figure 8 was the first Elliott Smith album I bought, the first I was aware of, and I loved it. When I got a chance, I bought the one he made a couple years before that, XO, and it didn't strike me *quite* the same, but I liked it, and came around on it. I worked my way back, over time, to his self-titled album, which was the least like the first one of his I bought. It was a very different sound and I didn't take to it at first. It was like meeting him at his most mature, most creative, most capable, and walking back in time to his most raw. But I recognized in it a lot of the same things I loved about Figure 8 and the other albums and learned to hear it a different way.

That's how I feel about this novel.

Having read a number of his later novels, I found some of this less polished, more awkward, and I was put off a bit by it. But you can trace elements of the later novels back to this one, his first, and see how he evolved, how he was feeling his way forward, toward the author that he would be. Framed this way, a story I might not have cared (if it had been the first of his I opened) still works, still makes sense, and is entertaining.

It contains many of the same themes and motifs--the history of Scotland, the fortunes of great families, the contrast between highlanders and lowland Scots, acts of bravery, lives devoted to honor, the use of realistic dialect, and my favorite, the humanizing and ennobling of marginalized and handicapped individuals. (Davie Gellatley, the mentally handicapped servant boy, is one of several examples in the novel. Though unsuitable for some work, he's shrewd enough, in an amusing way, to fail at anything other than the work he enjoys, so that he's not pressed into jobs he doesn't like, but is good at the ones he does like. And he shows characteristics of a savant, recalling and being able to sing every verse of every song his older brother taught him, in a number of languages, which I found interesting in a 200-year-old novel. Because he likes delivering messages, he's entirely reliable when given that sort of errand, and carries some important messages. Not a big part, but memorable.) Set during the Jacobite Rebellion, the novel is a romantic action story for the most part, and pretty fun to read just on that level.

It's a bit weird, though. Scott usually has an intrusive (I mean that in a neutral way) narrator, the "Let me tell you, dear reader..." type of narrator. Here, though, it seems we get Scott himself as the narrator, and he tells us way too much. He basically walks us through the thinking he did when constructing the plot and devising the characters. It's almost like watching a movie that pauses the action and turns to the director who tells us how he framed the shot or explains why the character is doing what he's doing. That does something to the suspension of disbelief; I won't say it destroys it, but it does wash it out quite a bit. (Actually, it makes me think of Peter Falk in Princess Bride. But that worked in a different way.)

Despite the odd narrator, this first effort still impresses with its round characters. In Edward Waverley, we get a hero not unlike many of Scott's later heroes. In Baron Bradwardine, a family friend, who is both noble and ridiculous, always quoting Latin passages and bits of Scottish law, we get a preview of Lord Oldbuck in his 3rd novel, The Antiquary. And with Fergus Mac-Ivor and a few others, we see the noble character living outside the law. They're not just types, though; they're all original creations with their own style. Even in his first novel, he's already capable of that.

So it's rough, in a way, but it has its charm, and I'm grateful to the novel. Without it, we wouldn't have all the other novels. He almost didn't finish it, and when he did he published it anonymously, not wanting to diminish his career as a poet. But it sold very well and he went on to Rob Roy and Ivanhoe and the rest, so yay for Waverley.

In 2021, this is an enthusiast's book. Others should start with one of his later novels. But I recommend finding a lovely old hardcover somewhere and reading at least one of them!

This was very nearly 4 stars. I’m so glad I’ve finally read a novel by Sir Walter Scott, after reading him cited by in so many classics I’ve read this year (including works by George Eliot, Jane Austen and Virginia Woolf). I was fascinated by the idea of such a greatly respected and well-known author, who has completely fallen out of favour with modern audiences.
And I easily found out why that is. This is not an easy read, not in the slightest. I can’t put my finger on what the problem is. The language is not archaic or particularly reliant on the Scots dialect (which is used very marginally considering the circumstances), but nevertheless it feels heavy. The plot almost gets lost a little bit, but it’s not like nothing is happening. In fact, I was really engaged with the events and intrigue, as I generally have an inclination towards Scots history and was eager to find out more + I really enjoy historical fiction (which this book is the first example of).
I also enjoyed the characters, especially Fergus and Flora. It’s easy to connect to their cause, even though I do think that the motivations of the conflicts are not flashed out very well. But I’m still a sucker for adventure and chivalry, so I would say 3.5 stars is the fairest score I can give it.

I’m torn. I loved some parts of this book, and really strongly disliked others. I think it’s a nice book if you really (really, really) love your classics. It’s a lovely story, but it could have been a lot shorter, which would have possibly made it better. I’m probably stepping on a view toes here, but this is one classic you can definitely skip without feeling bad. Still decided to give 3 start, because Scott’s writing is amazing. It was so good, that it constantly kept me wondering what would happen next, unfortunately, I kept thinking that until the very last page, with nothing really “happening” in the end.

[edit]
I am rereading this soon! I want to give it another shot because I can’t stop thinking about it!

I love Walter Scott and have read close to all books. However, he suffers by being from a different era, not from his writing, but from what is always championed as his best, because it was the best for a different era. In all of his novels, including this one, there is some sort of supernatural element such as ghosts or witches. However, the novels where that element only plays a small part are those chosen as his greatest. In actuality, he has written non-fiction on those elements, and his novels in which the supernatural plays a larger part, such as "The Pirate", "The Monastery", "The Black Dwarf", etc., are the most fascinating. True, in each of them he offers an obligatory statement about not believing it, unenlightened age, etc., but those statements are transparently just to get him off the "all is ultimately reason" hook in his time. "Waverly" was the novel that brought him anonymously to to the attention of the public in his time. Some of that is due to a kind of nostalgia in Britain at the time its the past history. This novel also fits the pattern of young hero, of course male, setting out to make a way for himelf in the world. He spends some time, as do many of Scott's male leads, sick or captured or both. (After all, Ivanhoe is bedridden through a great deal of his novel.) Waverly is enchanted by Scottish life and rebellion, but changes his mind almost too late. (I don't want to be a spoiler, but isn't there a statute limitations on such crimes? The book is going on 20o years old.). Then Waverly is saved mostly because of privilege, as the events play out. The edition I read was the Franklin Press edition with illustrations and all the prefaces, notes, glossary, etc. This was a charming way to read this great immersion into the past. The materiality of the well-made volume greatly enhanced the reading experience. If you feel it is a stodgy, try his darker novels.

A review of three stars is probably very misleading compared to my typically generous rating system. The truth is that the story of the adventures of the youthful hero Edward Waverly was delightful and satisfying in the end. But in every front, Sir Walter Scott frustrated me. Everything from his writing style and tone to the organization of plot and the saccarine romanticism of the plot left me wanting more. That being said, I really did enjoy the story as I came to understand it when all was said and done, apart from the way it was told.

Subtitled “‘Twas Sixty Years Since,” Waverly is historical fiction concerning the Jacobite Rebellion of 1745, where the Scottish Lords banded together behind Bonnie Prince Charlie in an attempt to put the Stewart heir back on the throne in the place of the Hapsburg rulers of Britain. A bit of understanding of the history of those events, of the Jacobite movement and the state of religious turmoil and Scotch resentment are essential to really understand the plot here without too much distraction. Suffice to say, Edward Waverly has been raised at his uncle Everard’s manor in the south of England, thoroughly British while descending under a dissenting coat of arms. Reaching maturity, Edward receives a commission as a Captain of Dragoons and heads north to meet his company. Taking a long leave of absence, he travels in Scotland, meeting friends of his uncle and partaking in all sorts of foreign Scottish events. Especially among the Highlanders, the customs are nearly as foreign to an Englishman as those found in an Indian metropolis or among African tribesman. Many of their Lords and Ladies have been educated in Paris and affect the airs of the French. Soon enough, Edward begins to see signs that the Scots are beyond simply resenting the current English King and are in fact, planning another coûte d’état. But he has also become fast friends with many of them and fallen in love with his new friends sister.

Before he can begin to extricate himself, Edward finds he is in the midst of an intrigue that makes him a criminal and a man in the run. As the Chevalier pretender to the throne Bonnie Prince Charlie shows up and starts winning his way into England, Edward is struck by his love of both sides of what he sees as a civil was. Swept up in the conflict, it will be a miracle if he survives and even more so if he isn’t court marshaled and stood up against a wall by the red coats.

The style of Scott is overly verbose. He does not belabor the plot, but he takes frequent opportunity to indulge in completely unnecessary asides, as seems to have been the universal standard across Europe at this epoch. Edward feels like a romantic bumbler, easily engaging with everyone he meets and highly chivalrous but incapable of foreseeing or sidestepping even the simplest trap set before him, by foe or fate. The story unfolds in a way so that the reader constantly wants to shout for Edward to get out of the snares that are so obviously laid out before him. In the end, many confusing details are cleared up, but the process of getting there feels laborious rather than adventurous. Knowing a man to be caught between a charge of treason and a thousand treasonous new friends, I spent most of my time wondering how this guy wasn’t going to be hung at the end of the novel.

In the end, I was happy with the whole thing. But the process of the adventure felt a little like a tumble down a rocky slope.

Took a long old while to get going with some fairly impenetrable Scottish dialect for added difficulty, but a cracking second half to the novel with plenty of historical interest too. And at least Scott is self-aware, even admitting that he tells his story "with all the brevity that my natural style of composition, partaking of what scholars call the periphrastic and ambagitory, and the vulgar the circumbendibus, will permit me".

I can see why this book was acclaimed during its time, as it's quite innovative for being written in 1812-1814. It is a little hard to get through for the modern reader, as it's full of British and especially Scottish slang that is unintelligible to an American reader (and likely most modern Brits and Scots as well). And it has tons of Latin and French references, too, which are not translated in my edition. This reflects that at the time reading was still a class-based activity. Scott's popularity helped to change that, and then Dickens a couple decades later ended that more or less permanently, at least until now when a huge slice of the public has chosen to be ignorant and never to read a book outside of a school assignment.

Anyway, enough ranting. This book is considered the first piece of historical fiction ever written. As such, it launched a lot of garbage on the world and a few decent novels. But at least in Sir Walter Scott's case, he was writing about something deadly serious and very much relevant in his lifetime: the takeover of Scotland by England through force in 1707, and the continuation of that occupation through to the 21st century. The fact that as I'm writing this review in May 2021, Scotland is holding a referendum on independence tells you that it's still not a resolved issue.

The gist of the fight was over forms of Protestant religion, with a bit of fear of Catholicism thrown in there as well. Of course, it was really about money and power, as well as the superstitions of every religion. And one of the worst periods was in 1745, when Charles, son of the man who would have been Scotland's and England's king (James) came over from France and tried to rally Highland Scots to his cause. He had remarkable success for a few months, but it was basically a peasants' rebellion that quickly fell apart due to lack of quality weapons and also to suspicion of Charles as someone who'd spent his life with French royalty. The British were so incensed and scared by the rebellion, however, that they then slaughtered hundreds or thousands of Scots and burned hundreds of homes and farms, leaving famine in their wake. Scotland didn't recover for 200 years or more.

This book looks at that period through the eyes of a fictional person, Edward Waverly. He's the son of a British politician who was a rising star for a while. But he got caught on the wrong side of political intrigue and lost his seat in Parliament and his modest fortune. Edward was assisted instead by his uncle, who had inherited the bulk of the family estate. At age 18, Edward is sent to join the army, to which he's not very well suited, as he more of a poet and reader. But he does OK for a while as a tutor, and then at his uncle's request goes to visit his uncle's best friend in Scotland. That man, Bradwardine, is an ardent supporter of the Scottish cause.

So, Edward starts hearing about the conflict from the Scottish point of view. And he's allowed to visit actual highlanders, who tell him how it really is. As a romantic, Edward is sort of taken in by their valor and strength, though not necessarily believing in their cause. But through various accidental circumstances, such as a leg injury during a hunt, he's stuck with them at the time that Charles lands in Scotland and starts to raise an army. Because Edward is with the Scots and hasn't been answering his letters -- which he didn't receive because he was injured -- and because Edward wasn't the greatest soldier anyway -- and because he was on leave to visit know Scot-sympathizers -- he's assumed to have switched to the Scottish cause.

And since he's assumed to be supportive of that cause, he gets angry and does join it. He acts with valor on the battlefield, but then sees a noble of England about to be killed, and he saves his life. This then leads to him being responsible for that man as a prisoner, and Edward starts to hear a lot about the righteousness of the British cause. As a Brit, he's disposed to that side anyway.

Meanwhile, Edward loves the sister of one of the bravest, most warlike Scot chieftains. She doesn't love him, and in fact she directs him towards her best friend, who is the son of a Scot-loving Brit. As with his allegiance in war, Edward can't make up his mind on allegiance in love.

In the end, after captures, escapes, challenges, hunger, escapades on horse and on foot, Edward is eventually reconciled with his family and his country. He marries the British girl, inherits a lot of money, and lives happily ever after. But many suffer during the terrible times, most particularly the noble Scot, who is hanged as a traitor, and other more traitorous Scots, who die in battle or for their treachery.

It's a swashbuckler of a story. Some of it is too coincidental, such as the relationship of Edward with the man whose life he saves -- but Edward doesn't know how that man knows his uncle. Or Edward's extensive time with Prince Charles, who always seems to know how to say the right thing.

Yet, it works anyway. What I like are the descriptions of the highlands and of the castles and gardens. Scott gives you a sense of their majesty and mystery. I also like that Edward is a confused and flawed young man. Even though there are times when he's overly lauded as a hero (basically because he's a spoiled, educated Brit), we are told over and over that he is easily influenced, naive, and scared. This is not a carboard hero of a lesser novelist.

The side characters are okay, though not as fully fleshed-out as in better books. There's a lot of attempt at humor, especially in the pompous language of Bradwardine and the bumblings of some of the lower people. There's a lot of sarcasm about military discipline, a few asides about churchmen when they believe too strongly, and some about the pursuit of money. Scott was not afraid to call out people.

I also like that he took on a hugely sensitive subject and gave positive marks to both sides. He's definitely more favorable to the British and union (even though Scott was a Scot), but he makes it very clear that the Highlanders are brave, strong, and felt abused by the British. But he says that basically they were deluded by both their religion and their leader.

In short, there's something for everyone here. Adventure, romance, strife, reconciliation. There's some moderately deep thinking, and certainly some frank talk about a highly controversial and sensitive topic in Scotland at the time. It's not surprise to me that this book was an instant best-seller and launched a series of "Waverly novels" that explored other aspects of Scotland's long effort to be left alone.