Ah, well. No, I guess I won’t be picking this book up again.
(I am not one of those who put down “Lord Foul’s Bane” after reading the rape scene. I didn’t get that far. I put the book down, finding it boring and dreary, a few pages before I would have gotten to the rape scene.)
Siam Sam: I will make the effort to read “Quartered Safe Out Here” for the historic interest. British operations in Burma are sadly neglected in WWII historical writing.
I’m a pretty big Flashman fan, though not in the first rank of completely impassioned devotees: I find some of the novels easier and more agreeable reading, than others. (Have read the first in the series [Flashman – Afghanistan early 1840s] once, and not wished to read it again.) I feel that re the series as a whole, Malthus says it all here:
I see the “softening” at least in part, as a function of Flashman growing older and, maybe not exactly wiser, but more subtle in his wickedness: with more self-control, and greater skill in simulating, for those around him, being a good fellow. In the first book he is, after all, only a kid – as Kimstu says, aged 19 when first posted to India. The very young human male has, in general, a fair number of unadmirable traits, and can be pretty brutish – even if not, for most of his kind, going so far as committing rape.
Same for me, only more so, concerning The Pyrates. (And I’ve actually found Pratchett unreadable, and almost totally un-funny, for the same overall reasons.) I got most of the way through The Pyrates, with difficulty; then could take no more, and “bailed”. I suspect that to delight in The Pyrates, one needs to be a film buff; which I’m not (and Fraser was).
The oddest reaction to Flashman which I’ve known, was from a friend to whom I recommended the books. He tried Flash For Freedom (slaving in West Africa; and the US Deep South pre-Civil War) – in which our anti-hero does a fair few distinctly dastardly things. My friend finished the book, but pronounced himself not hugely impressed – and he claimed himself a bit puzzled as to all the hoo-ha about what a rotten, nasty individual Flashman is: Flashman struck my friend as a fairly averagely decent guy. This friend is, admittedly, a bit of a “professional contrarian”, apparently seeing himself as duty-bound to come up with unusual and paradoxical “takes” on things – especially on those which large numbers of people rave about.
To cut Flashy a little slack here: his involvement with the slave trade is against his will, as a consequence of a dire personal predicament which he gets into. He recounts his experiencing the occasional twinge of sympathy for the Africans whom his slaver associates are abducting from their home and transporting westward in nasty conditions; though he is of course too preoccupied with his own personal mess and how he might get out of it, to do anything to try to help the victims.
He does pick out a woman to be his “companion” for lack of a better word.
I may be mistaken being male, but I think she agreed to receive better treatment that her associates.
I do not recall what happens to her.
If it makes a difference, the rape isn’t described in any detail, it’s not portrayed as a good thing, and Fraser seems to have creeped himself out sufficiently that he didn’t put any more rape scenes in the series.
I guess my thoughts on the Afghan war as portrayed in Flashman vs. actual history were a bit ‘contrarian’ too, in the sense that Fraser almost takes a bit too much of a pro-Afghan and anti-British slant. The killing of Burnes apparently happened (according to Persian sources) after a sexual slave fled the house of an Afghan noble and took up with Burnes, and the outraged noble led a posse to attack his house. Say what you will about his sex life, but a consensual relationship is surely better than a sexual relationship based on slavery, and in Burnes’ place I wouldn’t have returned the slave either.
To tell the truth, yes, your opinion actually does make a difference to me. I disagree with you on various things, but here, specifically, I value your views.
I’m not actually totally sure why I opened this thread. I think it was just a generalized whine. But I’ve received a LOT of very well-thought-out and insightful responses – thank you, everyone! – and now I’m completely vacillating in my thoughts whether or not to go back and finish the book! I think my original response was too “black and white” – “This is an awful book with no redeeming qualities at all” – and, more properly, it does have some.
(I never had this problem with James Bond, in the Fleming stories and novels – but I know a good many people who think that Bond is just about as depraved as Flashman. Several of his “seductions” are pretty damned rape-ish.)
Yeah, but Bond one can just laugh at for his ridiculous interpretation of “sophisticated hard guy” (oh my, you “went into training” for a whole five days, and at the end of it could run a whole mile! What a man! Wow, you defeated a bad guy at cards by sweating hard while watching a sequence of independent random events you had no control over and no foreknowledge of! How awfully clever of you!) while enjoying the writing and the (often equally silly) plots.
Flashman is harder not to take seriously. One may (must) despise him for his fundamental viciousness and cowardice, but one can’t just laugh at him for a preening jackass.
Yes, indeed, “Lady Caroline Lamb”. Flashman accommodates her in his cabin, for his exclusive use; but for the essentially selfish reason that he gets interested in teaching her English (and odd tags of Latin). This is the thing which first persuades the captain – a criminal lunatic but something of a genius – that Flashman might be anything more than a useless dolt, forced upon him by the company’s owners. The captain has ideas of using Lady Caroline as an interpreter on future voyages.
I, too, forget what ultimately becomes of Lady C. I recall that nearly all the slaves are sold at an entrepôt in Central America; after which, the slavers finally happen to get into trouble with the authorities.
I’d reckon it thoroughly reasonable to disagree with a view of the Afghans as splendid, noble types, as opposed to British meddling would-be tyrants. I do feel, though, that nobody except my perverse friend could conclude that Flashman is basically a decent chap, and wonder what the fuss re his perceived wickedness, is all about !
The full title is Quartered Safe Out Here: A Recollection of the War in Burma. The phrase “Quartered Safe Out Here” is taken from Rudyard Kipling’s “Gunga Din” and just a bit misleading, as Fraser was not quartered safe anywhere while there.
“You may talk o’ gin and beer
while you’re quartered safe out here,
and sent to penny fights and Aldershot it.
But when it comes to slaughter
you do your work on water
and you’ll lick the bloomin’ boots of him that’s got it.”
I pleased that I can still do that from memory.
One of the fascinating things in *Quartered Safe Out Here *is Fraser’s description of the Borderers he served with (from the region along the border between England and Scotland). If this stimulates your interest in the history of the area you could do worse than read Fraser’s The Steel Bonnets about the Border and the Borderers in the sixteenth century, the time of the raids and the feuds of the great riding families. It is straight history but told with GMF’s style and wit.
I am loving this thread! I came in to whine about one book…and come away with two others recommended! I will pick up both Steel Bonnets and Quartered Safe!
Thank you!
(The SDMB is one of the best “critique salons” I’ve ever seen!)
I still say you should give the Flashman books a further chance. It will definitely be a loss to you if you cannot continue them.
I think at the beginning of The Steel Bonnets, Fraser demonstrates out the adventurous and far-flung influence of the Reivers by pointing out that at the time of the Moon Landings, Nixon, Armstrong and some other astronaut were all descendents and would have glowered well from under a morion’s brim.
Of course Nixon was famously a quaker, and such philosophy’s antecedents would have been anathema to the fastidious Border Folk — when supplies were low the borderer would find instead of a hearty breakfast under the lid, a pair of spurs. A hint from the good wife it was cattle-lifting time.
He also pointed out that whether James VI & I was a cowardly mincing, semi-homosexual sissy or not, * he went through the Borders like a dose of salts and destroyed the anarchy as no power before him on either side of the march.
I should know more about the subject, but was it as James I or VI he did this?
I believe James also had to be prevented doing similar to the Highlands & Western Isles. Mincing, sissy, psychopaths, the very *worst *type of villain.
I’ve points like this raised before. IIRC, Flashman right after the rape says something like “mind you, this was the only time I’ve raped a woman” so Frasier clearly signalled it wouldn’t happen again right then.
Fraser wrote two works of fiction set in the milieu of The Steel Bonnets: the short novel The Candlemass Road (publ. 1993), and The Reavers (publ. 2007, the year before his death) – apparently a humorous re-working of The Candlemass Road, much in the style of The Pyrates. I admit to not having read either of these Border-set fiction pieces; various factors put me off the former – and with the latter: I couldn’t handle The Pyrates, so would expect to find the Border comedy offering, painful.
Flashy started out as rotter, then became a cad, a scoundrel, and finally ended up a mere rogue.
I loved The Pyrates, but The Reavers was pretty poor; it’s the only book of his I’ve never finished. The Hollywood History of the World, on the other hand, is a work of sheer genius.
Another thing I’ll say in defence of the Flashman series: The historical research is meticulous; as someone who loves the Victorian Era, it’s a very accurate depiction and when there are artistic liberties taken, they are still justifiable and work well in context - the footnotes alone are excellent reading for anyone wanting to learn more about the era.