Something strange happened to my sense of humor in the years between the 1970s and today. When I first read Flashman back then, I found it to be highly amusing. In fact, I liked it so much I read several of the sequels. Today, I don't perceive it as very humorous at all. In fact, I find it more than a bit distasteful. I know the book hasn't changed; obviously, it's me. I can't imagine why I found it so funny back then.
This book introduces George Flashman, beginning when he joins the military after being expelled at age 17 from school for drunkenness. He is supposedly writing about the adventures and misadventures of his long life from the vantage point of old age. He is self-professed as "a scoundrel, a liar, a cheat, a thief, a coward--and, oh yes, a toady," who has nevertheless been awarded "a knighthood, a Victoria Cross, high rank, and some popular fame." In this first installment of his saga, he survives ambushes, captivity, torture, and a catastrophic battle, mainly through running the other way when danger nears, emerging against the odds as a celebrated hero. The story centers on the First Anglo-Afghan War, which took place in Afghanistan from 1839 to 1842. The political and military history provided is purportedly quite accurate.
One of the back-cover blurbs compares Flashman to Henry Fielding's anti-hero Tom Jones. Yes, the two both behave badly at times and manage somehow to come out on top, but there their similarity ends. Tom is portrayed as basically honest and good-hearted, although his youthful lust gets him into all kinds of trouble. That kind of fault can be and is, in that case, very funny. In contrast, Flashman has all the faults listed above and also rapes women, beats servants for amusement, and wishes a fellow soldier dead because he had witnessed Flashman's cowardly actions, even though the man had previously saved his life. That's just not funny to me, even narrated in a cynical and sarcastic tone.
Fraser wrote eleven Flashman novels, each one covering some military conflict. All are considered to be faithful to the background history. As to whether they are "hilariously funny" (The New York Times Book Review) or not, it maybe depends on how old you are when you read them.
Monday, December 5, 2016
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment