Having previously failed miserably to read either Treasure Island, or Kidnapped, I was a little anxious approaching this book. And in the first instance it did seem that my fears were well grounded, as I struggled with the Scottish dialect. But, further in, the dialect was less prevalent and, having surmounted these early teething problems, the book proved to be surprisingly readable, a gripping adventure yarn that entices you swiftly through the pages.

The story is told in the main by Ephraim McKellar, steward of Durrisdeer, and concerns the fates of the two Durie brothers, both during and after the Jacobite rebellion. In order to preserve the estate they will take opposing sides in the conflict. Against the wishes of his family, the heir and favourite, James, insists on joining the uprising, whilst Henry, well-intentioned, but beloved of no-one but McKellar, supports King George. When the uprising fails and James is reported dead, Henry becomes heir and takes all that formerly belonged to James, who retains only his title, Master of Ballantrae. However, James has survived, and bitterly blames Henry for his losses.

I did endeavour to consider the themes en route, but was initially rather dismissive of the whole thing as a fairly straightforward morality tale. It put me strongly in mind of a passage between Frodo and Aragorn in the Fellowship of the Rings, where Frodo suspects that the spies of the Enemy would ‘seem fairer and feel fouler,’ whilst Aragorn, as he himself quips, looks foul and feels fair.

It seemed an obvious point to make, that what looks well may be ill, and vice versa, but maybe that was not the point. Maybe the point was that we may know this, and still not feel it. I must reluctantly admit to a sneaking admiration for the Master, whilst experiencing a hint of contempt for Henry that would not be repressed.

Having apparently nailed it, the morality becomes more complex, as the Master’s few admirable qualities (namely courage and resolve) come to the fore, whilst Henry seems to become petty, vindictive and wholly unlikeable. Halfway through the book McKellar is seduced by the Master and it feels as though the reader is asked to pour their scorn on his hapless head. However, by the end of the book, certainly from my perspective, the reader is also won over by the Master, and must therefore question their own judgement, and reassess that of McKellar.

But… the waters are further muddied by the nature of the two narrators, both of whom are proven unreliable. We suspect that the Chevalier Burke exaggerates the wickedness of the Master to minimise his own culpability, and McKellar likewise impugns the Master, whilst praising Henry, as a function of his partiality.

This could also provide an explanation for our changing feelings toward the characters; but, as McKellar becomes enthralled by the Master, does his narrative become more impartial or does it in fact swing in the other direction?

There are too many variables to pin this story down; which left me with the following questions:-

Why did James insist on going to war? It must have been clear that the uprising stood little chance of success, and that he would suffer the consequences.

Throughout the book it is obvious that James projects the right image. This is why he is favoured. Maybe his choice serves to emphasize that he intends to prosper through his charm which, he believes, will negate the nature of his actions.

James is permitted to keep his title 'Master of Ballantrae,' which should have passed to Henry's son. This effectively traps James in the position of heir apparent, whilst the natural progression to Lord is denied him. Is this a calculated act of cruelty, provoking and also symbolising James' inability to progress beyond the hand fate dealt him?

Does Henry, as McKellar suggests, really lose his reason, or is this only McKellar's rationale to explain Henry's undesirable behaviour and his own lack of judgement?

My favourite part of the book is where we learn that McKellar, (not, it must be said, my favourite character) was ultimately fired by the final Lord Durrisdeer; presumably on grounds of intolerable interference! ( )

The Master of Ballantrae is not one of Stevenson's better novels but I knew that before going into it. It's been sometimes described as "masterly", and since I've rarely read any Stevenson I didn't like, I gave it a try. The psychological battle between two brothers is the sub-text of this Scott-like epic historical tale with elements of James Fenimore Cooper's Leatherstocking Tales, Treasure Island and Kidnapped. However unlike Scott and Cooper, who had nationalistic designs, Stevenson's is a darker more inward looking story of psychology. The overall effect is strange and a bit sensational (ala Woman in White). Not to my taste, but I understand Stevenson was influenced by Scott growing up and wanted ultimately to write a series of Scottish historical romances that would help with Scotland's independence movement. But instead he wrote Ballantrae in the middle of winter (thus "A Winter's Tale") in the Adirondack Mountains of New York on his way to the Pacific, far away from Scotland, to which he would never return. Rather than a national epic it is an odd sort of genre-bending thriller probably best read today for the psychological struggle between two brothers.

--Review by Stephen Balbach, via CoolReading (c) 2008 cc-by-nd ( )

Robert Louis Stevenson's The Master of Ballantrae is about two brothers who lived during the Jacobite uprising of 1745 in Scotland. James, the elder, is the favored son despite his excesses and cruelties, while Henry, the younger, is the dutiful son who is overlooked in his father's affections. The brothers flip a coin to see who will join the rebellion and who will stay at home and be loyal to the king, in order to maintain their family estates no matter which side wins. James, called the Master because of his position as eldest son, goes off to war and Henry stays home. Their cousin Alison was in love with James, but marries Henry out of pity after the family receives word that James had been killed.

Of course James wasn't really killed, and of course he comes back to haunt the family. He takes a fiendish delight in torturing his brother in particular, and his duplicity is monumental. We hear almost everything from the perspective of the Durie family's steward, Ephraim Mackellar. Mackellar is well-written and I enjoyed both his partisan view of the situation and his blunt honesty about his own weaknesses.

Other reviewers have noted that the climax is a bit disappointing, and I have to agree. It could have been much better done.

The back cover blurb on my copy (Magnum Larger Type) is misleading. Whoever wrote it had the firm impression that demonic activity occurred in this book. The header is "A Demon Brother..." and the writer talks about how this is "truly a demonic tale." I would not have thought to use that word at all in describing this book, actually. The bad guys aren't demonic; they're just bad. The Master can be devilish, but he lacks that final edge that would make him a creepily demonic character.

I wouldn't say this is Stevenson's finest novel as the back cover claims (though I read it ages ago, I think I prefer Kidnapped) but it was entertaining. Recommended for fans of historical novels and adventure/revenge stories. ( )

Fiction, Adventure, Brothers, Conflict of two brothers for the family estate and for a woman, Exploration of moral ambiguities, Revenge, 18th century, "Here is a tale which extends over many years and travels into many countries. By a peculiar fitness of circumstance the writer began, continued it, and concluded it among distant and diverse scenes. Above all, he was much upon the sea. The character and fortune of the fraternal enemies, the hall and shrubbery of Durrisdeer, the problem of Mackellar's homespun and how to shape it for superior flights; these were his company on deck in many star-reflecting harbours, ran often in his mind at sea to the tune of slatting canvas, and were dismissed (something of the suddenest) on the approach of squalls. It is my hope that these surroundings of its manufacture may to some degree find favour for my story with seafarers and sea-lovers like yourselves".
Dedication to Sir Percy Florence and Lady Shelley, First publication, London, Cassell & Company, 1889, 8vo, pp. 332; New York: Charles Scribner, 1889. Previous to the published editions, an author's edition was issued in 1888. Scribner related that only ten copies of that advance edition were ever printed and one of them was afterwards destroyed. The original work comprised only five of the twelve chapters present in the published version and lacks considerable revisions of the text. Although Stevenson had begun writing this tale at Saranac Lake in 1887, it was not completed until his first South Sea voyage in 1889 [Bibliography Reference: Beinecke 487].
The Master of Ballantrae is also a 1953, Warner Bros, film, directed by William Keighley, starring Errol Flynn, Anthony Steel, Roger Livesey, Beatrice Campbell, Yvonne Furneaux, Jacques Berthier ( )

2855 The Master of Ballantrae, by Robert Louis Stevenson (read 29 Mar 1996) This book had good parts--the parts laid in Scotland, and especially the part where the elder (evil) son ("The Master" of the title, presumed dead and his intended married to Henry, his brother) returns to the ancestral seat, are very well-done. It turns farcical and weakly plotted thereafter. The climax is really rather ridiculous. I do not believe I need read anything else of Stevenson's. This is the 5th of his books I have read.. ( )