Rafael Sabatini (1875–1950)

This books was incredibly frustrating as the protagonist, Andre-Louis Moreau, is the definition of a Marty Stu. He's good at everything. He's super charming, so when he makes a bunch of very wrong assumptions, he's immediately forgiven. Everyone loves him, and every woman fell in love with him. On top of this, he refuses to help his friends save their friends from getting massacred in duels until he personally benefits from these encounters, even though he's the best fencer in the city. He show more is the definition of male privilege! Sabatini's novels are typically like this, but he usually offsets his perfect characters with descriptive prose regarding battles and genuinely clever plots to cheat the enemy that it becomes more amusing. Also, usually his male characters have at least one fault. AL's only fault was revealed at the end, and it was that he was a coward (which he is): he runs away from everything, but he's still celebrated as some sort of hero.

AL gets his cake and eats it too. He goes around as a republican, touting how people born into privilege shouldn't run the country or be considered great just because of their birth. While we agree with these sentiments now, that wasn't the case back then. Back then, these republicans were stealing the aristocrats of their land, homes, and their way of life. Not only that but what followed was the French Revolution, and we know how much of a mess that was. To the old-timers, the republicans had brought hellfire down on everyone. YET, at the end of the novel, AL gets the girl of his dreams and lives with his RICH AF family, completely forgiven! Seriously?!

Not only that, but the aristocrats were more likable in general. Yes, they were overpowered, but they had more heart. They looked out for each other. Granted, their friends and family have more resources than servants, but they seem to genuinely care about each other, even when they've hurt each other. AL always assumed he was right and would break his own principles for personal gain and never had an existential crisis about it. In contrast, Azyr was a terrible person, but he tried to atone for his mistakes, and he fought for what was his, while AL let himself get chased out of multiple towns. Azyr's behavior makes sense based on the ideologies he grew up with while AL is just an entitled jerk. The former is sympathetic while the latter is not.

In the end, AL changed society enough that he always ended on top, even though everyone else lost their homes, friends, and everything they owned. He might've lost some things in the process, but his mentality and heartlessness prevented him from caring. As a result, I didn't care about him or for this book. show less

Set on the cusp of the French revolution we follow a young André-Louis Moreau, godson (and presumed by most to be an illegitimate son) of a rural lord. Trained as a lawyer he is distraught when his friend, Philippe de Vilmorin, is forced into a duel with the Marquis de La Tour d'Azyr where he is totally outclassed and killed and the attempts at justice fall on deaf ears. Apolitical himself, André-Louis takes up his friend’s cause and vows to destroy his killer in the process. A killer he show more was already predisposed to dislike due to affections shown by the Marquis to Aline, niece to his godfather and childhood playmate of both André-Louis and Philippe. When his speech incites a mob, André-Louis is accused of sedition so rather than wait for the hangman’s noose he flees and finds a hiding place in a troupe of actors where he falls into the role of Scaramouche. With his natural gifts of oration and his previously sardonic outlook he soon settles into the role of comic instigator and advances the troupe’s reputation enormously. It’s not long before they’re heading for the heights of perhaps even the Cemedie Francais in Paris. But what will happen when the paths of André-Louis and the Marquis cross again?

The tone of the book differs quite a bit from that of the movie of which I’m sure more people are familiar with. The setting adds an extra element of tension to the story of the book with the film being a much more light-hearted romantic affair. These romantic entanglements are also much heightened in the film version. There are certainly enough differences to be able to enjoy both for what they are. The book is a tale of revenge, adventure, political intrigue, love and the study of man’s nature. The hero is a complex character who, if he had been handled by a lesser author, would probably be difficult to like. He is good at everything he tries, sometimes appearing heartless and unaffected by events surrounding him. Not having an identity of his own he takes on the role of his murdered friend in order to avenge his death and then through the unfolding events discovers himself. show less

OMG! This swashbuckling tale of a British nobleman who reinvents himself as notorious Algerian corsair (pirate) Sakr-el-Bahr is rousing, romantic, and totally terrific!

Cornish nobleman Oliver Tressillian has everything a man could want: a fortune, a good name, and the love of fiery-haired Rosamund. At least until his trusting nature is exploited by an ungrateful stepbrother who sets Oliver up to take the blame for a crime that he committed and then, to ensure the ploy isn’t discovered, show more arranges to have Oliver kidnapped by a shady sea captain and sold into slavery. But Oliver’s physical strength, ferocious fighting skills, and leadership qualities soon see him promoted from the galley slave to command as Sakr-el-Bahr, the ferocious Sea Hawk, terror of the Spanish Main.

The rest of the book tells the tale of how Sakr-el-Bahr navigates jealous rivals, treacherous enemies, court politics, and rousing sea battles in order to gain revenge on the man who wronged him and win back the woman he has never stopped loving, despite her determination to believe the worst of him.

Sabatini's prose may hit today’s readers as a bit courtly and formal, but his period research is spot-on, his storytelling vivid, and his pacing breathless. And before you ding the plot for being predictable, consider that this was written in 1915 – making this the ur-text of pretty much all the pirate stories that have come since. Seriously, one wonders if Errol Flynn would have had a Hollywood career if it weren’t for Sabatini’s swashbuckling oeuvre.

So make yourself comfortable, maybe grab a grog, and let Sabatini whisk you away on a journey of exotic adventure, romance, revenge, and redemption! show less

4.5 Stars.

As usual, my relationship with Scaramouche takes a rather circular route. I first heard of it from a friend who had taken up fencing and had picked up the 1952 film with Stewart Granger which has one of the longest duels in movie history on screen. I brushed the recommendation aside until I went through my Mel Ferrer stage (which I reached via Audrey Hepburn and War & Peace). Then I gladly picked up the film and found it ambitious but slightly miscast (except in the vivid Eleanor show more Parker who, in my opinion, never quite manages to remain on the screen).

Then, in my Errol Flynn days, I read Captain Blood and loved how the adventure leaped off the page. Sabatini being a bit of a different style than my current literary diet, I determined to try another swashbuckler and dove in.

He didn't disappoint-- until I realized that Parker's character didn't really exist. But the improvement upon Granger's portrayal made up for it. (I really think Flynn would have been better-- had it been filmed in the 40s). * The sly digs, the puns, and smart remarks were all worthy of a modern action film and make Sabatini someone I would love to revisit.

* Aside-- I really think Granger should have been rethought as a stock character. He had potential but kept getting the wrong roles. Also, if you like Parker, try "Voice of the Turtle" with charming pre-presidential Reagan. show less