Puck of Pook's Hill

Possibly the first Pagan novel I ever read. This book introduced me to Wayland Smith, Mithras, and Puck. It also contains the song that begins, “oh do not tell the priest of our art, for he would call it a sin, but we shall be out in the woods all night, a conjuring summer in”.

Two of my favourite characters in the book are Parnesius and Pertinax, the two Roman soldiers who are sent to Hadrian’s Wall by Maximus (Macsen Wledig). I am convinced that their friendship was actually love.

Kipling’s view of British history is rather optimistic and deterministic, especially his somewhat romantic view of the Norman Conquest; and his portrayal of Kadmiel, the medieval Jewish gentleman, is somewhat problematic, though Kipling is clearly show more sympathetic to the medieval Jewish community, despite repeating the myth that they were somehow destined to be moneylenders (whereas it was because they were forced to be).

It’s necessary to read this book with a critical perspective. Even as a child, I found some of the poetry in it a bit too much. However, the excellent bits outweigh the flaws, in my opinion (and it was written in 1906).

One can definitely see how this book, by instilling a love of the countryside and of history, contributed to the Pagan revival. The prose is beautiful, the characters deftly drawn, and the tone elegiac and wistful (though not to the same extent as the sequel, Rewards and Faeries). show less

Triggered to read it (this time) by Judith Tarr's Rite of Conquest - hers is the story of William the Conqueror with a large magical aspect to his life, and Puck (the first three stories, of Sir Richard) is the other major source of my knowledge of that period. An interesting difference in the way Tarr and Kipling handled magic (their facts matched just fine) - Tarr writes of an England where the Saxon variety of Christianity is suppressing and destroying magic and the Norman invasion is largely aimed at freeing the magic, while Kipling writes of an England full of magic and the Normans have to adjust to the oddity of it. Then of course I went on to read the other stories - the three Roman ones, Henry VII, and John (it's hard to mark show more the periods except by who was ruling at the time, even when that doesn't directly affect the story!). And of course now I need to reread Rewards and Fairies. I do love the stories - I remember the plots and events quite well, but when I reread there are all these neat little twists and clever wordings that have slipped my mind. Kipling was a wonderful wordsmith. show less

A huge disappointment after a promising start. The beginning reminded me of E. Nesbit, with a couple of very English kids accidentally conjuring up an otherworldly being (in this case, Puck). Unlike Nesbit's books, in which this generally leads to the children being transported to other worlds or times, or magic in some way affecting them, in this case all it leads to is characters out of the past telling them long and boring stories. The kids just sit there and listen. I think the only reason they keep going back is that Puck magicks them into forgetting what happened the last time.

I was fortunate enough to escape reading this as a child, so I could have the pleasure of reading it as an adult, directly after a visit to Kipling's house in Sussex (on a beautiful summer day, too). As the story is so intimately connected with the grounds of Bateman's and their immediate surroundings, I think that little bit of local knowledge, fresh in my mind, did really make the book much more enjoyable.

Kipling's language is wonderful, as always, but the story in this case is a slightly awkward mixture of twee fairy story, historical adventure à-la-Walter-Scott, and didactic history lessons. The stirring patriotic poem that closes the book is likely to challenge the forbearance of even the most tolerant modern reader.

This is a delightful, imaginative account of English history for kids, told by the people who lived it: Sir Richard the Norman, Hugh the Saxon, Parnesius the Roman. Although of course attitudes (e g: to race) have changed, mostly for the better, Kipling needs to be read on his own terms before you judge him; he is not the jingoistic sabre-rattling imperialist of popular belief, but a subtle and humane writer of great storytelling power, both for adults and children.

Full of fancies an quirks, this exploration of 1500 years of Sussex history guided by Puck, the oldest spirit in England, is probably at the foundation of my fascination for history. Clearly written for children it is not childish in it's presentation of past milieu, though certainly of its time. The Guttenberg text did not include illustrations, but Wikipedia came to the rescue.

There are two things to note in this interesting collection of stories and poems written for children about the British struggle for nationhood. Firstly, considering the style, difficulty, and variety of the language Kipling uses in this book, how would (and do) modern children cope? At the time when it was first published, more than a hundred years ago, it appeared in Strand magazine as well as a separate publication for younger readers, presumably who were well enough versed in history and legends to understand the stories. Can the same be said today? And how many children nowadays go frolicking in the meadows, quoting Latin verses and reading poetry?

The second thing to note is the imperialist mood of the stories - and Kipling was show more famous for this. The stories could easily have been blood-thirsty thrillers; they concern war, struggle, treachery, revenge, and yet retain a romantic mood. The figures of authority are the greatest of men, though we know really that they weren't. Would children's critical faculties be great enough to discern this? Or would reading Kipling inculcate a sense and desire for imperialism, and the idea that the British nation spirit is strong and desirable? show less