Waverley; or 'Tis Sixty Years Since

Waverley is another of those books that comes with a lot of literary baggage, so that it is difficult to sit down and read it on its own terms. It was the first massive best-seller; the Harry Potter of the early nineteenth century; the book that established the novel as the dominant literary form of the next two centuries; the first real historical novel; the book that made Scotland fashionably Romantic; the only novel to have a railway station named after it, etc., etc.

The story itself is simple, and to modern eyes rather predictable: a naive, romantically inclined young Englishman goes to Scotland in 1745 to join his regiment, makes friends with some quaint and Romantic Highlanders, and finds his loyalties divided when he is caught up show more in a Jacobite rising. We get lots of stunning scenery, wild romantic characters, battles, pursuits and escapes, treachery and friendship, bagpipes, tartan, and all the rest. But the thing you forget about Scott (or at least I tend to) is that politically, he's not a Romantic at all. The message of the book is that pursuing abstract ideals and personal inclinations at the cost of civil order and the rule of law only leads to death and destruction. I suppose that's why Scott remained popular throughout the nineteenth century. The conservatism itself might not appeal so much in the 21st century, but the degree of ironic detachment it lends to the story is rather attractive.

The real joy of the book is in the details, though. It's worth reading the book just to meet the Baron of Bradwardine and his Bailie, and there are a host of less important but equally acutely drawn minor characters. I usually find dialect an irritation in a novel, but in Scott it is all part of the fun, and it is used cleverly and effectively to add to the characterisation. The Penguin edition has a long glossary in the back, but with a bit of imagination it should be easy enough for most readers to decode what the obscurer Scots or Gaelic (or Latin and French, for that matter) words mean from the context. show less

This first novel by Sir Walter Scott is often described as the first historical novel ever. While I have read and quite enjoyed three other Scott novels, Ivanhoe, Kenilworth, and Rob Roy, I could not get into this. It is over rich in cultural references and Scots dialect, almost like a brain dump, at the expense of any kind of plot. So I have given up around a quarter of the way through and I will not find out what happens to English officer Edward Waverley when he is posted north of the border at the time of the Young Pretender's uprising of 1745. No rating.

Here is the granddaddy of popular historical fiction as a genre, Sir Walter Scott's 1815 novel that takes place sixty years earlier in Scotland. At that time 'Bonnie Prince Charlie' rose up to contest the Hanoverian succession to the English throne by George I, as a loyalist to his father James and his Stuart lineage. Scott inserts his own fictional hero into this drama: Edward Waverley, an English soldier with conflicting family loyalties who gets caught up in the turmoil. As the protagonist Edward has a fatal flaw in that he always goes where he is sent and does what he is advised to do. His passage is aided further by a fairy godmother in the person of Colonel Talbot who can clear away any troubles that arise. Scott writes in a show more stiffly formal style that is far more tell than show and given to needless authorial insertions, making him less friendly to read than his contemporary Jane Austen. I think I've had my fill of him, though his descriptions are rich with detail and he performed a fine, sympathetic service for Scotland by romanticizing its people and the land they occupy. This element is sure to be the novel's most lasting in my memory. show less

This novel by Sir Walter Scott follows the adventures of a naive and idealistic young man who, although British, gets caught up in the Jacobean rebellion, fighting on the side of the Scots rebels who wish to seize the throne for Bonny Prince Charlie and the house of Stuart.

It is generally acknowledged as the first true historical novel written in the English language, and is subtitled "'Tis Sixty Years Since". It is the first of the "Waverly Novels", so called not because they are related to each other in characters or storylines, but because Scott, unwilling to endanger his reputation as a poet should his novels prove unpopular, published them without attribution as "by the author of Waverly". (Though he acknowledged his authorship show more later in life, and it was pretty much an open secret.)

It's an old-fashioned book, and as the Scots, particularly the Highlanders, speak in heavy dialect, it can be tough going until you get used to the flow of language. However, along with the political maneuverings and the battle scenes, I found considerable sly humor in the story. Edward Waverly is a likeable figure, if very young in experience and prone to take on causes based almost entirely on emotion. He does mature as the story progresses, for as we know, the rebellion did not end happily for the Scots.

As a first novel, it's not as polished as subsequent novels, notably "Ivanhoe", but it was an interesting and entertaining story.

I listened to an audiobook edition, and the narrator, David Rintoul, was excellent, especially given the challenging dialect. show less

Walter Scott continues to amaze me. The fact that he invented the genre of "historical fiction" isn't even his greatest accomplishment. The fact is, he was a best-selling author in his time - so much so that his books provided him with two separate fortunes. He lost his first one in an ill-fated publishing venture that left him with crushing debts. However, he refused to declare bankruptsy and stiff his many creditors. Instead, he doubled down on his writing in order to sell even more books. At the time of his death, he'd repaid every penny that he owed.

Although he is best known for his fiction, Scott also wrote books that pertained to Scottish folklore and, indeed, played in key role in preserving that portion of Scotland's cultural show more heritage. One of his works - an alleged transcription of a minister's account of his life with the fairies - is a classic of world folklore and is arguably the most celebrated work of folklore that came out of Scotland. (It's published today as "The Secret Commonwealth of Fairies" although that wasn't it's original title.) Another of his works is a treatise on the role of ghosts in Scottish criminal trials. (Scott himself was a lawyer.)

Scott was also a poet who accomplished the astonishing fete (at least by today's standards) of writing a poem ("The Lady of the Lake") that became a world-wide best seller. (Note that she isn't the Lady of the Lake from the Arthurian legend.)

"Waverly" was Scott's first novel and was literally an overnight success. It is typical of the novels that came after it: a romantic theme that is soaked in Scottish history; a strong plot; vivid characters; and a basic respect for human frailties and differences. It also showcases Scott's command of the English language - his descriptions of people and places can be very evocative. I might add that he uses a lot of big words that we don't use today even though most of them are still in the dictionary. (I suspect that, although literacy back then was less common than it is today, it probably attained a higher average level.)

"Waverly" is a good place to begin if you want to test the waters with Scott. It is set against one of the most romantic and tragic periods of Scottish history - the Jacobite rebellion of 1745 that attempted to restore a Stuart king to the English throne. That "lost cause" resulted in the destruction of the native Scottish aristocracy and many of the highland clans. And if you get hooked on Scott, there's some very good news: he wrote enough great novels to keep you reading for years. show less

This is my first Scott, and while I did not particularly care for the book/writing, I did like the story. I think my reading was somewhat enhanced by knowing the history of the Jacobite Rebellion and the Battle of Culloden. Had I not known something about the Highlanders and their rebellion(s), I would have been lost. I was not a fan of the romance part of the novel, it seemed obligatory or contrived. I started to read the introduction, but after 9 pages of self-absorbed drivel, I skipped it. 484 pages, just barely 3 stars. 3 stars for me is your average read--can be mediocre or enjoyable, this was not necessarily enjoyable and yet not mediocre.

Waverley was Walter Scott's his first novel, and indeed is normally regarded as the first example of historical fiction in our modern conception of it – that being a story based on real historical events, with accurate details of customs, behaviours, and language of that time, but peopled with some fictitious characters and plot events to set the main historical ones in a more compelling context.
Waverley was published around sixty years after the events it purports to describe, which centre on the Jacobite Rebellion of 1745. This was an important period in British history in which the last battle was fought on British soil - primarly between the Highland clans who would return the exiled Bonnie Prince Charlie to the throne of his show more ancestors, and the government supporting the reigning monarch. Our hero of the novel – Edward Waverley, is caught up in these events, and torn betwen his loyalties to these two sides. Most of the novel is set in Scotland, and provides a romantic and detailed vision of the Highland way of life, customs, and characters, which were largely obliterated following the historical events of the novel. Scott himself was a keen historian of Scotland, and this novel benefits from his extensive research into the lost Scottish culture which it so richly here preserves. Indeed, these novels (Waverley, and the following novels by Scott) set off something of a craze during their days for all things Scottish, and are in large part resonsible for the image of Scotland held this day in the popular mind.
But this alone is not why Waverley deserves to be read more than it currently is. This book might face criticism of being over-detailed and not getting on with the story in places, but what we gain is more valuable. The characters here are not only memorable and individual, but they are well developed in their personalities, motivations, and show good observation and understanding of the wide range of human behaviours, personal ways of thinking, and outlooks on life. Balzac, also a master in this sort of characterisation, was a fan of Scott for this reason. Together with the appreciation of the beauty of the Scottish landscape, romantic adventures, and the inherent interest in the historical events of this time, this makes Waverley a fascinating novel for the reader if they can bear with Scott's sometimes digressional style. show less