Post by olegrand on Sept 10, 2022 15:59:29 GMT
I'm currently reading the recently released Return of Robin Hood novel by Paul Magrs, featuring the Fourth Doctor and companions Sarah Jane Smith and Harry Sullivan. I was attracted to this book because, basically, I love all things Robin Hood and also because (spoilers alert) the book features Carrionites, which I more or less plan to use in a medieval (pre-Shakespeare) setting in my ongoing Lady Penelope's Odyssey campaign. The action of the novel is set roughly 20 years after the Robot of Sherwood episode with the 12th Doctor - so here the (4th) Doctor meets Robin Hood and his merry men for the first time (according to his own timeline) and for the second time (as far as Robin Hood et al are concerned).
I must admit that I feel a bit uneasy about this, since, at the beginning of Robot of Sherwood, the 12th Doctor clearly insisted on the fact that Robin Hood was a myth and had no historical reality - before, of course, being proved wrong! Since I'm only halfway or so through the book, I cannot be sure that this potential continuity issue will not be handled in a clever way (i.e. by making the 4th Doctor forget all about this first encounter with Robin etc.)... but I can't help being pessimistic, since the book already has a serious time discrepancy in it. It is set in the 1190s... but Robot of Sherwood (explicitly set "20 years ago" for Robin and his companion) was also supposed to be set during this decade ("1190-ish" IIRC). And since King Richard (who only reigned for 10 years) is said to be the ruling king in BOTH stories, well, there may be a problem here - UNLESS, of course, this all prove to be some kind of fake pseudo-historical construct but I do think it quite unlikely.
Anyway, so far I'm halfway through the book and I'm a bit disappointed (appalled ?) by the perplexing anachronisms it contains:
In the sheriff of Nottingham's castle, people eat "potatoes" and use "china" as well as "tea kettles"...
This kind of thing simply puts me off - especially since any decent editor should have spotted them.
What is especially ironic here is that the Doctor does warn his companion about the danger of "causing anachronisms" while adventuring in medieval times (because Harry taught the Robin Hood TV-theme to the Merry Men) and even shows off his historical expertise by telling us that "chaise longues" were not invented before the 16th century. Why couldn't the author himself be as painstakingly historical as the Doctor?
OF COURSE I'm ready to "eat my hat" (as we say in France) if all these anachronisms actually happen to be deliberate and are explained in the end... Has anyone here read the novel and its entirety? And if so, can you confirm/infirm that these anachronisms are indeed "true" anachronisms?
I must admit that I feel a bit uneasy about this, since, at the beginning of Robot of Sherwood, the 12th Doctor clearly insisted on the fact that Robin Hood was a myth and had no historical reality - before, of course, being proved wrong! Since I'm only halfway or so through the book, I cannot be sure that this potential continuity issue will not be handled in a clever way (i.e. by making the 4th Doctor forget all about this first encounter with Robin etc.)... but I can't help being pessimistic, since the book already has a serious time discrepancy in it. It is set in the 1190s... but Robot of Sherwood (explicitly set "20 years ago" for Robin and his companion) was also supposed to be set during this decade ("1190-ish" IIRC). And since King Richard (who only reigned for 10 years) is said to be the ruling king in BOTH stories, well, there may be a problem here - UNLESS, of course, this all prove to be some kind of fake pseudo-historical construct but I do think it quite unlikely.
Anyway, so far I'm halfway through the book and I'm a bit disappointed (appalled ?) by the perplexing anachronisms it contains:
In the sheriff of Nottingham's castle, people eat "potatoes" and use "china" as well as "tea kettles"...
This kind of thing simply puts me off - especially since any decent editor should have spotted them.
What is especially ironic here is that the Doctor does warn his companion about the danger of "causing anachronisms" while adventuring in medieval times (because Harry taught the Robin Hood TV-theme to the Merry Men) and even shows off his historical expertise by telling us that "chaise longues" were not invented before the 16th century. Why couldn't the author himself be as painstakingly historical as the Doctor?
OF COURSE I'm ready to "eat my hat" (as we say in France) if all these anachronisms actually happen to be deliberate and are explained in the end... Has anyone here read the novel and its entirety? And if so, can you confirm/infirm that these anachronisms are indeed "true" anachronisms?