Book Nook: The Flashman Series, by George MacDonald Fraser

[Geordie]

That "over for some " line is so profound.

And yet...

In all seriousness, you give a very good description of the difficulties presented by Flashman and Fraser. I've got a Flashman in my tbr pile. Can't remember which one. I think it's the first.

I still need to read Steel Bonnets.

 

[JesterBL]

I will admit to liking Flashman as a guilty pleasure. I get that he's villainous, I get that he does and says terrible things and, to me, that makes him more real and much less sanitized than most historical fiction protagonists, who are often portrayed and better imagined as Yankees in King Arthur's Court for all that they think and act like moderns.

I will say one of the more interesting unacknowledged influences (and this is pure speculation on my part) is Dennis Wheatley's Roger Brook series. Roger Brook is less dishonorable (Dennis Wheatley wants a hero) but this often conflicts with the reactionary views and predilection for violence the character shows. There was some suspiciously similar phrasing on their faculty with language that I recall, as well as the 'dung under a rosebush' family origins (with Brook having Jacobites in the family pool).

 

[marktaha]

Spoiler for obvious reasons.

Spoiler: For obvious reasons

1. Narreeman in Flashman.
2. In Flashman and the Dragon, when Flashman was going through a Chinese fort, he comes across some drugged-up women and shags one. Given her drugged state, no meaningful consent is sought, granted, or meaningfully involved. Or, in this case, even possible. That's rape.
3. In Flashman For Freedom, a slave (whom he calls Lady Caroline Lamb) is brought to him for the express purpose of being shagged (so that the female slaves can be sold with the assurance that they might be pregnant with a more white child). In such circumstances, no meaningful consent is involved. That's rape.
4. In one of the books (I forget which, and am not inclined to plough through checking), Flashman buys a woman from another officer to act as housekeeper and sexual partner. No meaningful consent by the woman (who isn't, as i recall, given a name) is involved. That's rape.

Flashman's view that he only committed rape once only applies if one defines rape as involving actual physical violence; that's clearly a nonsense definition.

I've been an officer. I've been an Other Rank. The dynamics between the two are not as Flashman describes. GMF knows better, as we can see in Quartered Safe Out Here.

The excuse only flies if one presupposes that Flashman is both a very bad officer and ignores the voice of the NCO and Other Ranks.

"Horses before the Men; the Men before Yourself" was an instruction given to cavalry junior officers from the period. The theory was that the officers, being of higher social class, had a duty of care towards their servants (troops).

It was Flashman narrating in the first person, for sure. However, that was Flashman, and not the standard to which officers aspired.



In which case I am reasonably confident that there is very little common ground between us.

Flashman did listen to Sergeant Hudson. For the rest - his first servant Bassett seems to.have disappeared believed killed in Afghanistan. Only other dealings with other ranks I can remember with PoWs in Charge and would-be blackmailer Nolan in Dragon - don't remember March very well.

 

[David Flin]

Flashman did listen to Sergeant Hudson. For the rest - his first servant Bassett seems to.have disappeared believed killed in Afghanistan. Only other dealings with other ranks I can remember with PoWs in Charge and would-be blackmailer Nolan in Dragon - don't remember March very well.

Hudson is, I grant, an exception.

Bassett is a classic example of what I'm talking about. Flashman pays no attention to Bassett save to have him flogged from time to time. And yet, when Flashman goes to Afghanistan, for no apparent reason, Bassett "blubs" until Flashman takes him along. On arrival in Afghanistan, Bassett drops entirely from the radar, and we have no idea what happened to him, and Flashman never mentions him.

It's a crap depiction of an orderly to a junior officer, and Bassett has no personality save that of seemingly worshipping Flashy despite Flashman behaving in a manner that any orderly would take exception to.

The PoWs in Crimea during Flashman at the Charge are an even worse parody of NCOs and Other Ranks.

Without checking, I'm unsure of the status of Nolan in Dragon. By this point in the series, GMF was going through the motions and the books are getting steadily worse.

Aside from Sgt Hudson, I think it is close to say that every single NCO or Ranker portrayed is a pathetic caricature with no more personality or interest than a cardboard cut-out. Which is exactly what they are.

Compare with how Kipling portrayed NCOs and Rankers; strengths and flaws, varied and with a clear voice that still rings true nearly a century and a half later. It can be done. Learoyd, Mulvaney, and Ortheris prove that. But then Kipling had a respect and a clear-sight of the "uneducated classes", and GMF - to judge by Flashman alone - didn't.

God knows, Kipling can be problematic with regard to Racism, Classism, and Sexism. But these problems are dwarfed by those displayed by GMF who is far worse than Kipling in each regard.

I've a good idea what Kipling would have made of me (mixed-race gutter-scum who worked up through the ranks), and it would have been an accurate skewering of me; strengths and flaws and traits and warts and all. I've also a good idea what GMF would have made of me, and I don't think it would be close to the mark.

 

[IanBertram]

I've read all the Flashman series a couple of times, once, pretty uncritically years ago, then more recently. I tried a third time when I was laid up with foot problems and couldn't. Your review sums up why - great writer, but...

I wasn't aware of GMF's personal views. Normally I wouldn't assume a character is expressing the author's own views, but in this case it makes sense.

Incidently, one of the characters in my 'Frozen Spring' TL is a sort of nod to Flashman.

 

[marktaha]

Hudson is, I grant, an exception.

Bassett is a classic example of what I'm talking about. Flashman pays no attention to Bassett save to have him flogged from time to time. And yet, when Flashman goes to Afghanistan, for no apparent reason, Bassett "blubs" until Flashman takes him along. On arrival in Afghanistan, Bassett drops entirely from the radar, and we have no idea what happened to him, and Flashman never mentions him.

It's a crap depiction of an orderly to a junior officer, and Bassett has no personality save that of seemingly worshipping Flashy despite Flashman behaving in a manner that any orderly would take exception to.

The PoWs in Crimea during Flashman at the Charge are an even worse parody of NCOs and Other Ranks.

Without checking, I'm unsure of the status of Nolan in Dragon. By this point in the series, GMF was going through the motions and the books are getting steadily worse.

Aside from Sgt Hudson, I think it is close to say that every single NCO or Ranker portrayed is a pathetic caricature with no more personality or interest than a cardboard cut-out. Which is exactly what they are.

Compare with how Kipling portrayed NCOs and Rankers; strengths and flaws, varied and with a clear voice that still rings true nearly a century and a half later. It can be done. Learoyd, Mulvaney, and Ortheris prove that. But then Kipling had a respect and a clear-sight of the "uneducated classes", and GMF - to judge by Flashman alone - didn't.

God knows, Kipling can be problematic with regard to Racism, Classism, and Sexism. But these problems are dwarfed by those displayed by GMF who is far worse than Kipling in each regard.

I've a good idea what Kipling would have made of me (mixed-race gutter-scum who worked up through the ranks), and it would have been an accurate skewering of me; strengths and flaws and traits and warts and all. I've also a good idea what GMF would have made of me, and I don't think it would be close to the mark.

Flashman was narrating his adventures in the first person. Did he really go in for deep descriptions of fellow officers either?

 

[marktaha]

I've read all the Flashman series a couple of times, once, pretty uncritically years ago, then more recently. I tried a third time when I was laid up with foot problems and couldn't. Your review sums up why - great writer, but...

I wasn't aware of GMF's personal views. Normally I wouldn't assume a character is expressing the author's own views, but in this case it makes sense.

Incidently, one of the characters in my 'Frozen Spring' TL is a sort of nod to Flashman.

Could you tell.me more- about your timeline say?

 

[David Flin]

Flashman was narrating his adventures in the first person. Did he really go in for deep descriptions of fellow officers either?

It's not the volume of description of the lower orders that grates on me, it is the style.

Yes, one can argue that the narration is in the first person, and that therefore it is the character view rather than the author view. But there are times - and they grow increasingly as the series goes on - where the authorial voice becomes stronger within that narrative, and by the end, the two are becoming indistinguishable.

In his last memoirs, The Light's on at Signpost, in a section on Race Relations, he explains how people who aren't white can't be "real" British because they don't have generations of ancestors from the country and they can't understand British culture because it is mixed up with their "own" culture.

Mixed race people are the worst, apparently. Because they are conceived in an atmosphere of opposition and usually violence in their upbringing, and can call themselves neither one culture nor another and are rootless in their loyalties. "People naturally cleave to their own; relations between people of different races happen, but the offspring are always unloved and unlovely."

Such a view is, apparently, obvious to all right-thinking people. Of course, it comes as a bit of a surprise to me, being mixed race and all that, but strangely, I don't much care for being described as "unloved and unlovely."

And it is at this point that I'm drawing a line under looking at the views of the rather nasty person GMF was. He was a brilliant writer with despicable views.

 

[David Flin]

I still need to read Steel Bonnets.

Now Steel Bonnets is a book I can recommend without any qualifiers.

 

[Hendryk]

Yes, one can argue that the narration is in the first person, and that therefore it is the character view rather than the author view. But there are times - and they grow increasingly as the series goes on - where the authorial voice becomes stronger within that narrative, and by the end, the two are becoming indistinguishable.

Do you think that was accidental or deliberate? Did he decide as he grew older and more self-confident that from then on he was going to tell readers exactly what's on his mind?

 

[David Flin]

Do you think that was accidental or deliberate? Did he decide as he grew older and more self-confident that from then on he was going to tell readers exactly what's on his mind?

My guess is that he was less interested in the story, and as he became older, he became more prone to put forward his own views.

The books become more formulaic; by On the March, it's possible to predict the plot points well ahead of schedule to an alarming degree. The footnotes (GMF was very fond of historical footnotes) grow from being simply historical notes clarifying certain points to being fairly lengthy diatribes.

I suspect that he simply ran out of ideas; he had plenty of historical events to draw on, but the character of Flashman never changes over the series. He could still churn out memorable phrasing, but it felt like writing the series had become simply a money-earner and a platform, rather than the sheer joy one gets from writing something. It feels like he found it work rather than fun.

I suspect that, as he got older, he also got more inclined to dogmatism and less inclined to listen to, well, anything other than his own view. The number of times he says words to the effect that all people of his age agree with him is remarkable.

However, I should note that this is merely the impression I get from reading his works. I wouldn't care to claim more than that. That said, I get the impression (very strongly) that he starts his writing career with enthusiasm and zest, and is clearly loving it and the research involved. For all its fault, The Pyrates was clearly written with pleasure. The Reivers, where he tries to do the same but with Scottish Borderers falls flat (swashbuckling and the Border Reivers don't go together very well).

 

[ChrisNuttall]

Do you think that was accidental or deliberate? Did he decide as he grew older and more self-confident that from then on he was going to tell readers exactly what's on his mind?

I would be very leery about assuming a character, specifically one as (at best) antiheroish as Flashman, represented anything more than the author's best attempt to outline how such a character might think, without actually agreeing with him in any way. Flashman is practically a send-up of his social class, a parody of the true blue Victorian adventure hero. He's also someone who cannot really be allowed to change, even to to the point of thinking there's something wrong with his society, as his personality flaws are part of his appeal. He has no room to grow as a character.

Chris

 

[David Flin]

I would be very leery about assuming a character, specifically one as (at best) antiheroish as Flashman, represented anything more than the author's best attempt to outline how such a character might think, without actually agreeing with him in any way. Flashman is practically a send-up of his social class, a parody of the true blue Victorian adventure hero. He's also someone who cannot really be allowed to change, even to to the point of thinking there's something wrong with his society, as his personality flaws are part of his appeal. He has no room to grow as a character.

Chris

True to a point. However, when the author expresses similar views elsewhere (including in authorial notes and memoirs), when other characters by the author display similar thoughts, when the author outright states his views in memoirs, then when does have to start questioning what is character viewpoint and what is author viewpoint much more closely.

As for the last sentence: my view is as trenchant and dogmatic as GMF's stated views. A character that has no room to grow is not a character but a caricature, and counts as an authorial failing. A character that is essentially the same when aged 19 as when aged 90 is poor writing. I contend that a "character that cannot change" is simply a caricature.

My opinion, having worked through the books with a critical eye recently, is that in the early books, it was exactly as you describe. Every so often, one gets a shocking scene that demonstrates that HPF is a villain, not an antihero (such as in Flashman and the Redskins, where a prostitute falls in love with him and they plan to run away, with her making money for them both by plying her trade. The shock twist comes as they are heading off, and he sells her into slavery, with the note that he made more money that way). By and large, the character view and author view being clearly separate is defendable up until Flashman and the Redskins. Thereafter, the author view becomes louder, and the character becomes just a mouthpiece for the author, until Flashman on the March, which would be better entitled GMF on the March.

 

[Hendryk]

By and large, the character view and author view being clearly separate is defendable up until Flashman and the Redskins. Thereafter, the author view becomes louder, and the character becomes just a mouthpiece for the author, until Flashman on the March, which would be better entitled GMF on the March.

I wonder if that might be a trope, albeit an involuntary one--irony decay or something to that effect. An author starts out clearly distancing themselves from the questionable actions of their protagonist, and over time, begin to unironically endorse them. Not that GMF would be the first author whose fans say "come on, he doesn't believe the stuff he writes" and who then admits "actually, I totally do".

Which makes it all the more disturbing when someone says in so many words that they agree with most of GMF's ideas.

 

[marktaha]

Now Steel Bonnets is a book I can recommend without any qualifiers.

How about turning it into a TV documentary?

 

[David Flin]

How about turning it into a TV documentary?

It could be done. However, I'm not in a position to do so myself.

 

[marktaha]

That makes two of us! My ideas for TV series have included the historic Chaucer/Shakespeare /Flashman - bit late now!

 

[IanBertram]

Could you tell.me more- about your timeline say?

A Frozen Spring, linked in my sig - the character is Captain Blenkinsopp.

 

[Warthog]

I came across Flashman when someone wrote him into a timeline - there was an extract of an alt novel that doesn't exist OTL because it's Flashman in a conflict in the timeline. [I can't remember whose work that was, but it was good, and the alt novel extract was clever].

I went and looked up an extract of one of the actual GMF books, and found it disturbing. Not only the racism, sexism, classism and torture, but something I couldn't put my finger on until today

they are books I can understand someone not liking. They are books I can understand someone hating. But they absolutely commit to their project, they go the whole hog, they delve into excess and debauchery and horror and evil and damn your eyes if you don't approve.

That's the thing, reading you can both see that the man is a villain, but also that the author wants you to like him. It's very unsettling.

The books commit to the project without apology, and allied with GMF's undoubted facility with painting a word picture make the whole thing vivid.

It's this duality that you emphasize in the review: GMF's writing of fiction is vivid, but his views come through vividly too.

I have a lawyer-friendly cameo French version of Flashman who tries his usual cowardly stunt, only for him to get killed and the antagonists to let the young naive subaltern (who believed all his stories) go free instead. I found that cathartic to write, and that's only based on me reading the first book!

Now that's very nice! One often comes across suggestions that a character in fiction was written out of the author's anger at a real person, but to give a fictional character a well deserved comeuppance is excellent.

 

[Juan Vogel]

That might have been the Mali Rising work from Jonathan Edelstein.

See here for one

Malê Rising

I don't know. I've had a hard time buying this empire in general (the Unfascist Britain's view of India would have made more sense to me), but I can't see British soldiers doing this. Well, don't use soldiers then. Have an "Imperial Guard", a group of loyal party members, do the job. That'd do...

www.alternatehistory.com