[issybird]

Originally Posted by darryl

One constant in this genre is the incredible good luck of the hero as good always triumphs.

Indeed. The roller coaster metaphor seems apt. At some level the adrenaline is false; you're not really scared. Similarly, you're along for the ride in a book like this and it's more fun not to overthink it, even though you know it will all work out.

The other thing I enjoyed about the story is the overall tone in which it was written, including some wry humour and irony I seldom encounter in more modern works.

I agree with this. Perhaps it's because you have to buy into the notions of derring-do and nobility of character as well as rank for it to work?

Originally Posted by Catlady

I HATED the blatant, horrible anti-Semitism in the scenes with the "Jew"; I knew right away who it really was, because there was simply no other reason for that character to be there. So I also hated the clunkiness of those scenes.

I thought Orczy saved this by her comment about Percy's sadness and explicit evocation of anti-Semitism. Lacking that, it would have been extremely unfortunate, but as it was, it seemed reasonably accurate.

Originally Posted by Bookpossum

In fact, Marguerite's courage was the truest of all, because she was afraid but she went anyway. In the end, she didn't actually achieve anything of course (perhaps because of the changed ending of the play?) but it was very brave of her to go.

I'm not entirely sure of this. Percy met Sir Andrew in Calais before encountering Chauvelin, so perhaps the forewarning helped save the situation? He might not have made his arrangements with Reuben which allowed him to approach the hut without interference, and in the company of the soldiers who were looking for him. There's no question Marguerite got him in the soup, but perhaps she was instrumental in getting him out at that.

Originally Posted by gmw

Given how often this sentiment is repeated (as you already noted, Orczy did like to make sure the reader didn't miss such things ), it is obviously intentional that we should understand that the League are not doing it to be heroic. In more modern times we have heroes striding forward into their heroic endeavour like that scene from "The Right Stuff", but I believe the style of that period (and going back quite a way) was that it was better form (more English, perhaps?) for them to be doing it for sport.

I don't think there's a question that at least for the more thoughtful members of the League, compassion was a motivating factor, with sport as an acceptable gloss. Lord Antony seems a rather dim bulb, but Sir Andrew seems more to be more conscious.

Originally Posted by stuartjmz

Which is part of why I think the book was an apt selection - we read it not out of noble motives, but just for fun.

I do like the meta take on it.

Originally Posted by bfisher

Deciphering the author's views gave it an extra level of interest, and helped to explain so many of the odd phrases and portrayals in the novel

It's one reason why I find revisiting childhood favorites interesting. There's the fun of seeing why it worked then but there's also the added interest of discerning what also was going on, especially in terms of social commentary. I approach them with a dual mindset - and it's why Scarlet Pimpernel will always be a loved book for me.