Raffles: The Amateur Cracksman, by E.W. Hornung.
Penguin Classics edition, 2003, edited with an introduction by Richard Lancelyn Green.
First published 1899.
Richard Lancelyn Green walks a familiar (or easy) path in his introduction to this edition, drawing attention to the oft-cited connection between E.W. Hornung and Arthur Conan Doyle (Hornung married Doyle's sister and Doyle 'possibly' encouraged Hornung to write these stories even though the pair may not have got on that well). This immediately drags the reader into the comparison of these short stories with the Sherlock Holmes short stories. I fear this does Conan Doyle no favours and probably brings more readers to Raffles than it deserves.
Raffles is 'the' amateur cracksman - a gentleman burglar. Holmes is 'the' amateur sleuth. Both have tales and exploits told by their close companions. But Raffles isn't an anti-Holmes; we all know who that is and Raffles is no Moriarty. Holmes is an attractive character to most readers; you don't necessarily love him but you tend to tolerate his enigmatic eccentricities and admire his skill. Similarly Watson is a very sympathetic character in most instances and it is difficult not to like him; indeed our fondness for Holmes is Watson's fondness for Holmes to all intents and purposes.
Raffles has no such eccentricities or quirks as Holmes; there is little to find to like or despise about him (to a 21st Century reader, at least), and little in the way of hints about what he does when he's not out on his occasional expeditions. Apparently he plays a lot of cricket, but there's not an awful lot of cricket played in these stories. Then there's Bunny. Poor Bunny. He's our Watson - except he's not, because again we have no reason to like him or hate him and he gives us no particular reason to like Raffles either as he regales us with their exploits. That sums up my views rather well actually: pure apathy.
What these stories need is a considerate editor who will draw the unavoidable comparison with Conan Doyle and then scream at the reader to forget it and approach the stories with a fresh mind. One positive that this volume has over the Holmes short story collections is that these stories are presented as a chronological sequence with almost a through narrative. It's pretty much a novel where the chapters are the individual stories. A lot of short story anthologies I've read aren't like that, so this was refreshing. I won't give too much away in case any of my readers decide they want to pick up the stories themselves, but it's basically a sequence of failed or successful thefts. Raffles is generally nowhere near as good a 'cracksman' as he (or Bunny) thinks he is, and if he'd stop wasting money on maintaining his thief's trappings he'd probably have enough to live a comfortable life anyway.
Bunny arrives at the beginning in a heightened emotional state. They are old public school friends (Bunny was Raffles' fag - stop sniggering at the back) and Bunny is down on hard times following a gambling problem. Raffles rescues him from his funk and takes him under his wing. Bunny is often an unwilling accomplice and is the typical occasional hero / foil / hindrance to Raffles' plans. Maybe we are supposed to sympathise with Bunny from the start? Maybe we are supposed to be intrigued by and attracted to Raffles, this naughty man of the leisured class? I felt neither.
There's one massive cultural hurdle when approaching this text: men aren't presented as having this kind of intimate loving friendship in fond terms anymore without being gay. Also 'Bunny' is a decidedly effeminate pet name. This is a shame, I feel, but I don't see things changing in the near future. The first few pages of the book are incredibly homo-erotic in our post-Wildean eyes. Green's introduction hints strongly at Hornung's acceptance of and closeness to homosexual friends but there is nothing to suggest that his writing is expressing anything more than the kind of close fondness men of that class could seemingly innocently exhibit before society dug deeper and made a public pariah of Oscar Wilde.
Many readers these days may also be put off by the strong sense of social class and distinction which the book exudes. Raffles wouldn't bother himself with the lower classes or petty housebreaking and pick-pocketting; he's only interested in doing over persons of wealth or rank, or bettering others at the same game. In fact it's all a social game to him, as much as a source of income. Can we love an upper class rogue who's only interested in stealing to maintain his leisured status? I would want to undertake a straw poll on that...
The stories are relatively short and on the whole not massively interesting. There'll always be one of two outcomes: either the robbery succeeds or it doesn't, and our 'heroes' don't get arrested or caught by the authorities either way. There's no danger of them killing anyone or committing any other dastardly deeds as this is not what they're about. As a result I didn't find the stories exciting or engaging, and quite frankly the characters aren't either. If P.G. Wodehouse had written Raffles and Bunny they'd be hilarious - as it is they often strain against the obvious potential for humour. If Conan Doyle had written these stories for Holmes then he wouldn't have, because he'd have thrown them out in favour of better stories. I want to be given good reasons to like or hate Bunny and Raffles, and Bunny's eventual desertion over time does nothing to assist.
This volume is now out of print, but there are plenty of second hand copies out there (mine was such and will probably go to charity now) and there are plenty of editions bringing together this and the other Raffles short story collections. Based on this experience I won't be tracking those down.
No comments:
Post a Comment