Gessler, like all tyrants, is enraged by any challenge to his power, direct or indirect, and he especially hates Tell. This is because Tell is someone who rejects the power of Gessler's government over his life. He is self-sufficient and independent and has no use for the petty, autocratic rule of Gessler and his minions. Gessler's threats against his life, which cowed the townspeople, don't work on Tell, so the tyrant moves onto something even more loathsome. He uses a threat to William Tell's son's life to try to break him. Tyrants will always up the ante to try to destroy their opponents. Gessler also advocates another tactic of despots the world over: he wants to disarm the general populace. He tells William Tell this, saying that only the government should have weapons, and also warning Tell that, "It is rash, Tell, to threaten those who have power over you." It's a lot harder for people to oppose tyranny if the only ones who're armed are those who are in power over them. Ultimately, Gessler is taken down by what he feared: an arrow fired by a citizen who had been a victim of his oppression.
William Tell Told Again is, as I mentioned in my last post, one of P.G. Wodehouse's earliest works, published in 1904. The book consists of the story- the titular retelling- by Wodehouse, and also the story told in verse by John W. Houghton, and illustrations by Philip Dadd. Houghton doesn't appear to have written anything else which has stood the test of time... or at least, I can't find anything else written by him. Philip Dadd, was a promising artist employed by The Sphere (a magazine) when he illustrated William Tell, but sadly, he was killed in France during World War I. The book was dedicated to "Biddy O'Sullivan" which was a bit of a mystery for a long time, because no one knew who that was. In 2006 though, it was discovered that she was the young daughter of Denis O'Sullivan, who was an actor and friend of Wodehouse's. The character of William Tell is sort of the Swiss equivalent of Robin Hood: the legendary outlaw archer. It's been hotly debated for years whether or not the fabled character is based on a real person, or if he is just a legend. An unbiased observer will probably conclude that the legend is entirely fiction. There are a number of reasons for this, one of the strongest being that the Tell story is extremely similar to an old Norse legend called Palnatoki. In that tale, which predates William Tell, the Danish hero is forced by King Harald to shoot an arrow off of his son's head with an arrow. According to some of the stories about him, Palnatoki also kills the king. There are also legends in other countries that are remarkably similar, including one in England about a character named Adam Bell. Regardless, the legend of William Tell has definitely had more staying power than these other stories. I'm not sure why, unless it's because there was a play written about William Tell by Friedrich von Schiller which was made by Rossini into an opera with a killer overture. Whatever the reasons, William Tell has been a great thing for Switzerland- especially for their tourism. The picture to the left is of the Tellskapelle, (Tell's Chapel) which is on Tellenplatte (Tell's Slab) on the shore of Lake Lucerne. The chapel marks the spot where Tell made his legendary leap from Gessler's boat. Tell has also been a great thing for advertising- never let a good legend go to waste: William Tell Told Again is rather a difficult book to classify. As intimated by its dedication to a young girl, it is written at a level which children can understand. At the same time, it's got a smattering of the dry wit and humour which would characterize Wodehouse's later works. The word that comes to mind when I'm thinking about this novel is 'uneven'. Which doesn't mean that it isn't good, or that I didn't enjoy it, because I did. I first read a version of the William Tell story as a child, and loved it. It's a great, dramatic tale about fighting against tyranny. But what makes William Tell a great drama weakens Wodehouse's account. P.G. Wodehouse is at his best mocking power and authority with sly satire and comedy (think Sir Roderick Spode in The Code of the Woosters). He does this quite well in the first part of the book, when the peasants are shouting rude comments and pelting the soldiers with rotten vegetables in an almost Monty Python-esque way. It can also be seen in his descriptions of various characters, like the Lord High Executioner: "a kind-looking old gentleman with white hair, and he wore a beautiful black robe tastefully decorated with death's heads". Where Wodehouse's humour fails, I think, is when Gessler orders William Tell to shoot an apple off of his son's head. This is because at this point Gessler goes from being a cartoonish villain to a truly evil man. There's nothing inherently funny about a parent being forced into an action which may result in him killing his own child. It's easy to find the drama in this situation, but much harder to make a joke about it. Wodehouse does manage to lighten the atmosphere by having Walter (Tell's son) make some cheeky comments, but still... it's hard to laugh at this situation. From this point on, Wodehouse more or less abandons the humour and writes a straightforward account of the Tell legend. Which is why I characterize the book as being uneven; the first section of the book is light and funny, but then it becomes serious and dramatic in the last half. William Tell Told Again- the light parts and the serious ones- is well-written, and faithfully tells the William Tell story. And it's a compelling story of ordinary people rising up to fight against a tyrannical government. The Emperor of Austria's representative, Governor Gessler, pretty much embodies Big Government. Not only is everything heavily taxed, but Gessler also passes arbitrary laws banning things and controlling what people eat and drink "for their own good". Of course, his real motivation is a desire for power... the ability to control peoples' lives on the most basic levels. This is the point of Gessler's hat on the pole. The order for people to bow to it is not given just to humiliate the citizens. Rather, it's given to break the will of the people, because if they'll bow to the hat, what won't they bow to? If they'll give up their pride and dignity, what won't they give up? The ingenious methods that the people employ to avoid obeying the law without overtly defying it are humourous, as are the rude comments that they hurl- along with cabbages- at the soldiers. What the people long for is a leader who will stand up to Gessler and his goons directly. They don't mind circumventing the law indirectly, but wish for someone to confront Gessler and refuse to obey him. They celebrate the arrival of William Tell, because they know that he is a strong, blunt man who will not fear to stand up to the governor and tell the truth. Which he does. Gessler, like all tyrants, is enraged by any challenge to his power, direct or indirect, and he especially hates Tell. This is because Tell is someone who rejects the power of Gessler's government over his life. He is self-sufficient and independent and has no use for the petty, autocratic rule of Gessler and his minions. Gessler's threats against his life, which cowed the townspeople, don't work on Tell, so the tyrant moves onto something even more loathsome. He uses a threat to William Tell's son's life to try to break him. Tyrants will always up the ante to try to destroy their opponents. Gessler also advocates another tactic of despots the world over: he wants to disarm the general populace. He tells William Tell this, saying that only the government should have weapons, and also warning Tell that, "It is rash, Tell, to threaten those who have power over you." It's a lot harder for people to oppose tyranny if the only ones who're armed are those who are in power over them. Ultimately, Gessler is taken down by what he feared: an arrow fired by a citizen who had been a victim of his oppression. In the end, P.G. Wodehouse's William Tell Told Again is pretty much what it promises to be: an accurate retelling of the William Tell legend. It does have some good humour in it- especially in the first half- which hints at what Wodehouse was, or would become, capable of. This humour inevitably gives way to the inherent drama of the tale, which almost makes it seem like the book is written by two different people. Nevertheless, William Tell is always interesting and doesn't overstay it's welcome... it's a very short read. Indeed, almost too short- the ending seems a bit abrupt and could certainly have been drawn out a bit. Whatever its flaws, though, I'm glad I read it: it was fun to revisit the William Tell story, and also to take a look at Wodehouse's early, less polished, work.
Comments
|
About MeI'm a lover of good books, classic movies, and well-written shows (as well as some pretty cheesy ones, to be completely honest). Categories
All
Archives
March 2024
Fun SitesOdds & Ends |