I thought I was completely unfamiliar with this story as I had not seen the movie nor did I know anything about the book. However, it turns out that I have indeed seen a smilar movie, Dave! It turns out that story has been used over and over again by various people. I don't know if this version is the original, though it's clearly a spin on the "The Man in the Iron Mask" plot from one of the Three Musqueteers sequels.

I personally prefer Dostoevsky's take on this kind of idea - I would be far more likely to fear a doppleganger and be paranoid, or a the very least confused, than I would see it as an opportunity for High Adventure and Noble Deeds, and so forth. I mean, to me Hope's approach is so indicative of the problem in English literature around the end of the 19th century - better stuff was being written in much of the rest of the "west" on the whole.

But this is well paced and doesn't stop to let you ponder its absurdities. He also coined Ruritania here, and I honestly didn't know this is where that fake European kingdom - and the source of so many fake European kingdoms - came from. That in itself is really coold; being the first person to create such a prominent idea in adventure literature.

So he seems to have invented two things with this novel, and that's something I cannot ignore, even if I don't really care for these types of stories.

The prisoner of Zenda is a tale of intrigue and adventure set in the late nineteenth century. Rudolf of Rassendyll is a prince who is kind of like a playboy, who goes through life with no real purpose doing things that interest him. He is drawn to the kingdom of Ruriritania, a fictional land located in Europe (most likely near Germany). His cousin is about to be crowned as the king when he is taken prisoner by his brother Black Michael, who would like to be the king. Since Rudolf looks exactly like the king, they use him to stand in the king’s place as they try to rescue him from Black Michael.

This was an enjoyable piece of adventure fiction. The writing had a nice flow to it. There was a lot going on underneath the surface, which wasn’t really noticeable while I was reading it because it was easy to get caught up in the story. The character of Rudolf had a certain charm to him that made him very likeable. Although Black Michael is ostensibly the antagonist, the more intriguing antagonistic character is Rupert of Henzau, who served as a good foil to Rudolf. The story was filled with intrigue. I also enjoyed the brevity of the novel. It moved quickly and there were few wasted words. There was a lot to like about this novel and not very much as far as drawbacks except for perhaps some of the language in spots. There is action, adventure, good characters, romance, enough for any reader of fiction to like.

Carl Alves – author of Two For Eternity

[I was doing some maintenance and decided to add some of my older reviews. I had to guess at a rating for this, since I read this during a period when I wasn't even privately rating books.]

 

At first, I enjoyed this book. I could barely follow all the long paragraphs about the connection between Rudolph and the Ruritanian royal family, and Rudolph himself was a bit too driftless for my taste, but I got excited when more hints of the “impostor” storyline I knew was coming began to turn up. When Rudolph and the King finally met, I settled down for an adventure I was sure was going to be fun.

The problem was, it wasn't as fun as I expected. Rudolph seemed to love rushing into battles, the dashing hero doing his part to avenge fallen comrades and save Ruritania and the King from Black Michael. Unfortunately, all I could think was, “Why is he risking his life? And is the risk even worth it?”

Rudolph is not a Ruritanian. He had barely even met the King before he was suddenly enlisted to become the impostor King. I suppose I could see why he might have initially agreed. At first, all he was really agreeing to was being the King at the coronation – it was a short-term thing, and probably not too difficult. After the King was kidnapped, though, continuing to be the impostor King meant he was risking his life for a country that wasn't really his and for a man he hardly even knew. I'm guessing this was supposed to be admirable, dashing, and heroic. I just thought it was a bit stupid, in large part because I couldn't see why anyone, much less a near stranger, would want to risk their life for this particular king.

If I remember right, several Ruritanians sang Duke Michael's praises and commented that, although they felt like they knew him, they had barely even seen the King. In temperament, the King seemed similar to Rudolph: lacking in ambition and a sense of responsibility, but completely willing to take advantage of the perks his position gives him. In the small portion of the book in which the King is free, healthy, and conscious, he is having fun and drinking. He doesn't seem to realize (or, if he does, care) that his people don't necessarily like him. Yes, I know that people don't have to like their monarchs, but if a monarch with a rival wishes to stay alive and in power for long, it would probably help to have popular opinion on his side.

Several of the King's men made comments along the lines of, “Rudolph, you would have made a better king” - so, even the King's own men would have preferred someone else. The only thing that saved him was that they, at least, did not feel that Michael was the better option. I couldn't really see how Rudolph made any better of a king than the real King, though – the only vaguely kingly skills he exhibited were his ability to make Princess Flavia fall in love with him and his ability to dash fearlessly into thrilling battles without being killed.

Overall, the characters were weak. Like I said, I didn't particularly like Rudolph or the King – I have a feeling that Hope intended for readers to root for them and be on their side, but I didn't think that either of them would make good kings, unless we're talking figureheads. Although Black Michael seemed to have popular support, I didn't find him to be a more sympathetic character, what with drugging and imprisoning his half-brother and coldly dumping his mistress for Princess Flavia. Princess Flavia might as well have been a piece of cardboard for all the personality she exhibited. The only character that intrigued me even a little was Madame de Mauban. Unfortunately, the book was written from Rudolph's perspective, and he had, at best, a somewhat condescending view of women, which meant that he explained away Madame de Mauban's behavior as an example of feminine irrationality.

It's a good thing I kind of disliked Rudolph and found Princess Flavia to be completely uninteresting, or I might have been angrier about how things ended.

I'm guessing that Hope meant to show how noble Flavia and Rudolph were, and how concerned they were with doing their duty (meaning that Rudolph has supposedly grown a bit since the beginning of the book?). While the ending Hope chose was probably more realistic than if Flavia had run away with Rudolph, I thought the execution of that ending was gag-worthy. Rudolph and Flavia had known each other for three months. In that time, Rudolph supposedly came to love Flavia so much that he, a 29-year-old male who previously seemed to enjoy chasing after women, decided to live out the rest of his life clutching his chaste, tragic love to his breast. Flavia of course had to do her duty and marry the King of Ruritania – so, what, for the rest of her life she'll only coldly tolerate the King because he's not Rudolph? Sounds like fun.

(spoiler show)

Overall, I wasn't a huge fan of this book. I enjoyed some of the action-filled parts as I was reading them, but the more I think about the book now that I've finished it, the less I like it. I have downloaded the sequel, Rupert of Hentzau, but I don't know when I'll get around to reading it. I can only hope that Hope has Rupert really work the whole mustache-twirling dashing villain thing, because then I might have more fun. Part of me hopes that Madame de Mauban will show up in the sequel (supposedly, Rupert loves her), but I have a feeling she'd be better in my mind than Hope could ever have written her.

 

(Original review, with read-alikes and watch-alikes, posted on A Library Girl's Familiar Diversions.)

 

I found we had the Heron hard cover edition of these two titles and I believe I read the Prisoner of Zenda when I was in my teens. I picked it up to read both parts, partly because I remember my mother telling me that my paternal grandmother was reading this book whilst she was expecting my father and that was how he got his name. I was surprised to find that she had chosen the villain of the piece's name as her favourite. Perhaps the wicked streak goes deep in our family!  I did find the whole book very predictable but quite enjoyable nevertheless, despite it being rather over the top in its romanticism. Not the sort of books I will read again however. The nicest thing about it is the tooled cover.

bookshelves: adventure, swashbuckler, summer-2010, published-1894, victorian, re-read, young-adult, play-dramatisation