Talk:Howard Pyle

King Harry

I removed this:

In the chapter, "Robin Hood and the Tinker", Pyle mentions King Harry, a king who was greatly separated, historically, from the era in which Robin Hood lived. King John was the King of Robin Hood's era, reigning in the absence of Richard the Lionheart, who was absent from England, fighting in The Crusades.

I haven't checked who Pyle mentions as king, but otherwise, this is pretty much wrong from beginning to end. Niether Henry II nor Henry III is much separated from Richard and John; the first is their father and Richard's predecessor, while the second is John's son and successor (although this would be after Robin's outlawry ended). Also, John was not king when Robin was an outlaw (if, as stated elsewhere, Robin made peace with John's predecessor Richard), since he claimed only the title of Regent while his brother Richard was alive. That said, it is correct (however irrelevant now) that Richard was absent in the Third Crusade.

Now, if Pyle mentioned King *Edward*, that *would* be farther removed from Richard and John; and he might well have done so, since the earliest Robin Hood stories to mention a king mention Edward (either Henry III's son and successor Edward I, Edward I's son and successor Edward II, or Edward II's son and successor Edward III). Without a text of Pyle to check, I've removed the whole thing.

—Toby Bartels (talk) 09:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, so I checked the text at Wikisource, and it does say "King Harry"; more to the point, the opening lines of Chapter I say "In merry england in the time of old, when good King Henry the Second ruled the land" (and the Tinker story is Chapter II), so really, it all hangs together just fine. Richard and John must simply wait for later chapters. —Toby Bartels (talk) 09:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know, the book begins in the context of the end of the book when Robin is already an outlaw. Then, it goes back to how he became an outlaw which was, by the way, during the reign of Henry I. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobmoya (talk • contribs) 17:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

In the Prologue, where the eighteen-year-old Robin encounters a group of the King's foresters, there is no mention of King Henry I. On page 3, one of the foresters refers to the reigning monarch as 'King Harry'. This could easily be Henry II, the king during whose reign Pyle sets Robin's life as an outlaw. Robin kills one of the foresters and becomes an outlaw as a result. Henry I died in 1134. Henry II didn't acceed to the throne until nineteen years later, in 1153. The final chapter has an encounter in the forest between Robin and Richard the Lionheart, who didn't become king until 1199. 'Harry' may not have been used as a nickname for 'Henry' in the 12th Century, but Pyle was writing a novel set in what he himself calls 'the land of Fancy' on page VIII of the Preface. O Murr (talk) 10:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Some important Self-corrections: Henry I died in 1135 (not 1134). Henry II became king in 1154 (not 1153) - and that was nineteen years later. Richard the Lionheart didn't become king in 1199 - that's the year he died. He became king ten years earlier, in 1189. But that was thirty-five years after the reign of his father Henry II began. Long enough for Howard Pyle's Robin Hood to have had a career as an outlaw before he encountered Richard. Pyle appears to have been more historically astute than might be imagined. O Murr (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Howard Pyle/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

A helpful addition to this article would be at least a partial list of the books he illustrated; while he was indeed an author he illustrated countless other books written by others; many of these illustrations were considered his finest work so it is misleading to gloss over that aspect of his oeuvre. I was hoping to find such a list when I looked him up here. It would also be great to address some of the reasons his artwork was so compelling, both for children and adults. His enduring popularity and remarkably forward-looking style bespeak a singular ability not only to create arresting images from the stories he illustrated but to do so in a style that was strikingly modern and fresh, even today. One can see, in Pyle's drawings, the presence of influences ranging from Art Nouveau (in his handling of drapery and in the organic forms and use of line) to Ukiyo-e Japanese woodblock prints (the ideated space and stylized nature imagery). His style continues to influence illustrators today----I would love to see the article incorporate some of Pyle's illustrations, and perhaps to also include some examples of his influence, as in his student Jessie Wilcox Smith (another beloved children's book illustrator) and perhaps some more comtemporary art that owes much to Pyle's influence . One might also argue that there was rather a golden age of childrens' book illustration at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century that has eclipsed anything before or since. The number of illustrators from that time whose work today is not only still being reproduced, but that so many illustrators of our own time are working in a style that evokes these early images. Whether these are tribute or a feeble imitation, I would leave the reader to be the judge, but the stylistic influences are unarguably present in much of what passes for new illustration today, though Pyle's, and his students', images are now nearly a century old. Kindness would dictate that one say it is a mark of the enduring freshness and appeal of Pyle's and his students' imagery.

Last edited at 05:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 18:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)