Scan barcode
upsidedown10's review against another edition
adventurous
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
I found myself less engaged with this story than the first one becuase Arthur-in-the-Stone ages much faster than our Arthur. Their compelling parallels are less parallel in this book. Not completely different, but less striking. I found that I was far more intereted in our Arthur's story than the stories in the stone. I am still interested to see how this will end and I still really like our Arthur as a young protagonist, but I was just not as taken with this book.
jgintrovertedreader's review against another edition
3.0
I don't have a lot to say about the second book in the Arthur trilogy. I had a difficult time really focusing on the audiobook for some reason. I don't have any complaints about Michael Maloney, the narrator. I just think that I got a bit lost in time. I wasn't always sure if the Arthur I was currently hearing about was the "current" Arthur or Arthur in the past. A lot of the book takes place in the past and I didn't feel that the current story made a lot of forward progress. The book felt kind of like filler, a common complaint that I express about the second book in a trilogy. I'll probably read the last one but I'll read it in print instead and see if that helps keep me oriented.
annaestelle's review against another edition
adventurous
emotional
funny
lighthearted
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
fieldofhats's review against another edition
adventurous
emotional
hopeful
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
This was a good sequel, although it definitely dragged on more than the first. There are quite a few interesting conversations and such that happen, the historical setting and context is expanded upon, and the themes of religion and crossing-places continue to drive this series in a positive manner, but not much happens with the actual plot. We kind of put everything on pause and focus on the small things. This isn’t a bad choice, but it definitely isn’t the most engaging one. I don’t think it detracts from the story, though.
Speaking of the nature of this book, it’s aptly named, and not just because it’s the middle book in the trilogy. For nearly the entirety of this novel, Arthur is on the cusp of going to take the cross, an event which he believes will be the turning point of his life. He is essentially in a crossing-place between crossing-places, and that’s the point. And even after he does take the cross, he finds out that he isn’t even going to Jerusalem. The journey isn’t the goal, it’s the anticipation, the moment before the storm, where tensions and emotions are most high.
The theme of religion is still as strong as ever in this book. Arthur learns about the Jewish faith, and Lord Stephen tells him about how Jesus was a Jew and explains why some christians dislike them, but they should respect their faith nonetheless. In fact, Lord Stephen believes that every faith should be respected (or, at least every faith prominent in that area at that time). Arthur expands on this later in the book when he finally meets a seracen who is a wholly good person. Furthermore, there’s a pervading sense of mercy throughout the book, and how one must be merciful if they’re a christian.Alan, therefore, is not a true christian or a good person in this world because he murdered someone. On the surface it seems like a commentary on christianity and how to be a good christian, but I think Crossley-Holland’s aim is to comment on morality more broadly, and he’s using christianity as a leaping point since that would be the perspective of the historical and geographical world of the time.
Before I get into my main gripe with this book, I want to mention Crossley-Holland’s portrayal of women. It’s odd. Perceval just casually assaults a woman and then justifies it by saying his mother told him that it was normal to kiss kind women, or something. It’s bizarre, it comes out of nowhere, and it’s the first and only time he appears in this book. Besides that, it just feels like he doesn’t quite know what to do with the female characters. They all have a character trait, but no real development. I’m interested to see what he does with Gatty in her book, but I’m also more than a little wary now.
I could do without the perspective and stories of the various knights of the Round Table. Seeing Arthur-in-the-Stone was fantastic in the first book, and still is in this one, when we ever get to. Instead we’re subjected to random stories about random knights. I understand that Arthur is supposed to learn a lesson from each one of the stories, but we don’t need all these disconnected stories to do that. Crossley-Holland could have spent much more time developing and really honing in on the stories of King Arthur, Guinevere, Morgan le Fay, and perhaps one specific knight like Gawain or Lancelot. That would have been more interesting to me. And I get that these are tales from the medieval legends that we have, I just don’t care. I don’t think that justifies having all the stories that were included here, especially when the whole point of the seeing stone is for Arthur to see his own life mirrored and to learn from the mistakes of his namesake in the stone. And the broad story in the seeing stone isn’t engaging or consistent. The climax is all about the holy grail, but the holy grail was barely mentioned before that. It’s like Crossley-Holland is trying to capitalize on the popularity and collective knowledge that he imagines the audience has about these myths so he doesn’t have to do much heavy lifting.
Overall, it was a good and welcome addition to the series, and a good middle book. I am hoping that the third novel fixes some of the issues and overall focuses more heavily on the plot, though. As long as it does those things, I think it will have made this one all the more worth it.
Speaking of the nature of this book, it’s aptly named, and not just because it’s the middle book in the trilogy. For nearly the entirety of this novel, Arthur is on the cusp of going to take the cross, an event which he believes will be the turning point of his life. He is essentially in a crossing-place between crossing-places, and that’s the point. And even after he does take the cross, he finds out that he isn’t even going to Jerusalem. The journey isn’t the goal, it’s the anticipation, the moment before the storm, where tensions and emotions are most high.
The theme of religion is still as strong as ever in this book. Arthur learns about the Jewish faith, and Lord Stephen tells him about how Jesus was a Jew and explains why some christians dislike them, but they should respect their faith nonetheless. In fact, Lord Stephen believes that every faith should be respected (or, at least every faith prominent in that area at that time). Arthur expands on this later in the book when he finally meets a seracen who is a wholly good person. Furthermore, there’s a pervading sense of mercy throughout the book, and how one must be merciful if they’re a christian.
Before I get into my main gripe with this book, I want to mention Crossley-Holland’s portrayal of women. It’s odd. Perceval just casually assaults a woman and then justifies it by saying his mother told him that it was normal to kiss kind women, or something. It’s bizarre, it comes out of nowhere, and it’s the first and only time he appears in this book. Besides that, it just feels like he doesn’t quite know what to do with the female characters. They all have a character trait, but no real development. I’m interested to see what he does with Gatty in her book, but I’m also more than a little wary now.
I could do without the perspective and stories of the various knights of the Round Table. Seeing Arthur-in-the-Stone was fantastic in the first book, and still is in this one, when we ever get to. Instead we’re subjected to random stories about random knights. I understand that Arthur is supposed to learn a lesson from each one of the stories, but we don’t need all these disconnected stories to do that. Crossley-Holland could have spent much more time developing and really honing in on the stories of King Arthur, Guinevere, Morgan le Fay, and perhaps one specific knight like Gawain or Lancelot. That would have been more interesting to me. And I get that these are tales from the medieval legends that we have, I just don’t care. I don’t think that justifies having all the stories that were included here, especially when the whole point of the seeing stone is for Arthur to see his own life mirrored and to learn from the mistakes of his namesake in the stone. And the broad story in the seeing stone isn’t engaging or consistent. The climax is all about the holy grail, but the holy grail was barely mentioned before that. It’s like Crossley-Holland is trying to capitalize on the popularity and collective knowledge that he imagines the audience has about these myths so he doesn’t have to do much heavy lifting.
Overall, it was a good and welcome addition to the series, and a good middle book. I am hoping that the third novel fixes some of the issues and overall focuses more heavily on the plot, though. As long as it does those things, I think it will have made this one all the more worth it.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Death
Moderate: War, Sexual harassment, Sexual assault, and Child death
ehays84's review against another edition
4.0
An excellent second part of this series. If you like fiction books about Medieval Europe, the Arthurian legends, or just a good narrative, you should definitely try this series.
It blends together the very well-researched history of the 13th/14th centuries, Arthurian legends, and tenderly written dialogue to form a very enjoyable whole. I would say this book felt a lot like the first one, but it had more of the Arthurian stories, and less of Merlin. There is still the question of how much the character of Arthur in the main story will end up paralleling what happens to the Arthur in the stone.
At the end of this one, Arthur is about to go on crusade as a squire, so I am looking forward to reading the next one in the series for sure.
It blends together the very well-researched history of the 13th/14th centuries, Arthurian legends, and tenderly written dialogue to form a very enjoyable whole. I would say this book felt a lot like the first one, but it had more of the Arthurian stories, and less of Merlin. There is still the question of how much the character of Arthur in the main story will end up paralleling what happens to the Arthur in the stone.
At the end of this one, Arthur is about to go on crusade as a squire, so I am looking forward to reading the next one in the series for sure.
f33lthesun's review against another edition
emotional
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.0
anj's review against another edition
medium-paced
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
4.0
Content Warnings
Moderate: Racism and Death
mollyadele's review against another edition
adventurous
emotional
informative
mysterious
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.75
stephilica's review against another edition
4.0
The strength in this narrative lies in Arthur's strong (and sometimes poetic) voice, and the details built into the setting. I also love the subtle characterization, such as how Guinevere's insistence on knighting a youth who later gets grievously wounded is setup for her reaction to Lancelot's declaration that he'd rather die with honor than live meaninglessly. This is a strongly atmospheric work, and it's easy to get engrossed within it.
However, the plot is more meandering than the previous; in the last book, Arthur's goal was to become a squire, but now that he is, his focus is split between a murder, finding the identity of his mother, and overall listlessness and impatience as his manor prepares for the Crusades. This meandering from plot point to plot point fits his feelings of aimlessness throughout the book, but it also makes the story less linear and the pacing less upbeat. Other plot points in the dual timeline of Camelot are also glossed over; there's little buildup of Nimue, and Morgan le Fay's scenes--while subtly poignant--never address her motives; by the time she appears as a character, she's already hell-bent on assassination.
Even so, this is a solid piece of writing that (mostly) deepens characters and themes. Christianity provides the lens for the musing portions of the text, and it's refreshing to see an Arthurian retelling that examines the philosophical and symbolic implications of the lore.
However, the plot is more meandering than the previous; in the last book, Arthur's goal was to become a squire, but now that he is, his focus is split between a murder, finding the identity of his mother, and overall listlessness and impatience as his manor prepares for the Crusades. This meandering from plot point to plot point fits his feelings of aimlessness throughout the book, but it also makes the story less linear and the pacing less upbeat. Other plot points in the dual timeline of Camelot are also glossed over; there's little buildup of Nimue, and Morgan le Fay's scenes--while subtly poignant--never address her motives; by the time she appears as a character, she's already hell-bent on assassination.
Even so, this is a solid piece of writing that (mostly) deepens characters and themes. Christianity provides the lens for the musing portions of the text, and it's refreshing to see an Arthurian retelling that examines the philosophical and symbolic implications of the lore.