Scan barcode
mrsbrharris's review against another edition
2.0
Lots of characters, had a hard time keeping them straight. The chapters are very long, made it difficult when I needed a mental break.
mjeaton's review against another edition
adventurous
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.0
mrsgrievous's review against another edition
4.0
Highlights:
- Lancelot having some kind of fever dream for 25 days?
- knights fighting any time they come across each other, but not making sure it’s not their brother or cousin first
- Merlin being a simp and getting turned into a tree forever
Don’t get attached to any of the horses.
- Lancelot having some kind of fever dream for 25 days?
- knights fighting any time they come across each other, but not making sure it’s not their brother or cousin first
- Merlin being a simp and getting turned into a tree forever
Don’t get attached to any of the horses.
thelittlelibrarian's review against another edition
4.0
3.5 stars.
Taking into account that this was written a long time ago, this was a pretty good book. I will say it was a lot of telling instead of showing. Arthur and Merlin were a tad disappointing to me as well as a lot of the other knights. I wish I would of seen more depth into Arthur's court and such. The second half of the book was really good and I found myself really eager to read it.
Taking into account that this was written a long time ago, this was a pretty good book. I will say it was a lot of telling instead of showing. Arthur and Merlin were a tad disappointing to me as well as a lot of the other knights. I wish I would of seen more depth into Arthur's court and such. The second half of the book was really good and I found myself really eager to read it.
purplehazer's review
1.0
I think this may have been written by a child the writing style and content is appalling! One of the worst books I've ever read!
It's dull, tedious and turned a potentially interesting subject into a series of helpless damsels and hapless egotistical Knights.
It's dull, tedious and turned a potentially interesting subject into a series of helpless damsels and hapless egotistical Knights.
peterparkerslabpartner's review against another edition
4.0
This was for British Lit and I actually really enjoyed it. I love folktales and stories so I thought it was good.
hegrose's review against another edition
adventurous
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
2.0
A good story but the language makes it a really tough read
rainpunk's review
1.0
Not a great read. Reads like the Bible. A Wikipedia-like telling of events, but with old language (they use the word "anon" and "smote" about 1000 times). I read this as a first introduction to Arthurian legend (apart from what anyone might glean from cultural references in general). I probably should have just read Wikipedia articles instead of this, though.
It might be more enjoyable if studied as part of a class in order to give context to the people, morals, and real-world history that affected these legends. Without more rigorous context, many of the stories can feel odd or inconsistent. For example, every "good guy" including Merlin is Christian. So I'd love to know how the audience back in the day reconciled belief in the Bible and the sorcery in the legends. Did they have a different view then of sorcery compared to Christians today? Did they consider sorcery neutral or even God-given? Or did the story-tellers and listeners not care because sorcery was known to be fictional, so there was no real-world moral conflict to worry about?
Likewise, I felt there was some inconsistency in what makes a "good" knight. At many points, they emphasized bloodlines (many knights were brothers to knights), but in some examples knights could rise from humble origins. Knights of the round table were meant to be merciful, but duels to the death with strangers were common. A duel between strangers encountering each other by chance could be a test of respect for each other or could result in death. This feels strange today. I would have liked more academic context here too.
Long story short, not a great thing to read on its own. Probably better within an academic setting. Wouldn't generally recommend.
It might be more enjoyable if studied as part of a class in order to give context to the people, morals, and real-world history that affected these legends. Without more rigorous context, many of the stories can feel odd or inconsistent. For example, every "good guy" including Merlin is Christian. So I'd love to know how the audience back in the day reconciled belief in the Bible and the sorcery in the legends. Did they have a different view then of sorcery compared to Christians today? Did they consider sorcery neutral or even God-given? Or did the story-tellers and listeners not care because sorcery was known to be fictional, so there was no real-world moral conflict to worry about?
Likewise, I felt there was some inconsistency in what makes a "good" knight. At many points, they emphasized bloodlines (many knights were brothers to knights), but in some examples knights could rise from humble origins. Knights of the round table were meant to be merciful, but duels to the death with strangers were common. A duel between strangers encountering each other by chance could be a test of respect for each other or could result in death. This feels strange today. I would have liked more academic context here too.
Long story short, not a great thing to read on its own. Probably better within an academic setting. Wouldn't generally recommend.