Scan barcode
hopegirl0727's review against another edition
4.0
I'm only going to give this book four stars instead of five because I was ecstatic to think there was a fourth book featuring Merlin only to be bitterly disappointed that he wasn't in it at all. Oh, he's mentioned quite a bit, and his prophecy is there, looming, about Arthur's bane, but he, himself, was absent. Ugh.
But aside from that bitter pill to swallow, this book continued in the excellent tradition of Mary Stewart's three other Arthurian books. Namely, she dedicates her narrative to depth and description. This book doesn't plod, but it certainly doesn't ricochet from action sequence to action sequence like so many books I've read these days. You know, things don't have to blow up to be exciting. And in the end, everything is built on the flimsiest of foundations and it goes to show what a gifted writer she is that these infinitesimally small moments turn the entire course of the narrative.
All in all, it was a good conclusion to the series, but I still wish it had been about Merlin.
But aside from that bitter pill to swallow, this book continued in the excellent tradition of Mary Stewart's three other Arthurian books. Namely, she dedicates her narrative to depth and description. This book doesn't plod, but it certainly doesn't ricochet from action sequence to action sequence like so many books I've read these days. You know, things don't have to blow up to be exciting. And in the end, everything is built on the flimsiest of foundations and it goes to show what a gifted writer she is that these infinitesimally small moments turn the entire course of the narrative.
All in all, it was a good conclusion to the series, but I still wish it had been about Merlin.
sarahndipity's review against another edition
3.0
I picked this up in a free bin, and I didn't read the rest of the saga. I figured that I didn't need to; the Arthurian legends outlines are so well-known, everyone already has the back story, right? After reading this book, I can't say that anything here depended so heavily on the previous books in the series that it didn't make sense without having read them. It may be best to read the whole series in order. It may not matter. I didn't, and I don't regret it.
Spoiler: Stewart's Mordred is a basically good guy. He's a bit selfish and he's ambitious in a way that not everyone will care for, but he's not a traitor. He and Arthur are friends, they understand each other, and they end up fighting not through enmity but through events they cannot control. In her afterward, Stewart explains why she sees Mordred this way and why she wrote his story in this way and how the source material supports this view of Mordred. I find her reasons compelling, though as with any legend or myth, many interpretations are compelling and even valid.
Spoiler: Stewart's Mordred is a basically good guy. He's a bit selfish and he's ambitious in a way that not everyone will care for, but he's not a traitor. He and Arthur are friends, they understand each other, and they end up fighting not through enmity but through events they cannot control. In her afterward, Stewart explains why she sees Mordred this way and why she wrote his story in this way and how the source material supports this view of Mordred. I find her reasons compelling, though as with any legend or myth, many interpretations are compelling and even valid.
ltyl's review against another edition
5.0
What a journey. I made the mistake of finishing this at work. A terrible mistake that was. I became so attached to these characters and was bawling at the end. So much so a coworker came up and asked if I was okay 😂.
Totally worth a read!
Totally worth a read!
whatcaityreads's review against another edition
5.0
Incredible. Beautifully written. It ends the series so well. I cannot recommend this enough. It's emotional and brings you into its world flawlessly. You feel for the characters. It's tense and action packed but has feeling. So good, if you want to read it, this is your recommendation to go and pick it up. It's worth it :) 6/5 stars if I could.
darthsansa's review against another edition
adventurous
emotional
mysterious
sad
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
sboakley's review against another edition
adventurous
medium-paced
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
angielisle's review against another edition
3.0
This book was better than the previous Merlin trilogy. The writing style remained dull, but Stewart provided an interesting take on Mordred - and, surprisingly, it's an idea that hasn't been beaten to death since the publication of this book.
smcleish's review against another edition
3.0
Originally published on my blog here in December 2001.
"The wicked day of destiny" is how Malory described the battle of Camlann, at which Arthur was victorious but was mortally wounded by his traitorous son Mordred. The tragic ending of the story interested the medieval mind more than it does our own, with our cultural yearning for the cosy, happy ending; and this is why today's retellings tend not to concentrate on the event which gave Malory the title for his whole poem, [b:Le Morte d'Arthur|672875|Le Morte d'Arthur King Arthur and the Legends of the Round Table|Thomas Malory|http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1309288301s/672875.jpg|1361856].
There are certain inconsistencies in the traditional portrayal of an evil Mordred, and Stewart in this novel has attempted to smooth some of them out, at the same time softening the ending. As a central character, he brings more life to The Wicked Day than there is in any of Stewart's Arthurian novels since [b:The Crystal Cave|82192|The Crystal Cave (Arthurian Saga, #1)|Mary Stewart|http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1348815143s/82192.jpg|1864677]. He is made an ambitious but not wicked young man, misled by false reports of Arthur's death to take the crown rather than taking advantage of the king's absence to rebel. My feeling is that this should make the ending more tragic, but in fact it isn't; this is mainly because it is not sufficiently real to be affecting.
The let down of the ending is one of the problems of The Wicked Day; it also suffers from repeating too much of earlier writers. While it would be virtually impossible to write an Arthurian fantasy that wasn't derivative in some way, much of the characterisation of the children of Morgause (Mordred along with Lot's four sons) is taken pretty much directly from [a:T.H. White|426944|T.H. White|http://d.gr-assets.com/authors/1246071532p2/426944.jpg]. Stewart is a bit more explicit about incestuous desire than White could be, but the psychology (particularly of the twins Agravaine and Gaheris) is identical. This is important, because the five of them are the most important characters in the novel, not excluding Arthur himself.
"The wicked day of destiny" is how Malory described the battle of Camlann, at which Arthur was victorious but was mortally wounded by his traitorous son Mordred. The tragic ending of the story interested the medieval mind more than it does our own, with our cultural yearning for the cosy, happy ending; and this is why today's retellings tend not to concentrate on the event which gave Malory the title for his whole poem, [b:Le Morte d'Arthur|672875|Le Morte d'Arthur King Arthur and the Legends of the Round Table|Thomas Malory|http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1309288301s/672875.jpg|1361856].
There are certain inconsistencies in the traditional portrayal of an evil Mordred, and Stewart in this novel has attempted to smooth some of them out, at the same time softening the ending. As a central character, he brings more life to The Wicked Day than there is in any of Stewart's Arthurian novels since [b:The Crystal Cave|82192|The Crystal Cave (Arthurian Saga, #1)|Mary Stewart|http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1348815143s/82192.jpg|1864677]. He is made an ambitious but not wicked young man, misled by false reports of Arthur's death to take the crown rather than taking advantage of the king's absence to rebel. My feeling is that this should make the ending more tragic, but in fact it isn't; this is mainly because it is not sufficiently real to be affecting.
The let down of the ending is one of the problems of The Wicked Day; it also suffers from repeating too much of earlier writers. While it would be virtually impossible to write an Arthurian fantasy that wasn't derivative in some way, much of the characterisation of the children of Morgause (Mordred along with Lot's four sons) is taken pretty much directly from [a:T.H. White|426944|T.H. White|http://d.gr-assets.com/authors/1246071532p2/426944.jpg]. Stewart is a bit more explicit about incestuous desire than White could be, but the psychology (particularly of the twins Agravaine and Gaheris) is identical. This is important, because the five of them are the most important characters in the novel, not excluding Arthur himself.
More...