Scan barcode
quoththegirl's review against another edition
4.0
I read Morte D'Arthur, or most of it anyway, a very long time ago. I remember not being all that enthused and a bit bored at the endless jousting. Really, there are only so many ways to make getting poked by a stick and falling of a horse sound good, guys.
However, reading it now for Medieval Lit, I was surprised to find that I enjoyed it very much. The jousting was still boring (sorry, Malory), but the characterization was fascinating. Arthur is so painfully young at the beginning and really has no idea what he's doing even as he's trying to be the hero. Merlin is really the one keeping the kingdom together as every Tom, Dick, and Harry think that they can wrest the throne away from the boy king. The Lancelot/Guinevere/Arthur thing didn't bother me as much this time around; Lancelot is so conflicted and grief-stricken over his actions, you can't help but feel sorry for him. This was not a light-hearted fling. This was 25 years of misery, knowing that he was betraying his best friend and lord, yet completely unable to tear himself away from Guinevere. Deeply unhappy people all around, as Arthur loves both of them but has to do his duty, and eventually the three tear the kingdom apart between them.
And yet, I can see why Tennyson chose this subject to write an epic poem about. Malory's brief tangent about how love today is not as it was in the days of Arthur, when men and women knew what devotion was, is beautiful. The whole thing is deeply touching in points, and if you don't get shivers reading about the death of Arthur, check and make sure you're still breathing: "Here lies Arthur, the once and future King."
However, reading it now for Medieval Lit, I was surprised to find that I enjoyed it very much. The jousting was still boring (sorry, Malory), but the characterization was fascinating. Arthur is so painfully young at the beginning and really has no idea what he's doing even as he's trying to be the hero. Merlin is really the one keeping the kingdom together as every Tom, Dick, and Harry think that they can wrest the throne away from the boy king. The Lancelot/Guinevere/Arthur thing didn't bother me as much this time around; Lancelot is so conflicted and grief-stricken over his actions, you can't help but feel sorry for him. This was not a light-hearted fling. This was 25 years of misery, knowing that he was betraying his best friend and lord, yet completely unable to tear himself away from Guinevere. Deeply unhappy people all around, as Arthur loves both of them but has to do his duty, and eventually the three tear the kingdom apart between them.
And yet, I can see why Tennyson chose this subject to write an epic poem about. Malory's brief tangent about how love today is not as it was in the days of Arthur, when men and women knew what devotion was, is beautiful. The whole thing is deeply touching in points, and if you don't get shivers reading about the death of Arthur, check and make sure you're still breathing: "Here lies Arthur, the once and future King."
joaniesaltzman's review against another edition
4.0
I would give Malory's work itself five stars being entertaining, moving, and an indispensable work in the history of Arthurian legend, but a few mistakes in the explanatory notes and some questionable abridgement choices made me question the editor's credibility. Overall, though, I recommend this as a highly accessible edition for Arthur fans trying to cross the Morte off their list. However, anyone looking for a greater academic understanding of the work (as I was) might do a little comparison shopping among publishers, because I really wasn't a huge fan of Helen Cooper.
murmuration19's review against another edition
3.0
It took me a little while to get into the language, and the repetition made it quite a slog at times, but it was also triumphant and tragic. At times the only thing keeping me reading was the fact that as someone who love the Arthurian legends, this is a book I should read. But having read it and gotten used to all the smiting, I am very glad I did stick it out.
rouge_red's review against another edition
Read up to about 200 pages. Hate the writing, so repetitive. Might "buy" this if I really want to read Arthurian tales again. If I do, I will have to go through this verrrry slowly.
lydia_reads's review against another edition
I suppose I wasn't likely to have got this read in time for my seminar.
karatedrummer's review against another edition
5.0
See my review of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight for an earlier example of my Arthurian fandom. What other rating could I dare to give this, the crown jewel of all Arthurian fables collections?
Also, be sure to read the *un*-abridged version of this work - even the lesser stories are entertaining.
Also, be sure to read the *un*-abridged version of this work - even the lesser stories are entertaining.
ailed's review against another edition
4.0
I think Malory did a wonderful job of compiling, summarizing, and threading the most notorious Arthurian tales together into a cohesive narrative. But after I finished reading his book, I felt that I much preferred the Vulgate Cycle and Béroul's Tristam.
I did like the changes he made to the Quest of the Holy Grail, so that it wasn't so heavy on the Catholic guilt as in the Vulgate and that Lancelot at least managed to get farther in the quest. He also shortened the 'histories' behind certain objects and didn't include Joseph of Arimathea's story, making the whole quest much more dynamic and entertaining.
Still, while reading, I had objections to many things. So, here is my list of grievances :)
There are too many of my favorites episodes (from the Vulgate) missing and some interesting characters. For example, Merlin's whole story is not included which, I can accept since Malory probably wanted to focus on the Arthurian world from Arthur's conception and not before.
Lancelot's story is lacking so many adventures and characters. We don't get to read about how the Lady of the Lake fosters Lancelot and helps him at various times during his adventures; there is only one passing mention that she was the one that gave him his name.
The tale of the cart is barely that. There was not enough shame about riding in the cart; Maleagant becomes a second-rate villain, and there aren't enough obstacles for Lancelot, the iconic Sword Bridge isn't even there!
The absolutely thrilling story of Lancelot and Galehaut, which reads like a romance (in the modern sense of the word), is not there at all. The Joyous Guard is mentioned a lot, but someone that is not acquainted with the story of that particular adventure, and the background behind it, would be left in the air about its background, and how Lancelot acquired it since there is no mention of it.
However, I think that Tristam's story was the one that upset me the most; it was an absolute mess. Though, that's not Malory's fault since he was basing his story on the Prose Tristan, which has to be my least favorite adaptation of the Tristam story. Here, Mark is evil instead of being a gullible, kind uncle, and Sir Palamedes is added as another contender for Isolde's heart, which absolutely destroys the integrity of the story. After Tristam marries Isolde of the White Hands and he goes back to Cornwall, the narrative just becomes something completely unrecognizable, and Tristam's death only comes as practically an aside later on Malory's text.
Morgan le Fay has practically no role, aside from some dastardly deeds; towards the end, she is barely even mentioned. She isn't even the one to first put doubts on Arthur's mind about Lancelot and Guinevere since here, she doesn't kidnap Lancelot, and he doesn't paint his prison's walls with scenes from his affair with Guinevere.
Overall, it is definitely a book one has to read to understand its legacy on modern representations of the Arthurian legend, but I would rather take a combination of other sources as my 'canon' of the myths.
I did like the changes he made to the Quest of the Holy Grail, so that it wasn't so heavy on the Catholic guilt as in the Vulgate and that Lancelot at least managed to get farther in the quest. He also shortened the 'histories' behind certain objects and didn't include Joseph of Arimathea's story, making the whole quest much more dynamic and entertaining.
Still, while reading, I had objections to many things. So, here is my list of grievances :)
There are too many of my favorites episodes (from the Vulgate) missing and some interesting characters. For example, Merlin's whole story is not included which, I can accept since Malory probably wanted to focus on the Arthurian world from Arthur's conception and not before.
Lancelot's story is lacking so many adventures and characters. We don't get to read about how the Lady of the Lake fosters Lancelot and helps him at various times during his adventures; there is only one passing mention that she was the one that gave him his name.
The tale of the cart is barely that. There was not enough shame about riding in the cart; Maleagant becomes a second-rate villain, and there aren't enough obstacles for Lancelot, the iconic Sword Bridge isn't even there!
The absolutely thrilling story of Lancelot and Galehaut, which reads like a romance (in the modern sense of the word), is not there at all. The Joyous Guard is mentioned a lot, but someone that is not acquainted with the story of that particular adventure, and the background behind it, would be left in the air about its background, and how Lancelot acquired it since there is no mention of it.
However, I think that Tristam's story was the one that upset me the most; it was an absolute mess. Though, that's not Malory's fault since he was basing his story on the Prose Tristan, which has to be my least favorite adaptation of the Tristam story. Here, Mark is evil instead of being a gullible, kind uncle, and Sir Palamedes is added as another contender for Isolde's heart, which absolutely destroys the integrity of the story. After Tristam marries Isolde of the White Hands and he goes back to Cornwall, the narrative just becomes something completely unrecognizable, and Tristam's death only comes as practically an aside later on Malory's text.
Morgan le Fay has practically no role, aside from some dastardly deeds; towards the end, she is barely even mentioned. She isn't even the one to first put doubts on Arthur's mind about Lancelot and Guinevere since here, she doesn't kidnap Lancelot, and he doesn't paint his prison's walls with scenes from his affair with Guinevere.
Overall, it is definitely a book one has to read to understand its legacy on modern representations of the Arthurian legend, but I would rather take a combination of other sources as my 'canon' of the myths.
mariaeddie's review against another edition
5.0
This book was soo massive,so boring sometimes. I understand the history importance for this book, but I can’t no more. I can’t pretend I’m gonna read it until the end, cause I won’t.
I’m too great of a quitter for this.
I’m too great of a quitter for this.