You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by ihlonial
The Story of King Arthur and His Knights by Howard Pyle
4.0
After reading a small number for Arthurian books this past year, I thought it important to read some of the 'soure' material that exists out there. To my dismay, the first copy I bought - this copy - is still an adaptation to what is considered the original. However, since it is already in my library, this felt like a good starting point.
Sir Thomas Malory is known as the one who compiled all of the records and stories of King Arthur into one somewhat linear story, titled "Le Morte d'Arthur" that was written in 1485 (such dates just put me in awe). And since then, other authors have use Malory's compilation as their launching point for their own versions of Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table.
Howard Pyle was an American author at the turn of the 20th century who took some liberties with his version of King Arthur from what I understand. However, he ultimately preserves the knightly chivalry and honor code that permeates Arthurian tales. It feels predominately masculine - as expected with works that have a well as deep in History as this story - and the women are certainly given little attention beyond being enchantingly beautiful or a hindrance to man's progress (I weep for Morgan Le Fay and Gwenevere in this version...they're nothing I know those women to be). However there were also progressive moments that surprised me, such as the riddle that Arthur must answer being that the thing women desire most is free will. A single bow in Pyle's direction for acknowleding the bare minimum.
The stories themselves jump around between Arthur and his Knights to which I learned very quickly that I prefer reading about Arthur and his adventures than I did his Knights. Arthur truly was a good person, who strived to do right for his people, and his cleverness and honor-code was dictated by his own morals. His knights, however, thought honorable and good in the name of their King, also sometimes weren't always insictively able to be as good as Arthur. Which I suppose only makes sense and it's a foreshadowing of why Camelot could never be eternal.
Overall, I was delighted by the experience, even if at times I found myself losing interest with some of the adventures.
There are three other novels by Howard Pyle that includes more stories of King Arthur that I plan to get my hands on because none of these stories delved into Lancelot yet, and I simply must see how that unfolds.
Sir Thomas Malory is known as the one who compiled all of the records and stories of King Arthur into one somewhat linear story, titled "Le Morte d'Arthur" that was written in 1485 (such dates just put me in awe). And since then, other authors have use Malory's compilation as their launching point for their own versions of Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table.
Howard Pyle was an American author at the turn of the 20th century who took some liberties with his version of King Arthur from what I understand. However, he ultimately preserves the knightly chivalry and honor code that permeates Arthurian tales. It feels predominately masculine - as expected with works that have a well as deep in History as this story - and the women are certainly given little attention beyond being enchantingly beautiful or a hindrance to man's progress (I weep for Morgan Le Fay and Gwenevere in this version...they're nothing I know those women to be). However there were also progressive moments that surprised me, such as the riddle that Arthur must answer being that the thing women desire most is free will. A single bow in Pyle's direction for acknowleding the bare minimum.
The stories themselves jump around between Arthur and his Knights to which I learned very quickly that I prefer reading about Arthur and his adventures than I did his Knights. Arthur truly was a good person, who strived to do right for his people, and his cleverness and honor-code was dictated by his own morals. His knights, however, thought honorable and good in the name of their King, also sometimes weren't always insictively able to be as good as Arthur. Which I suppose only makes sense and it's a foreshadowing of why Camelot could never be eternal.
Overall, I was delighted by the experience, even if at times I found myself losing interest with some of the adventures.
There are three other novels by Howard Pyle that includes more stories of King Arthur that I plan to get my hands on because none of these stories delved into Lancelot yet, and I simply must see how that unfolds.