Scan barcode
A review by ailed
Le Morte d'Arthur: The Winchester Manuscript by Thomas Malory
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.