Scan barcode
A review by rainpunk
The Legends of King Arthur and His Knights by James Knowles
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.