Scan barcode
A review by cleheny
The Idylls of the Queen: A Tale of Queen Guenevere by Phyllis Ann Karr
3.0
This is an interesting approach to the Arthurian legend, though it's title is somewhat misleading, and I don't know that it's wholly successful. First, although it's title suggests that it's about Guenevere, she is mostly a motivating force than an actual character. The story is told by Sir Kay, Arthur's foster brother and seneschal, and he is devoted to the queen, who, at the start of the tale, is accused of poisoning Sir Patrise at a banquet. After the initial scenes, during which Guenevere is either horrified/hysterical, she disappears until the very end of the novel. Her character is more discussed than established, which makes it hard to sympathize with Kay's worship and his praise of her (as the person who keeps Arthur's kingdom running smoothly). I think the Guenevere Kay describes could be interesting (we see hints of her in the final scene); I just wish I had met her.
Second, the plot device is a murder mystery--Sir Patrise's poisoning and the motivation for the crime--but the novel is really an exploration of certain incidents, characters, and feuds in La Morte d'Arthur. I like what Karr does with many of these events and characters--the deaths of Lot, Pellinore, Morgause, and Lamorak; the prophecy concerning Mordred and his betrayal of Arthur; the history of Morgan Le Fay, to name a few--but these excursions sap the tension from the murder investigation (such as it is).
There are some things I really liked about this book, including how the investigation is conducted. This is, after all, a world of necromancers. There aren't forensics--there is magical sleuthing. Kay's worldview is depicted pretty effectively, I think. For example, there's a really good passage in which Kay reflects on how he's mocked for the way he treated Gareth (Beaumains), but he remembers all the other would-be knights who masquerade as scullions and don't have either the talent or a patron such as Lancelot to support their pretensions. I also like her version of Mordred, a man whose world is shaken by prophecy and who suffers (truly, suffers) from a streak of fatalism.
She tells a tale of Camelot from the perspective of the "unpopular" kids--such as Kay and Mordred--and, thus, paints a picture of Arthur's court that is often cynical. I'm fine with how that impacts Lancelot's depiction, as he is a character whose depiction is critical for whether I am sympathetic to him (I don't particularly care for Malory's Lancelot; I'm intrigued and moved by White's). I am less persuaded by Arthur's characterization, but that has a lot to do with my bias in favor of a strong, sympathetic, and compassionate Arthur (Mary Stewart's characterization may be my favorite). I can see the validity of Karr's approach--I just wish I didn't.
Karr clearly knows her Arthuriana. She mixes elements of the Vulgate with Malory (who is clearly the dominant influence). On the one hand, the details intrigued me enough that I will now search out the Vulgate to read. The problem is that they are mostly brief references, so the reader's ability to appreciate what they add to the story is dependent on a knowledge of the Vulgate.
All in all, I'm glad I read this, and, after re-reading Malory and reading the Vulgate, I plan to come back to this.
Second, the plot device is a murder mystery--Sir Patrise's poisoning and the motivation for the crime--but the novel is really an exploration of certain incidents, characters, and feuds in La Morte d'Arthur. I like what Karr does with many of these events and characters--the deaths of Lot, Pellinore, Morgause, and Lamorak; the prophecy concerning Mordred and his betrayal of Arthur; the history of Morgan Le Fay, to name a few--but these excursions sap the tension from the murder investigation (such as it is).
There are some things I really liked about this book, including how the investigation is conducted. This is, after all, a world of necromancers. There aren't forensics--there is magical sleuthing. Kay's worldview is depicted pretty effectively, I think. For example, there's a really good passage in which Kay reflects on how he's mocked for the way he treated Gareth (Beaumains), but he remembers all the other would-be knights who masquerade as scullions and don't have either the talent or a patron such as Lancelot to support their pretensions. I also like her version of Mordred, a man whose world is shaken by prophecy and who suffers (truly, suffers) from a streak of fatalism.
She tells a tale of Camelot from the perspective of the "unpopular" kids--such as Kay and Mordred--and, thus, paints a picture of Arthur's court that is often cynical. I'm fine with how that impacts Lancelot's depiction, as he is a character whose depiction is critical for whether I am sympathetic to him (I don't particularly care for Malory's Lancelot; I'm intrigued and moved by White's). I am less persuaded by Arthur's characterization, but that has a lot to do with my bias in favor of a strong, sympathetic, and compassionate Arthur (Mary Stewart's characterization may be my favorite). I can see the validity of Karr's approach--I just wish I didn't.
Karr clearly knows her Arthuriana. She mixes elements of the Vulgate with Malory (who is clearly the dominant influence). On the one hand, the details intrigued me enough that I will now search out the Vulgate to read. The problem is that they are mostly brief references, so the reader's ability to appreciate what they add to the story is dependent on a knowledge of the Vulgate.
All in all, I'm glad I read this, and, after re-reading Malory and reading the Vulgate, I plan to come back to this.