Take a photo of a barcode or cover
multipletrees's Reviews (1.5k)
So the back of mine says "history" but honestly there's a lot of mythic/symbolic/literature sort of analysis, both of people themselves and their actions. It's interesting, but can get kind of incoherent. It's not well cited, parts are poorly explained, and occasionally things come out of nowhere. Honestly it seems very ridiculous but I think that's because the book is presented as history when it isn't bothering with sticking to that. If you accept that Goodrich is at least as concerned with Guinevere as a metaphysical concept (wow I don't know if that's the right phrase just take it) as a human historical figure then it makes more sense.
While I'm not gonna take any of this as historical fact (or take Goodrich's interpertation of myths and symbols at face value), it would be very cool to read a novel using this concept of Guinevere, because the ideas are still interesting (where I can follow them).
It helps to have read King Arthur first - Goodrich keeps her conclusions from there but doesn't bring any of the argument with. The same is probably true of Merlin, but I haven't read that so I don't know.
While I'm not gonna take any of this as historical fact (or take Goodrich's interpertation of myths and symbols at face value), it would be very cool to read a novel using this concept of Guinevere, because the ideas are still interesting (where I can follow them).
It helps to have read King Arthur first - Goodrich keeps her conclusions from there but doesn't bring any of the argument with. The same is probably true of Merlin, but I haven't read that so I don't know.