Scan barcode
purplehazer's review against another edition
1.0
I think this may have been written by a child the writing style and content is appalling! One of the worst books I've ever read!
It's dull, tedious and turned a potentially interesting subject into a series of helpless damsels and hapless egotistical Knights.
It's dull, tedious and turned a potentially interesting subject into a series of helpless damsels and hapless egotistical Knights.
vintagevagabond's review against another edition
4.0
This was for British Lit and I actually really enjoyed it. I love folktales and stories so I thought it was good.
hegrose's review
adventurous
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
2.0
A good story but the language makes it a really tough read
rainpunk's review against another edition
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.
g1rlwhol1ved's review against another edition
3.0
i love the whole knights in armor/adventuring thing, and im a big fan of king arthur stuff but this dragged in places
piperkitty81's review against another edition
3.0
Glad I read it and it’s interesting to see where all the tales came from. My practical side felt that they could have all avoided a lot of trouble if they talked before challenging and fighting.
jaskovivich's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
hopeful
inspiring
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
aprater's review against another edition
3.0
An interesting classic and I can see why so many tales have spun from it but several passages are slow and leave the mind to wander to other things.
jeszornel's review against another edition
3.0
Honestly, these knights bring dishonour upon themselves. Wherever they go they fight first, and ask questions later...most of this book a knight comes upon another knight and they do battle. And then they realize they know eachtother...and then they show their respect for each other and stop battling. I mean come on. Most of the battles ended this way, it's so stupid. Knights! Am I right? There was this one part where two Knights were fighting in favour of a lady (of course one of them was stupid Knight Tristram), then they realized they knew each other, and stepped away from battle (in respect of course of each other *eyes rolling*) and then proceeded to allow the lady to chose which Knight to run to -- like a dog (of course she did not choose Tristtram because he sucks**). Honestly, this books portrayal of women was disappointing and very insulting.
For example, Lady Guinevere is supposed to be King Arthur's Queen, equal in position and respect. However, overall I found her to be very dramatic for no reason (to be fair everyone was overly dramatic-- lots of swooning Knights in this book lol). Also, I didn't understand how every time she did something/ or was suspected of doing something they led her to be burnt at the stake (~3 occurrences). That seems to be a little extreme.
One final note: The word 'Anon' took up approximately 90% of all the words in the novel. While that figure is not based on facts, that is what it felt like. How hard would it have been to pick up a thesaurus and use it? Impossible it seems. Unimaginable it seems.
**Don't get me started on Knight Tristram...he was the worst. First of all, when he is "in disguise" in front of some Kings' family (he killed the King), he calls himself 'Tramtrist' -- wow, you totally fooled us all.
For example, Lady Guinevere is supposed to be King Arthur's Queen, equal in position and respect. However, overall I found her to be very dramatic for no reason (to be fair everyone was overly dramatic-- lots of swooning Knights in this book lol). Also, I didn't understand how every time she did something/ or was suspected of doing something they led her to be burnt at the stake (~3 occurrences). That seems to be a little extreme.
One final note: The word 'Anon' took up approximately 90% of all the words in the novel. While that figure is not based on facts, that is what it felt like. How hard would it have been to pick up a thesaurus and use it? Impossible it seems. Unimaginable it seems.
**Don't get me started on Knight Tristram...he was the worst. First of all, when he is "in disguise" in front of some Kings' family (he killed the King), he calls himself 'Tramtrist' -- wow, you totally fooled us all.