dskel10's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
Always fun to read the classics, and see what inspired future writers. I generally prefer the more modern stuff, but fun if clunky read
lindaunconventionalbookworms's review against another edition
4.0
2nd reading : The Noble Tale of the Sankgreal; I had to read this for a seminar essay, and I don't think it is among the best tales about the Knights. This is where they all need to show their virtues, and the knights who have not yet been sexually active are the ones deemed the most virtuous. Less humourous than other tales, and quite slow to read, however, it is all still very interesting to me, as the legends of King Arthur and the knights of the Round Table are part of the beginning of literature as we know it.
One reason why it was slow reading is because the version I read is not in modern English, so the wording and the syntax is quite different, and it takes a lot longer to read and to make complete sense of it all.
One reason why it was slow reading is because the version I read is not in modern English, so the wording and the syntax is quite different, and it takes a lot longer to read and to make complete sense of it all.
millieraines's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
informative
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
coldxperience's review against another edition
2.0
L1 English major university reading.
King Arthur appears and appeared in many different stories - and we don't even know if he really existed or if he purely comes from fiction.
“Better is peace than ever war.”
King Arthur appears and appeared in many different stories - and we don't even know if he really existed or if he purely comes from fiction.
“Better is peace than ever war.”
carsonbailey's review against another edition
3.0
All I can say is finally: definitely assigned for class and will be happy to never have to pick up and read again
paintedgiraffe's review against another edition
4.0
Yeah, that was really interesting. I was pretty disappointed that Gawain and the Green Knight wasn't in it, though.
thereaderintherye's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.75
jpwright87's review against another edition
4.0
Unsophisticated, often boring, and lacking even basic characterization, this classic Arthur retelling/compilation can be appreciated only after coming to terms with these weaknesses. Besides the obvious benefit of catching more of the inside jokes from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail", Le Morte D'Arthur presents a fascinating universe governed by the rules of chivalry and tells the exciting adventures had by the men of action that exist therein.
The world of Le Morte is entirely alien to the modern world, completely saturating the material with the ideal and turning everything into a value that can be applied to ones honor or shame. In fact it often occurs that the value of honor even takes precedence over the value of moral good. If the work has little to offer in the understanding of human psychology, it compensates with the heights of its romantic love, dignity, and tragedy.
Le Morte D'Arthur is also interesting because it alters the stories of Arthur that came before. Malory makes a few asides to readers in the book, but is mostly content to simply put together what had been passed down in different Arthur narratives (from what I've read, anyway). Perhaps the greatest exception to this is his emphasis on Lancelot, who is absolutely Malory's favorite character and seems to be used by Malory to justify his own life (Lancelot is basically invincible and is always blameless in honor, though not in morals).
Like most epics, actions do most of the talking and when characters do speak they do so honestly and directly from the heart. However, unlike some epics, the laws of chivalry make actions less important than how those actions are seen by others. For instance, when Achilles is dishonored by Agamemnon for taking Briseus from him, he is also angry because he had genuine feelings for her as a material object/person. Lancelot, on the other hand, loves Gwenevere and saves her on what seems like a monthly basis, but will only say that he does what will bring her greater worship. The fact that they have a physical relationship is acknowledged but then immediately hidden to leave precedence for the knightliness of his actions and the honor brought to the queen for having such a noble knight.
This unresolved tension is key to the whole story and how it ends, and also seems to be one of the problems of creating a world where ideas are emphasized at the expense of the physical. The one perfect knight, Galahad, doesn't even seem to be as physically real as the rest. How does one create a perfect knight with an imperfect person?
The world of Le Morte is entirely alien to the modern world, completely saturating the material with the ideal and turning everything into a value that can be applied to ones honor or shame. In fact it often occurs that the value of honor even takes precedence over the value of moral good. If the work has little to offer in the understanding of human psychology, it compensates with the heights of its romantic love, dignity, and tragedy.
Le Morte D'Arthur is also interesting because it alters the stories of Arthur that came before. Malory makes a few asides to readers in the book, but is mostly content to simply put together what had been passed down in different Arthur narratives (from what I've read, anyway). Perhaps the greatest exception to this is his emphasis on Lancelot, who is absolutely Malory's favorite character and seems to be used by Malory to justify his own life (Lancelot is basically invincible and is always blameless in honor, though not in morals).
Like most epics, actions do most of the talking and when characters do speak they do so honestly and directly from the heart. However, unlike some epics, the laws of chivalry make actions less important than how those actions are seen by others. For instance, when Achilles is dishonored by Agamemnon for taking Briseus from him, he is also angry because he had genuine feelings for her as a material object/person. Lancelot, on the other hand, loves Gwenevere and saves her on what seems like a monthly basis, but will only say that he does what will bring her greater worship. The fact that they have a physical relationship is acknowledged but then immediately hidden to leave precedence for the knightliness of his actions and the honor brought to the queen for having such a noble knight.
This unresolved tension is key to the whole story and how it ends, and also seems to be one of the problems of creating a world where ideas are emphasized at the expense of the physical. The one perfect knight, Galahad, doesn't even seem to be as physically real as the rest. How does one create a perfect knight with an imperfect person?