I'm going to be biased, because I LOVE Gawain (character from Arthurain legend, not necessarily the one depicted in this book.) I love Gawain and I want him to be happy. I am also happy because Sarah Zettel's retelling did an amazing job of blending several things:- The story of Gawain and the Green Knight (totes classic!)- Gawain and the Loathly Lady (another amazing butt-kicking CLASSIC right there)- Apollo and Laurel (Apollo fell in love with Laurel, the wood-nymph. She changed into a Laurel-tree rather than submit to him. The leaves of Roman Emperors and victors/heroes are made of Laurel because of this.) - kick-ass and BELIEVABLE heroine- Linkage with Roman Empire - very clever, because this gives the story anchorage in time, making it more tangible. - Morgana/Morgan Le Fey- Some mind-ninja mind over magic stuff- Great battle scenes.- Well-written relationships - notable highlights include Arthur and Guinevere, Gawain and Agravaine, Jocosta and Rhian.- Brilliant insights into Gawain's upbringing. His sister's my favourite character and she was in this for a very short space of time. My one BIG issue with this book is that for some reason the author changed the moral of the story of the Loathly Lady around. We all know the answer to the question of What Women Want - it's a film, forgoodness'sake, with the amazing Helen Hunt - it's CHOICE. Women want the power of choice; over their actions, and their bodies especially. Zettel changes the answer to FREEDOM. That's not quite it. It's not the right answer. It's a weird change, considering we all know the real answer, AND what happens to the Green Knight's lady/witch. Although she may have had a superficial choice she had no personal choice. She was an indentured servant, and the result of this was shown in the end.I can kind of see why she changes it, but Zettel didn't have to. Maybe she mixed together too many stories. Two of Gawain's stories and her own, fine. Two of Arthurian legend, one Roman, AND her own I think may have muddied it....BUT, Gawain! And it's well-written. May not be everyone's cup of tea, but this isn't at all a bad way to spend your time. Added bonus - no mention of Guinevere and Lancelot. Which is a lovely breath of fresh air.
I like Kage Baker's Company books (Mendoza, before she's reduced to a simpering, love-sick nonentity, is one of my favorite characters in any series) and I love C.J. Cherryh's Union-Alliance future history (Signy Mallory of ECS Norway ranks as one of the most brilliant characters in SF (IMO) and Downbelow Station is a masterpiece). But I can't stand their forays into fantasy. I couldn't finish The Anvil of the World and Cherryh's fantasy tends to bore me.Sarah Zettel joins that band of authors whose SF I like but whose fantasy leaves me cold. I first met Zettel in her SF author guise - Fool's War, Kingdom of Cages, etc. - and enjoyed her writing. (Though, being reasonably honest, I confess to not remembering anything about the stories; all I remember is that I liked them.) And perhaps I should have known better: I hated A Sorcerer's Treason. But this was a tale of King Arthur, and because I didn't like one book didn't mean that I wouldn't like this one.But that turned out not to be the case. I gave Zettel 117 pages to convince me to go on but her arguments weren't good enough. The writing felt awkward and forced; there was never a point where I could lose myself in the story. I was always aware that I was lounging in a chair reading a book. Even in Mary Stewart's Arthurian saga, which I recently finished rereading and had issues with, I was engaged enough in the story and the characters to want to continue reading. Every few sentences, In Camelot's Shadow's clumsy prose jarred me back into reality.If I had time or inclination, it might be interesting to reread Zettel's SF novels to figure out why she fails for me in a fantasy setting.But in this case, I can't recommend the book. I can see where others might find interest in it, however, and wouldn't want to discourage anyone from trying it.
What do You think about In Camelot's Shadow (2005)?
I'm not going to lie, I was a bit disappointed in this book. I found it too girly and too cliched and I also really didn't like the portrayal of either Gawain or Rhian to be honest. I thought they were both quite shallow and flighty and although some work had clearly gone in to trying to make Rhian spunky and sassy, it just came across as a bit of a cliche and then as soon as she 'fell in love' with Gawain she turned into a simpering idiot. I also didn't really like the magic stuff. I did think the descriptive writing was very good and the scenes were all set up skilfully but I think expected too much and didn't consider that it was essentially just a romance novel at heart.
—Sarah
I don't want to say that I'm a snob, but I think I might have to. It's embarassing to carry around a book that has the word "Camelot" on it. And a lady in a medieval dress. Today I was riding the bus from my house in Bubenec to work in Smichov, and I'm sure that nobody (ladies hassling with strollers, old people with double canes, young and hungover looking guys) cared about what I was reading. If they spoke English or otherwise. But I still hid the cover by angling the book against the seat in front of me...I wonder why? Really. I don't care what people think of me, for the most part. But I do, for some reason, care what they think of my literary taste. That said, "Camelot's Shadow" is not bad at all. It's a fast read, entertaining and easy to get caught up in, for its occasional cliches and worn out phrases. So what's wrong with that? I don't know. I figured I'd do my penance for being an elitist by posting it on the internet. Somebody left the book at our apartment, and thusly, it was put on top of my dresser, which is the unofficial library apartment. My brain is on overload right now, and it's been a good soother. I guess I recommend it to people who would like one of those. Or to, I don't know. People who like renaissance fairs, too.
—Vicki
The writing was excellent and the premise was really intriguing, but the men were rather . . . lustful . . . which was perhaps the point, but I still decided not to finish. Plus, the women seemed to be flat, which was probably due to the society they lived in, where men objectified and subjected them, but still. At least the main character had lots of spunk, and had resolved to take charge of her life, although she didn't have a very good plan. If lustful men (and probably more later in the story, given how the writing was going) don't bother you, then you will probably really like this book.
—Rachel Boling
