One of those stories one must have read. I was surprised to see how relatively unimportant Arthur himself is in the narrative. He plays a role fit for a king, not as the main protagonist, but as a constant and authoritative presence in the background. As if, without his ubiquitous and dominant presence, things could never unfold as they do, though he hardly ever is an active agent. That makes Arthur awesome and admirable, but also a tragic victim of circumstance. Because when he does play the role of active agent, he never seems to live up to the pattern of expectation the reader infers from Arthur's overarching presence in other parts of the narrative. Tragic is indeed the right word, because when Arthur acts it is still without his own volition and against unbeatable odds. And this makes Arthur a hero among heroes. I was in search of what could be considered the "root" of the legends of Arthur, and so Thomas Malory is the often mentioned name. This was the closest thing to the Malory version the library had, so... I gave it a shot.It's hard to see from this particular retelling how the Arthurian legends could have inspired SO much as it really just feels like a random walk through a very consistent, predictable set of stories (i.e., knight does battle for fair maiden, knight is the strongest and the battle is hard fought but ultimately won). So having nothing to compare it to, I suppose it's a fine retelling.
What do You think about The Death Of King Arthur (2010)?
I love Peter Ackroyd's loose translations. Makes these classics enjoyable and readable.
—Kat
Sagged in the middle but picked up at the end.
—rose_beauty
