I'm just going to say right here, right now, that my knowledge of Arthurian legends is.... weak, to say the least. I am familiar while also unfamiliar. It's a very like the mass population's knowledge of such characters/legends/myths as Frankenstein, Dracula, Robin Hood, Jesus Christ, etc; we know the names, we know some of the famous elements of them, but we also are ignorant of the original sources and all the juicy details. That's me on King Arthur. And considering his fame, I feel almost obligated to review my "history" with the good king, before diving into this review: I grew up watching Disney movies, so of course I'm familiar with (and rather love, to this day) the animated classic, "The Sword in the Stone" (1963). Also, as a child, my mother instilled a love for musicals into all of her kids, though I was especially enraptured, and thus I remember watching Rodger and Hammerstein's "Camelot," though most of the details were lost on me. (I do remember distinctly HATING Guinevere for her love affair with Lancelot...) And finally, when I was a sophomore in high school, I had to read "The Once and Future King," by T.H. White and I despised it, excluding the first part, since it was about Arthur's childhood and hence was the story I was most familiar with, "The Sword in the Stone." The only other exposures I had since were "Monty Python and the Holy Grail," though that hardly counts...Now, eight years later, I find myself positively IN LOVE with this retelling (or alternative universe?) of Arthur. "The Seeing Stone" isn't so much about the famous boy king, but rather his descendant, or other self, or ancestor, or something, a young boy by the same name growing up in medieval England. This Arthur is much like his famed namesake: he aspires to be a squire and eventually a knight, but also is inquisitive and curious and surprisingly just in how he treats others. Arthur has a mysterious companion named Merlin (hmmmmm...), who presents him an obsidian stone and obscure words on what its powers are. Over the course of several months, Arthur finds himself lost in the world of the stone, much as one gets lost in the world of a book, as it unveils the story of King Arthur, his origin, his shockingly parallel life events, and of course, the famous sword in the stone that ultimately proved his kingship. Again, the book isn't really about THAT Arthur. It's about a boy and his writing. It's about superstitions and religion and power. It's about curiosity and good deeds that don't go unpunished. It's about social class, betrothals, dead babies, tailbones, Halloween, Christmastide, traditions, roles, and a corrupt King John. The writing is superb. I had an English professor once praise the hell out of Ernest Hemmingway for being so simplistic yet so powerful, and I didn't really understand what he meant, until I read this book. The author sticks to the basic of basics: simple yet fluid imagery, inner monologues that gives the audience respect for their intelligence, and conversations that ordinary people would have that isn't pure exposition. Without the preachiness or angsty feels of other young adult novels, "The Seeing Stone" gives me characters that are actually PEOPLE, albeit of the middle ages. This book doesn't preach, it merely shows us through the words and actions of the characters and allows us to make our own judgments. This book is a gem beyond words. Is it the best written novel? Probably not. Has it the most unique story or execution? No, but it still must be given credit for feeling like I was looking into my own obsidian seeing stone, watching the two Arthurs live their daily lives and ponder about the world and of words. But of course, the protagonist, our narrator, is the Arthur who I really grow to love. His ideas are centuries ahead of his time but doesn't realize it. He's still a determined boy, full of youth and vigor, desperately wanting to impress his father and to win over his brother. He may have been only 13, but he encompassed all ages, making him truly an "old soul." I can't really say much more about this book except that I'm so glad I finally have been finding individual books (slowly but surely) to bring me back into the world of good reads. I've been thirsting for literature, and now I hunger to finish the Arthur trilogy. That ending didn't necessarily shock me, but it did tease at my curiosity. And for an avid bookworm, anxious to fall back into reading excessively, that is always a good sign.
"Tumber Hill! It's my clamber-and-tumble-and-beech-and-bramble hill!" Arthur scribbled in his journal.Arthur and the seeing stone is an adventure. It is a journey of a boy who lives a normal life until he receives a stone. "A stone?!" I wondered. Well, it's not any old stone, it's Arthur's seeing stone.The story plot was quite boring until Crossley-Holland magically adds in a subplot: the seeing stone. At first, the subplot was very puzzling, but when the book came to an end the subplot finally seemed to be similar to Arthur's real life.The two plots were parallel. At first, I thought the two plots were the same, but different. I thought that Lady Helen and Sir John were Arthur's foster parents, but I was also wrong about who the real parents were. Then again, the book was very convincing and made me feel like the subplot was true. Crossley-Holland was wonderful at describing the setting and engaging the reader. The way the story was described made me feel like I was in the book with Arthur himself. The writer used language techniques, such as sensory imagery, descriptive language and even a little foreshadowing! The way he pinpointed his language techniques was in his repetitive use of figurative language. This included his overuse of similes, metaphors and personifications. However, they came together to create his unique style of writing. The only thing I absolutely could not stand was the ending. After enduring 321 pages of adventurous fantasy, I found it appalling to read the ridiculous ending! When writers leave the book open-ended, the reader feels the question that he has flying over the top of his head. That is exactly what I felt. The writer ends the story with a cliffhanger and a dozen questions. I never understood, why would Merlin give Arthur the stone in the first place? And what did Arthur learn from the stone of his? This book was great but I wish the ending wasn't so open. Guess I can't give you a spoiler since there is no ending!
What do You think about The Seeing Stone (2015)?
‘The Seeing Stone’ is a children’s novel, and as such, has extremely short chapters, sometimes only 1 page long in places. The way it is written is from Arthur’s point of view, and the broken up chapters, that sometimes don’t seem to link together, feel almost like diary entries. Although this book is set in 1199, the language used isn’t old fashioned but there are objects that they use that aren’t really around today. In my copy of the book, there is a definitions page though so this helps a lot, and also there is a character list, with who each character is detailed clearly. The writing style annoyed me slightly in that there were a lot of exclamation points that weren’t always necessary, and it made the language sound quite immature.Reading this I had a few problems in that the characters don’t seem to sound their ages. For instance, because Arthur is only thirteen and he is the narrator, it feels almost as if all of the other characters are also his age, which isn’t the case.I really liked the fast-paced nature of this book, helped by the short chapters and the medieval style illustrations that were in my copy really helped set the scene for the story. The inclusion of Welsh words was really well done and I think this is possibly one of the reasons I used to like these books so much, as when I was originally reading this about ten years ago, I was learning Welsh.After about halfway, I found that I was losing interest in this book. The way it is written is obvious that it is a series and not a standalone book because things happen very slowly and the alternating narrative got a little distracting, to the point where I much preferred one point of view over the other. Some of the mysteries became very predictable and I was forcing myself to keep reading.Another thing that annoyed me with this book was the dominance of religion in the story. I understand that in 1199 this would have been how people were, and I have nothing against religion,though I am not religious myself, but I found that sometimes it took over from the storyline and some of the other themes weren’t explored to their full potential.Near the end, the story seemed to pick up and although the events were quite predictable, it was actually enjoyable by the end. I think this would be great for younger readers but it didn’t really draw me in enough so I won’t be rereading the rest of the series.
—Charlotte Jones
In the beginning i felt a little bit confused from the first chapter and what Tumber hill was but through out the story you will understand more and I think its very interesting that Crossley Holland takes us through Arthur's life step by step and when the Stone comes in, that is a huge income to the story because it gives us so many questions to ask and why did Merlin Give it to him? I think the relationship between Serle and Arthur is interesting too and him and Gatty and Grace. I dont like that the Author gave so many chapters with so many questions in our heads that will not be answered and they are interesting but they wont have answers to them and how do we know his life if he become's a king? How do we know if he likes serving Lord Stephen and how did it go. Maybe while we are asking these questions in the second book we might find answers to them.
—Tia Magdy
When I first started this book I thought it fit solidly into the "dirty Middle Ages" stereotype. "Dirty Middle Ages" being one side of that weird divide in medieval historical fiction that books seemed to fall on either side of: highly romanticized, probably with magic or fantasy of some sort, or high into all the 21st centuries idea of "gross" details.Having finished it, I'm not so sure.The details are fascinating, sometimes gross, but at the same time, honest. It doesn't feel like the author is judging the medieval people by their details. They're still people: they just live in a different time than we do.The 100 short chapters made it really easy to put down, but anytime I was reading it I was enjoying it. Arthur's manor seemed like a real place.The dash of magic in the namesake of the book--"the seeing stone"--and Arthur's friend Merlin were interesting, but not the highlight for me. I really enjoyed Arthur's voice and his simply-worded observations about his life in particular and life in general.
—R. G. Nairam
