The Wicked Day is the final volume in Mary Stewart’s Arthurian saga, which began with The Crystal Cave. Unlike the first three books in the series, where Merlin is the first-person narrator, The Wicked Day is told in the third person but focuses on the life of Mordred, Arthur’s illegitimate son, born of his incestuous tryst with his half-sister Morgause. In Stewart’s vision of Arthur’s Britain, he and his son are hapless pawns in a tragic fate that neither desire. It would make for a great story – two decent, well-meaning men who love and admire each other but who cannot overcome circumstance and find themselves mortal enemies. And in Stewart’s hands it’s a decent enough story but it lacks any passion.That – in retrospect – is the problem with the entire series. Only rarely did I feel any emotional connection to the characters. Even in this book, where you might expect a more direct connection to events, so much happens that is mere reportage. The first third, the best part, recounts Mordred’s life as a foster child, unknowing of his heritage, in a fisherman’s hut in the Orkneys. When he’s of age, Morgause plucks him from obscurity to raise him in her court, and we get a sense of how the later man developed.But then we get to the later sections and it’s "well, several years pass, and Mordred ...." And the ending feels rushed, as if the author crammed into the last 100 pages the equivalent of all the material she had lingered over in the first three books.I want pathos in my tragedies. I want to feel the agony of Arthur, Guinevere and Bedwyr’s love; the friendship between Arthur and his son; the despair when, despite all, Arthur’s dreams collapse in bloody ruin.I wanted the entire book (the entire series) to read like Merlin’s visions on Bryn Myrddin or Mordred’s as he lay dying at Camlann:Then the rain, and the creak of rowlocks, and the sound of women’s weeping fading into the lapping of the lake water and the hiss of the rain falling.His cheek was on a cushion of thyme. The rain had washed the blood away, and the thyme smelled sweetly of summer.The waves lapped. The oars creaked. The seabirds cried. A porpoise rolled, sleek in the sun. Away on the horizon he could see the golden edge of the kingdom where, since he was a small child, he had always longed to go. (pp. 404-5)But it wasn’t there.I still like the books enough to recommend them to readers interested in Arthurian mythology, if no one else. I’ve always liked the Mordred character and Stewart creates a plausibly good-but-flawed man in her version. And she writes luscious, vivid descriptions of place and people when she has a mind to.
Earlier I commented that Mordred's head, even painted as sympathetically as Stewart does, wasn't a comfortable place to stay for long. I think I know now what Lewis was talking about when he said that writing his Screwtape Letters gave his mind cramps; I think my heart's got a few new knots to be untangled thanks to this book. Don't get me wrong--the style is not bad (though not, I would venture, on the same level of beauty as the Merlin trilogy). And its not even that Mordred himself is particularly evil. This, I think, is the most interesting thing the author does with this character; she takes him out of his traditional role as despicable traiter and villain, and re-humanizes him without rewriting the story or turning the book into one of those "the-bad-guy-was-just-misunderstood" stories that seem to have been born along with post-modernism. King Arthur's "treacherous" son is very human and flawed, and by no means totally innocent--except of the one crime history will never forgive him for. From page one we are invited to witness how fate conspired against Mordred, from the moment of his conception, to make him his own father's bane and downfall, regardless of what he himself thinks of the idea. The similarities and allusions to Oedipus don't end there, either, and on the whole the book savors more of a tragedy than the typical Arthurian Romance; but while I have never been one to deny Tragedy its place, this one left me slightly sickened and furious at the world at large. Perhaps Stewart would be more flattered than otherwise at being able to elicit such a strong reaction. But regardless, this one probably won't be on my "re-read" list anytime soon.
What do You think about The Wicked Day (2003)?
I like this part of the book, "You and I, Emrys,"she had said, giving him the boyhood name Merlin had used for him,"have let ourselves be blinded by prophecy. We have lived under the edge of doom, and feel ourselves now facing the long-threatened fate. But hear this, Emrys: fate is made by men not gods. Our own follies, not the gods, foredoom us. The gods are spirits, they work by men's hands, and there are men who are brave enough to stand up and say; "I am a man; I will not."All throughout the book, it has been mentioned that Mordred will be Arthur's bane and that has plagued them and haunted them. What I like is that even with these foreseen, Arthur and his queen still loved and accepted him. What's sad is that even if Mordred was totally loyal to Arthur, because of this prophecy, he was seen only to be Arthur's bane and nothing more. I was touched by the line I quoted above because if only they have not thought of Mordred as that, then the ending of Arthur's kingdom might have been different. Personally, I really don't believe in prophecies or fortune tellers to be exact. I believe in just living your life with faith in the real living God. I think that is all one needs to be able to live a full and contented life.
—Normalyn Espejo
A good book, though not as good as the Merlin trilogy, partly because of the “absurdities” (the author’s term) inherent in the Mordred romance. Stewart does her utmost to iron out some of these problems, but is less successful here than in the Merlin trilogy. Merlin’s “magic” can be explained by natural causes as well as his role as a prophet. Some elements of this story simply cannot, especially when relating to the inconsistent behaviors of some of the main characters, particularly Arthur. That is not to say the author was unsuccessful with this story. In particular, I appreciate her re-working of the Mordred character. He’s not the Mordred that we often see in movies, or television who’s evil just because...well he is. His name is Mordred for crying out loud! How could he be anything but? (Incidentally, Stewart has an alternative explanation for the name, as well.) He’s ambitious and maybe even a bit cold, but he loves his father, and has no desire to be his “curse.” Furthermore, in the telling of his tale, Stewart examines the workings of fate. The story, though not intentionally so, is almost allegorical: What is the role of fate, and what of free will, and how does good and evil affect one’s life course? Morgause, as the “evil” force represents the binding, coercive, and persistent power of fear: "There will come a day, the wicked day of destiny, when all will come to pass..." While Merlin, the never seen and yet still present force of "good" whispers: "Live what life brings; die what death comes." Mordred, caught in the middle of all this must choose what philosophy he will adopt: Will he choose to see his life as fated, as the cruel machinations of the gods, or will he accept the natural unfolding of his own life and his own choices? This really becomes the most important question of the novel, because the reader knows only too well, he cannot change what is to come.
—Laurie
My favorite rewrite of the Mordred story is Joan Wolf's THE ROAD TO AVALON. There is no need for destiny to rule their actions, because Wolf turned most of the legendary motivations on their heads, with fascinating results.
—Carla Nayland
