I very quickly read through this trilogy, which I suppose shows how much I enjoyed reading it! I’m a big Arthurian myth geek, ever since I took an awesome class on the subject two springs ago. Kevin Crossley-Holland’s Arthur trilogy incorporates nearly all the old stories I read in that class and adds in a new one, about a reborn Arthur living in the time of the Christian crusades. I love that the old stories are updated a little bit (they certainly make more sense in these books than they did in the originals), and that they form a coherent line of action. I love too that the new Arthur is a little bit different than the original, and that though he watches King Arthur’s story, and though that story mirrors his own just a bit, the new Arthur makes his own destiny and his own story.
Arthur is generally so much better than everyone else around him, but that he doesn’t lord it over people and nor does it make him a saint. He’s a kid who is trying to figure out who he is, what he believes, and what he wants to do with his life. And, yeah, he’s the freakin’ king who was and will be again– shouldn’t he be a litter bit better than everyone else, anyway? But I liked that he sees goodness in people as well as the bad bits, and that he sees badness in himself a little bit, too. It makes him seem more human and less like a saintly ruler, you know? (The King Arthur in his seeing stone was a bit more human than in the original tales, as well. It was a nice change.)
The other characters were maybe not as lovable as Arthur was, but they were fully fleshed out and interesting in their own right. I especially liked Lord Stephen, the…what was he? The lord of the area where Arthur lived? I think that’s it. Anyway, I probably liked him best of all the secondary characters because he was a bit like Arthur in that he was more good than bad. Though, I suppose it was easy for the good-er characters to shine because they were surrounded by bad people– or at least people who did bad things.
The plots of the books themselves were good, though I think in the second book Arthur’s story was a little bit trampled by King Arthur’s story in the seeing stone. The third book was very exciting (and bloody), though of course any book set during a crusade is sure to get the blood boiling even if one finds crusades disgusting things. I think I like the first book’s plot best, just because I like that whole getting-to-know-you-thing. It was nice seeing what life was like in 1199/1200 ; I don’t think I’ve read a lot of books set in that specific time period.
What else? The writing! The writing was lovely. It felt like an old-fashioned fairy tale, almost, but with modern contractions and grammar and things.
If you have any interest at all in the Arthurian legend or historical fiction, get these books. I’ve been shoving them onto all my other medieval studies friends and I’d love to be able to squeal about them with you, too!
Under this jump I’ve put the header about each book that normally goes at the top of my reviews. Click the thingy if you want to check them out! (If you’re reading this in a feedreader, I think it should show the whole post automatically.)
Continue reading »
I’ve completed yet another challenge, this time the R.I.P. IV challenge hosted by Carl.
Loading ...
