What do you think?
Rate this book
The Three Damosels #2
The King's Damosel
A magical glimpse into the legendary age of Arthurian chivalry. Lynett, unwilling bride of the Round Table Knight, Gaheris, who leaves her husband and the true love of her life, his brother Gareth, to become the King's messenger. Knightly chivalry is beset by Dark Age barbarity in this richly woven tapestry of heroes and heroines, monsters and saints, temptresses and magicians.
176 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1975
5 people are currently reading
1449 people want to read
About the author
Vera Chapman
39 books40 followersVera Chapman, also known as Vera Ivy May Fogerty or, in The Tolkien Society, as Belladonna Took. She founded The Tolkien Society, and also wrote a number of psudeo-historical and Arthurian books.
She was born in Bournemouth, England on the 8 May 1898 and lived in South Africa until she went to Oxford where she was one of the first woman to matriculate as a full member of Oxford University. She founded the first Tolkien Society of which she was secretary. She persuaded J R R Tolkien to become the society's honorary president. She wrote her first novel in 1975 and continued writing until her death in 1996.
She was born in Bournemouth, England on the 8 May 1898 and lived in South Africa until she went to Oxford where she was one of the first woman to matriculate as a full member of Oxford University. She founded the first Tolkien Society of which she was secretary. She persuaded J R R Tolkien to become the society's honorary president. She wrote her first novel in 1975 and continued writing until her death in 1996.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 50 reviews
March 3, 2015
This book was the reason I checked out The Three Damosels in the first place. Because, as with most readers who have reviewed this work, I was a BIG fan of Quest for Camelot (which was VERY loosely adapted from this), this was the book of the three novels that I was most looking forward to reading.
Warning to the lovers of QFC: it is NOTHING like the novel. That is not to say that the book is bad. Not at all, in point of fact. It's just that the movie has little to do with the book. They're both absolutely wonderful for entirely different reasons.
Lynett has a lot of Katelynn's personality, even if her back story is entirely different. And the character of Gareth in the film is actually an amalgamation of two different characters from the book. He has the name and personality of the character with the name of Gareth, and the blindness and chemistry with Lynett that the character Lucius has in the book.
The book has nothing to do with the search for Excalibur, and Lord Ruber is a mere footnote at the beginning of the book (as the original adventure with Gareth and Lynett is an already documented Arthurian legend that Chapman was merely steering away from.) Chapman instead tells what happens AFTER the supposed happy ending alluded to at the end of Gareth and Lynett's original adventure and adds on to Lynett's back story and life afterward.
I can't lie. This version of the story is very dark, and you feel for Lynett in a way that is hard to describe without giving too much away. In this story, there is no real bad guy. There are terrible people who do horrific things (including Lynett at some parts), and there are the typical witches and magic of Arthurian legends. However, the real bad guy is merely the ideas and ideals of the time spoken of, for they are what really plague poor Lynett's soul through most of the book. It's enough to make you want to punch people.
And if you like a romance with a happy ending, this is definitely NOT the book for you.
Warning to the lovers of QFC: it is NOTHING like the novel. That is not to say that the book is bad. Not at all, in point of fact. It's just that the movie has little to do with the book. They're both absolutely wonderful for entirely different reasons.
Lynett has a lot of Katelynn's personality, even if her back story is entirely different. And the character of Gareth in the film is actually an amalgamation of two different characters from the book. He has the name and personality of the character with the name of Gareth, and the blindness and chemistry with Lynett that the character Lucius has in the book.
The book has nothing to do with the search for Excalibur, and Lord Ruber is a mere footnote at the beginning of the book (as the original adventure with Gareth and Lynett is an already documented Arthurian legend that Chapman was merely steering away from.) Chapman instead tells what happens AFTER the supposed happy ending alluded to at the end of Gareth and Lynett's original adventure and adds on to Lynett's back story and life afterward.
I can't lie. This version of the story is very dark, and you feel for Lynett in a way that is hard to describe without giving too much away. In this story, there is no real bad guy. There are terrible people who do horrific things (including Lynett at some parts), and there are the typical witches and magic of Arthurian legends. However, the real bad guy is merely the ideas and ideals of the time spoken of, for they are what really plague poor Lynett's soul through most of the book. It's enough to make you want to punch people.
And if you like a romance with a happy ending, this is definitely NOT the book for you.
January 3, 2010
A brilliant fantasy story about a girl who was raped finding her sense of worth in a time when a woman's only value was her virginity.
February 12, 2025
This book needs a big fat ***TRIGGER WARNING*** label.
But I'll try to contain my moral outrage to get a couple of coherent thoughts in first...
1) I really want to know how this ever became Quest for Camelot. A lot of decisions were made and I need to know what they were.
2) I think in all fairness I should have read The Once and Future King first. This book would perhaps make more sense to me if I had.
3) If you are a woman looking for empowerment, this is not the book for you. It's the prototypical "ugly tomboy" who really is beautiful (see: the author's description), really isn't useful (see: our "heroine" being saved from every situation), and really does everything she does for men (see: all of her motivations from page one).
***TRIGGER WARNING***
Okay. I'm sorry. I can't get past the idea that you're not worthy to carry the Holy Grail until you've forgiven your rapist. No. There is no valid excuse. And that's really all I can say without using all caps or keyboard smashing.
But I'll try to contain my moral outrage to get a couple of coherent thoughts in first...
1) I really want to know how this ever became Quest for Camelot. A lot of decisions were made and I need to know what they were.
2) I think in all fairness I should have read The Once and Future King first. This book would perhaps make more sense to me if I had.
3) If you are a woman looking for empowerment, this is not the book for you. It's the prototypical "ugly tomboy" who really is beautiful (see: the author's description), really isn't useful (see: our "heroine" being saved from every situation), and really does everything she does for men (see: all of her motivations from page one).
***TRIGGER WARNING***
Okay. I'm sorry. I can't get past the idea that you're not worthy to carry the Holy Grail until you've forgiven your rapist. No. There is no valid excuse. And that's really all I can say without using all caps or keyboard smashing.
March 19, 2016
I love Quest for Camelot with all my heart for the beautiful trainwreck of a movie that it is. So, a couple decades later, I thought it was time to give the source material a try. Sadly, I was disappointed. (Probably about as disappointed as most people are when I promise to show them a great movie and they are treated to Quest for Camelot, come to think of it.)
I missed Kaylee, but found in Lynnett a reasonable substitute. But where Quest for Camelot focused on a mad chase through an enchanted forest to save the kingdom from a cruel knight, this is your typical "let's find the Grail and have a lot of visions and run from witches and talk about the Old Powers even though we are pretty Christian" story. I think the seventies must have been a wild time for King Arthur fans, between these books and Mists of Avalon and etc. It's a pretty straightforward, striving-for-Chaucer-but-really-more-Once-and-Future-King type of Arthurian novel.
Overall, between the weird insistence on finding forgiveness for her rapist, the olde-timey morality play feeling of it all, and all the unnecessary tragedy, I have to say I far prefer the Gerald Morris brand of Arthurian adventure tales featuring savage damsels.
I missed Kaylee, but found in Lynnett a reasonable substitute. But where Quest for Camelot focused on a mad chase through an enchanted forest to save the kingdom from a cruel knight, this is your typical "let's find the Grail and have a lot of visions and run from witches and talk about the Old Powers even though we are pretty Christian" story. I think the seventies must have been a wild time for King Arthur fans, between these books and Mists of Avalon and etc. It's a pretty straightforward, striving-for-Chaucer-but-really-more-Once-and-Future-King type of Arthurian novel.
Overall, between the weird insistence on finding forgiveness for her rapist, the olde-timey morality play feeling of it all, and all the unnecessary tragedy, I have to say I far prefer the Gerald Morris brand of Arthurian adventure tales featuring savage damsels.
July 29, 2018
I came to this book as the majority of us here I think, thanks to the animated movie Quest for Camelot (indeed a favorite of mine). Though it has nothing to do with the movie, the story told in the book was pretty good. So much time had passed since I last read an arthurian legend, so it was nice to go back to all the adventures and magic and knights and quests, this time, under a woman's perspective. I must admit I really liked Lynett (in some aspects she actually resembles Kayley), especially her strength to overcome her fears and recover from all the suffering she went through. It gave the well known arthurian legend a feminist twist, which I loved. And though it seemed slow at times (blame the lack of action scenes) and I found a little bit confusing all the Holy Grail thing, it was quite enjoyable and emocional, hence the woman empowerment it reflected and that bittersweet ending.
June 27, 2022
This book was the basis of the fantastic animated movie Quest for Camelot. I have to say the film's writers did an amazing job if this was what they started with because it is absolutely horrendous.
December 1, 2013
This is the book the animated movie Quest for Camelot was based on. However, they are very different so don't expect whimsical talking dragons or plants that move of the own volition in this story. There isn't even a mention of Excalibur.
This is a retelling of two Arthurian legends: Malory's "Sir Beaumains" and a Grail Quest, from the point of view of Lynett, a tomboy in a time of knights and chivalry. Caught between her desire for travel and adventure and the expectations of medieval womanhood, Lynett becomes King Arthur's messenger of peace. But her own heart is in turmoil. Married to a man she is indifferent to and in love with her sister's husband, she longs for a love she can call her own. But when she finds it in an unexpected place she must reexamine everything she thought she knew about love, happiness and sacrifice.
However, there is a major issue with this book: its treatment of rape (trigger warning).
Less than twenty-five pages in, Lynett is raped by her father’s friend Bagdemagus at thirteen. Bagdemagus believes her dressing and acting as a boy and trying to learn how to be his page is actually all a giant ploy begging for sex. Because women who appear to like doing “man-only” things are really just pretending interest so they can be that much more attractive (insert Fake Geek Girl™ tangent here). Anyway, he blathers the usual pre-rape excuses about how she’s been “asking for it” when she tells him no, proceeds to rape her, again spouts the cliché line about how the hype didn’t live up to the product, and rides away, leaving her alone in the woods. Merlin shows up randomly at this point and tells her to pick herself up and get over it. Which apparently she does, though she harbors some resentment that she takes out on Bagdemagus later to her own detriment.
There are a lot of things that bother me about this scenario. First, the rape-as-origin-story for a lead female character is really problematic. In this day and age it’s really overdone, though it might not have been when this book was published in 1976. It takes away agency she might have had by making her the victim of something that was done to her that she then has to go off and avenge. This is particularly annoying with Lynett, who has a perfectly good reason later to go off adventuring: she has to save her lands from being taken over by Ruber, and she was already a tomboy who wanted to be a knight to begin with so she really didn’t need a revenge incentive. She also doesn’t particularly want to be married to Gaheris even without the problem of her not being a virgin bride.
Second, telling a rape victim “oh well, it’s not like your virginity was that important to you anyway, no big loss right?” is heavily insulting even outside a culture where female premarital virginity is important. Dude, it’s her virginity, not yours. It should have been her choice when or when not to give it up even if she didn’t value it in the marriage market. I get that you (the author, through Merlin) are trying to say female virginity is overvalued in society and is often mixed up with purity, but you don’t say that to a thirteen-year-old virgin who was literally just raped in front of you. You also don’t say to your raped character “You have to forgive him” and then tell us throughout the book her lack of forgiveness is her greatest failing. Choosing to forgive such a wrong is important in order to not let it ruin your life with bitterness, but it’s a process. Forcing it on the character as a necessity in order to escape peril later in the way that the book does I find extremely uncomfortable.
Third, and most important, Lynett fails to ask Merlin the obvious question: "where were you when he was raping me?" Merlin seems to know all about it, which means he either knew beforehand (being Merlin) or he was watching. Which just makes it worse. If Lynett isn’t going to say it, I will: "What the HELL, douchebag." This is the problem I had with Merlin in Mary Stewart’s Merlin Trilogy and it turns up here again. Just going along with what you’ve foreseen as Destiny means you come off as an enormous lazy jerk because you sit back and watch when stuff like this happens instead of trying to prevent it. This is possibly one of the most annoyingly mysterious and unhelpful versions of Merlin I’ve read to-date. I wanted to throttle him every time he showed up after that.
This is a retelling of two Arthurian legends: Malory's "Sir Beaumains" and a Grail Quest, from the point of view of Lynett, a tomboy in a time of knights and chivalry. Caught between her desire for travel and adventure and the expectations of medieval womanhood, Lynett becomes King Arthur's messenger of peace. But her own heart is in turmoil. Married to a man she is indifferent to and in love with her sister's husband, she longs for a love she can call her own. But when she finds it in an unexpected place she must reexamine everything she thought she knew about love, happiness and sacrifice.
However, there is a major issue with this book: its treatment of rape (trigger warning).
Less than twenty-five pages in, Lynett is raped by her father’s friend Bagdemagus at thirteen. Bagdemagus believes her dressing and acting as a boy and trying to learn how to be his page is actually all a giant ploy begging for sex. Because women who appear to like doing “man-only” things are really just pretending interest so they can be that much more attractive (insert Fake Geek Girl™ tangent here). Anyway, he blathers the usual pre-rape excuses about how she’s been “asking for it” when she tells him no, proceeds to rape her, again spouts the cliché line about how the hype didn’t live up to the product, and rides away, leaving her alone in the woods. Merlin shows up randomly at this point and tells her to pick herself up and get over it. Which apparently she does, though she harbors some resentment that she takes out on Bagdemagus later to her own detriment.
There are a lot of things that bother me about this scenario. First, the rape-as-origin-story for a lead female character is really problematic. In this day and age it’s really overdone, though it might not have been when this book was published in 1976. It takes away agency she might have had by making her the victim of something that was done to her that she then has to go off and avenge. This is particularly annoying with Lynett, who has a perfectly good reason later to go off adventuring: she has to save her lands from being taken over by Ruber, and she was already a tomboy who wanted to be a knight to begin with so she really didn’t need a revenge incentive. She also doesn’t particularly want to be married to Gaheris even without the problem of her not being a virgin bride.
Second, telling a rape victim “oh well, it’s not like your virginity was that important to you anyway, no big loss right?” is heavily insulting even outside a culture where female premarital virginity is important. Dude, it’s her virginity, not yours. It should have been her choice when or when not to give it up even if she didn’t value it in the marriage market. I get that you (the author, through Merlin) are trying to say female virginity is overvalued in society and is often mixed up with purity, but you don’t say that to a thirteen-year-old virgin who was literally just raped in front of you. You also don’t say to your raped character “You have to forgive him” and then tell us throughout the book her lack of forgiveness is her greatest failing. Choosing to forgive such a wrong is important in order to not let it ruin your life with bitterness, but it’s a process. Forcing it on the character as a necessity in order to escape peril later in the way that the book does I find extremely uncomfortable.
Third, and most important, Lynett fails to ask Merlin the obvious question: "where were you when he was raping me?" Merlin seems to know all about it, which means he either knew beforehand (being Merlin) or he was watching. Which just makes it worse. If Lynett isn’t going to say it, I will: "What the HELL, douchebag." This is the problem I had with Merlin in Mary Stewart’s Merlin Trilogy and it turns up here again. Just going along with what you’ve foreseen as Destiny means you come off as an enormous lazy jerk because you sit back and watch when stuff like this happens instead of trying to prevent it. This is possibly one of the most annoyingly mysterious and unhelpful versions of Merlin I’ve read to-date. I wanted to throttle him every time he showed up after that.
January 10, 2021
Devoured this one :)
Note - although the children's movie Quest for Camelot is based on ideas and images from this book, this is not a children's book! This is full of the violent images and misogyny of the Breton laies.
So, don't hand it to your kids, but enjoy it for yourself. I might just come back to this one. Our Lynette is made of the same tough stuff as the Maid of Sark.
Note - although the children's movie Quest for Camelot is based on ideas and images from this book, this is not a children's book! This is full of the violent images and misogyny of the Breton laies.
So, don't hand it to your kids, but enjoy it for yourself. I might just come back to this one. Our Lynette is made of the same tough stuff as the Maid of Sark.
October 7, 2024
It’s interesting to see how this became the film Quest for Camelot, but I’ve got to say … the movie is an improvement.
August 26, 2023
Apparently this the book that the movie Quest for Camelot is based on. VERY LOSELY BASED. TW. SA and blood
January 23, 2016
When I found out that one of my childhood movies, The Quest for Camelot was actually based upon a book, I knew I had to read it. For comparison's sake, of course. Before reading it, though, I re-watched the film, which I enjoyed as a kid. As an adult, I found some bits corny (the singing, the voice-acting, the animation), and some bits still impressive (the concept, some character designs, some characters).
Now, since this book was translated into a movie for kids, I had foolishly assumed that it would be a book that would be quite palatable to a young audience as well. As young as, say, an eight-year-old. Maybe even younger.
A word of warning: do not, unless you are quite confident on your eight-year-old's maturity, let your child read this.
By the time I've barely started with the second chapter, rape is already added to the mix. Not detailed, no, but rape is rape and it is always terrible to read about, regardless of the details involved. And there's a beheading, and pillaging, and arranged marriage, and generally unpleasant details that were NOT in the movie. Actually, a lot of things were not in the movie, including the book's actual plot. Which was probably why the book and movie do not share titles. It's still good that they credited the book as their source of inspiration, though.
Now, if experienced separately from the movie, the book is quite a read. The story is focused on a heroine, proving time and again that she doesn't need help, especially from men, in an era where men generally get to do what they want and women either need saving, protecting, or to be taught their place.
Generally, I liked it. It's not over-detailed, especially since the heroine goes through a LOT of adventuring. So one can read it casually and still enjoy it.
What I didn't quite like is that the Holy Grail is jammed near the end. It didn't feel forced. But it did feel like the story was required to have the Holy Cup in it somewhere since it is a story where Arthur and Merlin are involved.
To conclude, it's a good read, especially for fans of King Arthur and the Knights of the round table, of magic and adventure, of women breaking medieval rules, and of fascinating blind characters who can see more than those with sight could.
Now, since this book was translated into a movie for kids, I had foolishly assumed that it would be a book that would be quite palatable to a young audience as well. As young as, say, an eight-year-old. Maybe even younger.
A word of warning: do not, unless you are quite confident on your eight-year-old's maturity, let your child read this.
By the time I've barely started with the second chapter, rape is already added to the mix. Not detailed, no, but rape is rape and it is always terrible to read about, regardless of the details involved. And there's a beheading, and pillaging, and arranged marriage, and generally unpleasant details that were NOT in the movie. Actually, a lot of things were not in the movie, including the book's actual plot. Which was probably why the book and movie do not share titles. It's still good that they credited the book as their source of inspiration, though.
Now, if experienced separately from the movie, the book is quite a read. The story is focused on a heroine, proving time and again that she doesn't need help, especially from men, in an era where men generally get to do what they want and women either need saving, protecting, or to be taught their place.
Generally, I liked it. It's not over-detailed, especially since the heroine goes through a LOT of adventuring. So one can read it casually and still enjoy it.
What I didn't quite like is that the Holy Grail is jammed near the end. It didn't feel forced. But it did feel like the story was required to have the Holy Cup in it somewhere since it is a story where Arthur and Merlin are involved.
To conclude, it's a good read, especially for fans of King Arthur and the Knights of the round table, of magic and adventure, of women breaking medieval rules, and of fascinating blind characters who can see more than those with sight could.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 22, 2013
Also posted at: http://ethpages.blogspot.com/
It wasn't as good as I expected, but still a beautiful tale :)
I admit my guilt: I watched the movie before I read the book. Granted, the movie was VERY loosely based on the novel, so I guess my crime is justified ;). I won’t really compare the book and the movie because, as said before, the movie was VERY VERY loosely based. (But as a side note, I really liked the movie :)).
This novel was a beautiful tale, sad and hopeful all at the same time. It was told much like a myth or a fairytale, which means it’s very simple and smooth flowing. I had no issues with this novel other than wanting it to go more into detail about the adventures Lynett had with the knights; their bond with each other was cute, but I think it would have been more aww- inducing if we had seen more of their tales (instead of a brief overview). (But that’s just a minor, minor complaint. I really loved this book overall!)
I appreciated all the messages in this Arthurian tale (the strong feminist theme, learning about true love, and forgiveness- to name a few:)). l adored watching Lynett grow from this insecure tomboy to a confident young woman who eventually understood love. Her relationship with Lucius was so sweet and heartbreaking; it’s impossible not to root for them (given what had happened to Lynett earlier and Lucius’ own circumstances), and at the end when he makes the most romantic yet devastating choice, it’s hard to hold back a few tears.
Overall, it was a beautiful read, and I recommend it to anyone looking for an Arthurian tale with a feminist kick.
Thanks for reading!:)
It wasn't as good as I expected, but still a beautiful tale :)
I admit my guilt: I watched the movie before I read the book. Granted, the movie was VERY loosely based on the novel, so I guess my crime is justified ;). I won’t really compare the book and the movie because, as said before, the movie was VERY VERY loosely based. (But as a side note, I really liked the movie :)).
This novel was a beautiful tale, sad and hopeful all at the same time. It was told much like a myth or a fairytale, which means it’s very simple and smooth flowing. I had no issues with this novel other than wanting it to go more into detail about the adventures Lynett had with the knights; their bond with each other was cute, but I think it would have been more aww- inducing if we had seen more of their tales (instead of a brief overview). (But that’s just a minor, minor complaint. I really loved this book overall!)
I appreciated all the messages in this Arthurian tale (the strong feminist theme, learning about true love, and forgiveness- to name a few:)). l adored watching Lynett grow from this insecure tomboy to a confident young woman who eventually understood love. Her relationship with Lucius was so sweet and heartbreaking; it’s impossible not to root for them (given what had happened to Lynett earlier and Lucius’ own circumstances), and at the end when he makes the most romantic yet devastating choice, it’s hard to hold back a few tears.
Overall, it was a beautiful read, and I recommend it to anyone looking for an Arthurian tale with a feminist kick.
Thanks for reading!:)
December 8, 2022
It's been a while since a book's made me as angry as this one did.
As a long-time fan of the film Quest for Camelot, I'd been hunting down a copy of this book for years. I finally got my hands on it and, if you are also a fan of the film, DO NOT READ THIS BOOK. The only good I found in it was a new appreciation for how the team who made Quest for Camelot took the only decent parts and turned them into a tangible and (in my opinion) good story.
To start off, our main character (the titular "King's Damosel") Lynett's whole personality revolves around that she was raped when she was thirteen and how she must forgive her aggressor because he (a 30 or 40-year old man) didn't know any better. ABSOLUTE BULL SHIT. EW EW EW. GROSS GROSS GROSS. HATE HATE HATE.
She spends the majority of the book moping that she's worthless because she's not a virgin and she's ugly. And by ugly, of course they mean she's "YA protagonist plain." Her hair is straight and her eyes are dark and she's thin. OH THE TRAGEDY!!!
I don't care if this is a product of it's time or whatever, the whole thing is absolutely unforgivably BAD. Everything about it is BAD! Except Lucius (the book counterpart to Gareth in the film). He's a cutie, but he's only in the last 50 pages.
DO NOT hunt down this book. DO NOT buy this book. DO NOT read this book, especially if you are a Quest for Camelot fan! #notmykayley
As a long-time fan of the film Quest for Camelot, I'd been hunting down a copy of this book for years. I finally got my hands on it and, if you are also a fan of the film, DO NOT READ THIS BOOK. The only good I found in it was a new appreciation for how the team who made Quest for Camelot took the only decent parts and turned them into a tangible and (in my opinion) good story.
To start off, our main character (the titular "King's Damosel") Lynett's whole personality revolves around that she was raped when she was thirteen and how she must forgive her aggressor because he (a 30 or 40-year old man) didn't know any better. ABSOLUTE BULL SHIT. EW EW EW. GROSS GROSS GROSS. HATE HATE HATE.
She spends the majority of the book moping that she's worthless because she's not a virgin and she's ugly. And by ugly, of course they mean she's "YA protagonist plain." Her hair is straight and her eyes are dark and she's thin. OH THE TRAGEDY!!!
I don't care if this is a product of it's time or whatever, the whole thing is absolutely unforgivably BAD. Everything about it is BAD! Except Lucius (the book counterpart to Gareth in the film). He's a cutie, but he's only in the last 50 pages.
DO NOT hunt down this book. DO NOT buy this book. DO NOT read this book, especially if you are a Quest for Camelot fan! #notmykayley
January 18, 2024
I've been wanting to read this since I was a little girl because my favorite movie was based on it. That said.... I was sadly disappointed.
I read a summary of the plot probably around 10-15 years ago and that summary was better written and more exciting than this book. The giant plot twist at the end is spoiled from the get-go. Further, this book relies on you KNOWING Arthurian legend, and gives you know explanation or context as the story goes, which makes the part where they all search for the Holy Grail incredibly confusing and anti-climatic.
Further, Lynett's arc forgiving her rapist is so gross and made me incredibly angry... he was such a terrible character and she forgave him so easily as an adult despite it traumatizing her immensly. Terrible writing on that part.
Further, Lynett's relationship with Gareth is underwhelming, no more than two pages and I wish we could have seen more of that.
This book is the definition of telling, not showing. I really wish the author had expanded because the plot and elements are so strong, but the lack of character development, interaction, pacing, and emotional build-up leave a lot to be desired.
I read a summary of the plot probably around 10-15 years ago and that summary was better written and more exciting than this book. The giant plot twist at the end is spoiled from the get-go. Further, this book relies on you KNOWING Arthurian legend, and gives you know explanation or context as the story goes, which makes the part where they all search for the Holy Grail incredibly confusing and anti-climatic.
Further, Lynett's arc forgiving her rapist is so gross and made me incredibly angry... he was such a terrible character and she forgave him so easily as an adult despite it traumatizing her immensly. Terrible writing on that part.
Further, Lynett's relationship with Gareth is underwhelming, no more than two pages and I wish we could have seen more of that.
This book is the definition of telling, not showing. I really wish the author had expanded because the plot and elements are so strong, but the lack of character development, interaction, pacing, and emotional build-up leave a lot to be desired.
Want to read
December 23, 2010the movie was really good
"Quest of Camelot"
"Quest of Camelot"
July 12, 2020
Like the majority of the readers, I wager, I was lured to this book because of my love for Quest For Camelot. I was interested because rarely are there Arthurian-inspired novels where a woman is the main character, it's most often Arthur, Lancelot or Merlin.
Having read this novel though, I am glad Warner Bros. took as many liberties with the cartoon as they did. A girl who was raped by a man she trusted and looked up to, would not have made for a good kid's movie.
The fact, however, that she's persuaded to forgive the man rather than bring him to well-deserved justice doesn't sit well with me. What type of message is that to send to young girls? Especially to anyone in as unfortunate a situation as Lynett. "Forgive your rapist because it'll be best for you." Lynett is haunted throughout the book for her hatred towards Bagdemagus, I constantly feared she would be the one punished for it even after his death.
The novel itself is well-written though all the interesting plots (like how Lynett's travels with the knights went, their meeting with the witch or the robbers, how she and Gareth saved her sister and servants from Sir Ruber, or even what she did to acquire the Holy Grail), are all slighted and only mentioned as "oh this happened on their travels but that's long since over, we're here to focus on Bagdemagus the rapist and how terrible it is to hate your abuser."
I will say, the fact that Merlin is portrayed as a feminist is great especially considering the time this book was written. He is completely supportive of Lynett's virtue not being her virginity and that she's not less of a person worth something because of what's happened to her. He helps her, not only overcome this traumatic event but also rediscover her purpose in life, which is not to be a wife but a messenger to the king. And I am also infinitely grateful for how Lynett, in spite of her hardships in a very man-dominated time, always spoke her mind and refused to lower herself to the men who tried to slight her.
Her stubbornness is mainly the reason I'll raise this book's rating to 3 stars.
That being said, I will forever love and prefer Quest For Camelot, in which the main character, Kayley, was first shunned for wanting to become a knight like her father but eventually ended up becoming one at the end. Chapman does a very fine job at constantly reminding the reader, and Lynett, that there's absolutely no way that she'll ever be made a knight because "women can't be knights", and it's highly annoying to read about.
I do want to say I enjoyed this book, it was a nice read but it could've been so much more. It's way too short and skims over all the truly fascinating events that could've taken up at least 200 more pages. This much potential cooked down to only 183 pages? Doesn't fall in good taste with me, especially not when this is an entire series, that the author could've done so much more with.
I would've preferred there not being any romantic subplot as that, too, seemed more important to the author than the truly thrilling adventures that Lynett allegedly went on but we weren't allowed to be told of in proper detail. Not to mention how Lynett won't accept her own beauty until her blind lover, having had his eyesight restored, tells her that she is, in fact, quite beautiful. I really would've wished she'd learned this on her own instead of having somebody tell it to her - like how she's believed all her life she was ugly 'cause of people like Bagdemagus.
All in all, this could just as easily have been an entirely original novel rather than based on the Arthurian legend, there were very few elements of significance from the legend. Bagdemagus could have been any other vile creature, Gareth could have been any other handsome fellow and Arthur could have been any other king. The Holy Grail held very little significance and, considering Lucius' choice, did not matter a great deal at the end of the story.
I'm glad I gave this a read but I certainly won't make that mistake with any of the other novels by this author.
Having read this novel though, I am glad Warner Bros. took as many liberties with the cartoon as they did. A girl who was raped by a man she trusted and looked up to, would not have made for a good kid's movie.
The fact, however, that she's persuaded to forgive the man rather than bring him to well-deserved justice doesn't sit well with me. What type of message is that to send to young girls? Especially to anyone in as unfortunate a situation as Lynett. "Forgive your rapist because it'll be best for you." Lynett is haunted throughout the book for her hatred towards Bagdemagus, I constantly feared she would be the one punished for it even after his death.
The novel itself is well-written though all the interesting plots (like how Lynett's travels with the knights went, their meeting with the witch or the robbers, how she and Gareth saved her sister and servants from Sir Ruber, or even what she did to acquire the Holy Grail), are all slighted and only mentioned as "oh this happened on their travels but that's long since over, we're here to focus on Bagdemagus the rapist and how terrible it is to hate your abuser."
I will say, the fact that Merlin is portrayed as a feminist is great especially considering the time this book was written. He is completely supportive of Lynett's virtue not being her virginity and that she's not less of a person worth something because of what's happened to her. He helps her, not only overcome this traumatic event but also rediscover her purpose in life, which is not to be a wife but a messenger to the king. And I am also infinitely grateful for how Lynett, in spite of her hardships in a very man-dominated time, always spoke her mind and refused to lower herself to the men who tried to slight her.
Her stubbornness is mainly the reason I'll raise this book's rating to 3 stars.
That being said, I will forever love and prefer Quest For Camelot, in which the main character, Kayley, was first shunned for wanting to become a knight like her father but eventually ended up becoming one at the end. Chapman does a very fine job at constantly reminding the reader, and Lynett, that there's absolutely no way that she'll ever be made a knight because "women can't be knights", and it's highly annoying to read about.
I do want to say I enjoyed this book, it was a nice read but it could've been so much more. It's way too short and skims over all the truly fascinating events that could've taken up at least 200 more pages. This much potential cooked down to only 183 pages? Doesn't fall in good taste with me, especially not when this is an entire series, that the author could've done so much more with.
I would've preferred there not being any romantic subplot as that, too, seemed more important to the author than the truly thrilling adventures that Lynett allegedly went on but we weren't allowed to be told of in proper detail. Not to mention how Lynett won't accept her own beauty until her blind lover, having had his eyesight restored, tells her that she is, in fact, quite beautiful. I really would've wished she'd learned this on her own instead of having somebody tell it to her - like how she's believed all her life she was ugly 'cause of people like Bagdemagus.
All in all, this could just as easily have been an entirely original novel rather than based on the Arthurian legend, there were very few elements of significance from the legend. Bagdemagus could have been any other vile creature, Gareth could have been any other handsome fellow and Arthur could have been any other king. The Holy Grail held very little significance and, considering Lucius' choice, did not matter a great deal at the end of the story.
I'm glad I gave this a read but I certainly won't make that mistake with any of the other novels by this author.
May 19, 2021
My favorite movie as a kid was Quest for Camelot, so for a long time, I’ve been curious to read the book it’s “based on.” It’s no small feat to get one’s hands on a copy these days, but I managed to.
To say that the movie is “based on” The King’s Damosel is stretching the term “based on” to its breaking point. The commonalities, as far as I could make them out:
• The protagonist is a tomboyish girl in Arthurian England, the daughter of Sir Lionel (one of the Knights of the Round Table)
• There is a disapproving Dame Juliana who wishes she’d be more ladylike (though this is a governess, not the mother)
• A bad guy by the name of Sir Ruber lays siege to our protagonist’s family, leading said protagonist to go on a quest with a guy named Gareth whom she falls in love with
• Very far down the line, the protagonist falls in love with a blind man, and there is a very touching scene where he touches her face to “see her” (cue “Looking Through Your Eyes”!)
Even saying this book “loosely inspired” the movie is a stretch, but it livened up the experience of reading the book with a few pangs of recognition, and provided an excuse for me to listen to the soundtrack on repeat for a few days.
As to its own merits, the book is far more readable that Chapman’s The Green Knight, but that is quite faint praise. The part that sounded the most interesting – Lynette’s adventure with Gareth through the forest and how he won her over – is written completely around. While it’s unfair to judge a book that’s half a century old by today’s moral standards, the whole forgive-your-rapist plot thread was very hard to swallow.
And the truly interesting moral dilemma at the end has a very unsatisfactory resolution. (I don’t hold this against the book much, since “it didn’t end how I want to” isn’t a very valid criticism, but this was some nonsense!)
The book’s greatest credit is its brevity – my version clocked in at 100 pages, and it’s truly amazing how much story gets packed in there. That made it a breezy read, even if what’s on those pages leaves quite a lot to be desired. I’d recommend this for fellow obsessive fans of Quest for Camelot, but only as a curiosity, not as a satisfying book.
To say that the movie is “based on” The King’s Damosel is stretching the term “based on” to its breaking point. The commonalities, as far as I could make them out:
• The protagonist is a tomboyish girl in Arthurian England, the daughter of Sir Lionel (one of the Knights of the Round Table)
• There is a disapproving Dame Juliana who wishes she’d be more ladylike (though this is a governess, not the mother)
• A bad guy by the name of Sir Ruber lays siege to our protagonist’s family, leading said protagonist to go on a quest with a guy named Gareth whom she falls in love with
• Very far down the line, the protagonist falls in love with a blind man, and there is a very touching scene where he touches her face to “see her” (cue “Looking Through Your Eyes”!)
Even saying this book “loosely inspired” the movie is a stretch, but it livened up the experience of reading the book with a few pangs of recognition, and provided an excuse for me to listen to the soundtrack on repeat for a few days.
As to its own merits, the book is far more readable that Chapman’s The Green Knight, but that is quite faint praise. The part that sounded the most interesting – Lynette’s adventure with Gareth through the forest and how he won her over – is written completely around. While it’s unfair to judge a book that’s half a century old by today’s moral standards, the whole forgive-your-rapist plot thread was very hard to swallow.
And the truly interesting moral dilemma at the end has a very unsatisfactory resolution. (I don’t hold this against the book much, since “it didn’t end how I want to” isn’t a very valid criticism, but this was some nonsense!)
The book’s greatest credit is its brevity – my version clocked in at 100 pages, and it’s truly amazing how much story gets packed in there. That made it a breezy read, even if what’s on those pages leaves quite a lot to be desired. I’d recommend this for fellow obsessive fans of Quest for Camelot, but only as a curiosity, not as a satisfying book.
July 21, 2021
So, I'm just another Quest for Camelot fan who'd been trying to find the book it was based on (though loosely) and now finally have.
And what did I think?
Well, it was pretty good!
Mostly.
I liked the gritty realness of this look at Arthurian legend, and the way Vera Chapman cleverly subverts the average Arthurian legend fan's expectations by deconstructing her main character's happily ever after. It's actually starts where most versions of that particular part of the lore would end. And it's not all hunky dory either.
Also, I think Chapman did a good job writing her main character as flawed without making her annoying. Yeah, it's the typical rebellious princess type who thinks she's ugly and "not like other girls" because she likes horses and hawks and wants to do "boy" things, but really she's bloody gorgeous and just doesn't know it. But to the book's credit it's not done in a way that feels tired or insufferable, and the character does have consequences for her actions; it's not some feminist break the glass ceiling nonsense.
That said, I do have a problem with the book's length which is so short we don't get enough breaks in-between bad things happening to the MC to the point where it becomes relentless and hard to go on with.
We just don't get enough time to care about certain characters either. We have, often, to be told who likes who and why rather than have it shown because the book's breakneck speed doesn't permit pause.
And Chapman just doesn't use her allotted time to the best advantage. Too much weird stuff and emphasis on forgiving a rapist knight who got beheaded (yeah, that's a thing, and the head decapitated freaking TALKS) by the MC, but almost nothing about the main couple falling in love besides "oh, btw, they're lovers now, but he's dying, oh nos!"
Still, I'm glad I finally found this. And the narrator on the audiobook version is great; I loved her voice and hope she does more stuff.
And what did I think?
Well, it was pretty good!
Mostly.
I liked the gritty realness of this look at Arthurian legend, and the way Vera Chapman cleverly subverts the average Arthurian legend fan's expectations by deconstructing her main character's happily ever after. It's actually starts where most versions of that particular part of the lore would end. And it's not all hunky dory either.
Also, I think Chapman did a good job writing her main character as flawed without making her annoying. Yeah, it's the typical rebellious princess type who thinks she's ugly and "not like other girls" because she likes horses and hawks and wants to do "boy" things, but really she's bloody gorgeous and just doesn't know it. But to the book's credit it's not done in a way that feels tired or insufferable, and the character does have consequences for her actions; it's not some feminist break the glass ceiling nonsense.
That said, I do have a problem with the book's length which is so short we don't get enough breaks in-between bad things happening to the MC to the point where it becomes relentless and hard to go on with.
We just don't get enough time to care about certain characters either. We have, often, to be told who likes who and why rather than have it shown because the book's breakneck speed doesn't permit pause.
And Chapman just doesn't use her allotted time to the best advantage. Too much weird stuff and emphasis on forgiving a rapist knight who got beheaded (yeah, that's a thing, and the head decapitated freaking TALKS) by the MC, but almost nothing about the main couple falling in love besides "oh, btw, they're lovers now, but he's dying, oh nos!"
Still, I'm glad I finally found this. And the narrator on the audiobook version is great; I loved her voice and hope she does more stuff.
December 30, 2023
My, my, my, I loved this. I have been obsessed with A Quest for Camelot for most of my childhood (and well beyond) - also, I am unironically convinced that Kaylee and Gareth were my bi (and romantic) awakening.
Anyways.
The novella is just an inspiration for the animation, but hey, it is a short and beautifully written gem on its own, believe me. Lynett (or Leonet, which is sich a beautiful name) is a baddie - she would have loved Ethel Cain, Lana del Rey, and My Chemical Romance. Also, her terrible taste in men - I am like, yes girl, do fall in love with the unavailable knight, and slayyyy, just fix it by falling in love with the sexy blind Tarzan living in the caves - I am sure all will be well! In brief, I felt seen.
And about sexy blind Tarzan's living in the caves... I wonder, did ours lose his soundness along with his sight, because, LORD, what a foolish choice to SEE when you could keep on LIVING instead? Trust a man with being a self-sabotaging dummy.
Aside from the shits and giggles, this book beautifully and boldly touches on the aftermath of a rape - with no self-commiseration, it shows an healing path that is often unseen or unheard of - to set out for vengeance, hate and hurt, and then, one day, when one is ready to let go, for them let go.
Unrelated to this, I am not super-fond about the hyper-christianity recurring in the novel, but what was I expecting from a book written in the '70s and about the legends of Camelot and the Holy Grail?
Overall, 4 bright stars!
Anyways.
The novella is just an inspiration for the animation, but hey, it is a short and beautifully written gem on its own, believe me. Lynett (or Leonet, which is sich a beautiful name) is a baddie - she would have loved Ethel Cain, Lana del Rey, and My Chemical Romance. Also, her terrible taste in men - I am like, yes girl, do fall in love with the unavailable knight, and slayyyy, just fix it by falling in love with the sexy blind Tarzan living in the caves - I am sure all will be well! In brief, I felt seen.
And about sexy blind Tarzan's living in the caves... I wonder, did ours lose his soundness along with his sight, because, LORD, what a foolish choice to SEE when you could keep on LIVING instead? Trust a man with being a self-sabotaging dummy.
Aside from the shits and giggles, this book beautifully and boldly touches on the aftermath of a rape - with no self-commiseration, it shows an healing path that is often unseen or unheard of - to set out for vengeance, hate and hurt, and then, one day, when one is ready to let go, for them let go.
Unrelated to this, I am not super-fond about the hyper-christianity recurring in the novel, but what was I expecting from a book written in the '70s and about the legends of Camelot and the Holy Grail?
Overall, 4 bright stars!
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 9, 2024
what did I just read.… this book was disturbin…. The memo of the book is basically to forgive your rapist?? don't get me started on the fact that Merlin probably could've prevented it but didn't because of her so-called Destiny??? after seeing her being raped His response is to tell her that virginity isn't a big deal basically telling her to just get over it and telling her to forgive him… years later when she tells him, she still thinks about getting vengeance on him he's like “wait you still think about that”….yeah, what are you on Merlin??? and then not to mention, she forgives him in his ghost form in order to give him ease on his conscious so that he can make it to purgatory….so she forgives him not for herself but for him also what's with the witchs being potrayed as bad and asking her not to forgive her rapist why are they considered to be the bad ones by just saying not to forgive a rapist they were right to me, but they were potrayed as the villains don't read this book!!!! It's giving weird and anti-woman I thought we weren't gonna give that because the author is a woman, but this is not giving.
March 28, 2022
Started listening to this book as this is the book that one of my favorite childhood movies “Quest for Camelot” was based on. As I read I realized it was only loosely based on this story. Overall it felt like a mix between an Arthurian legend and a medieval morality play. There were some things the book could have been better without, such as the explicit rape scene at the beginning and the racial slur toward the end. The narrative was a bit confusing but overall I do feel like I went on a quest.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 19, 2018
I really, really loved this book. I finished it today, sobbed for a few minutes, had some lunch, and then wrote a six page essay on it about how it is an epic (for my AP Lit class). Lynette is such a role model. I’ll probably update this again later since I really should go to bed. But it’s a wonderful book I can’t stop thinking about. And it’s nothing like Quest for Camelot, which is inspired by this and a movie I love (which every other review says too lol).
February 20, 2025
Me empecé este libro porque me encanta la película de ‘La espada mágica’, aunque leyéndolo no veo la inspiración nada más que en los nombres de algunos personajes y varios detalles menores.
👍🏻Me ha gustado: como te cuenta la aventura sin rodeos, sin entrar en descripciones innecesarias. También que tiene un tono más épico y temas más adultos que la película.
👎🏻No me ha gustado: el hecho de que el “gran pecado” de la protagonista sea no perdonar a su abusado de cuando era una niña… Guau.
👍🏻Me ha gustado: como te cuenta la aventura sin rodeos, sin entrar en descripciones innecesarias. También que tiene un tono más épico y temas más adultos que la película.
👎🏻No me ha gustado: el hecho de que el “gran pecado” de la protagonista sea no perdonar a su abusado de cuando era una niña… Guau.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Read
November 12, 2025You may kill me... but you'll never destroy the ideals of Camelot. It’s Quest for Camelot, and This Film is Lit.
Listen to us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and more!
Listen to us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and more!
November 6, 2022
You have to enjoy medieval-style writing—but if you do, this book is wonderful. And don’t look for the literary version of Quest for Camelot either; they took one or two elements, changed a bunch of names, and came up with a kid-friendly version. But this tale is full of its own wonder and magic and love and sorrow and delight.
Read
July 24, 2023Liked this better than the first in the series, but the pacing still felt uneven and I wasn’t thrilled with how a couple of the major plot points were resolved. I did like Lynet as a character, and I really enjoyed seeing a woman involved in seeking the Grail herself.
CW: CSA, ableism, some period-typical sexism, rape apologism
CW: CSA, ableism, some period-typical sexism, rape apologism
February 24, 2025
3.5 stars. Decently written, but rushed. Messy in it's treatment of assault, stressing a little too heavily on forgiveness as the only way to move on from it. On the one hand, it worked for the story and the worldbuilding. On the other, it was a painful splinter of a plot thread that made it difficult to fully enjoy this otherwise entertaining story.
July 15, 2018
It's not a bad book in fact is highly entertaining but it is not what i was expecting it to be. I was hoping for something more like the movie and this has othing to sldo with it! This is one of the rare cases jn wich de movie (wivh is very loosely based on the book) is way better.
July 4, 2018
4,5*
my favourite so far! it inspired one of my childhood movies and I just love it!
my favourite so far! it inspired one of my childhood movies and I just love it!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 50 reviews