What do you think?
Rate this book
Le Morte D'Arthur by Thomas Malory
One of a four volume set, leatherbound by Easton Press, gilt lettering and edges with marker ribbon.
633 pages, Kindle Edition
Published October 16, 2023
24 people are currently reading
62 people want to read
About the author
Thomas Malory
847 books795 followersFrom French sources, Sir Thomas Malory, English writer in floruit in 1470, adapted
Le Morte d'Arthur
, a collection of romances, which William Caxton published in 1485.
From original tales such as the Vulgate Cycle , Sir Thomas Malory, an imprisoned knight in the fifteenth century, meanwhile compiled and translated the tales, which we know as the legend of king.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_...
From original tales such as the Vulgate Cycle , Sir Thomas Malory, an imprisoned knight in the fifteenth century, meanwhile compiled and translated the tales, which we know as the legend of king.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
March 13, 2026
Book #2 of the Time Magazine top 100 fantasy books of all time!
There is a lot to unpack here. The book is incredibly hard to read in the beginning, with endless lists of who fought who. If you stick with it, however, it gets better and better. There is also a lot that to a modern reader (like myself) is perhaps frustrating and confusing.
The first thing that confused and frustrated me is the concept of courtly love, where knights would pledge themselves to a lady and do all of their deeds on her behalf. Often (as is the case in the book) they pledge themselves to a lady who is already married. As you can imagine, this leads to complications. Not all of these instances of courtly love involved physical interaction, but many of them did, most notably several of the key relationships in the book. These knights can’t wed ladies that are already married, yet they are pledged to them and cannot wed another lady who is not already married, at risk of losing honor in the eyes of their fellows and others. As we can observe from events in the book it would be better for everyone if the knights WOULD pledge themselves to and/or wed someone who is not already married. But for honor (and stupidity, imho) they often did not. A lot of drama could have been solved in King Arthur’s court if there was just a rule of chivalry that said knights could not pledge themselves to ladies who were already married. I suppose that in the eyes of readers of the time when this was written courtly love was romantic. Many of the marriages were arranged and perhaps they could only find true romance within their dalliances with knights. It felt silly to my modern brain, though, when these already married ladies would become so incensed that their knight would potentially find love with another lady who was not already married. How dare he?!?! Lady, you have a husband!
I was frustrated by this a lot as I read the book, but realized that my frustrations were justified by what ultimately happens in the end. There is some ambiguity (in my eyes) about whether or not Launcelot is a “good” guy. He does a lot of mighty and great deeds, but his secret encounters with his lady reflect incredibly poorly on his character to my modern eyes. He gets called out for it by the Lord during the quest for the Sangreal, repents, changes his ways, and tries to be better, but after some pressure from his lady is shortly thereafter back to his old ways. (Whole lot to unpack with respect to her actions too, not going there, as this is turning into an essay). What’s worse, he lies about it again and again, even to his own men who follow him when everything goes down. Sir Gawain and those others that initiate all of the chaos at the end of the book are painted as somewhat villainous, but hot take - they weren’t wrong! They were 100% right in their accusations, no matter how much Launcelot denied it. (Perhaps this was for the honor of his lady).
Similarly you could go through the same discussion with King Arthur. He was a mighty and noble man, but was so quick to abandon his Queen (on multiple occasions). Would things have been different if he treated her better? (And if she did the same for him?) This ambiguity was actually one of the aspects of the book that I enjoyed the most. By the end the lines between good and bad for many of the characters get very blurred.
One final thing that was frustrating and/or notable to me was how much pride blinded the knights. Because of pride, they would refuse to reveal their names, or faces, which would lead to allies fighting allies because they were too proud to give their names and too proud to not fight a stranger. There is one instance that really stood out to me where a castle was being assaulted, and a knight offers to help with some of the fighting/jousting as the other knight had done several jousts in a row. Jousting knight gets mad because he thinks helpful knight is disrespecting him - so they end up fighting each other (instead of the bad guys), almost kill each other, only to take off their helmets and realize that they are really good friends. 🤦♂️ Idiots. This is just one instance, but it happened all through the book. The knights caused themselves so many problems like this because of their pride. Wo unto the pride of man!
Glad I finally got through this book! I understand completely why it was on the list, especially considering when it was written. There is a lot going on here. Much of what I enjoyed reminded me of things that I enjoyed in the Game of Thrones books. Perhaps these tales were a source of inspiration. One complaint about this particular version (and perhaps also the original text?) was that the chapter headings/summaries would very often include massive spoilers for what you were about to read, taking a lot of the fun out of it at times.
There is a lot to unpack here. The book is incredibly hard to read in the beginning, with endless lists of who fought who. If you stick with it, however, it gets better and better. There is also a lot that to a modern reader (like myself) is perhaps frustrating and confusing.
The first thing that confused and frustrated me is the concept of courtly love, where knights would pledge themselves to a lady and do all of their deeds on her behalf. Often (as is the case in the book) they pledge themselves to a lady who is already married. As you can imagine, this leads to complications. Not all of these instances of courtly love involved physical interaction, but many of them did, most notably several of the key relationships in the book. These knights can’t wed ladies that are already married, yet they are pledged to them and cannot wed another lady who is not already married, at risk of losing honor in the eyes of their fellows and others. As we can observe from events in the book it would be better for everyone if the knights WOULD pledge themselves to and/or wed someone who is not already married. But for honor (and stupidity, imho) they often did not. A lot of drama could have been solved in King Arthur’s court if there was just a rule of chivalry that said knights could not pledge themselves to ladies who were already married. I suppose that in the eyes of readers of the time when this was written courtly love was romantic. Many of the marriages were arranged and perhaps they could only find true romance within their dalliances with knights. It felt silly to my modern brain, though, when these already married ladies would become so incensed that their knight would potentially find love with another lady who was not already married. How dare he?!?! Lady, you have a husband!
I was frustrated by this a lot as I read the book, but realized that my frustrations were justified by what ultimately happens in the end. There is some ambiguity (in my eyes) about whether or not Launcelot is a “good” guy. He does a lot of mighty and great deeds, but his secret encounters with his lady reflect incredibly poorly on his character to my modern eyes. He gets called out for it by the Lord during the quest for the Sangreal, repents, changes his ways, and tries to be better, but after some pressure from his lady is shortly thereafter back to his old ways. (Whole lot to unpack with respect to her actions too, not going there, as this is turning into an essay). What’s worse, he lies about it again and again, even to his own men who follow him when everything goes down. Sir Gawain and those others that initiate all of the chaos at the end of the book are painted as somewhat villainous, but hot take - they weren’t wrong! They were 100% right in their accusations, no matter how much Launcelot denied it. (Perhaps this was for the honor of his lady).
Similarly you could go through the same discussion with King Arthur. He was a mighty and noble man, but was so quick to abandon his Queen (on multiple occasions). Would things have been different if he treated her better? (And if she did the same for him?) This ambiguity was actually one of the aspects of the book that I enjoyed the most. By the end the lines between good and bad for many of the characters get very blurred.
One final thing that was frustrating and/or notable to me was how much pride blinded the knights. Because of pride, they would refuse to reveal their names, or faces, which would lead to allies fighting allies because they were too proud to give their names and too proud to not fight a stranger. There is one instance that really stood out to me where a castle was being assaulted, and a knight offers to help with some of the fighting/jousting as the other knight had done several jousts in a row. Jousting knight gets mad because he thinks helpful knight is disrespecting him - so they end up fighting each other (instead of the bad guys), almost kill each other, only to take off their helmets and realize that they are really good friends. 🤦♂️ Idiots. This is just one instance, but it happened all through the book. The knights caused themselves so many problems like this because of their pride. Wo unto the pride of man!
Glad I finally got through this book! I understand completely why it was on the list, especially considering when it was written. There is a lot going on here. Much of what I enjoyed reminded me of things that I enjoyed in the Game of Thrones books. Perhaps these tales were a source of inspiration. One complaint about this particular version (and perhaps also the original text?) was that the chapter headings/summaries would very often include massive spoilers for what you were about to read, taking a lot of the fun out of it at times.
February 16, 2026
Good to read one of the original materials of the legend of Arthur
Read
January 22, 2026This was my introduction to the Legend of Arthur and reading Norma Lorre Goodrich's book Arthur
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews