I can't believe I've spent lots of time writing a review and then lost it... thanx goodreads, thanx!
Okay, let's start all over again.
I liked this book. Yet, it didn't entirely satisfy me, hence I couldn't give it more than three stars.
The major problem of this book is the lack of major original plot twists. It's a pretty standard retelling, this one, made precious by the ability of the writer to give life to both characters and historical setting.
I was able to understand what kind of guy Arthur was more from his own body language and actions than by Guinevere's comments on him, and I really got the feeling of the "troubles times", with everything roman decaying, with the cities emptying...
Yet, unfortunately, the author losts herself in those cliches that haunt this kind of novels (christianity only starting to settle in Britain, far fetched celtic religions... or cliches about the characters. There is a remarkable exception for what concerns the characters..and I'd have loved all the book was like that!).
So… I really expected more from this book, and I hope the next installments of the series will get better and better
Anyway, let's see things in detail now.
THE PLOT
The book starts with Guinevere who is about to leave her home in Rheged (yeah, Leodegrance is king of Rheged here. You would wonder why, as I did, since it's an historical fact that Uriens was a real king of Rheged, and Owain his heir) to go South to marry Arthur. She is firmly opposed to this wedding, first because she doesn't want to leave her homeland (also because she thinks southrons are all decadent roman dandies, and she sees the south in general as something very different from her home. Which is realistic considering that she never got outside the borders of Rheged all her life) , then because she doesn't want to marry an unknown guy for interest and not for love (Gosh, when will we stop thinking that all those girls want was marrying for love? .-. they are not modern girls. they are girls who see marriage as a mere contract as much as their parents saw it. Love was something that either came after the wedding or outside the wedding!) She tries to avoid the wedding, both trying to escape and trying to convince her dad not to send her south, but it doesn't work, so, she is bound to leave.
The trip south is full of flashback sequences of Guinevere's childhood and of Arthur's kingmaking (the last ones told by Bedivere to Guinevere). I haven't quite adored this plot device, but it was functional, since maybe having all that stuff narrated in chronological order would have been worse.
Then, finally Arthur and Guinevere meet -in apretty unortodox way since they engage in a horse race basically after being introduced- and the trip stops including flashback sequences, so we go straight to the wedding -a very rushed and unorthodox one- and to the creation of the round table.
WHAT I LIKED
-As I said,the book gives me a right feeling about the historical setting. The author tries -and gets it almost perfectly- to give the reader the right impression about the historical setting arthur could have lived in. I found extremely accurate the fact that people were fleeing from the cities into the countryside, that many buildings and whole cities were left rotting and decaying away, and the general feeling of insecurity and frightness that haunted the people of those times. Also the loss of identity feels accurate to me. They are not romans anymore, they can't be what they were before anymore..what are they now? What didn't strike me as accurate, instead is:
a) the use of modern names for towns and areas. I mean, with some research she could have learned the original names and used them. It is important for an author that claims her goal being historical accuracy
b) the continue use of "Celtic" to describe britons. Guinevere is, for example, a "celtic queen", everything in british cultural heritage is described as "celtic"...Now, celtness is a rather farfetched concept itself. Born in th 19th century, if I'm not wrong, it's something that never quite existed. What i mean, is that while the fact that Celts existed, they never thought of themselves as Celts. Celts are more of an ethno-linguistic unity, including many different populations accomunated by the fact that they spoke a symilar language and had symilar costumes. Basically, Celts were what now are Neo-Latin speaking countries or german languages speaking countries. Do you think germans and english are the same, even if they speak languages with a symilar origin? or that Spanish people and italian people are culturally identical just because we speak a neo-latin language?
it's not like that.
Britons at that time would have referred to themselves as britons, and would have claimed NO RELATIVENESS with Irish or bretons, even if they were all descendents from an original bronze-age culture that spreaded from turkey to Austria to the british isles.
c) again that farfetched religion. Gosh, WHY, WHY do I have to read that stuff EVERYWHERE?? it simply didn't exist, period. Thanx, MZB...it's all your fault.
-I liked her way to write about the characters so that the reader could understand them even from few gestures.
-I liked her take on Balan/Balin's story. THAT was brilliant. If only all the book was so original...
WHAT I DIDN'T LIKE
-The fact that many elements, especially of the characters, were standard and not really original. MAny characters are just characterized the same (but written better, tbh), as in other books I've read.
like:
-the far-fetched celtic religion.
-Morgan as the “high priestess/lady of the lake"-I would like to know when Morgan started to be associated with the lady of the lake… cause this association is nowhere to be found in the sources!
First of all, the lady of the lake never was a priestess. She was a witch, an enchantress, a fairy, but NEVER a priestess. And there has always been only ONE lady of the lake: Vivian/Nimue. She does many things that seem contrasting, in the original stories, like seducing and trapping Merlin, being Arthur's best consuleur, being Lancelot's adoptive mother...but she's always ONE person. Morgan never had anything to do with her (I think Vivian even spoiled some of Morgan's plans to kill Arthur).
Second, Morgan never was a pagan priestess. Morgan never was pagan. Morgan was a witch, an enchantress,queen of Gore/Rheged..but NEVER a pagan priestess. And I am sick and tired to see her described as one. I guess we have to thank MZB for this too.
-Guinevere as the feisty celtic tomboy.I’m rather sure this was also featured in “queen of Camelot" and in"Kingmaking", tho Kingmaking’s and Child of northern springs’ Guineveres are more believable in their being tomboys. I can see the sense but..why do we need this all the times? Is it seriously the only interpretation you can give of Guinevere? What about a strong willed, intelligent, bright, smart woman that was not a tomboy? I understand this is some sort of answer of rejecting the Guinevere from mists of avalon but..est modus in rebus, there is a whole world to be explored between the tomboy and the stuck up/snob/delicate princess!
-the whole sending someone to fetch Guinevere. It was Bedivere also in queen of camelot, and Lancelot in “Mists". As far as I remember, Arthur and Guinevere met before they married, and it was in this occasion that he saw her, fell for her, and proposed. Why can't we have this on the books? Why can't we have them both agreeing on marrying?
Overall, anyway, I liked Arthur and Guinevere's relationship in this book. It's pretty much how I figure it to be... and FINALLY we found a book in which Lancelot and Guinevere's relationship would make sense. Because I'm also sick and tired of Guinevere turning to Lancelot for NO REASON at all, just because it has to be so. I always think that there was something more than Guinevere not being in Love with Arthur behing her relationship with Lancelot. And in this book, this something more is very clear. Yay!
-Bard!Bedivere. COME ON!