What do you think?
Rate this book
Король
Во мне так и не развился вкус к бомбежкам мирного населения, - сказал король. - Выглядит нарушением общественного договора. Мы обязаны вести войну, а народ - за нее расплачиваться.
Советский Союз и Америка еще не вступили во Вторую мировую войну, поэтому защищать Европу от фашистских орд выпало на долю короля Артура и рыцарей Круглого Стола. Гвиневера изменяет супругу с Ланселотом, Эзра Паунд обвиняет всех в масонском заговоре, Черчилль роет подземную ставку, профсоюзы требуют денег, а Мордред замыслил измену. Решить исход войны должно таинственное пророчество Мерлина...
Последняя книга американского классика постмодернизма Доналда Бартелми (1931 - 1989) "Король" - пародийное переложение рыцарских романов и легенд о короле Артуре, черный юмор и высокая романтика. Впервые на русском языке.
Советский Союз и Америка еще не вступили во Вторую мировую войну, поэтому защищать Европу от фашистских орд выпало на долю короля Артура и рыцарей Круглого Стола. Гвиневера изменяет супругу с Ланселотом, Эзра Паунд обвиняет всех в масонском заговоре, Черчилль роет подземную ставку, профсоюзы требуют денег, а Мордред замыслил измену. Решить исход войны должно таинственное пророчество Мерлина...
Последняя книга американского классика постмодернизма Доналда Бартелми (1931 - 1989) "Король" - пародийное переложение рыцарских романов и легенд о короле Артуре, черный юмор и высокая романтика. Впервые на русском языке.
224 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1990
9 people are currently reading
982 people want to read
About the author
Donald Barthelme
158 books767 followers
Unspeakable Practices, Unnatural Acts
(1968) apparently collects sometimes surrealistic stories of modern life of American writer Donald Barthelme.
A student at the University of Pennsylvania bore Donald Barthelme. Two years later, in 1933, the family moved to Texas, where father of Barthelme served as a professor of architecture at the University of Houston, where Barthelme later majored in journalism.
In 1951, this still student composed his first articles for the Houston Post. The Army drafted Barthelme, who arrived in Korea on 27 July 1953, the very day, when parties signed the ceasefire, ending the war. He served briefly as the editor of a newspaper of Army before returning to the United States and his job at the Houston Post. Once back, he continued his studies of philosophy at the University of Houston. He continued to take classes until 1957 but never received a degree. He spent much of his free time in “black” jazz clubs of Houston and listened to musical innovators, such as Lionel Hampton and Peck Kelly; this experience influenced him later.
Barthelme, a rebellious son, struggled in his relationship with his demanding father. In later years, they tremendously argued about the kinds of literature that interested Barthelme. His avant-garde father in art and aesthetics in many ways approved not the postmodern and deconstruction schools. The Dead Father and The King , the novels, delineate attitude of Barthelme toward his father as King Arthur and Lancelot, the characters, picture him. From the Roman Catholicism of his especially devout mother, Barthelme independently moved away, but this separation as the distance with his father troubled Barthelme. He ably agreed to strictures of his seemingly much closer mother.
Barthelme went to teach for brief periods at Boston University and at University at Buffalo, and he at the college of the City of New York served as distinguished visiting professor from 1974-1975. He married four times. Helen Barthelme, his second wife, later entitled a biography Donald Barthelme: The Genesis of a Cool Sound , published in 2001. With Birgit Barthelme, his third wife and a Dane, he fathered Anne Barthelme, his first child, a daughter. He married Marion Barthelme near the end and fathered Kate Barthelme, his second daughter. Marion and Donald wed until his death from throat cancer. People respect fiction of Frederick Barthelme and Steven Barthelme, brothers of Donald Barthelme and also teachers at The University of Southern Mississippi.
A student at the University of Pennsylvania bore Donald Barthelme. Two years later, in 1933, the family moved to Texas, where father of Barthelme served as a professor of architecture at the University of Houston, where Barthelme later majored in journalism.
In 1951, this still student composed his first articles for the Houston Post. The Army drafted Barthelme, who arrived in Korea on 27 July 1953, the very day, when parties signed the ceasefire, ending the war. He served briefly as the editor of a newspaper of Army before returning to the United States and his job at the Houston Post. Once back, he continued his studies of philosophy at the University of Houston. He continued to take classes until 1957 but never received a degree. He spent much of his free time in “black” jazz clubs of Houston and listened to musical innovators, such as Lionel Hampton and Peck Kelly; this experience influenced him later.
Barthelme, a rebellious son, struggled in his relationship with his demanding father. In later years, they tremendously argued about the kinds of literature that interested Barthelme. His avant-garde father in art and aesthetics in many ways approved not the postmodern and deconstruction schools. The Dead Father and The King , the novels, delineate attitude of Barthelme toward his father as King Arthur and Lancelot, the characters, picture him. From the Roman Catholicism of his especially devout mother, Barthelme independently moved away, but this separation as the distance with his father troubled Barthelme. He ably agreed to strictures of his seemingly much closer mother.
Barthelme went to teach for brief periods at Boston University and at University at Buffalo, and he at the college of the City of New York served as distinguished visiting professor from 1974-1975. He married four times. Helen Barthelme, his second wife, later entitled a biography Donald Barthelme: The Genesis of a Cool Sound , published in 2001. With Birgit Barthelme, his third wife and a Dane, he fathered Anne Barthelme, his first child, a daughter. He married Marion Barthelme near the end and fathered Kate Barthelme, his second daughter. Marion and Donald wed until his death from throat cancer. People respect fiction of Frederick Barthelme and Steven Barthelme, brothers of Donald Barthelme and also teachers at The University of Southern Mississippi.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 99 reviews
October 2, 2022
Hilarious! PG Wodehouse meets Angela Carter? King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table overlaid against WWII. But Launcelot still carries a mace (his second best, until it's stolen in the men's room of the Lamb and Flag) and does his knightly duty, even if knights have fallen somehwat out of fashion with aircraft and bombs capable of much greater damage. This is a comic novel, in case that wasn't clear, so dust off your sense of humor before cracking it open. Told largely in dialogue, it makes for a quick read, but don't dismiss it lightly. Thank you to whoever put it in the Hannaford donation bin in Plymouth, New Hampshire. I was simply passing through!
The thing about books is, there are quite a number you don't have to read..
September 28, 2020
Although a short and very quick read that was good fun. King Arthur, Queen Guinevere and assorted knights of the round table make it into the mid-20th century and are fighting in the 2nd World War.
An interesting juxtaposition of courtly behaviour in the modern age.
An interesting juxtaposition of courtly behaviour in the modern age.
February 24, 2015
Review #1 of "Year of the Review All Read Books"
And I Heard A Voice
The novel/la's aesthetic is the use of dialogue and voice. Most of the story is presented in pure dialogue, we hear the voices of the radio chattering away like a modern day cable news network, the characters in turn discuss the merits and consequences of the radio voices.
There is a kind of chorus featured in the book. Or perhaps it is an audience, if there be any difference. They occasionally narrate for us when certain soldiers or queens or bastards are alone. Where are they hiding? How are they keeping silent when everyone's ears are attuned to dullest frequency of sensible noise.
Amongst the Four Beasts
Yes there are horses in this rendition as well as tanks and rifles and atom bombs. The knights of the Table Round are steeped in the tradition of medieval knighthood. Mechanics of battles are not well enunciated. London is being bombed but what can these horseman in the wilderness do about that? They greet each other and fight and gain respect for each other. War is valorous still to them. They are honorable men. War is theater and the radio is real life. And when fought to a stalemate they combine forces, even become friends. The war seems so far away for the knights. It only exists in rumor and gossip, the same plane as Guinevere's liaisons.
A Woman Clothed in the Sun
Arthur is well aware of his philandering queen, but considers her old at 36. He himself is hinted to be hundreds of years old, as old as the legends. Guinevere is flippant, she takes what she wants and it is lucky for Arthur (and perhaps Hitler) she doesn't want all of Europe. She wants love and one wonders if Arthur offered it if she would even take it. My inclination is yes, but Arthur is preoccupied with time and war. Perhaps we may blame Arthur for his negligence, but how special can we expect a single 36 year old wife to be when he is ten or twenty times her age? When in the time of her whole life he may gain only a dozen white hairs?
Like Two Suns in the Sky
And there is of course the grail. Three equations that would produce an atom bomb. Likely to end the war. The grail has always been a chance for life but now it is a case of mass extinction. England is in the gravest hour of the war, America is nowhere to be found, even rumored to be supporting the Nazis. Mordred is trying to seize the throne. And now that second sun in the sky could wipe it all out. But it is not in Arthur's conscience to use the grail. Perhaps Germany will find it, Perhaps it stays hidden. Arthur becomes the de facto guardian of the grail.
And I Heard A Voice
The novel/la's aesthetic is the use of dialogue and voice. Most of the story is presented in pure dialogue, we hear the voices of the radio chattering away like a modern day cable news network, the characters in turn discuss the merits and consequences of the radio voices.
There is a kind of chorus featured in the book. Or perhaps it is an audience, if there be any difference. They occasionally narrate for us when certain soldiers or queens or bastards are alone. Where are they hiding? How are they keeping silent when everyone's ears are attuned to dullest frequency of sensible noise.
Amongst the Four Beasts
Yes there are horses in this rendition as well as tanks and rifles and atom bombs. The knights of the Table Round are steeped in the tradition of medieval knighthood. Mechanics of battles are not well enunciated. London is being bombed but what can these horseman in the wilderness do about that? They greet each other and fight and gain respect for each other. War is valorous still to them. They are honorable men. War is theater and the radio is real life. And when fought to a stalemate they combine forces, even become friends. The war seems so far away for the knights. It only exists in rumor and gossip, the same plane as Guinevere's liaisons.
A Woman Clothed in the Sun
Arthur is well aware of his philandering queen, but considers her old at 36. He himself is hinted to be hundreds of years old, as old as the legends. Guinevere is flippant, she takes what she wants and it is lucky for Arthur (and perhaps Hitler) she doesn't want all of Europe. She wants love and one wonders if Arthur offered it if she would even take it. My inclination is yes, but Arthur is preoccupied with time and war. Perhaps we may blame Arthur for his negligence, but how special can we expect a single 36 year old wife to be when he is ten or twenty times her age? When in the time of her whole life he may gain only a dozen white hairs?
Like Two Suns in the Sky
And there is of course the grail. Three equations that would produce an atom bomb. Likely to end the war. The grail has always been a chance for life but now it is a case of mass extinction. England is in the gravest hour of the war, America is nowhere to be found, even rumored to be supporting the Nazis. Mordred is trying to seize the throne. And now that second sun in the sky could wipe it all out. But it is not in Arthur's conscience to use the grail. Perhaps Germany will find it, Perhaps it stays hidden. Arthur becomes the de facto guardian of the grail.
July 10, 2013
This book is sorta a slam dunk for me. World War II + Donald Bartheleme + King Arthur = WIN in my book. It's witty, it's honest, it's a little sad. Surprisingly good character development for such a short book. And all the great meta fictional references just make my little postmodern heart go all a-flutter.
Am I the only one who felt that the "Chorus" was a little reminiscent of the play-by-play announcers at a sporting event? I wouldn't put it past Bartheleme. Hey, this is the same guy who ended one of the best short stories EVER with "...and then the hamster walked in the room." Guy's got some serious writing cojones, if you ask me. Or, if you ask Betty White, a serious writing vagina. Not sure how he'd feel about that particular allusion, but there ya go.
And hey, if you don't like it, it's only 150 pages. What have you lost? It's not like reading Twilight and realizing that you've just sunk a month of your life into a piece of crap. A month of your life that you'll never see again. *sigh* But hey, no such regrets here. Even if you don't like it, what did you lose? A rainy afternoon? And you're at least reading literature instead of adjectives.
So, in short (because this book is not one for wordy diatribes), this is definitely worth a chance. If you've read Le Morte d'Arthur: King Arthur and the Legends of the Round Table, then you've definitely got to give this a go, because you'll definitely enjoy it more than the average reader. And if you've read Le Morte... AND you know your WW2 history, this will be a day at the candy store.
Am I the only one who felt that the "Chorus" was a little reminiscent of the play-by-play announcers at a sporting event? I wouldn't put it past Bartheleme. Hey, this is the same guy who ended one of the best short stories EVER with "...and then the hamster walked in the room." Guy's got some serious writing cojones, if you ask me. Or, if you ask Betty White, a serious writing vagina. Not sure how he'd feel about that particular allusion, but there ya go.
And hey, if you don't like it, it's only 150 pages. What have you lost? It's not like reading Twilight and realizing that you've just sunk a month of your life into a piece of crap. A month of your life that you'll never see again. *sigh* But hey, no such regrets here. Even if you don't like it, what did you lose? A rainy afternoon? And you're at least reading literature instead of adjectives.
So, in short (because this book is not one for wordy diatribes), this is definitely worth a chance. If you've read Le Morte d'Arthur: King Arthur and the Legends of the Round Table, then you've definitely got to give this a go, because you'll definitely enjoy it more than the average reader. And if you've read Le Morte... AND you know your WW2 history, this will be a day at the candy store.
March 20, 2025
HOUSEKEEPING 2025
I'm not a contrarian. I mean, fuck, I have a 'Dancing Bear' dangling from my keychain. I think that indicates a large fanbase if anything does. Frankly, I find it an exhausting trait in people and always have (mostly experienced first-hand with music when something got too 'popular' for friends, way back when). That said, I am the Barthelme reader that advocates his novels to all bastards trapped within earshot, but has little or nearly no love for any of his shorts collections. He only did four, sadly, and all are worth your time. The King made me a convert.
Love live The King. Not Elvis. Fuck that guy.
I'm not a contrarian. I mean, fuck, I have a 'Dancing Bear' dangling from my keychain. I think that indicates a large fanbase if anything does. Frankly, I find it an exhausting trait in people and always have (mostly experienced first-hand with music when something got too 'popular' for friends, way back when). That said, I am the Barthelme reader that advocates his novels to all bastards trapped within earshot, but has little or nearly no love for any of his shorts collections. He only did four, sadly, and all are worth your time. The King made me a convert.
Love live The King. Not Elvis. Fuck that guy.
June 15, 2018
Barthelme is one of my favourite writers and has been for more than twenty-five years. Certainly in prose style he has been the biggest influence on my own work. Although renowned only as a short story writer, his novels are extremely accomplished and entertaining, primarily because they resemble extended versions of his short stories, or sets of his short stories linked together, episodic, picaresque, absurdist and hilarious.
The central conceit of this particular novel is that the old prophecy that King Arthur and his knights will return to help Britain at its hour of greatest need comes true. The king and his knights appear during the darkest days of WWII. But what use are they really? They are anachronisms, old fashioned not only in deeds but also in mindset. The comedy of the novel originates here: in their efforts to be relevant to a world that is their future and has very little need for such heroes.
The jokes are dry, ironic and superb as always. Barthelme is the master of humorous absurdism. Of the many jokes packed into this book I will mention just one: the Brown Knight being criticized for wearing brown armour with a black horse.
The central conceit of this particular novel is that the old prophecy that King Arthur and his knights will return to help Britain at its hour of greatest need comes true. The king and his knights appear during the darkest days of WWII. But what use are they really? They are anachronisms, old fashioned not only in deeds but also in mindset. The comedy of the novel originates here: in their efforts to be relevant to a world that is their future and has very little need for such heroes.
The jokes are dry, ironic and superb as always. Barthelme is the master of humorous absurdism. Of the many jokes packed into this book I will mention just one: the Brown Knight being criticized for wearing brown armour with a black horse.
October 27, 2009
This odd and allegorical tale of WWII fought by the knights of the Round Table reads more like a play than a novel -- characters stride on stage and declaim, disappear and reappear. There's even a chorus, presumably of the populace. Barthelme is intelligent and his prose is highly intellectualized, in a manner which renders it interesting but alienating.
March 27, 2019
Decepcionante. Se trata de una sucesión de escenas (de diálogos, más bien) más o menos ingeniosas que a mí, personalmente, no me han dicho nada. Creo que situar al rey Arturo y su séquito en plena Segunda Guerra Mundial puede dar para algo más. Por lo menos, para algo más divertido.
May 29, 2023
Barthelme's text is fairly ridiculous but Barry Moser's wood engravings are great.
July 22, 2025
A forgettable, fun frolic with Pythonesque vibes.
Read
January 23, 2012I don’t think I really get this book. I appreciate the wit and knowledge behind it, and the premise had me terribly excited - King Arthur fighting for England during the Blitz. The jacket flap says: ‘Dunkirk has fallen, the Americans have not yet entered the war, and King Arthur and his worshipful Knights of the Table Round are hip-deep in the fighting.’
They aren’t, though; they don’t seem to be fighting for Britain, they just do a lot of bashing each other. There doesn’t seem to be any communication between the Table Round courtly folk and the normal folk who are actually fighting the war. I do appreciate the class issues at work here, but there was a BIT of levelling during the war, right? The characters in this book might as well be in different centuries. Or different books. Apart from a little lip service to North Atlantic convoys and the occasional broadcast from Lord Haw-Haw, there’s absolutely nothing here that references WWII - or, more importantly, illuminates its meaning in any way (and all Haw-Haw ever does is badmouth Guinevere, anyway).
As a gentle parody of Malory, it’s exquisite and rather entertaining. As ‘King Arthur Takes Over Wing Command for the Battle of Britain’ - I must have been mistaken. Given that the author wasn’t really going to bother, why even drag the Battle of Britain into the picture? It just confuses me.
The excerpt below does, of course, make sense, but honestly it shows ALL THE CONTEXT you ever get in the entire book. Guinevere turning on a radio hardly counts as descriptive scene-setting. It might as well be set in a vacuum.
‘Now he’s putting something together!’
‘What is it?’
‘It appears to be a fishing rod!’
‘But there are no fish here!’
‘And no water, either!’
‘Still, he sits, the king sits!’
‘He’s fishing!’
‘He’s fishing as hard as he can!’
‘They say it’s a sign of senility, fishing under such conditions!’
‘It doesn’t make much sense to me!’
…
‘Sweet Jesu mercy, it’s a fish!’
‘Not only a fish but a good fish, a large fish, a plump fish, a ripe and bouncing fish!’
…
‘This puts paid to all talk of the king’s inadequacy!’
‘He is as able as ever he was!’
‘It is a miracle of the rarest order!’
That's a fairly canon serving of grail meat, IMHO. Given the premise, I think it could have been wittier and more germane. Something to do with bouncing bombs, perhaps, or U-boats? Alas, I did not find it to be the ‘dazzling travesty’ John Updike promised me on the dust jacket. And what *is* here has already been done by TS Eliot, rather more poetically.
Barry Moser’s woodcuts are very good.
They aren’t, though; they don’t seem to be fighting for Britain, they just do a lot of bashing each other. There doesn’t seem to be any communication between the Table Round courtly folk and the normal folk who are actually fighting the war. I do appreciate the class issues at work here, but there was a BIT of levelling during the war, right? The characters in this book might as well be in different centuries. Or different books. Apart from a little lip service to North Atlantic convoys and the occasional broadcast from Lord Haw-Haw, there’s absolutely nothing here that references WWII - or, more importantly, illuminates its meaning in any way (and all Haw-Haw ever does is badmouth Guinevere, anyway).
As a gentle parody of Malory, it’s exquisite and rather entertaining. As ‘King Arthur Takes Over Wing Command for the Battle of Britain’ - I must have been mistaken. Given that the author wasn’t really going to bother, why even drag the Battle of Britain into the picture? It just confuses me.
The excerpt below does, of course, make sense, but honestly it shows ALL THE CONTEXT you ever get in the entire book. Guinevere turning on a radio hardly counts as descriptive scene-setting. It might as well be set in a vacuum.
‘Now he’s putting something together!’
‘What is it?’
‘It appears to be a fishing rod!’
‘But there are no fish here!’
‘And no water, either!’
‘Still, he sits, the king sits!’
‘He’s fishing!’
‘He’s fishing as hard as he can!’
‘They say it’s a sign of senility, fishing under such conditions!’
‘It doesn’t make much sense to me!’
…
‘Sweet Jesu mercy, it’s a fish!’
‘Not only a fish but a good fish, a large fish, a plump fish, a ripe and bouncing fish!’
…
‘This puts paid to all talk of the king’s inadequacy!’
‘He is as able as ever he was!’
‘It is a miracle of the rarest order!’
That's a fairly canon serving of grail meat, IMHO. Given the premise, I think it could have been wittier and more germane. Something to do with bouncing bombs, perhaps, or U-boats? Alas, I did not find it to be the ‘dazzling travesty’ John Updike promised me on the dust jacket. And what *is* here has already been done by TS Eliot, rather more poetically.
Barry Moser’s woodcuts are very good.
February 11, 2008
I love Donald Barthelme, but this novella didn't captivate me the way his writing usually does. The premise (King Arthur fights World War II) is certainly great and Barthelmian, and there were chuckle-out-loud moments aplenty (particularly those that involved multiple characters falling into a swoon simultaneously--it's so rare to read a good swoon scene these days!), but I wasn't wholly grabbed by it.
Still, the dialogue is very sharp and often wisely absurd, so that's fun to read. Speaking of swooning:
"'I too am gloomy, in these days,' said the Red Knight. 'It's a combination of the war and my acute historical consciousness.'
"'Good sir, I think you not half so sorrowful as myself.'
"'I am more sorrowful than any man I ever met,' said the Red Knight, 'my acute historical consciousness being widened and deepened by my advanced years. With all respect, your sorrow is but japes to my sorrow.'
"Then Sir Roger swooned away from sorrow, and woke and swooned again, and every time he woke he swooned anew."
(Also, the Grail is the quest for the bomb: "In former times bombing had some military purpose or other--taking out a railyard, smashing the enemy's factories, closing down the docks, that sort of thing. Today, not so. Today, bombing is meant to be a learning experience. For the bombed. Bombing is pedagogy. A citizen with a stick of white phosphorous on his roof begins to think quite seriously about how much longer he wants to continue the war.")
Still, the dialogue is very sharp and often wisely absurd, so that's fun to read. Speaking of swooning:
"'I too am gloomy, in these days,' said the Red Knight. 'It's a combination of the war and my acute historical consciousness.'
"'Good sir, I think you not half so sorrowful as myself.'
"'I am more sorrowful than any man I ever met,' said the Red Knight, 'my acute historical consciousness being widened and deepened by my advanced years. With all respect, your sorrow is but japes to my sorrow.'
"Then Sir Roger swooned away from sorrow, and woke and swooned again, and every time he woke he swooned anew."
(Also, the Grail is the quest for the bomb: "In former times bombing had some military purpose or other--taking out a railyard, smashing the enemy's factories, closing down the docks, that sort of thing. Today, not so. Today, bombing is meant to be a learning experience. For the bombed. Bombing is pedagogy. A citizen with a stick of white phosphorous on his roof begins to think quite seriously about how much longer he wants to continue the war.")
April 21, 2015
Ever see Monty Python's "The Holy Grail"? Well, this is similar to that, but blacker, quirkier, more elegant, more ironic and just downright funnier.
This is a retelling of Le Morte D'Arthur by Malory but set in modern times and the holy grail is a nuclear bomb that both the Nazis and allies are trying to get hold of.
The characters in this story are great - a individualistic and slightly slutty Guinevere, a war-weary Arthur, an ever noble Launcelot, a well-spoken African knight called Roger, Lyonesse (the daughter of another King who wishes to be wooed and has a penchant for good cognac) and a raving Ezra Pound and Haw-Haw who hound the allies over the radiowaves. What's not to like?
This is only the second Barthelme book I have read but it's funny as hell and written in a style somewhere between modern English and olde ancyent Arhturian Anglo-Saxon. Very very enjoyable read. Couldn't put it down. Highly recommended.
This is a retelling of Le Morte D'Arthur by Malory but set in modern times and the holy grail is a nuclear bomb that both the Nazis and allies are trying to get hold of.
The characters in this story are great - a individualistic and slightly slutty Guinevere, a war-weary Arthur, an ever noble Launcelot, a well-spoken African knight called Roger, Lyonesse (the daughter of another King who wishes to be wooed and has a penchant for good cognac) and a raving Ezra Pound and Haw-Haw who hound the allies over the radiowaves. What's not to like?
This is only the second Barthelme book I have read but it's funny as hell and written in a style somewhere between modern English and olde ancyent Arhturian Anglo-Saxon. Very very enjoyable read. Couldn't put it down. Highly recommended.
June 30, 2022
stories live longer than men, unless, like arthur here, you’re cursed with an overly protracted lifespan due to good genes and prophetic merlin related magic. this is Barthelme at the height of his comedic power, but don’t get it twisted, this is also the most moving ending Don B ever wrote
November 5, 2023
Interesting premise, but not what one would expect. Perhaps if it had been a time-travelling story, then it would have been a more appealing novel.
May 20, 2018
радіоп'єса про посттеатр (абсурду) військових дій. якби Лицарі Круглого столу дожили до WWII й Гітлера, то: 1) Вінстон їм би не сподобався 2) Ґвіневра все одно зраджуватиме 3) Грааль би став атомною бомбою (чи навпаки) 4) Артур би був бадьорим стариганем, а Мерлін передбачливо помер 5) Ланселот просто красень 6) Гітлер просто бяка 7) Лорд Ха-Ха - Джойс, але не Джеймс 8) Червоний Лицар виправдовував би курс партії 9) Бартелмі - майстер діалогів 10) але читання першоджерел обов'язкове (Мелорі й Теннісон).
February 12, 2012
Not Barthelme's best, but full of great moments. The illustrations by Barry Moser in this edition completely failed to capture or complement the tone and feel of the book. It would be best to read another edition, one without illustrations.
October 28, 2025
The King by Donald Barthelme
This book seems to be appreciated by readers and critics: “there is much to laugh about…The King is one of the funniest books Ever written and an open invitation to a literary feast…”
If critics say that, “who am I to judge”…in the recent words of Pope Francis...and give a seal of rejection to a book, loved by so many others
This is not a judgment, but my opinion.
In a few words: I did not get it. It is postmodernist, which may mean past me.
It is a program I have to write about I read (or try to) and whatever my feelings about the work, it will be there on goodreads and my blog www.realini.blogspot.ro
This makes me think that I will put my own experiences down, taking advice from the red neck who opened a book once (it may be just my imagination) and said <>
To admit my frailty, Barthelme and his King made a similar impact on me:
If this is one of the funniest books ever and a feast, wait till you get my prose in hand. In fact I have started with some recollections on another blog with my stories; I do not even know the address from the top of my head.
I thought I dig (I liked this expression which seems to mean capisci, comprende in slang) even darker, humor.
My favorites are Monty Python and they have their share of crazy stuff;
Think of the dead parrot, or the stoning.
But the supposed humor from The King made me think of darker, horror material:
From Monty Python and The Holy Grail – grail which is also mentioned a few times in The King:
There is a knight who wants to fight an adversary
They do and the adversary cuts off one limb after another…
But this is not enough…
With no hands or legs, our hero still cries for a fight…
This is the tone suggested to me by this King, but hey, it’s not the book that has the problem it is me:
When a few people tell you that you are drunk, you better go to bed even if, especially if you feel wise, smart and sober.
On goodreads, The King has 402 ratings and 49 reviews, with an average of four stars…in other words, you are very likely to enjoy laugh and even comment somewhere on my blog on the disastrous quality of my advice.
But I say the book is probably very good….only if you were like me, you wouldn’t like it.
This book seems to be appreciated by readers and critics: “there is much to laugh about…The King is one of the funniest books Ever written and an open invitation to a literary feast…”
If critics say that, “who am I to judge”…in the recent words of Pope Francis...and give a seal of rejection to a book, loved by so many others
This is not a judgment, but my opinion.
In a few words: I did not get it. It is postmodernist, which may mean past me.
It is a program I have to write about I read (or try to) and whatever my feelings about the work, it will be there on goodreads and my blog www.realini.blogspot.ro
This makes me think that I will put my own experiences down, taking advice from the red neck who opened a book once (it may be just my imagination) and said <>
To admit my frailty, Barthelme and his King made a similar impact on me:
If this is one of the funniest books ever and a feast, wait till you get my prose in hand. In fact I have started with some recollections on another blog with my stories; I do not even know the address from the top of my head.
I thought I dig (I liked this expression which seems to mean capisci, comprende in slang) even darker, humor.
My favorites are Monty Python and they have their share of crazy stuff;
Think of the dead parrot, or the stoning.
But the supposed humor from The King made me think of darker, horror material:
From Monty Python and The Holy Grail – grail which is also mentioned a few times in The King:
There is a knight who wants to fight an adversary
They do and the adversary cuts off one limb after another…
But this is not enough…
With no hands or legs, our hero still cries for a fight…
This is the tone suggested to me by this King, but hey, it’s not the book that has the problem it is me:
When a few people tell you that you are drunk, you better go to bed even if, especially if you feel wise, smart and sober.
On goodreads, The King has 402 ratings and 49 reviews, with an average of four stars…in other words, you are very likely to enjoy laugh and even comment somewhere on my blog on the disastrous quality of my advice.
But I say the book is probably very good….only if you were like me, you wouldn’t like it.
December 3, 2025
It Insists Upon Itself
Not exactly my cup of tea. I'm sure it looked good on paper, Arthurian Legend + WW2...but on paper it failed.
I'd shove it sideways into one of those little Free Library book stands next to the 1980s microwave cookbooks, zen maintenance motorcycle manuals, and The Five Last Lectures You Get in Heaven on Tuesdays - except those boxes are routinely raided by slimy online sellers for fresh inventory - it's a scam people...
Only humorous incident was a complete accident of synchronicity with the Pop Culture Moment, as on page 156 when Arthur is told he's at sixes and sevens - an unintentional joke planted in a weird little book in 1990 goes FLOOF 35 years later
Not exactly my cup of tea. I'm sure it looked good on paper, Arthurian Legend + WW2...but on paper it failed.
I'd shove it sideways into one of those little Free Library book stands next to the 1980s microwave cookbooks, zen maintenance motorcycle manuals, and The Five Last Lectures You Get in Heaven on Tuesdays - except those boxes are routinely raided by slimy online sellers for fresh inventory - it's a scam people...
Only humorous incident was a complete accident of synchronicity with the Pop Culture Moment, as on page 156 when Arthur is told he's at sixes and sevens - an unintentional joke planted in a weird little book in 1990 goes FLOOF 35 years later
November 9, 2019
I’m sad to be finished with the last of Barthelme’s novels, but I’m glad to be able to say that they were all great and wildly unique. The man’s take on medieval fantasy is just as irreverent as you’d expect, and although you’re left wanting more time in this universe, the book leaves its readers with the distinct sense that there’s a lot of subtext buried under the surface. Worth reading for fans of Barthelme and readers who aren’t afraid of some ambiguity and general oddness.
November 6, 2021
The premise is King Arthur, Queen Guinevere and Knights of the Round Table during the World War II. Only the thought of this idea seemed funny to me and the book did not disappoint. A fun and fast read, although, as one may expect, sad at some points.
October 7, 2020
An amusing retelling of an oldie. A cacked out SparkNotes retelling of King Arthur. That's it. That's the review.
May 9, 2015
پادشاه
دونالد بارتلمی
مزدک بلوری
نشر نی /۱۳۹۳
دونالد بارتلمی از مهمترین نویسندگان پست مدرن امریکاست و داستانهای کوتاهش از بهترین نمونه های این رده ادبی محسوب میشود .هرچند بارتلمی به علت نثر به شدت پیچیده اش (که بسیاری به ان برچسب روشنفکرانه می زنند)و همچنین محتوای نه چندان روشن و ملموس اثارش که سوریالیسمی سرخوشانه را در بر دارد ،چندان محبوب همگان به ویژه کتابخوانهای اماتور نیست.
مهمترین رمان بارتلمی در کنار داستان های کوتاه بسیار معروفش ،سفید برفی نام دارد که از نمونه های شناخته شده پست مدرنیستی است .پادشاه رمان دیگر بارتلمی است که به نوعی اخرین کار منتشر شده او در دوران زندگیش نیز محسوب میشود.
پادشاه ،داستان ارتورشاه و برادران میزگرد است و همان داستان اشنای جام مقدس و پیشگویی مرلین ، همان داستان لانسلوت پهلوان است و عشقش به گویینور ملکه سرزمین بریتانیا،با این تفاوت که همه اینها نه در قرون وسطی ،بلکه در میانه جنگ جهانی دوم اتفاق میفتد و موسیلینی در ایتالیا و هیتلر در المان برمسند قدرتند.چرچیل نیز بر سکان است و جنگ را میگرداند .جام مقدس نیز تعبیری است از بمب اتمی که همگان در جستجوی انند .رمان پراز ارجاعات فرامتنی به تاریخ است و همچنین به اسطوره ارتور شاه .خواننده این اثر تنها با دانستن این هاست که میتواند از کتاب لذت ببرد ،چون داستان در بسیار موارد شکلی واژگونه و تغییر شکل یافته از حادثه اصلی و اسطوره را روایت میکند .طنز جاری بر کتاب و سبک خاص بارتلمی (که در این اثر نه به قدرت داستانهای کوتاهش و همچنین رمان سفیدبرفی حضور دارد)سبب لذتی دوچندان برای خواننده مطلع از تاریخ و اسطوره میگردد.کتاب متن خوشخوانی دارد هرچند خواندن ان ممکن است برای همه خوشایند نباشد .رمان تقریبا بدون قصه پردازی و پیرنگی مشخص است .کتاب برای دوستداران متن هایی با شیوه گزین گویه ای و جملات زیبا و قصار به شدت نا امید کننده است
دونالد بارتلمی
مزدک بلوری
نشر نی /۱۳۹۳
دونالد بارتلمی از مهمترین نویسندگان پست مدرن امریکاست و داستانهای کوتاهش از بهترین نمونه های این رده ادبی محسوب میشود .هرچند بارتلمی به علت نثر به شدت پیچیده اش (که بسیاری به ان برچسب روشنفکرانه می زنند)و همچنین محتوای نه چندان روشن و ملموس اثارش که سوریالیسمی سرخوشانه را در بر دارد ،چندان محبوب همگان به ویژه کتابخوانهای اماتور نیست.
مهمترین رمان بارتلمی در کنار داستان های کوتاه بسیار معروفش ،سفید برفی نام دارد که از نمونه های شناخته شده پست مدرنیستی است .پادشاه رمان دیگر بارتلمی است که به نوعی اخرین کار منتشر شده او در دوران زندگیش نیز محسوب میشود.
پادشاه ،داستان ارتورشاه و برادران میزگرد است و همان داستان اشنای جام مقدس و پیشگویی مرلین ، همان داستان لانسلوت پهلوان است و عشقش به گویینور ملکه سرزمین بریتانیا،با این تفاوت که همه اینها نه در قرون وسطی ،بلکه در میانه جنگ جهانی دوم اتفاق میفتد و موسیلینی در ایتالیا و هیتلر در المان برمسند قدرتند.چرچیل نیز بر سکان است و جنگ را میگرداند .جام مقدس نیز تعبیری است از بمب اتمی که همگان در جستجوی انند .رمان پراز ارجاعات فرامتنی به تاریخ است و همچنین به اسطوره ارتور شاه .خواننده این اثر تنها با دانستن این هاست که میتواند از کتاب لذت ببرد ،چون داستان در بسیار موارد شکلی واژگونه و تغییر شکل یافته از حادثه اصلی و اسطوره را روایت میکند .طنز جاری بر کتاب و سبک خاص بارتلمی (که در این اثر نه به قدرت داستانهای کوتاهش و همچنین رمان سفیدبرفی حضور دارد)سبب لذتی دوچندان برای خواننده مطلع از تاریخ و اسطوره میگردد.کتاب متن خوشخوانی دارد هرچند خواندن ان ممکن است برای همه خوشایند نباشد .رمان تقریبا بدون قصه پردازی و پیرنگی مشخص است .کتاب برای دوستداران متن هایی با شیوه گزین گویه ای و جملات زیبا و قصار به شدت نا امید کننده است
July 17, 2010
Barthelme is one of my favorite authors. He usually writes short stories, but has a few novels under his belt, including this one. I guess this is just a long short story, since it clocks in around 150 pages with geriatrically-friendly large font. It modernizes King Arthur and his knights, and weaves in themes regarding Nazis and such. But I'm not sure the type of person I would recommend this book to. For instance, were a semi-studious individual with an affinity towards knights to stumble across this book, he would likely say with a furled brow, "what a kook, what a goofus, how sayest thou that sir Barthelme has obtained a publisher?" To such a person I would direct them to read John Steinbeck's "The Acts of King Arthur and His Noble Knights." But for those that like to read wacky renderings of moderately understood tales, this is the book for you. And if you don't like it, it is short enough that you could even finish it without regrets. So check it out from the library like I did.
February 20, 2011
I bought this at a used bookstore that had this small piece of description written on a notecard as a recommendation.
"Bizarre, frustrating, + funny. From a master of 'post-modernism.' Whatever, it's great."
A pretty apt summary. I definitely found myself frustrated at times, but there are many moments of greatness. More than maybe any other book I've read however, I found these moments to be why I kept reading. Overall as a work, I had trouble getting into it, but these punctuated moments had me laughing out loud more than any book I can remember. Bizarre and certainly not for everyone, it's something I enjoyed, but wouldn't necessarily recommend to the average reader.
"Bizarre, frustrating, + funny. From a master of 'post-modernism.' Whatever, it's great."
A pretty apt summary. I definitely found myself frustrated at times, but there are many moments of greatness. More than maybe any other book I've read however, I found these moments to be why I kept reading. Overall as a work, I had trouble getting into it, but these punctuated moments had me laughing out loud more than any book I can remember. Bizarre and certainly not for everyone, it's something I enjoyed, but wouldn't necessarily recommend to the average reader.
December 31, 2015
Bueno, menudo libro más curioso, una obra de teatro en realidad, o el minimalismo literario llevado al extremo. Abundancia de diálogos, muy bien trabajados, con momentos muy destacables, algunas situaciones cómicas y todo eso. El mundo del rey Arturo y su Tabla Redonda traído a los tiempos modernos en ese contexto bélico de la segunda guerra mundial. Pinceladas críticas muy agudas. Un libro que, a pesar de todo, me ha costado mucho terminar. Una especie de experimento literario de Barthelme con apenas hilo narrativo que termina donde termina porque sí, pero podía haber terminado antes o después. ¡Qué mas da! Menos mal que estaba escrito como estaba escrito.
January 26, 2023
„«L-aţi văzut pe bărbatul acela spânzurat? Acolo în spate?»
«Da, dar nu aveam de gând să menţionez asta.»
«Spânzurat de picioare.»
«Dar încă în viaţă, după cum arăta.»
«Socotesc că e un ucigaş sau vreun alt nelegiuit.»
«Spânzurătoarea este, de obicei, o dovadă a dezaprobării sociale», spuse Lancelot, «dar să ne întoarcem şi să-l întrebăm ce-a făcut.»
Cavalerii se apropie de bărbatul atârnat cu capul în jos, iar Sir Roger îl înţeapă cu vârful spadei.
«Ziua bună», spuse el. «Se pare că n-o duceţi prea bine agăţat acolo, sub Copacul Cunoaşterii. Există vreun motiv pentru asta?»
«Vai de mine», spuse Bărbatul Atârnat, «am fost înşelat cu cruzime de cei cărora le displace politica mea.»
«Şi cu ce argumente aţi obţinut o respingere atât de violentă?»
«Sunt un deviaţionist», spuse Bărbatul Atârnat, «unul dintre aceia care cred că doar deviaţionismul ne poate izbăvi de toate relele de pe lume.»
«Un deviaţionist», spuse Sir Roger. «Asta ne-a luat cireaşa de pe tort, nu credeţi?»
«Ne-a luat cireaşa de pe tort», spuse Lancelot, «ce pitoresc. E cumva vreo expresie specifică din Dahomey?»
«Invenţie proprie», zise Sir Roger. «Pot să întreb ce face un deviaţionist?»
«Deviază», spuse Bărbatul Atârnat, «de la tot ce face. Noi ne opunem ferm la orice pune la cale turma, din principiu. Bineînţeles că asta nu ne face prea îndrăgiţi.»
«Cred că băiatul ăsta a căzut în căldarea cu ghinion», spuse Lancelot. «Am face bine să mergem într-ale noastre şi să-l lăsăm pe seama corbilor.»
«Nu, nu», spuse Sir Roger, «astfel nu învăţăm niciodată nimic. E chiar foarte interesant ce spune el. Eu zic să mai zăbovim până îi prindem ideea, ca să zic aşa.»
«Aş putea vorbi mai frumos», zise bărbatul, «dacă m-aţi da jos.»
«Nu putem face o asemenea grozăvie», spuse Sir Roger. «Ar însemna să intervenim în cursul justiţiei. Presupun că a avut loc un proces corect.»
«O grămadă de procese corecte», spuse Bărbatul Atârnat, «la fiecare mână ridicată, un vot de drept.»
«Trebuie să se fi făcut nişte hârţoage», zise Sir Roger, privind în jur. «Sentinţa, apelul, respingerea cazului…»
Lancelot îşi petrece braţul în jurul bărbatului şi taie frânghia.
«Foarte mulţumesc», spuse Bărbatul Atârnat, frecându-şi piciorul. «Principiile mele începuseră să pălească. Vedeţi, noi, deviaţioniştii, suntem de două feluri», începu el, «deviaţionişti şi adevăraţi deviaţionişti.»
«Mă tem că această dizertaţie va fi destul de lungă», spuse Sir Roger.
«Priviţi», zise Lancelot, «e ceva scris pe piciorul atârnatului.»
«Vreo urmă de la frânghie, probabil».
«Pare să fie un fel de formulă matematică».
«Poate că ar fi mai bine s-o copiez. S-ar putea dovedi importantă.»
«Oh, mă îndoiesc. Nu prea e genul de persoană care ar avea ceva important scris pe picior.»
«Şi totuşi», spuse Cavalerul Negru şi se puse pe copiat.” (pp. 86-88)
„«E atât de frumos şi de plăcut să participi la sărbătorirea primăverii, în sezonul narciselor, cu flori de măr şi flori de cireş...»
«Majestate.»
«Da.»
«Primăvara s-a terminat.»
«Ce ai spus?»
«Primăvara s-a terminat. E noiembrie.»
«Noiembrie. Mi se părea mie că e cam răcoare.»
«Pentru că chiar este.»
«Un curent de aer rece, asta am simţit, şi uite, iarba de pe pajişti s-a uscat, iar fructe roşiatice şi zbârcite atârnă de viţa de vie…»
«Şi bombele care rad totul, doamnă, şi marile incendii, şi oamenii rămaşi fără case, şi morţii cu braţele smulse ori fără picioare ori fără capete…»
«Eu credeam că încă mai sărbătoream primăvara.»
«Aţi petrecut prea mult timp prin spitale, doamnă, asta v-a afectat judecata.»
«Nu, sunt doar puţin obosită, Varley. Cât e ceasul?»
«Ceasurile s-au oprit, toate. O să deschid radioul, doamnă.»
«Mai bine nu. La radio e fie ticălosul ăla care îndrugă verzi şi uscate despre evrei sau celălalt mizerabil care ne tot spune că submarinele au mai doborât un convoi de-al nostru.»
«Sir Robert este aici.»
«Nu vreau să-l văd. Ştiu ce a venit să-mi spună.»
«Dar aşteaptă de ore întregi.»
«Expediaţi-l repede. Sufăr de dezamăgire acută sau poate de melancolie, şi din câte ştiu e contagios, aşa că n-aş vrea ca Sir Rober, acest bun cavaler şi viteaz apărător al regatului, să fie supus unor asemenea neplăceri doar din cauza mea…»
«Da, expediaţi-l repede», spuse Sir Robert intrând, «aruncaţi-l afară pe nenorocit şi daţi-i un picior în fund când coboară pe scări…»
«Dar, prea bunule Sir Robert, cu siguranţă că aţi venit să-mi spuneţi ceea ce eu nu-mi doresc deloc să aud. De ce să vă ascult atunci? Plecaţi şi păstraţi-vă cuvintele.»
«E un rămas bun, însă doar vremelnic. Sper.»
«Sunteţi un ticălos la fel ca toţi ticăloşii, la fel ca Artur, Lancelot, azi aici şi mâine ia-l de unde nu-i, n-aveţi pic de statornicie şi nici nu puteţi să-mi daţi speranţa de care am nevoie…»
«Există un motiv pentru toate astea. Eu nu fac altceva decât ceilalţi cavaleri şi scutieri de pe faţa pământului, toţi împărtăşim aceleaşi idealuri şi acelaşi scop…»
«Nu-mi veniţi mie cu motive, nu e o chestiune de temeiuri aici, ci de sentimente. Dacă aţi avea o inimă, în loc de o cutie de biscuiţi, în acel piept zdravăn de scoţian, atunci…»
Apoi Guinevere leşină şi Sir Robert leşină şi el, iar Varley, văzându-i leşinaţi pe amândoi, leşină la
rându-i.” (pp. 132-133)
«Da, dar nu aveam de gând să menţionez asta.»
«Spânzurat de picioare.»
«Dar încă în viaţă, după cum arăta.»
«Socotesc că e un ucigaş sau vreun alt nelegiuit.»
«Spânzurătoarea este, de obicei, o dovadă a dezaprobării sociale», spuse Lancelot, «dar să ne întoarcem şi să-l întrebăm ce-a făcut.»
Cavalerii se apropie de bărbatul atârnat cu capul în jos, iar Sir Roger îl înţeapă cu vârful spadei.
«Ziua bună», spuse el. «Se pare că n-o duceţi prea bine agăţat acolo, sub Copacul Cunoaşterii. Există vreun motiv pentru asta?»
«Vai de mine», spuse Bărbatul Atârnat, «am fost înşelat cu cruzime de cei cărora le displace politica mea.»
«Şi cu ce argumente aţi obţinut o respingere atât de violentă?»
«Sunt un deviaţionist», spuse Bărbatul Atârnat, «unul dintre aceia care cred că doar deviaţionismul ne poate izbăvi de toate relele de pe lume.»
«Un deviaţionist», spuse Sir Roger. «Asta ne-a luat cireaşa de pe tort, nu credeţi?»
«Ne-a luat cireaşa de pe tort», spuse Lancelot, «ce pitoresc. E cumva vreo expresie specifică din Dahomey?»
«Invenţie proprie», zise Sir Roger. «Pot să întreb ce face un deviaţionist?»
«Deviază», spuse Bărbatul Atârnat, «de la tot ce face. Noi ne opunem ferm la orice pune la cale turma, din principiu. Bineînţeles că asta nu ne face prea îndrăgiţi.»
«Cred că băiatul ăsta a căzut în căldarea cu ghinion», spuse Lancelot. «Am face bine să mergem într-ale noastre şi să-l lăsăm pe seama corbilor.»
«Nu, nu», spuse Sir Roger, «astfel nu învăţăm niciodată nimic. E chiar foarte interesant ce spune el. Eu zic să mai zăbovim până îi prindem ideea, ca să zic aşa.»
«Aş putea vorbi mai frumos», zise bărbatul, «dacă m-aţi da jos.»
«Nu putem face o asemenea grozăvie», spuse Sir Roger. «Ar însemna să intervenim în cursul justiţiei. Presupun că a avut loc un proces corect.»
«O grămadă de procese corecte», spuse Bărbatul Atârnat, «la fiecare mână ridicată, un vot de drept.»
«Trebuie să se fi făcut nişte hârţoage», zise Sir Roger, privind în jur. «Sentinţa, apelul, respingerea cazului…»
Lancelot îşi petrece braţul în jurul bărbatului şi taie frânghia.
«Foarte mulţumesc», spuse Bărbatul Atârnat, frecându-şi piciorul. «Principiile mele începuseră să pălească. Vedeţi, noi, deviaţioniştii, suntem de două feluri», începu el, «deviaţionişti şi adevăraţi deviaţionişti.»
«Mă tem că această dizertaţie va fi destul de lungă», spuse Sir Roger.
«Priviţi», zise Lancelot, «e ceva scris pe piciorul atârnatului.»
«Vreo urmă de la frânghie, probabil».
«Pare să fie un fel de formulă matematică».
«Poate că ar fi mai bine s-o copiez. S-ar putea dovedi importantă.»
«Oh, mă îndoiesc. Nu prea e genul de persoană care ar avea ceva important scris pe picior.»
«Şi totuşi», spuse Cavalerul Negru şi se puse pe copiat.” (pp. 86-88)
„«E atât de frumos şi de plăcut să participi la sărbătorirea primăverii, în sezonul narciselor, cu flori de măr şi flori de cireş...»
«Majestate.»
«Da.»
«Primăvara s-a terminat.»
«Ce ai spus?»
«Primăvara s-a terminat. E noiembrie.»
«Noiembrie. Mi se părea mie că e cam răcoare.»
«Pentru că chiar este.»
«Un curent de aer rece, asta am simţit, şi uite, iarba de pe pajişti s-a uscat, iar fructe roşiatice şi zbârcite atârnă de viţa de vie…»
«Şi bombele care rad totul, doamnă, şi marile incendii, şi oamenii rămaşi fără case, şi morţii cu braţele smulse ori fără picioare ori fără capete…»
«Eu credeam că încă mai sărbătoream primăvara.»
«Aţi petrecut prea mult timp prin spitale, doamnă, asta v-a afectat judecata.»
«Nu, sunt doar puţin obosită, Varley. Cât e ceasul?»
«Ceasurile s-au oprit, toate. O să deschid radioul, doamnă.»
«Mai bine nu. La radio e fie ticălosul ăla care îndrugă verzi şi uscate despre evrei sau celălalt mizerabil care ne tot spune că submarinele au mai doborât un convoi de-al nostru.»
«Sir Robert este aici.»
«Nu vreau să-l văd. Ştiu ce a venit să-mi spună.»
«Dar aşteaptă de ore întregi.»
«Expediaţi-l repede. Sufăr de dezamăgire acută sau poate de melancolie, şi din câte ştiu e contagios, aşa că n-aş vrea ca Sir Rober, acest bun cavaler şi viteaz apărător al regatului, să fie supus unor asemenea neplăceri doar din cauza mea…»
«Da, expediaţi-l repede», spuse Sir Robert intrând, «aruncaţi-l afară pe nenorocit şi daţi-i un picior în fund când coboară pe scări…»
«Dar, prea bunule Sir Robert, cu siguranţă că aţi venit să-mi spuneţi ceea ce eu nu-mi doresc deloc să aud. De ce să vă ascult atunci? Plecaţi şi păstraţi-vă cuvintele.»
«E un rămas bun, însă doar vremelnic. Sper.»
«Sunteţi un ticălos la fel ca toţi ticăloşii, la fel ca Artur, Lancelot, azi aici şi mâine ia-l de unde nu-i, n-aveţi pic de statornicie şi nici nu puteţi să-mi daţi speranţa de care am nevoie…»
«Există un motiv pentru toate astea. Eu nu fac altceva decât ceilalţi cavaleri şi scutieri de pe faţa pământului, toţi împărtăşim aceleaşi idealuri şi acelaşi scop…»
«Nu-mi veniţi mie cu motive, nu e o chestiune de temeiuri aici, ci de sentimente. Dacă aţi avea o inimă, în loc de o cutie de biscuiţi, în acel piept zdravăn de scoţian, atunci…»
Apoi Guinevere leşină şi Sir Robert leşină şi el, iar Varley, văzându-i leşinaţi pe amândoi, leşină la
rându-i.” (pp. 132-133)
December 31, 2020
Funny, snarky, and quietly brilliant. My first read of Barthelme, and I suspect there will be a lot more to come.
May 12, 2023
Perhaps one of the most pointless books I've ever read: a short piece of absurdist humour without the humour and with the absurdism being completely inert. Splayed rather than pointed in its motives, Donald Barthelme's The King makes no use of its interesting concept; that of King Arthur and his knights being present in Britain during the Second World War.
It's a struggle to determine what the point was of such a move: we must assume the idea came to Barthelme from the old legend that the Once and Future King will return to aid Britain in its hour of gravest need – and could there be any time of need more appropriate than 1940? However, aside from a few token and desultory name drops of Dunkirk and the Blitz, there's no attempt at all to utilise the World War Two potential, and the Arthurian court are about as relevant and essential to their new wartime setting as Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are to the proper functioning of the original Hamlet. Launcelot and Guinevere aren't dead here, however. Just limp.
It's hard to pin down what the writer was trying to do, if indeed he was trying to do anything. At one point I thought perhaps the anachronism of having King Arthur in the modern age was meant to be a commentary on the purported anachronism of monarchy in the modern age, but this idea was dropped in the text the instant it was raised. As too was the idea – perhaps Barthelme's only good one – of the quest for the Holy Grail being replaced by the quest to develop the first atomic bomb.
These were the only two signposts I could find in the author's inoffensive but empty meander of a book – though not so much signposts as broken twigs indicating that something, who knows what, had passed by. The King is just yet another of those books which seems determined to confirm 'post-modern' as a synonym for 'tedious, self-satisfied noodling'. Sometimes taking a risk on a promising book just doesn't pay off. It happens.
It's a struggle to determine what the point was of such a move: we must assume the idea came to Barthelme from the old legend that the Once and Future King will return to aid Britain in its hour of gravest need – and could there be any time of need more appropriate than 1940? However, aside from a few token and desultory name drops of Dunkirk and the Blitz, there's no attempt at all to utilise the World War Two potential, and the Arthurian court are about as relevant and essential to their new wartime setting as Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are to the proper functioning of the original Hamlet. Launcelot and Guinevere aren't dead here, however. Just limp.
It's hard to pin down what the writer was trying to do, if indeed he was trying to do anything. At one point I thought perhaps the anachronism of having King Arthur in the modern age was meant to be a commentary on the purported anachronism of monarchy in the modern age, but this idea was dropped in the text the instant it was raised. As too was the idea – perhaps Barthelme's only good one – of the quest for the Holy Grail being replaced by the quest to develop the first atomic bomb.
These were the only two signposts I could find in the author's inoffensive but empty meander of a book – though not so much signposts as broken twigs indicating that something, who knows what, had passed by. The King is just yet another of those books which seems determined to confirm 'post-modern' as a synonym for 'tedious, self-satisfied noodling'. Sometimes taking a risk on a promising book just doesn't pay off. It happens.
November 21, 2017
As great as Barthelme is, his genius lies in the short form, and his greatest drawback seems to be his inconsistency. Barthelme's a conceptual writer, meaning that he bases his stories on ideas or concepts rather than plot or characterization. This can work well in stories like "The School" or "Indian Uprising" where absurdity rather than tension propels the reader. This is my third Barthelme novel, after "The Dead Father" and "Paradise," and I can say that each one became a bit of a slog. Without any obvious conflict, the novels tend to meander. There's a pleasure to be gained in simply reading Barthelme sentences, and that's true in "The King." By placing the knights of the round table in the context of world war II, the author has a lot of fun with anachronistic language. The knights share philosophical dialogues with each other. Guinevere is updated to be a bit more forward, and Arthur is handed the grail in the form of a "formula" for the atomic bomb and must decide whether or not to use it. One would think this dilemma might provide the kick the book needs, but the war is so distant, spoken of nearly in passing, that it never becomes real. The characters are all witty and urbane. They sound, in short, like Barthelme characters. Barthelme liked the historical mash-up and its potential for comic effect. This seems an odd pairing, however--Le Morte d'Arthur and WWII. I kept trying to glean additional meaning from the story. Was Barthelme saying something about the silliness of the monarchy? Maybe. Was he saying that war hasn't changed much in thousands of years? Possibly. Sometimes I wonder, however, if he was doing much besides writing to amuse himself, reader be damned. I have a certain respect for this type of writer but I'd prefer to read him in smaller segments. When I'm needing a Barthelme fix, I keep returning to his short stories.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 99 reviews