What do you think?
Rate this book
The Pendragon
The story is told through the eyes of Bedivere, Arthur's milk brother and first companion, and covers the period from Arthur's childhood to his King-making and inevitable death.
519 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1979
6 people are currently reading
708 people want to read
About the author
Catherine Christian
33 books4 followersBorn in 1901 in Chelsea, London, as Mamie Mühlenkamp, Catherine Mary Christian was the daughter of businessman Christian John Mühlenkamp, and his wife, Catherine Harriett Ellett. The family was of German extraction, although they had been settled in England for some time before Mamie’s birth. They changed their name some time during the First World War, in order to avoid being identified as German. Mamie was educated at Croyden High School, and became involved, some time in the 1920s, in the Girl Guide Movement. She edited The Guide - the journal of the movement - from 1939-1945. Her friend and flatmate, Margaret (‘Peg’) Tennyson, edited The Guider during that same period, and published guide novels under the pseudonym "Carol Forrest" (sometimes erroneously attributed to Christian). After the war, Christian and Tennyson moved to Devon, where Christian was, for a time, Curator of the Salcombe National Trust Museum. The two were involved in the Guide International Service, and helped the former Polish Chief Guide run a home for war orphans. Christian died in 1985.
Christian's life-long interest in Guiding is apparent in her many children's books, which often feature Guides. In addition to her children's stories, she also wrote historical fiction and Arthurian fantasy for adults, and published four "Ranger" books under the pseudonym Patience Gilmour.
Christian's life-long interest in Guiding is apparent in her many children's books, which often feature Guides. In addition to her children's stories, she also wrote historical fiction and Arthurian fantasy for adults, and published four "Ranger" books under the pseudonym Patience Gilmour.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews
January 17, 2020
After the withdrawal of the last Roman troops in Britain in 407 A.D. (although the province remained officially part of the Roman Empire), contemporary written records of events on the island are almost nonexistent through the fifth and sixth centuries. Most of our knowledge of events comes from archaeology and from the writings of later historians, who probably depended both on oral lore and older written records which haven't survived, but who weren't into documenting their sources in the way that modern academic historians do. The earliest surviving written account of King Arthur's reign is found in the History of the Britons, written by the Welsh monk and historian Nennius around 830 A.D. (about three centuries after the events). Later medieval historians and poets built on Nennius' account and greatly embroidered it, making Arthur and his "knights of the Round Table" major heroes in the High Medieval tradition of the courtly epic romance, replete with the chivalric ideology and material culture of their own day, and overlaid with considerable magical and fantasy elements. Modern authors have tended to treat Arthur's world as a setting for fantasy; and many people today doubt that he even existed.
Many other people, however (including myself), take the position that ancient writings presented by their authors as factual probably have a factual basis, unless there is a convincing reason to doubt it, and that they can be taken seriously --though not uncritically-- as historical evidence. (This is typically the attitude of serious historians and archaeologists, in contrast to that of armchair skeptical laymen; but I digress.) Given that view, it's probable that a Celtic king named Arthur was a prominent leader in early 6th-century Britain, and an important figure in the resistance against the invading Anglo-Saxons. (It's reasonable also to assume that Nennius was correct in associating him with the Celts' great victory at Badon Hill, which earlier historians Gildas and Bede also mention, and which greatly delayed the eventual Anglo-Saxon conquest of England.) But not much actual detail is known about his reign, and his lifestyle, court, etc. would have borne little resemblance to the later High Medieval fantasy version.
In this novel, Catherine Christian has set herself the task of imagining a fictional reconstruction of what the career of the real-life Arthur might have been like. The key words here are "fictional" and "might have;" she's writing historical fiction, not history, and makes no pretense that it's the latter. But it is historical fiction; she steeped herself thoroughly in the subsequent written accounts of Arthur, as well as other relevant historical and archaeological material, what we know of Celtic culture and beliefs, and anything else that would cast light on Arthur's actual world. And she stays true to that factual basis (she just has more scope for imaginative reconstruction than she would with a later figure whose real life is better documented). While she follows the basic arc of Arthur's story as given by the late medieval writers, such as Malory, and even includes many of their details, she includes nothing anachronistic. (Arthur's top warriors, for instance, are "knights" --the title was Roman, and as Arthur points out in the book, the only title Rome ever gave based on actual personal merit, not birth; that was probably the actual root from which early medieval knighthood developed.) Magical elements are downplayed; people of that day believe in magic, and some individuals have the Sight; but there's nothing here that couldn't really happen.
Besides its historical plausibility, the novel has other things going for it. As involving fiction, it's quite well written, with a plot that draws the reader in, high-stakes conflict with the fate of a people and a culture at issue, a larger-than-life hero who genuinely has heroic qualities, realistic characters who are easy to like and relate to, situations and character interactions that evoke an emotional investment, and a very textured evocation of a historical milieu which makes you feel right at home in it. The Britain depicted here is one where Christianity, nominally declared the state religion of Rome late in the 300s, still vies with the older Druidism for the religious loyalty of the Celts (some of them semi-Romanized and some not so much) --"Merlin," for instance, is a Druidical title here, not a name. Despite her last name, the author isn't necessarily Christian, and her Arthur is less unambiguously Christian than later writers would make him; but she and he are respectful towards both traditions. There's no bad language or explicit sex, and not much reference to illicit sex. Perhaps most important, Arthur here isn't simply a tough power-freak ruling by force for selfish ends (like many political leaders then and now); he's someone who cares about fairness and justice, and preserving civilized life for future generations, a leader whom people can follow because they respect him. That's the stuff of which real-life legends are made; and I don't doubt that the author is correct in figuring that this is what lies at the basis of Arthur's enduring legend.
All in all, I wouldn't rank this as a great novel, but it's definitely a very good one. It was a public library find, and one Barb and I read together; she liked it as well as I did, so it was a lucky find!
Many other people, however (including myself), take the position that ancient writings presented by their authors as factual probably have a factual basis, unless there is a convincing reason to doubt it, and that they can be taken seriously --though not uncritically-- as historical evidence. (This is typically the attitude of serious historians and archaeologists, in contrast to that of armchair skeptical laymen; but I digress.) Given that view, it's probable that a Celtic king named Arthur was a prominent leader in early 6th-century Britain, and an important figure in the resistance against the invading Anglo-Saxons. (It's reasonable also to assume that Nennius was correct in associating him with the Celts' great victory at Badon Hill, which earlier historians Gildas and Bede also mention, and which greatly delayed the eventual Anglo-Saxon conquest of England.) But not much actual detail is known about his reign, and his lifestyle, court, etc. would have borne little resemblance to the later High Medieval fantasy version.
In this novel, Catherine Christian has set herself the task of imagining a fictional reconstruction of what the career of the real-life Arthur might have been like. The key words here are "fictional" and "might have;" she's writing historical fiction, not history, and makes no pretense that it's the latter. But it is historical fiction; she steeped herself thoroughly in the subsequent written accounts of Arthur, as well as other relevant historical and archaeological material, what we know of Celtic culture and beliefs, and anything else that would cast light on Arthur's actual world. And she stays true to that factual basis (she just has more scope for imaginative reconstruction than she would with a later figure whose real life is better documented). While she follows the basic arc of Arthur's story as given by the late medieval writers, such as Malory, and even includes many of their details, she includes nothing anachronistic. (Arthur's top warriors, for instance, are "knights" --the title was Roman, and as Arthur points out in the book, the only title Rome ever gave based on actual personal merit, not birth; that was probably the actual root from which early medieval knighthood developed.) Magical elements are downplayed; people of that day believe in magic, and some individuals have the Sight; but there's nothing here that couldn't really happen.
Besides its historical plausibility, the novel has other things going for it. As involving fiction, it's quite well written, with a plot that draws the reader in, high-stakes conflict with the fate of a people and a culture at issue, a larger-than-life hero who genuinely has heroic qualities, realistic characters who are easy to like and relate to, situations and character interactions that evoke an emotional investment, and a very textured evocation of a historical milieu which makes you feel right at home in it. The Britain depicted here is one where Christianity, nominally declared the state religion of Rome late in the 300s, still vies with the older Druidism for the religious loyalty of the Celts (some of them semi-Romanized and some not so much) --"Merlin," for instance, is a Druidical title here, not a name. Despite her last name, the author isn't necessarily Christian, and her Arthur is less unambiguously Christian than later writers would make him; but she and he are respectful towards both traditions. There's no bad language or explicit sex, and not much reference to illicit sex. Perhaps most important, Arthur here isn't simply a tough power-freak ruling by force for selfish ends (like many political leaders then and now); he's someone who cares about fairness and justice, and preserving civilized life for future generations, a leader whom people can follow because they respect him. That's the stuff of which real-life legends are made; and I don't doubt that the author is correct in figuring that this is what lies at the basis of Arthur's enduring legend.
All in all, I wouldn't rank this as a great novel, but it's definitely a very good one. It was a public library find, and one Barb and I read together; she liked it as well as I did, so it was a lucky find!
March 4, 2013
I didn't end up finishing this. Perhaps because it was a book I read for my dissertation, and I was just reading for certain details, perhaps because it just feels dated and too much like everything else I've read. The closest comparison is with The Mists of Avalon, which I also disliked, if that helps.
There's nothing wrong with it as such, it's just the whole Celtic nostalgia thing doesn't work for me, particularly when you un-Celticise the most Celtic character of the lot (Cai).
There's nothing wrong with it as such, it's just the whole Celtic nostalgia thing doesn't work for me, particularly when you un-Celticise the most Celtic character of the lot (Cai).
March 25, 2017
It was so good to read an un-messed about version of the Arthur story, telling it straight and giving explanations for the magic that could go either way. And the end was beautifully done, very light touch (I still cried a bit).
July 28, 2019
I found this book in a second-hand bookstore, and read it in about two days.
As a fan of anything Arthurian, I enjoyed this book. It was rich with description and layered in a setting that had great history and context. It was a little dated in places (Arthur and Bedivere insisting on calling Ygern [Vivienne] 'girl' all the time grated), and the story was confusing at points: particularly the particulars of Medraut's (Mordred) birth. Because the book is from Bedivere's POV, and he was often away from the main players, his account misses a lot of things first hand, such as the drawing of the sword from the stone, and instead includes several secondary accounts from other characters 'catching him up' on what he has missed. However, I guess that is also the main theme of the book: how tales are told, retold, and warded, and thus how they evolve over time.
The characters were well sketched and I particularly liked how the traditional love triangle played out between Lancelot, Arthur, and Guinevere. There were a few other themes and issues this book seemed to want to discuss, but into which we were only given a small window and no further exploration, which is something a book such as 'The Mists of Avalon' does better. However, 'The Pendragon' is a great Arthurian novel in its own right, with enough twists on the legends to keep them fresh. It stuck to the tales in a way that conveyed a sense of 'truth' - grounding them in 5th century Britain.
As a fan of anything Arthurian, I enjoyed this book. It was rich with description and layered in a setting that had great history and context. It was a little dated in places (Arthur and Bedivere insisting on calling Ygern [Vivienne] 'girl' all the time grated), and the story was confusing at points: particularly the particulars of Medraut's (Mordred) birth. Because the book is from Bedivere's POV, and he was often away from the main players, his account misses a lot of things first hand, such as the drawing of the sword from the stone, and instead includes several secondary accounts from other characters 'catching him up' on what he has missed. However, I guess that is also the main theme of the book: how tales are told, retold, and warded, and thus how they evolve over time.
The characters were well sketched and I particularly liked how the traditional love triangle played out between Lancelot, Arthur, and Guinevere. There were a few other themes and issues this book seemed to want to discuss, but into which we were only given a small window and no further exploration, which is something a book such as 'The Mists of Avalon' does better. However, 'The Pendragon' is a great Arthurian novel in its own right, with enough twists on the legends to keep them fresh. It stuck to the tales in a way that conveyed a sense of 'truth' - grounding them in 5th century Britain.
March 4, 2025
Wow, wow, wow. If you know me, you know how much I love Arthurian legend AND Celtic history, and this book is the perfect marriage of the two. It did take me a while to make it out the other side with this one, but it was so totally worth it.
Catherine Christian’s adaptation, spanning from Arthur’s childhood to his fall at Camlan as witnessed by Sir Bedivere (because in this version it is he who is raised as a brother beside Arthur, not Sir Kay), is a proof of great effort on her part and a fully enchanting read.
In her work, Christian attempts to explain the “magic” and more mystical aspects of legends surrounding Arthur and his knights into real-world scenarios. The Merlin is still a wizened father-figure reading their fates in the stars, but his magic lies in his knowledge of the earth and the power of disguise. The Holy Grail is still that perfect vision of prosperity, unity, and purity, equally significant to the Druids and the Christians and the followers of the mysteries of Mithras, but it is not a physical vessel. It is not Lancelot’s son who retrieves it, but instead it is what is shown to him, and to some of the Companions as well, after a time. If you enjoy Arthurian legends for their mystic, fanciful aspects, this probably isn’t the story for you.
However, if you want to imagine what a real High King Arthur might have been like, what the daunting task of uniting and defending the Clans of Old Britain would have looked like after Rome’s fall and removal from the island, this is definitely the one to choose. It reads as the memoir of a veteran, one who fought for a cause and a leader he believed in. It’s touching and terrible and terrific, traveling through life with Bedivere, both of you knowing what comes at the end and wishing it could be different this time. It’s a war story, gritty without being too gory, and it’s one of the best explanations I’ve read for a look at what-might’ve-been.
So if you’re an Arthurian purist, stick to Geoffrey and Malory and save yourself the headache of “what do you mean he forgives Lancelot and Guinevere so easily?” and “what do you mean Excalibur was made specifically for Arthur and not pulled from the stone?” (That one actually did hurt a bit). Also, Mordred’s not a product of incest in this one, though he still believes he is, but it’s still kind of a win? So if you just love the legends and the chivalry and the thought of a true and good leader for all the world to gather around, read this book!
Catherine Christian’s adaptation, spanning from Arthur’s childhood to his fall at Camlan as witnessed by Sir Bedivere (because in this version it is he who is raised as a brother beside Arthur, not Sir Kay), is a proof of great effort on her part and a fully enchanting read.
In her work, Christian attempts to explain the “magic” and more mystical aspects of legends surrounding Arthur and his knights into real-world scenarios. The Merlin is still a wizened father-figure reading their fates in the stars, but his magic lies in his knowledge of the earth and the power of disguise. The Holy Grail is still that perfect vision of prosperity, unity, and purity, equally significant to the Druids and the Christians and the followers of the mysteries of Mithras, but it is not a physical vessel. It is not Lancelot’s son who retrieves it, but instead it is what is shown to him, and to some of the Companions as well, after a time. If you enjoy Arthurian legends for their mystic, fanciful aspects, this probably isn’t the story for you.
However, if you want to imagine what a real High King Arthur might have been like, what the daunting task of uniting and defending the Clans of Old Britain would have looked like after Rome’s fall and removal from the island, this is definitely the one to choose. It reads as the memoir of a veteran, one who fought for a cause and a leader he believed in. It’s touching and terrible and terrific, traveling through life with Bedivere, both of you knowing what comes at the end and wishing it could be different this time. It’s a war story, gritty without being too gory, and it’s one of the best explanations I’ve read for a look at what-might’ve-been.
So if you’re an Arthurian purist, stick to Geoffrey and Malory and save yourself the headache of “what do you mean he forgives Lancelot and Guinevere so easily?” and “what do you mean Excalibur was made specifically for Arthur and not pulled from the stone?” (That one actually did hurt a bit). Also, Mordred’s not a product of incest in this one, though he still believes he is, but it’s still kind of a win? So if you just love the legends and the chivalry and the thought of a true and good leader for all the world to gather around, read this book!
August 3, 2020
This is a fantastic telling of the King Arthur Legend set in the proper time period 517-27 in Southern England. It accurately relates the end of the Roman system, the return of Celtic tribes and the invasions by Saxons, Jutes and Irish pirates. The characters are well developed and very realistic humans. There is a bit of mysticism, but it is more in the way of religious ceremonies than the magic that many other versions of the legend have. This is why I categorize it as historical fiction and not fantasy.
February 1, 2020
Unfortunately, this book is a lost gem among the plethora of Arthurian novels, many which attempt to follow the exemplary Mary Stewart first person narrative style and falling woefully short of the mark. I remember picking this novel up right after I had read through Barbara Leonie Picard's juvenile rendition of the Arthurian legends, followed up by T.H. White exquisite tetralogy on the matter. Aching to find a copy of Malory or some Penguin editions of Arthurian classics Malory, I devoured whatever I could find. In the early 80's, this novel often sat beside T.H. White in the fantasy sections of bookstores.
At the time, I was a wee bit immature for the wonderfully wrought prose style of this version that manages to capture landscape and characters in a deft balance that matches Sutcliffe's "Sword at Sunset" and Mary Stewart's Merlin series. I have since lost the original paperback and recently procured another, which I have read with older eyes that once were enchanted with the wit and whimsy of T.H. White and now were enthralled by a darker, almost October-like atmosphere of this novel. The story is told from the point of view of Bedivere, which is an exciting choice as he is among Arthur's first companions and according to many versions, including the ubiquitous Malory, one of the very last companions to witness what has been referred to as "the wicked day."
The novel was ahead of its time, and I think an inspiration of novels that later would explore religious and eco-feminist perspectives, except Catherine Christian has the writing chops to deliver themes in a subtle weaving that work with you long after you have set the book down. There is no preachiness or overt agenda, but rather lines that describe the Grail as a “A mystery symbolized in all faiths by the Cup, which, held elevated in human hands, can only be filled from above.”
Still, the book is not perfect; the beginning is a bit of a slog in terms of engaging me as a reader and takes some warming up to—this is a pity because it deters many from enjoying the richness that unfolds later in the novel. This is a book that has satisfied me on so many other levels now that I have read countless versions. Why is this book has not been digitized floors me, especially in light that anyone searching for this particular title will pull up countless inferior versions bearing the same title before anyone can even find this book.
Amazon, please bring this book to Kindle readers! It deserves to be rediscovered for those hungering for more Arthurian lore.
At the time, I was a wee bit immature for the wonderfully wrought prose style of this version that manages to capture landscape and characters in a deft balance that matches Sutcliffe's "Sword at Sunset" and Mary Stewart's Merlin series. I have since lost the original paperback and recently procured another, which I have read with older eyes that once were enchanted with the wit and whimsy of T.H. White and now were enthralled by a darker, almost October-like atmosphere of this novel. The story is told from the point of view of Bedivere, which is an exciting choice as he is among Arthur's first companions and according to many versions, including the ubiquitous Malory, one of the very last companions to witness what has been referred to as "the wicked day."
The novel was ahead of its time, and I think an inspiration of novels that later would explore religious and eco-feminist perspectives, except Catherine Christian has the writing chops to deliver themes in a subtle weaving that work with you long after you have set the book down. There is no preachiness or overt agenda, but rather lines that describe the Grail as a “A mystery symbolized in all faiths by the Cup, which, held elevated in human hands, can only be filled from above.”
Still, the book is not perfect; the beginning is a bit of a slog in terms of engaging me as a reader and takes some warming up to—this is a pity because it deters many from enjoying the richness that unfolds later in the novel. This is a book that has satisfied me on so many other levels now that I have read countless versions. Why is this book has not been digitized floors me, especially in light that anyone searching for this particular title will pull up countless inferior versions bearing the same title before anyone can even find this book.
Amazon, please bring this book to Kindle readers! It deserves to be rediscovered for those hungering for more Arthurian lore.
July 10, 2010
While the core story of Arthur, Guinevere and Camelot is the same, there are variations as this book proves. It is well-paced and elegantly written with characters who seem real.
The tale is told by Bedivere, Arthur's friend from childhood and his constant companion, confidant and self-appointed protector.
There are some surprises in what we traditionally think of as the Camelot legend, and this is a more gentle telling in many ways.
Quotes: Bedivere: "I was not happy. I had never known loneliness before, so I did not recognize the heaviness of it, but blamed the dark forest, and wished, through a mist of discomfort and weariness that we were riding back towards home, and not, as it seemed to me, half, a world away from it."
Bedivere: "Much has been sung by harpers of Arthur's sword, Excalibur, Next to the Grail itself it will live for ever in song as one of the Chief Hallows of Britain. Bards tell how its hilt flashed with jewels and the blade glimmered with runes, wrought in gold. I Bedivere, who saw its final tempering, know these tales are folly. No soldier who knows his trade would choose such as weapon for use in a day-long battle. For parade, perhaps. Not for us. No, Excalibur was of an altogether different quality - one of those rarest swords only our Outland smiths know the secret of making - a sword forged from metal that does not grow on earth, but falls out of the infinite distance of the sky, when a star dies. The iron that, if it takes the third forging and does not shatter at cooling, turns darkly blue as the sky of midnight and has a strength and a temper to it that no other metal will blunt or bend in the striking."
Merlin: "Three things no man can rule: the flight of the wind; the rise of the tide; and the fate written in his stars."
Merlin: "No ocean is deep enough to drown a man's appointed destiny. This life or another, we must face the enemy we left behind us."
The tale is told by Bedivere, Arthur's friend from childhood and his constant companion, confidant and self-appointed protector.
There are some surprises in what we traditionally think of as the Camelot legend, and this is a more gentle telling in many ways.
Quotes: Bedivere: "I was not happy. I had never known loneliness before, so I did not recognize the heaviness of it, but blamed the dark forest, and wished, through a mist of discomfort and weariness that we were riding back towards home, and not, as it seemed to me, half, a world away from it."
Bedivere: "Much has been sung by harpers of Arthur's sword, Excalibur, Next to the Grail itself it will live for ever in song as one of the Chief Hallows of Britain. Bards tell how its hilt flashed with jewels and the blade glimmered with runes, wrought in gold. I Bedivere, who saw its final tempering, know these tales are folly. No soldier who knows his trade would choose such as weapon for use in a day-long battle. For parade, perhaps. Not for us. No, Excalibur was of an altogether different quality - one of those rarest swords only our Outland smiths know the secret of making - a sword forged from metal that does not grow on earth, but falls out of the infinite distance of the sky, when a star dies. The iron that, if it takes the third forging and does not shatter at cooling, turns darkly blue as the sky of midnight and has a strength and a temper to it that no other metal will blunt or bend in the striking."
Merlin: "Three things no man can rule: the flight of the wind; the rise of the tide; and the fate written in his stars."
Merlin: "No ocean is deep enough to drown a man's appointed destiny. This life or another, we must face the enemy we left behind us."
January 2, 2017
While following the often-told tale of King Arthur and his companion knights, and of the court of Camelot, The Sword and The Flame (also published as The Pendragon) is an intelligent compromise of history and legend.
Intelligent because it is set in the right time for a historical Arthur, if indeed he existed, while incorporating the later Medieval trappings of courtly romance and betrayal and the quest for the Holy Grail.
Yet Catherine Christian's skills as a novelist bring Dark Ages reality (what we know of it) and fable together in a believable narrative - which is no mean feat when it comes to the Grail quest in particular.
So, we have a post-Roman Britain where the habits and influence of Rome still lingers, particularly in the lives of 'colonials' like Arthur's trusted companion since boyhood, Bedivere. It is Arthur who brings the native Celts and the colonials together under the Pendragon banner, to hold back the Saxon raiders who continue to threaten Britain's shores.
But the most dangerous foe of all is one who has been included as a companion knight and entrusted with important duties of the court and kingdom. But Medraut's personal ambition goes far beyond being a mere bookkeeper for the king.
I loved this book when I first read it many years ago. Re-visiting it all these years later I find I still enjoy it as a relatively 'realistic' re-telling of the story of Arthur based on the tales of Sir Thomas Malory.
Intelligent because it is set in the right time for a historical Arthur, if indeed he existed, while incorporating the later Medieval trappings of courtly romance and betrayal and the quest for the Holy Grail.
Yet Catherine Christian's skills as a novelist bring Dark Ages reality (what we know of it) and fable together in a believable narrative - which is no mean feat when it comes to the Grail quest in particular.
So, we have a post-Roman Britain where the habits and influence of Rome still lingers, particularly in the lives of 'colonials' like Arthur's trusted companion since boyhood, Bedivere. It is Arthur who brings the native Celts and the colonials together under the Pendragon banner, to hold back the Saxon raiders who continue to threaten Britain's shores.
But the most dangerous foe of all is one who has been included as a companion knight and entrusted with important duties of the court and kingdom. But Medraut's personal ambition goes far beyond being a mere bookkeeper for the king.
I loved this book when I first read it many years ago. Re-visiting it all these years later I find I still enjoy it as a relatively 'realistic' re-telling of the story of Arthur based on the tales of Sir Thomas Malory.
September 5, 2010
This was a wonderful book - I've been trying to find a copy again, for ages. Now that I've found it on this site, I'm going to try again.
I read Mists of Avalon some time after reading this book - and I was convinced that the author, Zimmer-Bradley, basically used Catherine Christian, and used The Pendragon heavily for her idea. In fact, there's one spot, where Lancelot is bringing Guinevere to Arthur, where one paragraph is extremely similar, but I'd have to have the books again to check.
The Pendragon was written well before Mists. I think it is a real shame that Catherine Christian didn't get the fame that Zimmer-Bradley did, and that SO MANY new-age sites will use Mists as some sort of backup. It's basically the only book that Z-B wrote that was really successful - try reading her other books. Mists fed on the ideas presented in Pendragon.
I read Mists of Avalon some time after reading this book - and I was convinced that the author, Zimmer-Bradley, basically used Catherine Christian, and used The Pendragon heavily for her idea. In fact, there's one spot, where Lancelot is bringing Guinevere to Arthur, where one paragraph is extremely similar, but I'd have to have the books again to check.
The Pendragon was written well before Mists. I think it is a real shame that Catherine Christian didn't get the fame that Zimmer-Bradley did, and that SO MANY new-age sites will use Mists as some sort of backup. It's basically the only book that Z-B wrote that was really successful - try reading her other books. Mists fed on the ideas presented in Pendragon.
August 11, 2011
This is not your usual Arthur. In this telling, there is no magic. The sword in the stone was a gimmick rigged by the merlin. (The merlin is an office, the chief of the Celtic spies, named after the bird.) Arthur is a Celtic nobleman raised in a Roman household during the end of the Empire. He represents the best of both worlds in a climactic fight against the invading Saxons.
It's all situated in the real world and it's all quite plausible. It isn't fantasy; it's history.
It's all situated in the real world and it's all quite plausible. It isn't fantasy; it's history.
March 11, 2021
Yet another King Arthur retelling, this one from 1978 and with a decidedly historical fiction focus, eschewing all manner of magic or legend. This makes the tale more realistic to be sure but also a bit dry. Arthur is presented as a great warlord and not as one chosen by destiny or the sword in the stone, indeed, this part of tale is glossed over so one is not sure if it even happened.
The novel is told in first person narrative through the eyes of Arthur's most trusted and faithful companion, Bedivere, a great knight himself. This style of narration has its serious drawbacks, especially in a 600 plus page novel since we only experience the story from one side, and that side is not even King Arthur's. We know little of why Arthur was so forgiving of Guinevere's and Lancelot's betrayal, which was the root cause of Camelot and Arthur's reign. Mordred (here called Medraut) skillfully nurses the bad seed of Guinevere's adultery and makes it grow into full fledged rebellion against Camelot. Guinevere herself is one dimensional, at first shallow and vain and finishing almost as a saint. How that character arc came about is anybody's guess.
An interesting novel that fully explores the tragic side of the Arthurian tale but a novel that could have been much shorter as it takes a long time to get going.
The novel is told in first person narrative through the eyes of Arthur's most trusted and faithful companion, Bedivere, a great knight himself. This style of narration has its serious drawbacks, especially in a 600 plus page novel since we only experience the story from one side, and that side is not even King Arthur's. We know little of why Arthur was so forgiving of Guinevere's and Lancelot's betrayal, which was the root cause of Camelot and Arthur's reign. Mordred (here called Medraut) skillfully nurses the bad seed of Guinevere's adultery and makes it grow into full fledged rebellion against Camelot. Guinevere herself is one dimensional, at first shallow and vain and finishing almost as a saint. How that character arc came about is anybody's guess.
An interesting novel that fully explores the tragic side of the Arthurian tale but a novel that could have been much shorter as it takes a long time to get going.
February 1, 2018
This is an INCREDIBLE book.
The seamless blending of legend and fact makes for the most accurate representation of The Arthurian Story that I have discovered thus far.
It is a historical type text, similar to the style of J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit, in that it chronicles events with limited pathos.
Highly recommended for anyone interested in:
1) The Arthurian Story
2) History
3) Legend and Folklore
And for any one who enjoyed The Hobbit.
The seamless blending of legend and fact makes for the most accurate representation of The Arthurian Story that I have discovered thus far.
It is a historical type text, similar to the style of J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit, in that it chronicles events with limited pathos.
Highly recommended for anyone interested in:
1) The Arthurian Story
2) History
3) Legend and Folklore
And for any one who enjoyed The Hobbit.
March 6, 2021
I loved this re-telling of the Arthur legend. It is told through the eyes of Bedivere, his oldest companion. The author has done a fantastic job, and brings the legend to very believable life. There are so many books out there about Arthur, some good, some not so good. This little gem, in my opinion, ranks as one of the best.
I can recommend this to all lovers of the Arthurian legend.
I can recommend this to all lovers of the Arthurian legend.
December 30, 2021
More like 2.5. Nevertheless, if you only have time to read one (1) Arthurian novel, don't choose this one. Hell, if you only have time to read 20, you should probably give this one a pass, too. The Author's Note at the end was good, though.
January 14, 2019
I love Arthuriana and retellings. My favourite remains Mary Stewart's rendition, but this is a close second!
October 1, 2014
I love this book. I've read it a couple of times before, it was one of those things that my dad found for me in the church basement, with all the stuff for the church fair tag sale (he knows I'm into this kind of thing, and he's found me some real gems in there).
This is a fictional retelling of the King Arthur legends/myths that incorporates some of the more recent evidence from historical and archaeological research regarding the times and places that birthed the stories we've become familiar with.
As told by Bedivere, Arthur's childhood friend and closest companion, the story takes place when the Celtic Britons and some Roman colonials are having to cope with the withdrawal of Roman legions and the incursions of Saxon settlers, and tells how Arthur leads both to forge an independent kingdom.
Similar to Michael Crichton's "Eaters of the Dead," the author's intention is to "retell" the "actual" events that were built up into legends through endless retellings and embellishments down the centuries.
This is a fictional retelling of the King Arthur legends/myths that incorporates some of the more recent evidence from historical and archaeological research regarding the times and places that birthed the stories we've become familiar with.
As told by Bedivere, Arthur's childhood friend and closest companion, the story takes place when the Celtic Britons and some Roman colonials are having to cope with the withdrawal of Roman legions and the incursions of Saxon settlers, and tells how Arthur leads both to forge an independent kingdom.
Similar to Michael Crichton's "Eaters of the Dead," the author's intention is to "retell" the "actual" events that were built up into legends through endless retellings and embellishments down the centuries.
January 4, 2011
This one started out quite strong for me. I liked the characters, I liked the story lines, I liked the twist on the usual. I was annoyed however at, although using a side character to relay the story is often clever and fresh, it also does just that...puts you on the sidelines and very often not privy to certain things. Consequently, I felt more and more removed from the story and felt a little bored with the character we were following. He never married, he rarely dallied (and certainly did not recount it for the most part) and didn't even argue with people very often. He gave a good speech here and there. The author , in my opinion, really has something with this story, I'm only disappointed with her choice to tell it from this POV.
December 5, 2014
I first read this book many years ago, and upon revisiting, I find that it remains my favorite telling of the Arthurian legend. This book moves me in ways I can't easily explain, but Christian's framing of the story (recounted to historical-minded monks from the deathbed of Bedivere) is powerful. Her narrator is a soldier and a practical man, who views the mystical with a reverent but distanced eye, and his grounded nature makes the story feel immediate and real. It's a melancholy tale, but then all the Arthurian legends are. Highly recommended.
November 13, 2009
Interesting story of King Arthur from a friend's point of view. I am not really familiar with this story other than the Disney cartoon of "The Sword in the Stone". This is not what I wanted my kids to be reading as it had treated men and war and desires in a way not respecting of virtue and principles, so I figured I'd spend my time better elsewhere. Anyone know of a good version of King Arthur that 8-year-olds could enjoy...the Magic Tree House has Peter interested in the story.
July 10, 2011
I have read this book several times before , but I keep coming back to it as the end makes me cry, and sometimes a girl needs a good cry! It's the 5th century Arthur, and the story is told by Bedivere as he lies dying in a monastery after the defeat and death of Arthur. The characters are wonderfully real
July 13, 2016
A well structured retelling of Arthur's story in a dark-age setting. But it had quite a lot of anachronisms, chronological inconsistencies, and unrealistic achievements. Supposedly the story related by Bedvyr to brother Paulinus, but what we are reading is clearly not what Paulinus would have written, which I find annoying. Some clever inventions regarding the Grail quest.
August 15, 2010
Out of all the many books about King Arthur, I think this one is my favourite, as it takes a very different, very personal look at the entire story.
November 5, 2010
"Three things no man can alter: the stars in their courses; the flow of the tides; and the pattern that unrolls from the given world."
March 2, 2012
The book was a bit slow. The characters did not really develop or grow.
lookedinto-decidedagainst
March 6, 2014
March 17, 2013
The King Arthur story with a focus on Bedivere and Arthur's friendship.
May 4, 2014
One of my favorite interpretations of the King Arthur/Camelot legend.
April 30, 2017
Very good and very long. A practical, realistic take on how King Arthur's life could have been and how he unified Britain during the decline of Roman rule. Being born of royal Celtic blood but raised under a Roman roof he learned the best both worlds had to offer. Though doomed to fall in battle to traitors and Saxon invaders, he created a dream that carried the country through dark times over the years until the idea of freedom became a reality. Told through the eyes of his childhood friend, bard and great knight Bedivere. My only complaint was that everyone should have seen the treachery of Medraut, Bedivere especially, it was so obvious it made him look like an idiot. I thought the same about Arthur not noticing Lancelot and Guinivere's affair but later changed my mind as I believe he did know all along but turned a blind eye out of love for them both.
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews