What do you think?
Rate this book
King Arthur and His Knights: Selected Tales
Thomas Malory, knight, adventurer, and soldier, was born in the early years of the fifteenth century and died on March 14, 1471, having spent much of the last twenty years of his life in prison. It was there that he wrote most, if not all, of his works, completing the last in about 1470. Some fifteen years later William Caxton published the entire collection of his tales in one volume, "Le Morte Darthur."
272 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1860
3012 people are currently reading
22370 people want to read
About the author
Thomas Malory
886 books751 followersFrom French sources, Sir Thomas Malory, English writer in floruit in 1470, adapted
Le Morte d'Arthur
, a collection of romances, which William Caxton published in 1485.
From original tales such as the Vulgate Cycle , Sir Thomas Malory, an imprisoned knight in the fifteenth century, meanwhile compiled and translated the tales, which we know as the legend of king.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_...
From original tales such as the Vulgate Cycle , Sir Thomas Malory, an imprisoned knight in the fifteenth century, meanwhile compiled and translated the tales, which we know as the legend of king.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 326 reviews
January 12, 2015
I have this affliction. If I start a book, I HAVE to finish it. All my life, pretty much. I'm not sure I remember when I last (or ever) didn't finish a book. Until now.
All my knowledge of the Arthurian legends is hearsay or pop-culture interpretations, so when I bought a Kindle and saw all the classics I could get for free, I jumped right on this one as a chance to get some more "original" references to King Arthur in my cultural experiences. Oh, how I wish I hadn't bothered.
Firstly, the writing. It's abysmal. Complete stream of consciousness rubbish. Knight X went here. He met this person. They fought to the -death. He met this woman, she was beautiful. He helped her. She was grateful. On and on and ON in this vein. 100% tell and 0% show.
Secondly, the knights are all arrogant, judgemental pricks. E.g. Knight X sees 4 men chasing 1 man. He immediately assumes that the 1 man is in the right and the 4 men are in the wrong. Without asking anyone involved why the chase/fight is even occurring, he beats the other 4 men to a pulp to save the lone man.
Thirdly, the knights are all thick as two short planks. All any knight has to do is wear the armour of some other knights and when he then meets his closest bosom friends, they have no idea who he is.
Fourthly, the women are all completely one-dimensional and exist only to be saved (such beautiful damsels!) or to be saved from (evil wicked sorceresses!).
I could go on, but I won't. I forced myself to get just over half the way through and simply could not go on. I suggest you never even give yourself the trouble. Go watch BBC's Merlin and enjoy the slashy subtexts, historical it may not be but at least it's FUN.
All my knowledge of the Arthurian legends is hearsay or pop-culture interpretations, so when I bought a Kindle and saw all the classics I could get for free, I jumped right on this one as a chance to get some more "original" references to King Arthur in my cultural experiences. Oh, how I wish I hadn't bothered.
Firstly, the writing. It's abysmal. Complete stream of consciousness rubbish. Knight X went here. He met this person. They fought to the -death. He met this woman, she was beautiful. He helped her. She was grateful. On and on and ON in this vein. 100% tell and 0% show.
Secondly, the knights are all arrogant, judgemental pricks. E.g. Knight X sees 4 men chasing 1 man. He immediately assumes that the 1 man is in the right and the 4 men are in the wrong. Without asking anyone involved why the chase/fight is even occurring, he beats the other 4 men to a pulp to save the lone man.
Thirdly, the knights are all thick as two short planks. All any knight has to do is wear the armour of some other knights and when he then meets his closest bosom friends, they have no idea who he is.
Fourthly, the women are all completely one-dimensional and exist only to be saved (such beautiful damsels!) or to be saved from (evil wicked sorceresses!).
I could go on, but I won't. I forced myself to get just over half the way through and simply could not go on. I suggest you never even give yourself the trouble. Go watch BBC's Merlin and enjoy the slashy subtexts, historical it may not be but at least it's FUN.
March 18, 2014
It is good to read one of the sources that inspired later renditions. I am depressed to hear some disrespecting the story because they have trouble with an older style of writting. Folks, this is the bedrock and foundation of the later tales which have been such a mine for later authors. (That is, grist for the mill.) This is that which inspired the later tales, if you can't see what inspired the authors of later ages, then perhaps you lack the deeper vision.
May 24, 2009
This is Malory's Le Morte Darthur, but separated into separate stories and, in the case of one tale (The Knight of the Cart) actually re-located to a different point in the story. The Grail story is so heavily abridged that it would be incomprehensible to someone who hadn't already read the Morte. There are much better texts of Malory thann this!
April 21, 2023
Though I greatly enjoyed Roger Lancelyn Green’s version of the Arthurian legends (published in 1954), they lacked the beautiful language that I was hoping for. Sir James Knowles version (1860) made up for that.
You’ve got to love phrases like, “Wherefore, believe that all thy strength and manhood will avail thee little, when God is against thee,” and “The brood of the white dragon shall waste thy country, and shall lick thy blood. Find out some refuge, if thou wilt, but who may escape the doom of God?”
If I had read this to my sons when they were little, they would have begged for more.
It was still confusing to remember who was who among the dozens of knights, but Galahad, Lancelot, Gareth, and Gawain are becoming better known and loved with each version I read.
You’ve got to love phrases like, “Wherefore, believe that all thy strength and manhood will avail thee little, when God is against thee,” and “The brood of the white dragon shall waste thy country, and shall lick thy blood. Find out some refuge, if thou wilt, but who may escape the doom of God?”
If I had read this to my sons when they were little, they would have begged for more.
It was still confusing to remember who was who among the dozens of knights, but Galahad, Lancelot, Gareth, and Gawain are becoming better known and loved with each version I read.
December 27, 2018
3.5 / 5.0
I acknowledge that in the modern world, the tales of valour and woe must needs be filled with passing wondrous tales and finely-devised quests to set the bedside traveller a-galloping into the vast forests of his fancy. The coursers rush on with might and main and fall dead under the rider yet the spirit of the quest keeps the bookish knight athirst for more. But woe betide the Man who expecteth mountains of gold to maintain their goodly promises of fortune forevermore. Like the apparitions of one's own design, even the handiwork of a master craftsman is transfigured sore dull in the absence of vigour and fascination.
Never hitherto have I beholden knights of such insuperable courage and nobility. Never hath the orb espied damsels of such peerless beauty and purposeful expedition. In no-wise hath my countenance shone its faint light on such treachery, treason, and villainy as was shown by Morgan la Fey, her minions and divers felons withal. Thereat the mind marvels; 'tis transcended by the purity of it all, 'tis given good cheer by the simplicity of it all, 'tis tickled by the boasting and hyperbole professed, 'tis fagged by the neverending likenesses of the chronicles, yet, grammercy, ne'er doth the mind turn its back at the doughty, Arthurian fellows.
Nay, peradventure the mind is not the aforementioned agent, but the spirit. For the former waxeth wroth at the lack of excitement; it waneth in interest when pageants of homochromatic hue march past world without end; it erreth in judgment when emotions rage sublime and the toll of sorrow burdeneth the travel-weary frame. Ho! 'tis the spirit that spies the worth, the beauty amidst pleasantries.
Hearken to this state of affairs: every passer-by in the chronicles hath a life of their own, which we could detect but for the grandness and selfsame purpose of the knighted. Every character needs must have their differentiae, but, alas, they're drowned in the foamy, feverish rush of the mighty. The skillful observer can single out glitters of varied appearance, yet I am not thereamong. For myself, 'tis but one long procession which groweth dull, yea, but never perisheth in obscurity – nay, who would presume to smother the flame of legends?
I acknowledge that in the modern world, the tales of valour and woe must needs be filled with passing wondrous tales and finely-devised quests to set the bedside traveller a-galloping into the vast forests of his fancy. The coursers rush on with might and main and fall dead under the rider yet the spirit of the quest keeps the bookish knight athirst for more. But woe betide the Man who expecteth mountains of gold to maintain their goodly promises of fortune forevermore. Like the apparitions of one's own design, even the handiwork of a master craftsman is transfigured sore dull in the absence of vigour and fascination.
Never hitherto have I beholden knights of such insuperable courage and nobility. Never hath the orb espied damsels of such peerless beauty and purposeful expedition. In no-wise hath my countenance shone its faint light on such treachery, treason, and villainy as was shown by Morgan la Fey, her minions and divers felons withal. Thereat the mind marvels; 'tis transcended by the purity of it all, 'tis given good cheer by the simplicity of it all, 'tis tickled by the boasting and hyperbole professed, 'tis fagged by the neverending likenesses of the chronicles, yet, grammercy, ne'er doth the mind turn its back at the doughty, Arthurian fellows.
Nay, peradventure the mind is not the aforementioned agent, but the spirit. For the former waxeth wroth at the lack of excitement; it waneth in interest when pageants of homochromatic hue march past world without end; it erreth in judgment when emotions rage sublime and the toll of sorrow burdeneth the travel-weary frame. Ho! 'tis the spirit that spies the worth, the beauty amidst pleasantries.
Hearken to this state of affairs: every passer-by in the chronicles hath a life of their own, which we could detect but for the grandness and selfsame purpose of the knighted. Every character needs must have their differentiae, but, alas, they're drowned in the foamy, feverish rush of the mighty. The skillful observer can single out glitters of varied appearance, yet I am not thereamong. For myself, 'tis but one long procession which groweth dull, yea, but never perisheth in obscurity – nay, who would presume to smother the flame of legends?
October 16, 2014
I'm going to be charitable and give this 2 stars. These stories may have been entertaining 400 years ago, but literature has greatly advanced, and societally has advanced from being mostly illiterate to highly literate.
These stories may be fun to read one a night to your kids, but when done rapidly they wear on one, the characters have no personality and the action consists of sentence after sentence of who smote who with their sword, and then at the end a helm gets cleaved in two, rinse repeat every ten pages.
These stories may be fun to read one a night to your kids, but when done rapidly they wear on one, the characters have no personality and the action consists of sentence after sentence of who smote who with their sword, and then at the end a helm gets cleaved in two, rinse repeat every ten pages.
October 9, 2014
Harumph. I didn't expect that. I've read so many books based on the Arthurian legend that I thought it would be a sword and sorcery fantasy plot with the character development of King Arthur. Scrap that thought. Character development takes a back seat to a series of chain-linked mini adventures connected to the knights of the Round Table fighting battles or single combats. King Arthur is hardly even in it. Or Merlin for that matter. The sword and the stone, the quest for the Holy Grail, and the Guinevere and Lancelot tragedy are just small pieces of one gigantic story on fighting. I was mixing my fantasy tropes with legends and the two operate differently. While this legend has magic, the focus is on being a chivalrous knight at all costs. In King Arthur's world, a knight is a disciplined soldier who follows certain military strategies and functions as part of a national army, or in this case, King Arthur's army. From what others say James Knowles retelling is close to Sir Thomas Malory's, Le Morte d'Arthur, except it sounds like Malory used even more battle descriptions. There are so many variations on the tale that I did not realize it is a legend that has influenced fantasy versus the other way around.
Historically, there is no denying the importance of this work in literature, but this retelling is not going to appeal to most modern readers. The antiquated language and battles or single combat scenes get monotonous after awhile. The knights prove their valor, courage, and chivalry over and over again. I found it engaging, funny, irritating, fascinating, and tedious. The women are one-dimensional nincompoops. I guarantee you will be offended. They get their heads chopped off either for love or because the rules of the game (whether evil or not) require it. This is one of the major characteristics that defines a chivalrous knight. The rules are more important than death even if they are evil.
In one adventure, a good knight, accompanied by a woman, comes to a castle where dwells an evil knight and a lady. The evil knight insists that the beauty of the two be compared and the uglier one have her head chopped off by the winner. The good knight vehemently disagrees with the terms of this because it is an evil custom. He is the good and chivalrous knight, while the other is dishonorable. The two women's looks are compared and the good knight chops off her head because she did not speak against the evil knight's rules. Another adventure involves a knight who accidentally chops off a woman's head that was trying to protect her knight who had cried for mercy after losing a combat. The knight was dishonorable because he lost his head and was unable to stop. Honorable knights don't kill defeated knights asking for mercy. The errant knight is repentant afterwards and carries the woman's head on a rope around his neck to tell King Arthur of his foul deed. The women of King Arthur's court judge his actions and sentence him to protect them whenever they call upon him. He is their knight forevermore. Ugh. Welcome to the bloody Middle Ages folks, when this tale that was first put to paper. Not that the feminine portrayals are surprising. Male heroes dominated the legend genre in literature during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
According to Norton's Anthology of Children's Literature, legends represent historical times and have an oral tradition. Legends were a way of people understanding the unexplained and history of their country. To understand the variations, readers need to understand the sociohistorical context of the times. I won't get into all of that, but it helps knowing it because King Arthur wants to take over lands from the Romans and Saxons. The superiority and snobbery shows how he represents the feudal lord, with the knights as his vassals. No one knows if King Arthur ever existed. He might represent a warrior that fought against the Saxons in 600 C.E. The King Arthur of this legend doesn't make an appearance on paper until ca. 1135 when Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote Historia regum Britanniae (History of the Kings of England). According to this tale Arthur killed hundreds of Saxons, married Guinevere, and held court at Caerleon. His nephew, Mordred, rose up against him and although Arthur defeated him, he was mortally wounded and carried to the island of Avalon. Successive writings added Merlin and the magical sword, Excalibar. Sir Thomas Malory's retelling during the Middle Ages is reminiscent of some heroes found in the Knights-Templar and British history. His books were transformed into short narratives called chapbooks for children in the 1800s. Later James Knowles wrote this particular version for children.
Some knights carry white shields or mantles with red crosses, the same clothing of the Knights-Templar, a group of elite knights considered the best fighters during the Crusades. The Templars protected Christians on pilgrimage to Jerusalem from marauders. The knights of the Round Table seem to be a bit like them having religious ascetic ideals mixed with a military role. The knights' actions are always measured against a code of honor. They are flawed and courageous to the point of stupidity. King Arthur is warned to wait for Lancelot and not fight Mordred in battle because he would die. Arthur tries to wait for Lancelot, but a series of events put him in battle against Mordred's army. Even when Arthur's knight tells him to not fight Mordred single-handedly, Arthur does because it is the noble thing to do. He foolishly insists on killing Mordred with his own hands and dies as a result. While these are flawed heroes that make mistakes over and over again, their courage is commendable.
This legend is one to be studied in a historical context. It is not your typical read and requires some research. It helped me better understand the legend and what other children's authors were doing in modern versions. I want to reread Gerald Morris' satirical Knights' Tales series again. They are hysterical and would be even funnier now that I've read this retelling. The first book is The Adventures of Sir Lancelot the Great. A new book that has more of the fantasy element of King Arthur is The Eighth Day, by Dianne K. Salerni. The Seeing Stone by Kevin Crossley-Holland has King Arthur as a young boy struggling to find his path during the Middle Ages. He is the second son of a landowner and cannot inherit the land. He decides to become a squire and then a knight so he can own his own manor at some point. Next I want to read Mark Twain's version and T.H. White's, Sword in the Stone.
Historically, there is no denying the importance of this work in literature, but this retelling is not going to appeal to most modern readers. The antiquated language and battles or single combat scenes get monotonous after awhile. The knights prove their valor, courage, and chivalry over and over again. I found it engaging, funny, irritating, fascinating, and tedious. The women are one-dimensional nincompoops. I guarantee you will be offended. They get their heads chopped off either for love or because the rules of the game (whether evil or not) require it. This is one of the major characteristics that defines a chivalrous knight. The rules are more important than death even if they are evil.
In one adventure, a good knight, accompanied by a woman, comes to a castle where dwells an evil knight and a lady. The evil knight insists that the beauty of the two be compared and the uglier one have her head chopped off by the winner. The good knight vehemently disagrees with the terms of this because it is an evil custom. He is the good and chivalrous knight, while the other is dishonorable. The two women's looks are compared and the good knight chops off her head because she did not speak against the evil knight's rules. Another adventure involves a knight who accidentally chops off a woman's head that was trying to protect her knight who had cried for mercy after losing a combat. The knight was dishonorable because he lost his head and was unable to stop. Honorable knights don't kill defeated knights asking for mercy. The errant knight is repentant afterwards and carries the woman's head on a rope around his neck to tell King Arthur of his foul deed. The women of King Arthur's court judge his actions and sentence him to protect them whenever they call upon him. He is their knight forevermore. Ugh. Welcome to the bloody Middle Ages folks, when this tale that was first put to paper. Not that the feminine portrayals are surprising. Male heroes dominated the legend genre in literature during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
According to Norton's Anthology of Children's Literature, legends represent historical times and have an oral tradition. Legends were a way of people understanding the unexplained and history of their country. To understand the variations, readers need to understand the sociohistorical context of the times. I won't get into all of that, but it helps knowing it because King Arthur wants to take over lands from the Romans and Saxons. The superiority and snobbery shows how he represents the feudal lord, with the knights as his vassals. No one knows if King Arthur ever existed. He might represent a warrior that fought against the Saxons in 600 C.E. The King Arthur of this legend doesn't make an appearance on paper until ca. 1135 when Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote Historia regum Britanniae (History of the Kings of England). According to this tale Arthur killed hundreds of Saxons, married Guinevere, and held court at Caerleon. His nephew, Mordred, rose up against him and although Arthur defeated him, he was mortally wounded and carried to the island of Avalon. Successive writings added Merlin and the magical sword, Excalibar. Sir Thomas Malory's retelling during the Middle Ages is reminiscent of some heroes found in the Knights-Templar and British history. His books were transformed into short narratives called chapbooks for children in the 1800s. Later James Knowles wrote this particular version for children.
Some knights carry white shields or mantles with red crosses, the same clothing of the Knights-Templar, a group of elite knights considered the best fighters during the Crusades. The Templars protected Christians on pilgrimage to Jerusalem from marauders. The knights of the Round Table seem to be a bit like them having religious ascetic ideals mixed with a military role. The knights' actions are always measured against a code of honor. They are flawed and courageous to the point of stupidity. King Arthur is warned to wait for Lancelot and not fight Mordred in battle because he would die. Arthur tries to wait for Lancelot, but a series of events put him in battle against Mordred's army. Even when Arthur's knight tells him to not fight Mordred single-handedly, Arthur does because it is the noble thing to do. He foolishly insists on killing Mordred with his own hands and dies as a result. While these are flawed heroes that make mistakes over and over again, their courage is commendable.
This legend is one to be studied in a historical context. It is not your typical read and requires some research. It helped me better understand the legend and what other children's authors were doing in modern versions. I want to reread Gerald Morris' satirical Knights' Tales series again. They are hysterical and would be even funnier now that I've read this retelling. The first book is The Adventures of Sir Lancelot the Great. A new book that has more of the fantasy element of King Arthur is The Eighth Day, by Dianne K. Salerni. The Seeing Stone by Kevin Crossley-Holland has King Arthur as a young boy struggling to find his path during the Middle Ages. He is the second son of a landowner and cannot inherit the land. He decides to become a squire and then a knight so he can own his own manor at some point. Next I want to read Mark Twain's version and T.H. White's, Sword in the Stone.
March 27, 2024
This was so much fun to be surrounded by truly chivalrous knights and great legends that have permeated our culture, I love being able to read a collection of the original legends.
The only problem is I wish I had had this when I was about 8 or 9. The fashion of these stories really threw me back to that and I know I would’ve been kinda obsessed with Medieval times earlier had I known some of the original legends.
The only problem is I wish I had had this when I was about 8 or 9. The fashion of these stories really threw me back to that and I know I would’ve been kinda obsessed with Medieval times earlier had I known some of the original legends.
June 26, 2025
ved min kristentro... det blir knapt mer høvisk enn dette... riddersommer 2025...
leste Sandveds oversettelse, veldig flott språk
leste Sandveds oversettelse, veldig flott språk
June 17, 2014
I've always wanted to read the King Arthur tales, and this appeared to be the "real original" set of stories, passed down hundreds of years ago and finally recorded for posterity.
Unfortunately, I have this problem where once I start a book I feel like I have to finish it, even if it's killing me. These stories are atrocious.
The one lesson from this book is that if anyone ever complains that "chivalry is dead" or wishes for the return of "chivalry", they have clearly never read this book. Apparently, chivalry is trying to kill anyone you happen across to prove yourself, treating women as either damsels to save or witches to burn, and generally just calling each other "worshipful" instead of arrogant and barbaric.
Also, the stories are horrible. Just, save yourself the trouble. Go watch "First Knight" with Sean Connery. It might not be the "original" stories, but I promise it's better.
Unfortunately, I have this problem where once I start a book I feel like I have to finish it, even if it's killing me. These stories are atrocious.
The one lesson from this book is that if anyone ever complains that "chivalry is dead" or wishes for the return of "chivalry", they have clearly never read this book. Apparently, chivalry is trying to kill anyone you happen across to prove yourself, treating women as either damsels to save or witches to burn, and generally just calling each other "worshipful" instead of arrogant and barbaric.
Also, the stories are horrible. Just, save yourself the trouble. Go watch "First Knight" with Sean Connery. It might not be the "original" stories, but I promise it's better.
June 27, 2025
And once again Lancelot ruins everything, and yet everyone else pays the price. And no, feeling bad about it isn’t paying the price, Lancelot.
March 1, 2018
I'm going to go back through this and find all the parts where the women were killed because men love their pride.
Other than that it was a great read/listen!
Other than that it was a great read/listen!
November 28, 2020
Everyone in the book is such a dummy
Read
August 14, 2009Sir Thomas Malory (d. 1471) spent much of his final 20 years in prison. During those decades he translated into English and rewrote the French Arthurian romances. Stories of Grail quests, lovelorn knights, and the Round Table had been wildly popular literature in the 12th and 13th centuries.
Eugene Vinaver writes in the 'Introduction' that Malory was 'a man bred up in arms who valued the dignity of knighthood above all else. Most of his knights are men of brief speech and unsophisticated behaviour. They engage in extraordinary adventures, but their motives admit of no sentimental refinement; they are first and foremost men of action.... [They live in:] a world where vice is punished and injured men redress with their own hands the wrongs done to their honour.' (xv)
From the story "The Poisoned Apple": Queen Guinevere, accused of adultery, is about to be burned at the stake because no knight will fight in her defense. Her guilt or innocence is to be determined by the winning knight. If her champion wins, she will be proved innocent. If Sir Mador, her accuser, wins then she is guilty and will die. Suddenly a disguised knight (Sir Lancelot, her lover) "came from a wood there ... driving all that his horse might run." (123) The two knights battle.
"And then they rode to the lists' end, and there they couched their spears and ran together with all their mights. And anon Sir Mador's spear brake all to pieces, but the other's spear held and bare Sir Mador's horse and all backwards to the earth a great fall. But mightily and deliverly he avoided his horse from him [freed himself from his horse:] and put his shield before him and drew his sword and bade the other knight alight and do battle with him on foot.
"Then that knight descended down from his horse and put his shield before him and drew his sword. And so they came eagerly unto battle, and either gave other many sad [heavy:] strokes, tracing and traversing and foining together with their swords as it were wild boars, thus fighting nigh an hour; for this Sir Mador was a strong knight .... But at the last this knight smote Sir Mador grovelling upon the earth, and the knight stepped near him to have pulled Sir Mador flatling upon the ground; and therewith Sir Mador arose, and in his rising he smote that knight through the thick of the thighs, that the blood brast out fiercely.
"And when he felt himself so wounded and saw his blood, he let him arise upon his feet, and then he gave him such a buffet upon the helm that he fell to the earth flatling. And therewith he strode to him to have pulled off his helm off his head. And so Sir Mador prayed that knight to save his life. And so he yielded him as overcome, and released the queen of his quarrel [accusation:]." (124-5)
Eugene Vinaver writes in the 'Introduction' that Malory was 'a man bred up in arms who valued the dignity of knighthood above all else. Most of his knights are men of brief speech and unsophisticated behaviour. They engage in extraordinary adventures, but their motives admit of no sentimental refinement; they are first and foremost men of action.... [They live in:] a world where vice is punished and injured men redress with their own hands the wrongs done to their honour.' (xv)
From the story "The Poisoned Apple": Queen Guinevere, accused of adultery, is about to be burned at the stake because no knight will fight in her defense. Her guilt or innocence is to be determined by the winning knight. If her champion wins, she will be proved innocent. If Sir Mador, her accuser, wins then she is guilty and will die. Suddenly a disguised knight (Sir Lancelot, her lover) "came from a wood there ... driving all that his horse might run." (123) The two knights battle.
"And then they rode to the lists' end, and there they couched their spears and ran together with all their mights. And anon Sir Mador's spear brake all to pieces, but the other's spear held and bare Sir Mador's horse and all backwards to the earth a great fall. But mightily and deliverly he avoided his horse from him [freed himself from his horse:] and put his shield before him and drew his sword and bade the other knight alight and do battle with him on foot.
"Then that knight descended down from his horse and put his shield before him and drew his sword. And so they came eagerly unto battle, and either gave other many sad [heavy:] strokes, tracing and traversing and foining together with their swords as it were wild boars, thus fighting nigh an hour; for this Sir Mador was a strong knight .... But at the last this knight smote Sir Mador grovelling upon the earth, and the knight stepped near him to have pulled Sir Mador flatling upon the ground; and therewith Sir Mador arose, and in his rising he smote that knight through the thick of the thighs, that the blood brast out fiercely.
"And when he felt himself so wounded and saw his blood, he let him arise upon his feet, and then he gave him such a buffet upon the helm that he fell to the earth flatling. And therewith he strode to him to have pulled off his helm off his head. And so Sir Mador prayed that knight to save his life. And so he yielded him as overcome, and released the queen of his quarrel [accusation:]." (124-5)
March 25, 2019
3.5 stars.
Taking into account that this was written a long time ago, this was a pretty good book. I will say it was a lot of telling instead of showing. Arthur and Merlin were a tad disappointing to me as well as a lot of the other knights. I wish I would of seen more depth into Arthur's court and such. The second half of the book was really good and I found myself really eager to read it.
Taking into account that this was written a long time ago, this was a pretty good book. I will say it was a lot of telling instead of showing. Arthur and Merlin were a tad disappointing to me as well as a lot of the other knights. I wish I would of seen more depth into Arthur's court and such. The second half of the book was really good and I found myself really eager to read it.
December 31, 2019
Having watched Merlin, reading the originals was something I was really interested in. Overall, it was a little interesting, though mostly disappointing.
I found the writing itself to be easy to understand and read. The stories were a mixed bag, some were fairly interesting and others were very boring to me (knights killing other knights for no good reason, etc). The end was depressing but not surprising (it's pretty famous and I knew what to expect).
The main problem I had with the book was that it was very obviously written in a different time and culture. Looking at it from our modern time, the motivations fall short, the way women and relationships are portrayed are inappropriate, and the medieval take on Christianity can be hard to read. The other main problem is that the book focused on things I didn't care about (like the actual fights between knights) but the parts I would have found interesting (like a long lost son being reunited with a father) were given one to two lines and the nuances of the situations downplayed. We rarely got to know characters past their actions and a vague, unbelievable motivation. This caused me to read more for discovering the plot rather than being immersed in the world and getting to know the characters.
I am glad to have read the originals and I look forward to reading adaptations in the future.
I found the writing itself to be easy to understand and read. The stories were a mixed bag, some were fairly interesting and others were very boring to me (knights killing other knights for no good reason, etc). The end was depressing but not surprising (it's pretty famous and I knew what to expect).
The main problem I had with the book was that it was very obviously written in a different time and culture. Looking at it from our modern time, the motivations fall short, the way women and relationships are portrayed are inappropriate, and the medieval take on Christianity can be hard to read. The other main problem is that the book focused on things I didn't care about (like the actual fights between knights) but the parts I would have found interesting (like a long lost son being reunited with a father) were given one to two lines and the nuances of the situations downplayed. We rarely got to know characters past their actions and a vague, unbelievable motivation. This caused me to read more for discovering the plot rather than being immersed in the world and getting to know the characters.
I am glad to have read the originals and I look forward to reading adaptations in the future.
May 8, 2012
The story itself is pretty dull: fight a battle, do great deeds, slay the enemy, rescue a damsel or escape from an evil sorceress, fight another battle, do great deeds, slay the enemy, go hunting or jousting, fight another battle...
There's little character development. The men are pretty much all brave and heroic and little more, and the women are virtually all either fair maidens in need of rescue or enchantresses trying to do something awful. The story doesn't really develop either. Arthur becomes king, he and his knights build a great empire by fighting endless battles for 80 or 90% of the book, then it all falls apart very quickly at the end from out of nowhere.
I found the archaic language in this book delightful and frequently found myself quoting passages to friends who'd appreciate this form of English which has now passed out of usage but is still easy enough to understand without much need for a dictionary.
IMO, that's the reason to read this book and the reason why I'd guardedly recommend it to others.
There's little character development. The men are pretty much all brave and heroic and little more, and the women are virtually all either fair maidens in need of rescue or enchantresses trying to do something awful. The story doesn't really develop either. Arthur becomes king, he and his knights build a great empire by fighting endless battles for 80 or 90% of the book, then it all falls apart very quickly at the end from out of nowhere.
I found the archaic language in this book delightful and frequently found myself quoting passages to friends who'd appreciate this form of English which has now passed out of usage but is still easy enough to understand without much need for a dictionary.
IMO, that's the reason to read this book and the reason why I'd guardedly recommend it to others.
October 8, 2015
This took me awhile to read because it was my bedtime reading book, and it kept putting me to sleep! More than normal reading does, that is. The whole first half of the book was boringly repetitive, if it was just that, it would have only earned 2 stars from me. The second half picked up, thankfully, and was a much quicker read. It was more what I expected.
I chose to read this because I am very unfamiliar with the Camelot story. I've seen Monty Python... and that's about it. Never read any more recent books (meaning from later than the 11th century), never seen the musical, never even seen the Disney movie. I get confused about which knight did what, what's the difference between Excalibur and the Sword in the Stone, the Lady of the Lake, Queen Morgan, Merlin... who does what exactly? After reading this, I can now say: I'm not sure?
I chose to read this because I am very unfamiliar with the Camelot story. I've seen Monty Python... and that's about it. Never read any more recent books (meaning from later than the 11th century), never seen the musical, never even seen the Disney movie. I get confused about which knight did what, what's the difference between Excalibur and the Sword in the Stone, the Lady of the Lake, Queen Morgan, Merlin... who does what exactly? After reading this, I can now say: I'm not sure?
February 20, 2015
Artù è un altro dei vecchi amici con cui non andavo a parlare da un po' di tempo, e che un po' mi è mancato, via, anche se ci sono momenti in cui io, al proprietario di Excalibur, darei anche un paio di ceffoni... Ma questa è una faccenda tra Artù e me. ;)
Ogni tanto, con quello che sentiamo in giro, con le persone che incontriamo, con il valore che viene dato a lealtà e sincerità (di cavalleria non parlerò nemmeno), sognare con i Cavalieri della tavola Rotonda fa bene.
Ogni tanto, con quello che sentiamo in giro, con le persone che incontriamo, con il valore che viene dato a lealtà e sincerità (di cavalleria non parlerò nemmeno), sognare con i Cavalieri della tavola Rotonda fa bene.
May 27, 2015
I think this material is much better handled by filmmakers and TV producers than lowly readers like myself. I had trouble with the language, and it was not helped by the fact that this kindle edition was sloppy, with many repeats and restarts. I like the underlying adventure, but the writing was far too ornate for my taste.
April 12, 2017
What a disappointing read. Basically what was said in chapter one was rehashed and regurgitated over and over again throughout the book. Read like a list, he said she said. I only finished it because I wanted to see if ANYTHING other than Good Cheer and Smiting went on... It didn't.
July 19, 2021
Enjoyable classic filled with romantic knighting and honorable deeds.
February 25, 2016
Can anyone recommend to me an un-Christianised version of King Arthur? If he was real, he's dated just before the arrival of Christianity and in any case, I highly doubt he conquered Rome *eye roll*
October 31, 2020
Honestly, these knights bring dishonour upon themselves. Wherever they go they fight first, and ask questions later...most of this book a knight comes upon another knight and they do battle. And then they realize they know eachtother...and then they show their respect for each other and stop battling. I mean come on. Most of the battles ended this way, it's so stupid. Knights! Am I right? There was this one part where two Knights were fighting in favour of a lady (of course one of them was stupid Knight Tristram), then they realized they knew each other, and stepped away from battle (in respect of course of each other *eyes rolling*) and then proceeded to allow the lady to chose which Knight to run to -- like a dog (of course she did not choose Tristtram because he sucks**). Honestly, this books portrayal of women was disappointing and very insulting.
For example, Lady Guinevere is supposed to be King Arthur's Queen, equal in position and respect. However, overall I found her to be very dramatic for no reason (to be fair everyone was overly dramatic-- lots of swooning Knights in this book lol). Also, I didn't understand how every time she did something/ or was suspected of doing something they led her to be burnt at the stake (~3 occurrences). That seems to be a little extreme.
One final note: The word 'Anon' took up approximately 90% of all the words in the novel. While that figure is not based on facts, that is what it felt like. How hard would it have been to pick up a thesaurus and use it? Impossible it seems. Unimaginable it seems.
**Don't get me started on Knight Tristram...he was the worst. First of all, when he is "in disguise" in front of some Kings' family (he killed the King), he calls himself 'Tramtrist' -- wow, you totally fooled us all.
For example, Lady Guinevere is supposed to be King Arthur's Queen, equal in position and respect. However, overall I found her to be very dramatic for no reason (to be fair everyone was overly dramatic-- lots of swooning Knights in this book lol). Also, I didn't understand how every time she did something/ or was suspected of doing something they led her to be burnt at the stake (~3 occurrences). That seems to be a little extreme.
One final note: The word 'Anon' took up approximately 90% of all the words in the novel. While that figure is not based on facts, that is what it felt like. How hard would it have been to pick up a thesaurus and use it? Impossible it seems. Unimaginable it seems.
**Don't get me started on Knight Tristram...he was the worst. First of all, when he is "in disguise" in front of some Kings' family (he killed the King), he calls himself 'Tramtrist' -- wow, you totally fooled us all.
April 20, 2023
The collected Legends of King Arthur were not quite what I was expecting. Based on years of movie, TV, etc., I had a very different idea of what Camelot was like.
Whereas in films and books like those of Bernard Cornwell, there's lots of discussion and planning and scheming - you'll read seven chapters leading up to one battle. But in the actual legends, there's mostly a lot of tilting and jousting and fighting. It seems a knight couldn't step foot out the door without running into other knights and instantly the two charging each other.
Everything in these tales is he smote this and slew that. Battles are fought and resolved in a matter of paragraphs. It also seems Arthur, Lancelot and Gawain alone killed hundreds of thousands of knights each. Apparently medieval Britain was filled with nothing but warring knights and the occasional damsel. And Arthur is really only the central figure in the earliest tales. The majority are of various Knights of the Round Table repeatedly running into more dastardly knights in between attending contests in which half the knights almost die. The whole search for the Grail, a.k.a. Sangreal, was rather mundane and boring. The scheming of Morgan le Fay and the supposed infidelity with Guinevere and Lancelot are slightly more than blips on the radar in the stories, and even the deaths of most of the major characters are along the lines of "and anon they died." It's amazing the more robust legends that have grown from these stories over the ages.
Whereas in films and books like those of Bernard Cornwell, there's lots of discussion and planning and scheming - you'll read seven chapters leading up to one battle. But in the actual legends, there's mostly a lot of tilting and jousting and fighting. It seems a knight couldn't step foot out the door without running into other knights and instantly the two charging each other.
Everything in these tales is he smote this and slew that. Battles are fought and resolved in a matter of paragraphs. It also seems Arthur, Lancelot and Gawain alone killed hundreds of thousands of knights each. Apparently medieval Britain was filled with nothing but warring knights and the occasional damsel. And Arthur is really only the central figure in the earliest tales. The majority are of various Knights of the Round Table repeatedly running into more dastardly knights in between attending contests in which half the knights almost die. The whole search for the Grail, a.k.a. Sangreal, was rather mundane and boring. The scheming of Morgan le Fay and the supposed infidelity with Guinevere and Lancelot are slightly more than blips on the radar in the stories, and even the deaths of most of the major characters are along the lines of "and anon they died." It's amazing the more robust legends that have grown from these stories over the ages.
February 23, 2024
Knights in shining armour, damsels to be rescued, single paged pointless battles, flawless heroes and incredible bad and repetitive writing: when ... then ... and ... when ... then ... and...
Yes I know it is an ancient legend but this book was published in the 1860s so I expect better writing. And I don't talk about the thous and thees, the language fits. But how can such a grand legend be told this boring? This just failed to be captivating. Arthur was crowned at 9%, no build up at all, no distinguishable characters or development whatsoever.
It's all about slaying and the knights proving how brave they are is considered "great adventures". Thou must be slayest, thou will be slayest 🥱
Here is one gem: "and so blind was he with rage, that he saw not where a lady ran out from her chamber and fell down upon his enemy. And making a fierce blow at him, he smote off by mischance the lady's head." Give thy everything to slaying thy enemy. Yay.
Preface: "It is little else than an abridgment of Sir Thomas Malory's [15th century] version ..." seemingly without any literary adjustments. Pity.
The abrigdments make every action seem hurried and simply lined up - then - then - then - then.
Tales like King Arthur, like Three Muskteers, like Ivanhoe just don't seem to be my case.
Yes I know it is an ancient legend but this book was published in the 1860s so I expect better writing. And I don't talk about the thous and thees, the language fits. But how can such a grand legend be told this boring? This just failed to be captivating. Arthur was crowned at 9%, no build up at all, no distinguishable characters or development whatsoever.
It's all about slaying and the knights proving how brave they are is considered "great adventures". Thou must be slayest, thou will be slayest 🥱
Here is one gem: "and so blind was he with rage, that he saw not where a lady ran out from her chamber and fell down upon his enemy. And making a fierce blow at him, he smote off by mischance the lady's head." Give thy everything to slaying thy enemy. Yay.
Preface: "It is little else than an abridgment of Sir Thomas Malory's [15th century] version ..." seemingly without any literary adjustments. Pity.
The abrigdments make every action seem hurried and simply lined up - then - then - then - then.
Tales like King Arthur, like Three Muskteers, like Ivanhoe just don't seem to be my case.
December 12, 2025
I'm torn.
Sir Knowles does a great job of recreating the historical text feel,- it reads like something close to a medieval text. It reads like the Bible, sans the "begats" and such. More, just as much as those stories do, there is so much left unanswered and unexplained; I love a story that leaves me with some mystery.
On the other hand, I am partial to the British traditions (as opposed to the French), and Sir Lancelot's endless can-do-no-wrong persona mixed with Sir Gawain's constantly being trounced leaves me wishing for a bit more John of England and a bit less Chrétien de Troyes. But obviously I am excessively biased and I make no claims to the contrary.
Boooooooo Sir Lancelot,
Sir Gawain FTW.
All of which to say, I thoroughly enjoyed it. But I'd probably just as soon read Thomas Mallory.
Sir Knowles does a great job of recreating the historical text feel,- it reads like something close to a medieval text. It reads like the Bible, sans the "begats" and such. More, just as much as those stories do, there is so much left unanswered and unexplained; I love a story that leaves me with some mystery.
On the other hand, I am partial to the British traditions (as opposed to the French), and Sir Lancelot's endless can-do-no-wrong persona mixed with Sir Gawain's constantly being trounced leaves me wishing for a bit more John of England and a bit less Chrétien de Troyes. But obviously I am excessively biased and I make no claims to the contrary.
Boooooooo Sir Lancelot,
Sir Gawain FTW.
All of which to say, I thoroughly enjoyed it. But I'd probably just as soon read Thomas Mallory.
December 12, 2020
I went from being mildly interested to profoundly bored to disturbed and intrigued (the quest for the Holy Grail honestly gave me horror vibes) to confused. A wild ride to be certain.
January 29, 2022
Decent version of the legends. Narration by Thomas Rose was terrible.
June 5, 2024
LOTS of characters
And we smote them all… or just about. The audiobook narrator was the only redeeming part of the whole story.
And we smote them all… or just about. The audiobook narrator was the only redeeming part of the whole story.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 326 reviews