Arthuriana -- all things King Arthur ! discussion

SO excited to have found this group but bummed that it's dead! Who is still around?

I'm here. I haven't been very active in groups but I love the subject, so I'm ready to give it a go!

I'm in! I rabidly read and sometimes write fiction on the subject (and occasional nonfiction as necessary).

Still here.

I'd love to discuss the Arthurian legend. Where would you all like to start? I've been reading Mircea Eliade and Rene Girard recently, and both of them I think open up certain Arthurian texts--Girard explains the way Malory deals with violence, for example, and I think Eliade's theory of the Eternal Return shows something about the story of Arthur's death and voyage to Avalon.

I'm still here but tend to be more on the pop culture end of Arthurian reading rather than the scholarly. Haven't read much in this vein lately but was bummed to learn that Tony Hays had passed away. I loved his Arthurian Mysteries.

I'm into pop culture too. Mark, you're way ahead of me! Really I like it all.

Although I've read Geoffrey, Mallory and the Mabinogion, I've also enjoyed TH White. What I get into most is history: I read three books by Geoffrey Ashe, plus a lot on archaeology at Cadbury Hill (Cadebir). The idea that Arthur could have existed is what has spurred my research.

Monika, thank you for getting this started.

I'm here - I've yet to enjoy any Arthurian books as much as the Jack Whyte Camulod series but I am always in the lookout. :)

Well, if I were modest and humble, I wouldn't say this, but you might take a look at my own Arthurian trilogy, The Hawk and the Wolf and its sequels.

I've done some reading on the history and archaeology, and found Christopher Snyder's An Age of Tyrants extremely useful. As for the quest for an historical Arthur, I don't think much useful work has been done since Geoffrey Ashe's The Discovery of King Arthur. The problem is that among academics it's professional death to talk of the possibility of a real King Arthur, so nobody really wants to discuss the issue. Plus, there's not really anything new to discuss.

I think there's still a lot to discuss with regard to the mythic elements in the legend. It used to be popular to talk about it back in the 1950s and 1960s, but now that the work of Eliade, Girard and Campbell is becoming more widely known, we can actually push an appreciation of the literature itself a lot further than they did back then.

So glad I've gotten some responses! I'm Monika, a registered nurse from VA (USA) turned Stay-at-home Mom with two young children. I've been intrigued with the King Arthur legends and medieval history since I've been a little girl. I haven't done nearly the extent of reading as all of you...my days are pretty crazy and I usually read in the early mornings, during nap time, and after my Husband goes to bed. Currently reading The Mists of Avalon. I've tried to find a local group like this but haven't had any luck and was so excited to have stumbled upon this! So looking forward to learning with you all.

What would your book recommendations be to an eager King Arthur newbie?

I'm still here. I don't post that much (too busy reading LOL!). Always looking for new Arthurian material.

Monika wrote: "What would your book recommendations be to an eager King Arthur newbie?"

If you want to read the medieval material, I'd suggest starting with Sir Thomas Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur, Vol. 1 / Le Morte d'Arthur, Vol. 2. That gives you the whole story in a very engaging style. Then I'd read Chretien de Troyes' Arthurian Romances. Chretien invented the romance, the story of one knight going on a quest. He also invented the Lancelot/Guenevere situation, and wrote the first Grail story. Then I'd read The Mabinogion, preferably translated by Sioned Davies. Finally, I'd read The History of the Kings of Britain by Geoffrey of Monmouth. You can fill in the gaps with The Romance of Arthur: An Anthology of Medieval Texts in Translation. Then, when you read modern versions of the Arthurian stories, you'll enjoy them a whole lot more, because you'll understand what the modern authors have taken from medieval sources and what they've invented. Welcome to the fun!

Mark, I agree with most of your choices. No school like the old school.
However for a noob the Winchester manuscript version of Morte is shorter and loses little for it (only my opinion).
Le Morte D'Arthur: The Winchester Manuscript
For more modern versions a couple of authors I enjoyed are: Mary Stewart and Bernard Cornwell.
Didn't like the The Mists of Avalon myself...I'd avoid it...but to each their own.

The Winchester Manuscript in its entirety(The Works of Sir Thomas Malory, in three volumes) is actually longer than the Penguin edition I cited, which is based on Caxton's printed edition. But in "translating" Winchester into modern-spelling English, Helen Cooper omitted several episodes that I thought were crucial, notably during the Grail quest. Other than that, a very fine edition.

I haven't read Stewart or Bradley in over 25 years, but I didn't enjoy Mists of Avalon either. Long-winded, for my taste. Stewart's trilogy, on the other hand, I thought was wonderful; avoid the fourth book, The Wicked Day. Disappointing, though I barely remember why. I think it lacked something of the tragic grandeur I was looking for.

Mark and Old-Barbarosa, thank you! All of those are in my que! My goal is to finish them all by Christmas

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight done by Simon Armitage is pretty good.
And one of my favourites is Tristan: With the Tristran of Thomas.
Mark, I agree with you on part 4 of the Stewart series, should have stayed a trilogy...also agree with your comments on the Winchester, but for a noob friendly 1 volume Morte I think it's tough to beat.
I realise that as this is the web I shouldn't agree...we should argue about something...I must try harder.
I think I have failed the internet... :(

Yeah, we should probably accuse each other of being bigots or something. Or we could all read the same book and try to find out what it says to each of us. Form an Arthurian reading group. Does anyone else think this is worthwhile?

Monika

Arthur's "greatness" is from his place in legend and literature, not his historical status (whatever that is). If you are just approaching the subject, I recommend that you immerse yourself in some good fictional treatments.

Unfortunately, the medieval fiction is not particularly readable. Starting with Malory or Chrestien de Troyes may easily turn you off. I would recommend instead as a starting place:
- The Mary Stewart "Trilogy" - great place to start
- The Once and Future King, T.H. White
- The Bernard Cornwell trilogy
- The Acts of King Arthur by John Steinbeck. This began as a translation/modernization of the Winchester manuscripts, but went in a different direction. Unfortunately, Steinbeck died before completing it.
- Arthur Rex by Thomas Berger is an interesting alternative treatment. Of course, alternative treatments is what the literary canon is all about. Writers since Geoffrey of Monmouth catapulted Arthur from ancient Welsh myth to Britain's foremost hero have been altering the "official" story with their own versions.

I personally enjoyed Mists of Avalon a lot, but it is NOT the place to start. It only is beautiful as a variation of the "standard" version.

My reading list is based on my own experiences, and I am certainly open to the opinion of others.

For those of you who have read a lot and want something different, I'd recommend my latest novel, "Kaffka, the Holy Grail, and a Woman Who Reads: The Quests of Sir Kay." All of my novels are tangentially about Arthur, but this is the first one actually placed in the 6th century. Sir Kay has been the whipping boy of everybody since Chretien/Malory, but before that he was a noble Welsh knight. My treatment is humorous and anachronistic, with the intention of restoring Kay's good reputation. In addition to a knight of somewhat average quality, he is Britain's foremost geek, the only person who can do algebra. Give it a try and let me know what you think.

Good point, Monika, and for those who haven't read any Arthurian literature yet, I'd suggest White's The Once and Future King as an excellent starting point.

For those who have already read some Arthurian literature, however, I would recommend medieval texts before going on to some of the more alternative takes on the legend, such as Berger's Arthur Rex and Bradley's The Mists of Avalon.

On the medieval style. If you read anything in Middle English, it's likely to present some difficulties--Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, for example. However, Malory's style is so late that it's virtually early-modern English. If you find an edition that uses modernized spelling, you can rapidly get into the style and actually start enjoying it--it has a kind of charm. For everything else--Old French, Latin, Welsh and so forth--there are a lot of very good modern translations.

What gives modern readers much more difficulty is the medieval culture that is behind every text written between 600 and 1500. Medieval literature is unabashedly and unapologetically Christian, specifically Catholic. They believed that the material world was ruled by Fortune, so that merit was seldom rewarded prior to the Final Judgement. They believed, on the other hand, that the world was full of meaning and that it was possible to figure out meaning by "reading" historical events. They lived in a violent world, but believed that violence was mostly against the law of God. They believed in original sin. They believed in objective truth.

If these ideas are unfamiliar to you, or if you find them offensive, you have two options. The first is to not read medieval literature. This is a very comfortable choice, but doesn't allow much for personal growth. The second is to engage in what the poet Coleridge called "the willing suspension of disbelief." Pretend you're reading a fantasy novel, like "The Lord of the Rings." I don't for example, believe that Rings of Power and Hobbits exist, but I enjoy the pleasure of reading fictions about them. Of course, I eventually realized that there were things in the real world that very much resembled Hobbits and Rings of Power.

Rusty wrote: "I'd recommend my latest novel, "Kaffka, the Holy Grail, and a Woman Who Reads: The Quests of Sir Kay."

I looked this one up on Amazon, and found the description quite intriguing, especially since I've always wanted to write a novel rehabilitating Sir Kay, who is quite an impressive warrior in the Welsh tradition. Thank you for sharing!

Hope you enjoy it.

My problem with the Medieval texts is that they're "work." So if you're studying Arthur in depth, they're an absolute must. You can't begin to grasp the breadth of the legend without them. But they're not a magical reading experience that you can just let yourself go and experience vicariously. Good contemporary fiction is like that (that's why it's good). But I've plowed through all of the readily available medieval texts and am glad that I did. So I agree with Mark, sorta.

Hi, everyone. I am still listed as a moderator, but I have not participated in a long time. If anyone would like to be added as a moderator, please let me know. That just allows you to start folders, organize folders, and do whatever small maintenance needed. I still love Arthurian lit, but have just been reading in other areas and too involved with work! Have a great day.

In reading all of your comments, I get a feeling of "Way to go, me, I've read a lot!" Then again, there are more books to read. It sounds like most of you have read a great deal as well. I agree White is a great place to start.

I don't know how much to say about our own works; I'll just mention that my novel is a time-slip, with a modern heroine and as realistic a 500AD Arthur as I could. I loved the research, and read more old stuff than new. There are so many variations on the legends that in order to write a story, you just have to pick your own variation and go with it.

I just followed and sent friend requests to most of you (Old-Barbarossa, I wasn't sure if I should). Feel free to yay or nay me, it won't hurt my feelings. I'm glad we have this group in which to visit.

Rusty wrote: "My problem with the Medieval texts is that they're "work." ... "

I couldn't agree more, Rusty, which is why they're worth reading. I originally read Malory, Geoffrey of Monmouth, and as many of the others as I could get my hands on in order to have the knowledge I needed to write my own novels. But I rapidly learned to love them in their own right.

Any serious literature--and comedy can be serious in that sense--involves a challenge. It's worth the work because it enriches our lives. The problem with newer works is that they frequently allow the reader to do nothing more than while away an idle hour between the cradle and the grave. I'm getting too old to indulge myself like that. I'd rather deepen my understanding of Malory than read yet another irreverent postmodern take on the Merlin legend.

The other difficulty with modern Arthurian literature is the sheer quantity of it. I read about ten years ago that as many Arthurian texts had been written after 1966 as before it. That's pretty staggering. And with the explosion of self-publishing, that number has just swollen enormously since I read that statistic. So choice becomes a difficult issue.

But these are just my preferences; there are no objective criteria in my choices. I'd stand by the literary quality and entertainment value of Malory's Morte Darthur, Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, and the Arthurian romances of Chretien de Troyes. That's all.

Petrea wrote: "I just followed and sent friend requests to most of you (Old-Barbarossa, I wasn't sure if I should). Feel free to yay or nay me, it won't hurt my feelings. I'm glad we have this group in which to v..."

Nothing personal but I have no virtual friends...I'm a bit old fashioned that way...I'm sure I don't use facebook correctly either.
I will however rant away and reply to any comments on groups I am a member of...with the caveat that all opinions I express are merely that and subject to re-evaluation should they prove to be a load of aul' bollix.

So, in the interest of keeping this conversation going, I propose:

Name one book in the Arthur canon, that you found of particular interest. Describe, include telling why you found it to be something we should read. Can be fiction or non-fiction.

Name one book in the Arthur canon, that you found of particular interest. Describe, include telling why you found it to be something we should read..."

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. I like the translations by J. R. R. Tolkien and Marie Boroff best of all, and I didn't much care for Armitage's, but any one of them will do.

It's one of the most beautiful poems ever written in English. The passage on the seasons at the beginning of Part 2 is unsurpassed; even the Romantics' descriptions of nature don't hit me quite like this passage.

It's also one of the most complex poems, and keeps you on your toes all the time. No sooner have you gotten used to something that's happening, than the poet turns you completely around and gives you something you weren't expecting. And he maintains that right through to the end.

Gawain is all of us, I think. He thinks he's a pretty good sort--look at the symbolism of his coat of arms, the Pentangle--and he sorts of rests on his virtue-laurels. But the poem exposes the fact that Gawain is sinful, like the rest of us, flawed, like the rest of us, and horribly embarrassed at having been caught. The poem is a celebration of broken humanity and a compassionate exploration of what it means to discover your human limitations.

A magnificent choice, Mark, and a beautiful exposition. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight has lasted as long as it has because of its excellence, not just because it is a poem that just happened to survive.

Honi soit qui mal y pense.

I am bracing for the scholarly type here who may know better but the Norma Lorre Goodrich books - particularly 'King Arthur' and 'Guinevere' we're so convincing that one could get near proof of Arthur.

As for pure indulgence, I quite liked the Persia Woolley Guinevere trilogy

Yeah, I guess I'm the scholarly type. I used to teach college. I got better, though. Now I write novels and bake bread.

There are plenty of good books on the historical Arthur, though--most of what Geoffrey Ashe wrote, for example, and more recently Christopher Snyder. These are very readable as well as thought-provoking. Try Ashe's The Discovery of King Arthur and Snyder's An Age of Tyrants. The current consensus of the scholarly community is that Arthur didn't exist, and there's pressure to conform to that narrative. But that doesn't mean anything. Scholars are often ideologues, and use their studies mainly to promote their political agendas. You can't really ignore them, but you're right to be skeptical.

Mark thanks for not eye roll - at least least once in each post I a nitwit :) More on Arthur books in a bit - I Guinevere shamefully snatched a pile from the stacks as it were in back in college and have dragged them around ever since.

I rest my case - fing iphone

Having read my post with no ability to edit from the app I surrender. Back in the day, the dream job in my early 20s was getting a grant to find the historical Arthur - as I got older and perhaps a tad wiser, I realized that it really doesn't matter to me - Arthur is fine being a symbol/archetype/hero etc ...the dozen tomes I filched from the stacks will no doubt still leave the question unanswered and well that is ok :)

I found that the more I read on the subject, the less certain I was of an answer. I still like Geoffrey Ashe's answer best, though.

To me, the literary Arthur is the important one. I once read a comment by T. H. White that Malory's Le Morte Darthur's purpose was "to find an antidote to war." I thought that was rubbish when I first read it, but now I'm beginning to see that if you substitute "violence" for "war," he might be onto something. That's the Arthur I love.

It's hard to pick just one book. I have read more in the non-fiction vein than fiction, and it all sparked my imagination. Ashe gives hope that there might have been a real "Arthur," and to me that almost doesn't matter. What I love about Ashe's books is the clear picture I get of that part of the world in that era. It becomes real in my mind.

I also read works by Leslie Alcock, an archaeologist. The book I'm thinking of is "Was This Camelot?", alternatively titled "Cadbury/Camelot," an exhaustive report of a dig on Cadbury Hill in the late 1960's. His researchers turned up a post-roman settlement atop the iron age hill fort, and more imagination fodder for me.

Nicole, I'm not the scholarly type either. I like some of the scholarly books, some of the more popular ones (my own is not scholarly, but I wanted to base it in reality).

I confess to being a cretin who has not read "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight," but I have the Borroff on my shelf so I'd better get to it.

Folks, have a look at other threads on the group and add comments...
You might find stuff of interest...and you may be able to shed new light on things for the older, jaded members..

I'm still here. Although you can see from my response time, that it's pretty casual. I don't post much. I like documenting Arthurian material, maybe a bit more than reading it.

I found Camelot & Vine - next to read after I finish the Sharon Penman tome I am currently reading !

Oh wow! I'm cautious about talking about it on this thread, but please send me a message when you have a chance to read it, and let me know what you think. Thank you so much!

Will do :) I'm just about a quarter through a rather large book so it may be near May. Quite excited

Hello all! Pleased to find this group is reviving. I'll keep checking back to post now that it seems more active. I am a big fan of the Arthurian legends though it's been a while since I've read extensively on it as these days I mostly write. I'd be keen to do a group read and discussion on a particular Arthurian book if anyone would be interested!

Let's do it! I've read a lot but there are so many Arthurian novels and nonfiction out there!

Great! Not sure how it would work but other groups seem to have a suggestions thread and then a poll to choose the first book to read out of the suggestions. We could try that?

I'm in!

I want to form a 10-author read group late Sept/early Oct? I'll check back soon. There's also been some confusion that it must be Arthurian, but I widened it to Alternate Arthur/Ancient England so anything pre-gunpowder Britain should find some readers here, not to mention any inventive spin on Arthur (in space, etc) is also welcome.

Each author will read 3 books, 4 weeks given to each. In turn, you'll get 3 reviews back from these authors of similar interests. This will be non-reciprocal, to avoid those strange Amazon rules. In other words, none of the authors you review will be ones reviewing YOUR tome. If you can't finish the quota, let the MOD know: the usual procedure is not being allowed to join any subsequent group-reads. Nobody is forced to complete the group read, one just hopes as a matter of courtesy. You also will get 4 weeks per book, not all 3 books in a month. A Goodreads review is required, anywhere else is optional.

For posts on Amazon, a Goodreads member stated this eloquently: My reviews are not being deleted and I read at least 4-5 books per week. Remember to say at the end of your review: "I am voluntarily reviewing this book. I thank the author for sharing a copy of the book with me." This solves the two requirements from Amazon. 1) that you are not forced to leave a review in exchange for the copy of the book; and 2) that you disclose you received a free copy.

Apparent yes's:
M.L. Mackworth-Praed "Logres"
S.W. Wilcox (me) "Bards of Fantasia"
Brian Lang "Knight's Journal"
Petrea Burchard "Camelot & Vine"
Rusty Rhoad "Return From Avalon"
Eric Tanafon "Wolf's Head"
Cheryl Carpinello "Young Knights of the Round Table: The King's Ransom"

Asked, from this group, but unsure of:
Mark Adderley "The Hawk and the Wolf"

Another 10 of 50 Arthur/Britain/Celtic Goodreads authors asked a few days ago. Will contact more in a few days. Update 8-8-17: 15 more asked, 15 checked-off as no GR messaging allowed, Update 8-16-17, last 10 asked.
"Too swamped" replies so far,
Theresa Tomlinson "The Tribute Wife"
Ruth Downie "The Bear and the Wolf"
Ann Swinfen "The Huntsman's Tale"
Octavia Randolph "The Circle of Ceridwen"
Elisabeth Waters "Treasures of Albion"
Karla Tipton "Rings of Passage"
J.G. McKenney "The Book Knights"
Matthew Harffy "The Serpent Sword"

How's that for a GROUP REVIVAL, M.L.? :=)

Great idea, I'm in as long as we're not breaking any TOS. I think the latest on that is that one can't 'expect' an Amazon review in exchange for a free copy. If anything it sounds like a great way to discover some new Arthurian literature! End Sept/Oct is fine for me. Perhaps afterwards we can bounce ideas around about one another's work. Looking forward to it!