James Mustich's 1000 Books to Read Before You Die discussion

A discussion for the third book of the series The Once and Future King, The Ill-Made Knight.

Have started this book and am really noticing its use of heraldic terms, also used in The Queen of Air and Darkness. I can remember getting a little booklet at a castle that explains all these terms (broadly Norman French for colours), but if you haven’t come across them before, the Wikipedia article on heraldry, especially tinctures, helps.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraldr...

We have moved forward some years from the second volume in the quartet, The Queen of Air and Darkness, and this is mainly a story of Lancelot, the eponymous ill-made knight.
White assumes familiarity with Malory’s fifteenth century story of Arthur, Le Morte d’Arthur, which may be acceptable, as modern Western readers are probably aware of the general outline of the Arthur story, but I was concerned that it would reduce White’s storytelling. By the end of the book, I thought that it reduced the effort to explain character development for Arthur, who chooses to ignore Merlyn’s warnings about Lancelot and Guinever, and a general lack of character development for Guinever, but the approach worked as a portrayal of Lancelot.
The development of Lancelot’s feelings (and Guinever’s) are explored in depth, but mainly by the author, rather than novelistically, and Lancelot’s feelings gain some depth, especially his feeling for holiness.
However, the author uses time jumps of two years, and then fifteen years, with little development of Arthur, Lancelot and Guinnever. I was unconvinced by this passage of time without emotional development in narrative terms, but White makes it work in terms of the legend, so that I eventually accepted (in storytelling terms) the tragedy as fated, although earlier in the book I didn’t expect to be carried by White’s retelling of the legend at this point.
There are a few chapters joyously recounting the adventures of the knights as they return, unsuccessfully, from the quest for the holy grail, railing against the pacifist, vegetarian, chaste and holy Galahad and Bors. White’s use of dialect to recreate these stories is comic genius, working really well for me, although it will not be to all tastes.
Overall, I felt the book too mannered, lacking emotional involvement, as it felt like an analysis by White of legendary Lancelot’s character, and I don’t think I would have read this as a stand-alone book.

I actually liked this part of the story more than the previous two. I feel like we have gotten away from much of the childish and (as Carlton has put it) slapstick antics of King Pellinore. I liked learning about Lancelot and his place in the story. But I can't say that I liked him the whole time. He definitely has some flaws that I am not sure I would have wanted in the "best knight in the world".

I agree that this book overly focuses on Lancelot to the detriment of development in Arthur and other characters. However, I thought the book did a good job of showing that everyone is a person with flaws. In my imagination, I have the knights of the round table being extremely chivalrous, and overall "good people." Lancelot, and the other knights (except perhaps with the exception of the ones that find the grail), do have flaws, and I think that is best shown with Elaine. Yes, she (view spoiler)[tricked him twice (hide spoiler)] but I don't think Lancelot and Guinever were great in their treatment of her in response, (view spoiler)[which ultimately resulted in her suicide (hide spoiler)]