false First part is done, time for something else. 0 2009-09-15T07:43:21-07:00 1311632 222 2009-09-15T07:43:21-07:00 0 2009-09-14T07:34:44-07:00 1306674 202 2009-09-14T07:34:44-07:00 Twenty pages about a boar hunt... what a bore. 0 2009-09-10T08:12:47-07:00 1289236 152 2009-09-10T08:12:47-07:00 0 2009-09-08T07:46:33-07:00 1279047 146 2009-09-08T07:46:33-07:00 0 2009-09-01T07:50:30-07:00 1247155 106 2009-09-01T07:50:30-07:00 0 2009-08-29T08:18:06-07:00 1232839 75 2009-08-29T08:18:06-07:00 Language is a little difficult but the style is funny 0 2009-08-24T07:45:47-07:00 1207683 33 2009-08-24T07:45:47-07:00 0 0 false false Tue Sep 15 00:00:00 -0700 2009 Mon Aug 24 07:45:28 -0700 2009 Tue Sep 15 07:50:26 -0700 2009 The sword in the stone
After a couple pages I realised this was the book that Disney based the movie on. Interesting. I thought I was reading a more serious book, but soon it was clear that it was... weird and childish. The deliberate anachronisms were kind of funny, but also annoying.

The way the author structured the story was totally strange. He spent pages on Arthur (The Wart) being made into an animal and "learning", about boar hunts, but the sword and the stone get a grand total of ten pages. It was really really boring at times, I don't understand why he chose for this pace.

Characterisation was cliched and charicatural, but at least Arthur has a sort of rounded personality.

So yeah. The story is all over the place, it seems written for adults but it has talking animals in it. But not enough adventure for kids. Maybe that was normal in that time?

I'll read the other four books in due time, but now I need something with a little more action.]]>