SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion
This topic is about
The Once and Future King
Group Reads Discussions 2019
>
"The Once And Future King" Discuss Everything *Spoilers*
Mod
The point can be made that many of the King's men were adolescents in reality as well as in heart. Under the feudal system, pageboys became squires at age 14, knights at 21; but under the pressures of war, disease and famine, many squires were "kicked upstairs" and became knights while still, in fact, hot-headed teenagers. One can see this in Arthur's alleged mentor Sir Kay (fortunately, Arthur's real mentor was Merlin).Here's a wonderful justification for OaFK being the most definitive telling of the Arthurian legend. You might want to wait until you're farther along, but it really lays things out nicely. The title is "Why The Once and Future King is still the best King Arthur Story out There," and it ran in VOX in 2017:
https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/5/18...
Not only the games-mania … most of them seem to lack general sense. They read like boys of 10.I was always wondering about the weirdness of the Merlin TV-two-parter with Sam Neill in the title role - now I guess they just followed the spirit of OaFK ... other Arthur screen adaptations I don't know.
@thanks Allen, I will have a look into the links.
message 105:
by
Allison, Fairy Mod-mother
(last edited Jan 25, 2019 09:00AM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
were rather behaving in the manner they'd been taught, and which we'd witnessed, when they were kids. Instead of seeming juvenile, it reads to me as a reminder that the seeds we plant turn into the flowers we pick, so to speak.
Ten years old? No. Fifteen or sixteen, maybe. The point should be made that T.H. White did not simply grab hold of the Tennysonian picture of knights as noble and camp it up (that would be SPAMALOT). A gifted medievalist, White knew what he was talking about, and while so much humor may not have been necessary, the funny parts are, to me, some of the best parts. Also, as I said above, when the story is written of human beings with high ideals, the base behavior tends to get left behind while the ideals endure. White's genius was to show the behaviors, the motives, and the legend all working together. The cliche "warts and all" definitely applies here.
I'm hearing you, Allison, and I try to keep this in mind while I'm listening. Yet this book and me won't be best friends down the road.@Allen, sorry, did write at the same time. I can appreciate why people love this book, but I have my difficulties with it - that's just a fact.
Not everyone loves OaFK, and that's fine. If you like movies, and want to avoid the lengthy film version of CAMELOT, I'd recommend EXCALIBUR (1981, dir. John Boorman). As the title implies, the movie follows Arthur's sword more than Arthur himself. It's a rough, gritty movie, lacking in musical-theater charm, and inspired more by Malory than T.H. White. Yet through it all, warts and all, the excitement and power of the Arthurian legend come through.
Mod
Oh no, it didn't come across that way. *hug* It's just that I see how much you love this book and so I find myself trying to see it the same way as you … ^^'
Finally finished Sword in the Stone. I put the book on pause for a while because I was reading too many things and wasn't giving this the attention it deserved. As others have noted, I liked the humor, it felt like White had a lot of fun writing and jamming all sorts of tidbits in. There are also many simply lovely passages, (view spoiler) It is much richer and layered than I expected.
My formative Arthurian legend was Camelot. I'm pretty sure I saw a production in Boston with Richard Harris when I was a kid. So, there was only a little bit of what is in Sword in the Stone.
Mod
We had Camelot from PBS on tape when I was a kid! We watched that a lot, but I'd be hard pressed to remember most of it...
Here's a clip of a young Robert Goulet, ca. 1960, singing the hit ballad "If Ever I Would Leave You" from the B'way CAMELOT. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL52h...
Read THE MISTS OF AVALON.Your ideas about THE ONCE AND FUTURE KING and every other Arthurian book will forever be changed.
I see there is a new take coming out this year called Once and Future with a female Arthur
I read Mists of Avalon (many moons ago) and did appreciate the alternate perspective it cast on events of the Arthur tale. Another alternate take I liked was the 'Merlin' tv series (I think it's available on Netflix), that played with many aspects of the original stories.
Have I mentioned John Boorman's 1981 picture EXCALIBUR yet? It's pretty amazing, and pretty dark, inspired more by Thos. Malory than T.H. White. Talents such as Liam Neeson, Helen Mirren, and Nigel Terry appeared early in their career; and Nicol Williamson, playing Merlin, darn near stole the show. I really like the picture a lot. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082348/...
ALLEN wrote: "Have I mentioned John Boorman's 1981 picture EXCALIBUR yet? It's pretty amazing, and pretty dark, inspired more by Thos. Malory than T.H. White. Talents such as Liam Neeson, Helen Mirren, and Nigel..."My experience of this film is my mom taking me to see it in the theatre, I was about 10 years old. As I remember it, we were late and walked in during the scene where *spoiler for film and OaFK Book 2 (Queen of Air and Darkness)* (view spoiler) and she marched us right out again. Perhaps I should give it another chance.
Pretty sure the flick had an "R" rating. Go on time or rent it, it's quite a good movie. If nothing else, it teaches the whole Arthurian saga, though at the expense of cheating a little regarding Arthur's relation to Mordred.
ALLEN wrote: "Have I mentioned John Boorman's 1981 picture EXCALIBUR yet? It's pretty amazing, and pretty dark, inspired more by Thos. Malory than T.H. White. Talents such as Liam Neeson, Helen Mirren, and Nigel..."EXCALIBUR is a beautiful film!
Alright, I finished book 2, which in my version is called The Queen of Air and Darkness. I found this part a bit grueling, (view spoiler)
I've read the book of Merlyn. I won't give spoilers but it reads like fun fan fiction. Although marketed as the missing book it was actually deliberately cut by the author as it doesn't quite fit into the four other stories neatly, the intro just doesn't link with where it is meant to be in the text. While I enjoyed the book of Merlyn it does feel tonally very different, with very little pathos behind it. It's a fun read but I am glad it didn't become part of the cannon, as I feel it would have undermined the feel of the rest of the series.
Mod
Thanks so much for reporting this, Mark! That was sort of what I'd thought might be the case. Glad to hear it backed up :)
I think I read this one decades ago back in high school or earlier. Definitely left indelible if somewhat faded mark on me. Maybe I should pick it up as a refresher.
I would think carefully before reading the book of Merlyn. I enjoyed it and it was a fun couple of hours, but even though it wasn't cannon it did undermine the very effective ending of the fourth story for me.Its an interesting read but it will half spoil your memories of the rest of the book. There is very little doubt that White made the right decision in cutting it.
Has anyone read Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur: King Arthur and the Legends of the Round Table? I have not. I finished reading Book 3, The Ill-Made Knight, and it felt like it might have given the section more resonance (or something), if I had read Malory. There were a number of references to stuff that White wasn't going to talk about because Malory already covered them, or other nods to Malory, suggesting White was telling an 'un-sanitized' version. The section was still enjoyable for me, though I went back and forth on how much I actually *liked* Guenever and Lancelot.
Mod
Exactly! Like, every British schoolboy would have read it so they'd be in on the jokes here.
Meredith wrote: "Has anyone read Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur: King Arthur and the Legends of the Round Table?"Oh yes, it's wonderful :)
Mod
Hello, Allison. While no expert, I have read and enjoyed OaFK in the gray paperback version pictured above. I'm curious about how people react to the ants and their "Mammy Songs." Clearly this is the author's protest against Fascism and its emphasis on group thinking and group action -- but why "Mammy Songs," even in an era that knew "Mammy songs" more than ours? I think of them as an American genre.
I just read the terribly tragic unicorn chapter in book 2 and oh my goodness. White does a masterful job of showing the horror of the event, and provides a window into what is driving these boys to do it, all with a very subtle and human touch. But man is it brutal.
Oh, man. The unicorn chapter. That gave pause.
Mod
One thing that strikes me about T.H. White is how he has a little boy's celebratory sense of gallantry toward the idea of war, but a wise adult's horror of war itself. As Allison said, more will become apparent later on.
Mod
Allison wrote: "Oh well said, Allen!"[blush]
Anthony wrote: "I just read the terribly tragic unicorn chapter in book 2 and oh my goodness. White does a masterful job of showing the horror of the event, and provides a window into what is driving these boys to..."The first time I read this, I very nearly quit at that point. I was like, "WTF, dude, you just slaughtered a unicorn, I am outta here..."
But I stuck with it.
So this month we selected not one, but two of my all time favorite novels. The Once and Future King made me laugh. It made me cry. It changed my expectations. It. Is delightful. It is tragic. I can’t say enough how much I love this book. I will be listening to it again soon.
I just finished “The Queen of Air and Darkness” and I remain very impressed. The last couple of pages in particular were chilling. I love White’s use of explicit foreshadowing here, and I marvel at his ability to dance from comic hijinks to tragic foreboding throughout this section of the book.
I finished this earlier today. The first half of the book was sillier than I expected, and it took me aback at first, but I did really enjoy the humor once I adjusted my expectations. It felt very Pratchett-like at times, and I found myself wondering if this book had any influence on Pratchett’s writings. Especially with King Pellinore who was hilarious and reminded me of a Discworld character whose name I can’t remember.The second half of the book was less pleasant for me, but I went into this expecting some torture. I hate angsty love stories, and this one wasn’t helped by the fact that I already knew the general story and how things would play out so there wasn’t any suspense to that part of the story. I also hated seeing everything King Arthur had built starting to fall apart, and knowing that was coming increased my dread in the second half. I did really like Arthur’s conversation with young Tom at the end.
The setting confused the heck out of me for a while. I was expecting it to be a little more historically accurate, except with magic and stuff, set around the 5th century or so. So it seemed like the book was full of anachronisms, but the author mentioned early on that he was using more modern terms to make it easier for readers to understand what he was talking about, so I thought that was intended to explain the anachronisms. Plus of course there were Merlyn’s anachronisms due to his reverse aging, but those were more obvious because they only came from him and they were understandable within the context of the story. It took me a while to understand that the author had actually set this book several hundred years after when it really should have been set for historical accuracy, at least if I understand everything correctly. Eventually I just gave up worrying about it and took everything at face value.
Meredith wrote: "Another alternate take I liked was the 'Merlin' tv series (I think it's available on Netflix), that played with many aspects of the original stories."Was that the BBC version where Merlin and Arthur were around the same age, sorcerers are persecuted by King Uther, and Merlin is Prince Arthur’s manservant?
If so, you’re one of the few people I’ve ever seen mention that series. That was my first significant exposure to Arthurian-related stories and I loved it. I knew it wasn't faithful to the legends, but I didn't know them very well anyway so it didn't bother me. There were some internal plot issues that did bother me, but I just loved the characters and the humor and everything. In retrospect, I particularly appreciate how much it downplayed the love triangle stuff. It told it in a very different way that made it easier to respect the characters, even if it made the story less “gritty” in that respect. By contrast, I found it difficult to like Gwen and Lance in this book, and sometimes Arthur frustrated me too.
Although I already knew pretty well how the Gwen/Lance/Arthur stuff played out in the more traditional legends, as well as how everything would end up, there were still a lot of things that surprised me when I read this book. I never realized just how completely the TV series redefined everything. That’s good, because I probably would have been bored if everything had been predictable. The parts I already knew pretty well were the parts I enjoyed the least. Mordred being Arthur’s son made me say “What?!” out loud. I kept wondering when Morgan[a] was going to show back up, thinking she would be a bigger villain. Merlyn’s magic was completely not what I expected. Arthur was a bit more bumbling and passive than I expected, although I respected him for the most part as he grew older and wiser, and I hadn’t been familiar with the story of how he was raised.
As for movies, I am very fond of the 1981 movie EXCALIBUR. Though it does elide or gloss over parts of the Arthurian legend, it otherwise shows the whole cycle, which is quite a feat. Consider that Disney's THE SWORD IN THE STONE was based on part of the first OaFK book, and even CAMELOT downplays the decay of the realm, it's quite impressive, as is the naturalistic, down-and-dirty filming, years away from studio gloss. EXCALIBUR also gave Helen Mirren and Liam Neesen their first exposure to international audiences.
Helen Mirren played Morgana le Fay in EXCALIBUR (1981).
YouKneeK wrote: "Meredith wrote: "Another alternate take I liked was the 'Merlin' tv series (I think it's available on Netflix), that played with many aspects of the original stories."Was that the BBC version whe..."
Yes, that's the series. I enjoyed it as a reimagining of the story with new elements brought in. I liked that Merlin and Arthur, Morgana and Gwen were contemporaries. It changed many of the dynamics.
I finished the 2nd book and still enjoying it a lot despite the different tone. Only bothered by all the hunting scenes, of unicorns and otherwise.. oh yeah the opening scene with the cooking of the cat... yikes! I have no problems with human gore, but when it comes to animals I'm too sensitive even to watch National Geographic....😅
Mary Stewart's Merlin Trilogy is another take on the Arthur story. It's from Merlin's point of view.I love the Excalibur movie
Jack Whyte 's Camulod Chronicles is a retelling of the story as well, but a more realistic one. Merlin shows up in book 3 and Arthur in book 4.
Rosemary Sutcliff also wrote an Arthurian trilogy: The Sword and the Circle: King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, The Light Beyond the Forest: The Quest for the Holy Grail and The Road to Camlann. The Death of King Arthur
Mod
Folks discussing movies, thanks for all the other material for fans of the legend! I'd love for some analysis though. What's different? What is the focus of these stories compared to OaFK?
Allison wrote: "Folks discussing movies, thanks for all the other material for fans of the legend! I'd love for some analysis though. What's different? What is the focus of these stories compared to OaFK?"For the “Merlin” BBC TV series, it pretty much ALL different. :) As Meredith said, the main characters (Merlin, Arthur, Morgana, and Gwen) are contemporaries. I’m not sure how old they’re supposed to be at the beginning of the show, but maybe early 20’s or very late teens? King Uther is still alive and Igraine died giving birth to Arthur. Arthur was raised by Uther, so he wasn't an orphan and he knew he was next in line for the throne. The sword in the stone does come into play eventually, but not in the same way it does in the book. (Spoiler for TV series) (view spoiler). Arthur’s early years are very different from what the book portrays and later in the series we learn that (view spoiler)
Morgana is King Uther’s ward and lives in the castle also. She doesn’t start off evil and isn’t aware she has magic. Morgause is her sister as in the book, but she doesn’t learn this or meet Morgause until later in the show. I don’t think Elaine was mentioned in the TV series at all, or she didn’t play much of a role if so. Gwen is a commoner who works as Morgana’s servant. Merlin comes to Camelot at the beginning of the show, encounters Arthur, and they hate each other, but through the events of the first episode Merlin ends up assigned to be his manservant to the dismay of both of them.
Magic is forbidden, and Arthur is loyal to his father despite not always agreeing with him, so Merlin keeps his magic hidden from Arthur and most of the other characters. Persecution of a segment of the population (people with magic) is a big theme, with the obvious real-world parallels. The biggest focus of the show is probably the relationship between Merlin and Arthur, as well as Merlin’s development of his powers and his gradual acceptance of his destiny to help Arthur become a great king. It also focuses a lot on Arthur’s challenges, his growing concern and compassion for his people, and the difficult relationship he has with his father. Merlin is the lead character, so he gets slightly more focus than Arthur, and we see the private sacrifices he makes for Arthur’s sake that Arthur never knows about. The magic secrecy thing does go on and on, and would probably be my main complaint about the series if I were asked to pick one. It gets a bit silly how often Arthur manages to be unconscious when Merlin performs some big feat of magic to save the day, and Arthur’s failure to figure it out often makes him seem rather dense. Spoiler for the TV show: (view spoiler)
The villains are a bit more nuanced in the TV show, I think. We see Morgana’s development from a sympathetic young woman who’s not afraid to argue with Uther about how he treats magic users into a deranged and evil villain. Mordred also starts as a sympathetic character, with a completely different origin since he’s not Arthur’s son, and his relationship with Arthur does not start off as adversarial.
In the beginning, Gwen has a crush on Merlin but he’s oblivious. However, eventually we see Arthur start to fall in love with Gwen. Since Gwen is a commoner there’s difficulties related to that, and it does get a bit angsty at times. The love triangle with Lancelot is very much downplayed, only comes up in a few episodes from what I remember, and arguably never becomes actual infidelity because (view spoiler). I guess this probably makes it seem like the story has been watered down to people who grew up with the original legends, but I liked being able to respect the characters. Lance’s whole story is really very different from the book, starting with his origins up through the end of his character arc. One thing I did really like was how the book described him as ugly and portrayed him as somebody who could still manage to turn the head of a Queen and earn everybody’s respect because of skills and personality that had nothing to do with his looks. The actor who portrayed Lancelot in the TV show definitely was not unattractive.
In general, the TV show tones down a lot of the morally questionable stuff for the characters who are supposed to be our heroes. Merlin, Arthur, Gwen, and Lancelot are far more noble and self-sacrificing in the TV show. Gwaine is more of a loveable rogue type character than he’s portrayed in the book, assuming Gawaine from the book and Gwaine from the TV show were supposed to be the same character.
Sorry, that’s not a remotely concise summary and probably waaaay more detail than you wanted!
Allison wrote: "Folks discussing movies, thanks for all the other material for fans of the legend! I'd love for some analysis though. What's different? What is the focus of these stories compared to OaFK?"I was listing books and the differences are:
Jack Whyte and Rosemary Sutcliff look at the Arthur story as one of a dying Roman Britain
Mary Stewart focuses on Merlin
Sutcliff seems to be squarely in the historical novel genre but Mary Stewart and Whyte allow some magic to creep in and I've seen those books classified as both historical fication and as fantasy.
Here are a couple of other takes on the legend that have not been mentioned yet:Bernard Cornwell wrote a trilogy https://www.goodreads.com/series/4091...
And Stephen R. Lawhead's Pendragon Cycle is 6 books. https://www.goodreads.com/series/4148...
SciFi and Fantasy Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
The Light Beyond the Forest: The Quest for the Holy Grail (other topics)The Road to Camlann: The Death of King Arthur (other topics)
The Sword and the Circle: King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table (other topics)
Mary Stewart's Merlin Trilogy (other topics)
Le Morte d'Arthur: King Arthur and the Legends of the Round Table (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Bernard Cornwell (other topics)Stephen R. Lawhead (other topics)
Jack Whyte (other topics)
P.G. Wodehouse (other topics)
Robert Lawson (other topics)
If you have time, here are two songs from the 1960 musical CAMELOT. In the first and best known, Robert Goulet as adulterous Lancelot sings devotion to the bigamous Guinevere:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL52h...
The second, "Fie On Goodness," is a satire in which the King's knights complain they have been too good, too long:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5b7d...