How successful was this as a feminist re-interpretation of the Arthurian cycle?

[Jill]

Cyndi wrote: "Old Barbarossa: love this answer thanks!! Sometimes I forget that what I practice and feel is just that...nothing written but a free interpretation...just as this author did...the story just fits ..."

For me re-reading it in a different maturity makes a big difference. I always appreciated the whole of the work more for its casting an eye on any change-over of societal belief. Did it provide a feminist platform based in its publishing window? Maybe for some. This meant less to me than how its re-focused characterizations of literary archetypes opened this reader up. And at the time, I was a reader developing her questioning of the status quo. Certainly then I was experiencing it in a similar naivete, and enjoyed it for its novelty rather than for presentation of fact.

[David]

I am a man and did not find the book to be a feminist interpretation at all, but a fine telling of a story from the view point of that character. As a point of departure for the writer I find it refreshing and creative to hear a unique viewpoint. The story, in this case is really about something else other that the arthurian-centric tale. Yet, as with many others I love the setting this gem of an idea takes place in.

[Nicky]

Instead, it is the story of the women bending to the power of men. It is shown in many parts of the book, when the main female characters seem to feel guilty for being powerful, and admit to be willing to abdicate of their powers (and sometimes even their faith) just to find the ultimate happiness with a man, thus reinforcing the idea that power is incompatible with womanliness.

...And it is a criticism of that idea, which is the key thing. Morgaine, the heroine of the book, and Vivienne, her teacher, do not approve of that view and struggle against it. It's portrayed as a bad thing. That's what gives it a feminist element.

[Nicky]

People tend to accept, in academia, that she was attempting a feminist retelling, while acknowledging that she didn't fully convince the reader -- e.g. Women and Arthurian Literature: Seizing the Sword. I think I've got a link to an essay on JSTOR about it, if you have access to that.

Meanwhile, I know it's from Wikipedia, but this articulates my stance on it fairly well: "The Mists of Avalon stands as a watershed for feminist interpretation of male-centered myth by articulating women's experience at times of great change and shifts in gender-power." It doesn't necessarily portray a positive shift in power, but it does definitely articulate women's experience(s) at times of great change and shifts in gender-power.

Notice that Gwenhwyfar does not only have power through sex -- she has power through her influence over her husband, which is one of Christian guilt, not about the sexual relations between them.

[Old-Barbarossa]

Rosane wrote: "That makes me think that British folklore is so impregnated by Christian faith, that there’s little left from the original tales. And makes me wonder if it’s even possible to figure out how the original British people thought about the matter of gender power..."

Very little Roman documentation. Then all written records by monks for ages.
This was a problem I had with the book...the claim to authenticity was hung on a shoogly peg.
Recently got hold of, Gods with Thunderbolts: Religion in Roman Britain, which may be of interest.

[Mia]

I recently finished it and I thought it was successful as a feminist re-telling. It showed the harshness of how women were treated and how some of the women struggled with the inequality/abuses while others simply accepted their role.

The characters aren't burning their bras or anything lol but I think we're meant to sympathize with the characters, and acknowledge the unfairness of their situations and repressed roles.

I thought it was handled well. I can't stand books that try to make a "strong" female lead, and only give me a Mary-Sue character that's absolutely perfect in every way (like with Pope Joan ugh). Strong characters have weaknesses too. It gives them depth, and makes them more realistic.

Mists of Avalon demonstrated the abuses of patriarchal institutions, the repression of women, and the misogyny of the Arthurian era.

Was it necessary? I don't really think any re-tellings are necessary, but I liked Mists of Avalon. I didn't LOVE it, but I thought it was entertaining.

[Chris]

Just coming to this question - I loved the different look at the whole Arthurian legend. It gave a totally different but quite viable alternative to what we usually see that is based in the Druid experiences of what is a part of the British history and legends.

[Shane]

It is one of my favorite books of all time. I truly appreciated the way she made the Arthurian legend a story about religion and old giving way to the new. I think that it could be easily fit into the feminist ouvre as a large part of the story is matriarchal society being forced to accept patriarchal roman based culture.
I found the characters riveting and I truly enjoyed how she took a character that had always been a villain and recreated her as the hero or anti-hero if you want of the Arthur story. I will continue to re-read this book. Firebrand was also a very intrigueing book and I really enjoyed it too.

[Gaenolee]

I just finished re-reading this. My copy is a very early large paperback. Feminist in today's context, no. Feminist in a universal context, of course. I have always enjoyed the Arthurian legends, and have read most of the novels, poems, etc. concerning Arthur. In re-reading it, I found places that were historically inaccurate (dress, specifically), places that bogged down, characters that seemed to change from "book" to "book." Although I came away with a complete enjoyment of the novel, I felt it needed a surer hand in editing.

[Holly]

Feminism.....as I recall, feminism as it was taught to me during my youth (the 70's), was fairly uninspiring. I think if might still have been referred to as 'womens liberation' back then. At any rate, the ERA was the rallying point, Steinem, Friedan & Greer were the theorist/strategists, and Billie Jean King was a decent, if rather impractical role model.

Still during my coming-of-age years, the 80's came along and brought with it the Phyllis Schlafly backlash, the Moral Majority and the 'return to traditional christian family values' school of popular thought.

I was raised in a family of strong women, which gave me a good leg-up in this world. Two of the prototypical fields of feminist success promoted during my youth were either business (go out there and be as corrupt and as big a cut-throat as any male corporate raider on the block) or sports, neither of which appealed to me in any way. So I found examples of how women were involved in what interested me.

I discovered that sports need not be limited to 'ball oriented' team sports; the world of grand prix show jumping combined open competition between men and women with horses and riding. I watched Julie Krone succeed wildly as a jockey, a profession traditionally dominated by men. Horses, it seemed to me, were not only completely wonderful creatures, but also supportive of the matriarchy.

In the arts, my music was rock and roll. Throughout the 70's, the type of rock I liked had been a mans world, Led Zeppelin, etc. When punk entered my life I discovered that the girls were invited, too. So, Patti Smith, Debbie Harry and Tina Weymouth all turned into role models.

In literature, women had already proven themselves. I was a reader and found TMOA on my local public library "New Books" shelf when I was in high school. The cover art intrigued me, I checked it out and read it. This book inspired me to adopt a matriarchal, neo-pagan religion.

I guess it is an individual journey, each woman lives her life with separate influences and experiences and she must find and embrace those things that will help her become a strong, decent person, happy and secure in herself.

I think this book was a positive influence in my life; I read it at the time I needed to. Oh, and I discovered the feminist theory of Coco Chanel, who said that each woman should be exactly who and what she wants to be.

[Aaron]

I don't know if I'd call it feminist or not. I probably would in a lazy moment, when I was stuck for specific terminology, but I actually found Bradley's treatment of her female characters rather brutal. I felt she portrayed that women conspired against themselves to usher in the patriarchy. That said, this book also inspired me to become a pagan.

[Sue]

I think feminist is a fine word the describe this take on Arthurian lore. Just because its not as militant as other feminist works, this absolutely raises the female characters to actual full-fledged people, not just scenary and things the male characters fight over. People are automatically attaching an aggressive connotation when the word feminist is used, but feminism is about lifting up our respect and regard for women and, in this case, fictional female characters. In this story, the women are not perfect, not better than all of the men, and don't know whats best in every situation. In fact, most all of the plans these characters put into action fail pretty spectacularly. Still, all of these female characters are well thought out and multi-dimensional. Now, if you really want a Feminist-with-a-capital-F take on this same source material, check out Rosalind Miles' books. An absolute must if you liked this.

[Desiree]

I don't see it so much as feminists as simply told from the feminine points of view, unlike the majority of the other versions of the Arthurian tales.