Arthuriana -- all things King Arthur ! discussion

22 views
The Illustrations of Thomas Mackenzie

Comments Showing 1-9 of 9 (9 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Michael (new)

Michael | 42 comments While adding books to my GR shelves, I came across Arthur and his Knights by Christine Chaundler and illustrated by Thomas Mackenzie. I bought the book mainly for the illustrations, which are a cut above the usual standard for what looks like it was originally a relatively cheap children's book.

I've uploaded the colour illustrations here.


message 2: by A.J. (new)

A.J. Campbell | 73 comments Michael,

Very nice illustrations, colorful and Victorian. When was Chaundler's book published?


message 3: by Bryn (new)

Bryn Hammond (brynhammond) | 37 comments Gorgeous. I wish I'd had that as a kid.


message 4: by Michael (last edited Jun 01, 2012 02:56AM) (new)

Michael | 42 comments A.j. wrote: "Michael,

Very nice illustrations, colorful and Victorian. When was Chaundler's book published?"


The edition I have is one of those annoying volumes without any copyright information, but I would guess that it's 1950s. The first edition was 1920.


message 5: by A.J. (new)

A.J. Campbell | 73 comments Bryn & Michael,

Ahh! 1920. That explains the classic look, just before neuvoux.


message 6: by Chris (last edited Jun 01, 2012 04:07AM) (new)

Chris (calmgrove) Michael wrote: "While adding books to my GR shelves, I came across Arthur and his Knights by Christine Chaundler and illustrated by Thomas Mackenzie. I bought the book mainly for the illustrations, which are a cut..."

One or two pics are a little too fey for my tastes, but the colours and textures generally are very accomplished, and reminded me a little of illustrated Russian folktales from the Soviet era (but without the patriotic overtones of course). Thanks for posting these!

By the way, you can see larger scale Mackenzie illustrations on the Camelot Project webpage dedicated to Arthurian artists (just scroll down to find Mackenzie or click on M: he's the first listed): http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/...


message 7: by Michael (new)

Michael | 42 comments I guess that I'm a little fey, then, although I would prefer the term "metrosexual" :-D


message 8: by Chris (last edited Jun 01, 2012 10:17AM) (new)

Chris (calmgrove) Michael wrote: "I guess that I'm a little fey, then, although I would prefer the term "metrosexual" :-D"

Good riposte! I only used the term fey in relation to the style, not as a value judgement. Worried that I may have inadvertantly caused offence I checked out a couple of online definitions (more up-to-date perhaps than my ageing memories) and came up with
a. Having or displaying an otherworldly, magical, or fairylike aspect or quality.
b. Having visionary power; clairvoyant.
c. Appearing touched or crazy, as if under a spell.


In my antediluvian day it may have alluded to a certain campness (in Britain, and probably elsewhere, calling a man a fairy was derogatory) but I always used it in the first sense here, principally 'otherworldly' but in a vague perhaps visionary way.

A couple of the illustrations reminded me of the Cottingley fairy photos, which were roughly contemporary with Mackenzie's paintings, which certainly exerted a strange fascination for the otherwise (mostly) rational Conan Doyle.

Just realised I may be being a bit over-serious here--just spotted your smiley!


message 9: by Michael (new)

Michael | 42 comments I'm not in any way offended, Chris - just my little attempt at humour!!


back to top

9264

Arthuriana -- all things King Arthur !

unread topics | mark unread


Books mentioned in this topic

Arthur and his Knights (other topics)

Authors mentioned in this topic

Thomas Mackenzie (other topics)
Christine Chaundler (other topics)