Scan barcode
sadpendragon's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
dark
emotional
sad
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
HERSTORY ~ what if sir lancelot was a woman?
what if that was why guinevere and lancelot's love story was so enticing? the forbidden love...add a layer of lesbianism to it and it becomes something much more transcending. it changes the drama of their love into something a bit more complex and tragic.
the prose was beautiful and the characters proper tragic medieval lovesick idiots.
my favourite part of this story—though guinevere pining for a repressed religious lancelot was delicious—was lancelot and gawaine's friendship. they mean everything to me, your honour!
i really enjoyed 'lancelot: her story; though this story was a bit slow paced and some elements felt rushed. the changes the author made to make sense of characters like, lancelot's child, did seem a bit random to me, but it was still imaginative and somewhat captivating.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Rape and Misogyny
Minor: Homophobia
all the cw are what you would expect for a story set in this particular setting, but way milder than it could be (in my opinion)hrjones's review against another edition
2.0
There are few things more frustrating than a book that seems to be tailor-made to push all your buttons that ends up simply not working for you. Arthurian re-telling (check) set in a historically-informed post-Roman Britain (check) with cross-dressing female Lancelot (check) in a lesbian romance with Guinevere (check). Yep, should have been perfect. So believe me when I say that I went into this book expecting to love it.
Unfortunately, the premise is the only thing that the story solidly delivered. At first I thought I might have gone into the book with the wrong reading protocol. At first glance, the prose style gives the impression of being a YA novel (and one on the younger end of the YA range), though the blurb and marketing materials give no indication in that direction. Short direct sentences, sparse description, lots of telling and relatively little “showing”. (Check out the Amazon preview to get a taste of what I mean.)
But other than the writing style, the book definitely doesn’t say “YA” to me, in particular in the continual emphasis on a violent and misogynistic depiction of Dark Age society, and repeated (although rarely graphic) references to sexual violence. (One may debate the historic accuracy of the depiction, and I realize that YA doesn't shy away from sexual topics, but this aspect definitely didn't feel YA to me.) The other aspect that doesn’t fit the YA paradigm is the book’s slow and monotonous pace. While the characters are continually doing things, there is little in the way of an overall plot arc. Events plod from one battle to the next assignation to another rescue of a damsel in distress. And then, after a great number of pages, they stop. There is, evidently, a sequel, because this volume ends before we get to the Arthur/Lancelot crisis, the Modred betrayal, and the other end-of-story plot elements.
While the story does an admirable job of cramming many of the medieval Arthurian tales into a single text (we get Gawain and the Green Knight, the abduction of Guinevere by Melwas, the begetting of Mordred, and many many more) it fails to make sense of them as a unified narrative. This may be due to too close a loyalty to the original texts (which were never intended to serve as a coherent narrative), although plotting and the identity of the primary characters is the only aspect in which this loyalty shows.
“Lancelot: Her Story” follows the modern neo-pagan version of the Arthurian mythos, in which conflict plays out not only between Britons and Saxons but between the fading remnants of an ancient goddess-worshiping society and the dominance of a sex-negative patriarchal Christianity. In execution, it copies the playbook of “The Mists of Avalon” and its successors rather than working from a more historic Dark Age context. Douglas’s Lancelot balances her way between the two cultures in parallel with the way she balances between two genders: raised a Christian and raised a boy, but in many ways more comfortable with the more accepting goddess-culture and with her female identity. (Note that while Lancelot spends most of the book passing as a man to the majority of the other characters, she is not presented as a transgender character and uniformly identifies internally with female pronouns, although she regularly contemplates topics of gender identity.)
Although one might think that a story centering around a cross-dressing lesbian Lancelot would examine gender roles from a critical and enlightened perspective, there is an annoying tendency for all the identified-as-sympathetic female characters to have a case of “I’m not like those other girls.” While Lancelot’s cross-gender upbringing might have been due to trauma, we’re given previous signs that she’s “not like other girls” in her tomboyish preference for running wild in the woods and her longing for spirited horses, along with her disdain for sewing and other feminine pursuits. Guinevere, too, is signaled as sympathetic by her rejection of traditionally feminine activities and her interest in reading and in riding horses. And much later in the book when Guinevere takes on a protégé who also becomes something of a substitute daughter to Lancelot, we know she’s going to be an important character because she doesn’t sew or spin well, her behavior is unruly, and she enjoys swordplay and learning to read.
Rather than critiquing gender roles, the story accepts the premise that traditional femininity is uninteresting, not admirable, and ill-suited to a protagonist. Most of the other women in the book are either downtrodden wives, manipulative seductresses, or dead in childbirth (or from sexual assault).
There were a few other issues that grated on me, but for the most part they hit personal idiosyncrasies rather than being writing flaws. In the end, the book’s worst flaw was that it never grabbed hold of me and sucked me in. I fought my way, step by monotonous step, to the end of the book.
Unfortunately, the premise is the only thing that the story solidly delivered. At first I thought I might have gone into the book with the wrong reading protocol. At first glance, the prose style gives the impression of being a YA novel (and one on the younger end of the YA range), though the blurb and marketing materials give no indication in that direction. Short direct sentences, sparse description, lots of telling and relatively little “showing”. (Check out the Amazon preview to get a taste of what I mean.)
But other than the writing style, the book definitely doesn’t say “YA” to me, in particular in the continual emphasis on a violent and misogynistic depiction of Dark Age society, and repeated (although rarely graphic) references to sexual violence. (One may debate the historic accuracy of the depiction, and I realize that YA doesn't shy away from sexual topics, but this aspect definitely didn't feel YA to me.) The other aspect that doesn’t fit the YA paradigm is the book’s slow and monotonous pace. While the characters are continually doing things, there is little in the way of an overall plot arc. Events plod from one battle to the next assignation to another rescue of a damsel in distress. And then, after a great number of pages, they stop. There is, evidently, a sequel, because this volume ends before we get to the Arthur/Lancelot crisis, the Modred betrayal, and the other end-of-story plot elements.
While the story does an admirable job of cramming many of the medieval Arthurian tales into a single text (we get Gawain and the Green Knight, the abduction of Guinevere by Melwas, the begetting of Mordred, and many many more) it fails to make sense of them as a unified narrative. This may be due to too close a loyalty to the original texts (which were never intended to serve as a coherent narrative), although plotting and the identity of the primary characters is the only aspect in which this loyalty shows.
“Lancelot: Her Story” follows the modern neo-pagan version of the Arthurian mythos, in which conflict plays out not only between Britons and Saxons but between the fading remnants of an ancient goddess-worshiping society and the dominance of a sex-negative patriarchal Christianity. In execution, it copies the playbook of “The Mists of Avalon” and its successors rather than working from a more historic Dark Age context. Douglas’s Lancelot balances her way between the two cultures in parallel with the way she balances between two genders: raised a Christian and raised a boy, but in many ways more comfortable with the more accepting goddess-culture and with her female identity. (Note that while Lancelot spends most of the book passing as a man to the majority of the other characters, she is not presented as a transgender character and uniformly identifies internally with female pronouns, although she regularly contemplates topics of gender identity.)
Although one might think that a story centering around a cross-dressing lesbian Lancelot would examine gender roles from a critical and enlightened perspective, there is an annoying tendency for all the identified-as-sympathetic female characters to have a case of “I’m not like those other girls.” While Lancelot’s cross-gender upbringing might have been due to trauma, we’re given previous signs that she’s “not like other girls” in her tomboyish preference for running wild in the woods and her longing for spirited horses, along with her disdain for sewing and other feminine pursuits. Guinevere, too, is signaled as sympathetic by her rejection of traditionally feminine activities and her interest in reading and in riding horses. And much later in the book when Guinevere takes on a protégé who also becomes something of a substitute daughter to Lancelot, we know she’s going to be an important character because she doesn’t sew or spin well, her behavior is unruly, and she enjoys swordplay and learning to read.
Rather than critiquing gender roles, the story accepts the premise that traditional femininity is uninteresting, not admirable, and ill-suited to a protagonist. Most of the other women in the book are either downtrodden wives, manipulative seductresses, or dead in childbirth (or from sexual assault).
There were a few other issues that grated on me, but for the most part they hit personal idiosyncrasies rather than being writing flaws. In the end, the book’s worst flaw was that it never grabbed hold of me and sucked me in. I fought my way, step by monotonous step, to the end of the book.
veryreaderie's review
4.0
Really, really enjoyed this book, though a part of me wants to reserve judgement until I read the sequel (please don't end tragically! I know you're supposed to, but don't..!)
Lancelot: Her Story is very different from anything I've read. It's fairly meandering and doesn't always seem to be going somewhere concrete—Arthurian slice of life, if you will—but that's also one of its charms. If you, like me, have wanted to spend more time in Arthurian legends but can't get past all the tragedy, this book (on its own at least) is a fantastic way to do so. I loved the friendship between Lancelot and Gawaine and I loved how Guinevere could be brittle and judgemental to some while being kind and loving to others (mainly Lancelot). Arthur is a more nebulous figure, and not particularly likeable, but that was very effective in context; being a good king does not necessarily require being a good person, and this book shows that. Lots of character development as the characters mature, and the story is told mostly from the perspectives of Lancelot & Guinevere, with occasional chapters from Gawaine and even more infrequent chapters from others.
All in all, a definite recommendation for people looking for something that's more an immersive read than a page-turner. There are a lot of horrifying images that might put people off (rape & pillaging, etc) but they're not described in explicit detail, thankfully, and the characters who matter respond to them with suitable disgust. Furthermore, I loved the little tidbits about religion and how the characters all differed in their beliefs, from believing in pre-Christian gods to devout Christianity to a practical apply-as-needed brand of belief. It made the characters feel more distinct and real in my mind.
Lancelot: Her Story is very different from anything I've read. It's fairly meandering and doesn't always seem to be going somewhere concrete—Arthurian slice of life, if you will—but that's also one of its charms. If you, like me, have wanted to spend more time in Arthurian legends but can't get past all the tragedy, this book (on its own at least) is a fantastic way to do so. I loved the friendship between Lancelot and Gawaine and I loved how Guinevere could be brittle and judgemental to some while being kind and loving to others (mainly Lancelot). Arthur is a more nebulous figure, and not particularly likeable, but that was very effective in context; being a good king does not necessarily require being a good person, and this book shows that. Lots of character development as the characters mature, and the story is told mostly from the perspectives of Lancelot & Guinevere, with occasional chapters from Gawaine and even more infrequent chapters from others.
All in all, a definite recommendation for people looking for something that's more an immersive read than a page-turner. There are a lot of horrifying images that might put people off (rape & pillaging, etc) but they're not described in explicit detail, thankfully, and the characters who matter respond to them with suitable disgust. Furthermore, I loved the little tidbits about religion and how the characters all differed in their beliefs, from believing in pre-Christian gods to devout Christianity to a practical apply-as-needed brand of belief. It made the characters feel more distinct and real in my mind.
munleigh's review against another edition
4.0
This is a long book but it didn't feel that way at all as I enjoyed reading every page. I thought it was a neat idea to have a female as Lancelot.
It was heartbreaking when Lancelot was in despair and I felt for her because of how the ongoing war affected her.
Review also posted here: https://wp.me/p4Pp9O-MS
I was given a copy of this book from the publisher via Netgalley in exchange for an honest review.
It was heartbreaking when Lancelot was in despair and I felt for her because of how the ongoing war affected her.
Review also posted here: https://wp.me/p4Pp9O-MS
I was given a copy of this book from the publisher via Netgalley in exchange for an honest review.
morgandhu's review against another edition
2.0
I really wanted to love this book. For the wonderful idea of a female Lancelot, the best knight in the world as a passing woman, and the doomed love between Lancelot and Guinevere as a passion between two women. And I pushed through it, waiting patiently for it to 'click' for me. But it never quite did - though it came close at times.
I enjoyed Lancelot's voice, her innocence about the ways of the world turning to confusion, sorrow and pain as she sees at every turn the treatment of women and the brutality of war in Arthur's Britain. The telling of her descent into what can only be described as post-traumatic stress during the long sequence of battles against the Saxons.
Douglas clearly intends this book to be a critique that covers a range of feminist issues - from sexual abuse and domestic violence to paternalistic attitudes that limit women's opportunities and options. These issues are, in fact, present in the experience of virtually every female character who is even mentioned in the book. Unfortunately, the author falls into the trap of dismissing women's work, both physical and emotional, and women's concerns about relationships with men, family and children, as being something to be escaped, rather than accepted as a part of life that needs to be valued and embraced by society and all its members.
Instead of a story that validates all the possible choices women can make about their lives, what we get is a story in which women like Lancelot and Guinevere are able to transcend cultural limitations because they are different, and don't like "girl's things." Douglas also falls into the habit of giving most of the other women in the novel traditional roles - spurned lover, manipulative bitch, subservient wife, wise old crone, victim of violence or the dead woman in the fridge.
There are other problems. I found it overly slow and meandering, especially at the beginning. The author has incorporated elements of all the Arthurian stories she can possibly fit in, all together into one text, and it often seems that they are there just to add yet another instance of male indifference or brutality to women and their concerns, as many do not add significantly to the story of Guinevere and Lancelot. Even Malory, whose classic work is more a compendium of tales than a unified story, was selective about his choices, and kept one thread, that of the king whose greatness carries the seeds of his downfall, at the core of his narrative.
Moreover, there is something overly simplistic about the way key decisions that will literally change the course of lives are made. The choices that lead to Lancelot being raised as a boy in the first place, Gawaine's choice to follow Arthur, Morgan's decision to betray him, Guinevere's sudden acceptance of her lesbianism.... These things all happen almost without thought, like the flipping of a switch. The motivations are hollow, we barely see inside the characters enough to understand how or why such drastic choices are made and justified. We are told, but we do not see.
As well, the style of writing is rather pedestrian. At times it reads like a YA novel - and one for the younger end of that audience - but the themes of sexuality and violence rather run counter to that.
The story also relies upon one of my own pet peeves - failure to communicate. I was rather annoyed with the long keeping of secrets that prevented Guinevere and Lancelot from realising that their love was mutual. Particularly when there were so many times that Guinevere could have made it clear that she had seen through Lancelot's masculine facade.
On the other hand, it was quite satisfying to see some of the less-frequently adapted Arthurian tales brought into play, and to have so much of the story told from female perspectives, so I can't say there was no pleasure here for me. It's just that there could have been so much more. For those who want to explore the idea of a female Lancelot, in my opinion the gold standard remains Jo Walton's duology, The King's Name and The King's Peace.
I enjoyed Lancelot's voice, her innocence about the ways of the world turning to confusion, sorrow and pain as she sees at every turn the treatment of women and the brutality of war in Arthur's Britain. The telling of her descent into what can only be described as post-traumatic stress during the long sequence of battles against the Saxons.
Douglas clearly intends this book to be a critique that covers a range of feminist issues - from sexual abuse and domestic violence to paternalistic attitudes that limit women's opportunities and options. These issues are, in fact, present in the experience of virtually every female character who is even mentioned in the book. Unfortunately, the author falls into the trap of dismissing women's work, both physical and emotional, and women's concerns about relationships with men, family and children, as being something to be escaped, rather than accepted as a part of life that needs to be valued and embraced by society and all its members.
Instead of a story that validates all the possible choices women can make about their lives, what we get is a story in which women like Lancelot and Guinevere are able to transcend cultural limitations because they are different, and don't like "girl's things." Douglas also falls into the habit of giving most of the other women in the novel traditional roles - spurned lover, manipulative bitch, subservient wife, wise old crone, victim of violence or the dead woman in the fridge.
There are other problems. I found it overly slow and meandering, especially at the beginning. The author has incorporated elements of all the Arthurian stories she can possibly fit in, all together into one text, and it often seems that they are there just to add yet another instance of male indifference or brutality to women and their concerns, as many do not add significantly to the story of Guinevere and Lancelot. Even Malory, whose classic work is more a compendium of tales than a unified story, was selective about his choices, and kept one thread, that of the king whose greatness carries the seeds of his downfall, at the core of his narrative.
Moreover, there is something overly simplistic about the way key decisions that will literally change the course of lives are made. The choices that lead to Lancelot being raised as a boy in the first place, Gawaine's choice to follow Arthur, Morgan's decision to betray him, Guinevere's sudden acceptance of her lesbianism.... These things all happen almost without thought, like the flipping of a switch. The motivations are hollow, we barely see inside the characters enough to understand how or why such drastic choices are made and justified. We are told, but we do not see.
As well, the style of writing is rather pedestrian. At times it reads like a YA novel - and one for the younger end of that audience - but the themes of sexuality and violence rather run counter to that.
The story also relies upon one of my own pet peeves - failure to communicate. I was rather annoyed with the long keeping of secrets that prevented Guinevere and Lancelot from realising that their love was mutual. Particularly when there were so many times that Guinevere could have made it clear that she had seen through Lancelot's masculine facade.
On the other hand, it was quite satisfying to see some of the less-frequently adapted Arthurian tales brought into play, and to have so much of the story told from female perspectives, so I can't say there was no pleasure here for me. It's just that there could have been so much more. For those who want to explore the idea of a female Lancelot, in my opinion the gold standard remains Jo Walton's duology, The King's Name and The King's Peace.
gbeezz's review
3.0
I am very conflicted about this novel, 2.5 stars I think. It did grow on me a little in the later half, but like other reviewers have also pointed out there are some issues that really threw me off.
1. The faux feminism where being a woman is unbearable unless you are "different" and enjoy more masculine things, depicting femininity as boring, weak and empty was Not Great. I get that this is historical fiction and that the lives of women weren't necessarily great at that time, but dismissing all the court ladies and making pretty much all other women in the narratives nuns or whores was not great
2. The pacing is not always great, especially when it comes to important decisions and relatively big story beats. Like others mentioned, Marcus suddenly decides to raise Anna/Lancelot as a boy without any warning or explanation, Guinevere somehow realises Lancelot is a woman the very first time she meets her, despite Lancelot being able to deceive everyone for like, at least a decade, and Guinevere knows it for sure because she can SMELL Lancelot's menstruation?????????? Excuse me??????? Also Gawain suddenly realises Lancelot is a woman after twenty years because she refuses to share a bed with him like, THAT is what made him realise???? how is that realistic at all???
3. This is just a personal pet peeve of mine I guess, but whenever there is an Arthurian adaptation with a female protagonist who is not Arthur, Arthur tends to be a dick??? Combined w the less than great depiction of men in general its just, not great. Especially because that means that out of the whole of Camelot there are only a few people who are actually sort of okay, there are but a few exceptions to the rapist brutish men who do not care and the highly feminine women who just care for sewing and marriage. idk man its disappointing.
4. The narrative switches POV every now and then which is totally fine except there are some interjections where we get a scene in the POV from a character who really isnt relevant at all and might not come back ever???? Like, we know Guinevere's half sister is alive bc of one short tiny scene but like, its not relevant at all within these 600+ pages. Same with the interjections on Ninian and the small bit about Gawain being a father which like, does not receive any closure at all (yet). Also what was the point of having Melwas follow Guinevere and have nothing happen???? idk man it was weird.
5. Def not a fan of the mutual romantic love between Arthur x Morgan, incest is r e a l l y not my thing yikes, and Morgan as a whole is meh, when she is/could have been so interesting
Things I did like:
1. I do love Lancelot and Gawain's friendship
2. The war episode was sort of nice in that it actually addressed the trauma that war causes and the depression that can come with it. I appreciated the comradery of everyone caring for Lancelot
3. I appreciate the depiction of Guinevere, she has her faults but it is one of the more human versions of Guinevere in historical adaptations
idk man. I really dont know how to rate this novel, I guess it hovers somewhere between it was okay and I liked it, not because I actually liked it that much, but because it did draw me in, and I could not put it down but hm.
1. The faux feminism where being a woman is unbearable unless you are "different" and enjoy more masculine things, depicting femininity as boring, weak and empty was Not Great. I get that this is historical fiction and that the lives of women weren't necessarily great at that time, but dismissing all the court ladies and making pretty much all other women in the narratives nuns or whores was not great
2. The pacing is not always great, especially when it comes to important decisions and relatively big story beats. Like others mentioned, Marcus suddenly decides to raise Anna/Lancelot as a boy without any warning or explanation, Guinevere somehow realises Lancelot is a woman the very first time she meets her, despite Lancelot being able to deceive everyone for like, at least a decade, and Guinevere knows it for sure because she can SMELL Lancelot's menstruation?????????? Excuse me??????? Also Gawain suddenly realises Lancelot is a woman after twenty years because she refuses to share a bed with him like, THAT is what made him realise???? how is that realistic at all???
3. This is just a personal pet peeve of mine I guess, but whenever there is an Arthurian adaptation with a female protagonist who is not Arthur, Arthur tends to be a dick??? Combined w the less than great depiction of men in general its just, not great. Especially because that means that out of the whole of Camelot there are only a few people who are actually sort of okay, there are but a few exceptions to the rapist brutish men who do not care and the highly feminine women who just care for sewing and marriage. idk man its disappointing.
4. The narrative switches POV every now and then which is totally fine except there are some interjections where we get a scene in the POV from a character who really isnt relevant at all and might not come back ever???? Like, we know Guinevere's half sister is alive bc of one short tiny scene but like, its not relevant at all within these 600+ pages. Same with the interjections on Ninian and the small bit about Gawain being a father which like, does not receive any closure at all (yet). Also what was the point of having Melwas follow Guinevere and have nothing happen???? idk man it was weird.
5. Def not a fan of the mutual romantic love between Arthur x Morgan, incest is r e a l l y not my thing yikes, and Morgan as a whole is meh, when she is/could have been so interesting
Things I did like:
1. I do love Lancelot and Gawain's friendship
2. The war episode was sort of nice in that it actually addressed the trauma that war causes and the depression that can come with it. I appreciated the comradery of everyone caring for Lancelot
3. I appreciate the depiction of Guinevere, she has her faults but it is one of the more human versions of Guinevere in historical adaptations
idk man. I really dont know how to rate this novel, I guess it hovers somewhere between it was okay and I liked it, not because I actually liked it that much, but because it did draw me in, and I could not put it down but hm.
More...