Scan barcode
kanissa's review against another edition
2.0
I own this because I had to read it for my freshman colloquium, all those years ago. I can't remember what I thought of it back then, although I'm sure I had to write a paper about it, which means I probably still have it....
Well, now... I can safely say I have no interest in reading the remainder of the series. There are so many superior retellings of Arthurian legend to give your time to.
Guinevere is supposed to be perfect, but it's certainly not my idea of the perfect woman, let alone the perfect female protagonist! She's naive, clueless, and often described as "unfeeling" - yet somehow these traits are all supposed to combine with her incredible beauty and make her seem "otherworldly." I'm not sure how people in the novel were so enamored of this version of Guinevere. To me she seemed whiny, spoiled, and so dense that it had to be intentional on her part. (Like those girls who say "Oh, boys don't like smart girls so I am intentionally going to fail my trigonometry class.")
As the title implies, the other major Arthurian characters have minor roles. Arthur, Merlin, Gawain, and even Morgan Le Fay all make appearances, but none is really all that present in the story. (Arthur gets talked about a lot but physically isn't present for much of it.) They were all much more interesting to me than Guinevere was, although they are also quite one-dimensional.
If you want to read something about Arthur or Camelot (or heaven forbid, Guinevere - yes, I never really cared much for her in any retellings of the story), you'd be better off with T.H. White, Alfred Lord Tennyson, Mary Stewart, Stephen R. Lawhead, Jack Whyte, Bulfinch.... really, anyone else.
Well, now... I can safely say I have no interest in reading the remainder of the series. There are so many superior retellings of Arthurian legend to give your time to.
Guinevere is supposed to be perfect, but it's certainly not my idea of the perfect woman, let alone the perfect female protagonist! She's naive, clueless, and often described as "unfeeling" - yet somehow these traits are all supposed to combine with her incredible beauty and make her seem "otherworldly." I'm not sure how people in the novel were so enamored of this version of Guinevere. To me she seemed whiny, spoiled, and so dense that it had to be intentional on her part. (Like those girls who say "Oh, boys don't like smart girls so I am intentionally going to fail my trigonometry class.")
As the title implies, the other major Arthurian characters have minor roles. Arthur, Merlin, Gawain, and even Morgan Le Fay all make appearances, but none is really all that present in the story. (Arthur gets talked about a lot but physically isn't present for much of it.) They were all much more interesting to me than Guinevere was, although they are also quite one-dimensional.
If you want to read something about Arthur or Camelot (or heaven forbid, Guinevere - yes, I never really cared much for her in any retellings of the story), you'd be better off with T.H. White, Alfred Lord Tennyson, Mary Stewart, Stephen R. Lawhead, Jack Whyte, Bulfinch.... really, anyone else.
meganac's review
4.0
"The sacrifice was desecrated," the voice hissed. "She will not pay, but Britain will. And you. The child was mine. She was destined for me and no other fate. Now all who have her will reap only grief from her. She will come to wish she had gone with me this night."
4.5 stars. I don't know if it's just me, but all King Arthur retellings seem to have a similar, ethereal quality - there's just so much unexplained, so much mystery and symbolism. Guinevere was a good read for me, as it is written in beautiful, old-fashioned narration, and the characters are as shrouded in mystery as they are in The Seeing Stone, or in any of Rosemary Sutcliff's works. Written in the 80s, this book follows Guinevere through her childhood, unwrapping the early years of this young and beautiful queen who destroyed so much of her husband's kingdom without even trying to. It is steeped in Celtic lore and mythology, even bringing Epona in and validating the pagan rituals. It is written as though Celtic mythology was actually real.
It's also greatly accurate in a historical sense. We see in this book the struggle of the Brits to hold their land from the Saxons and the Irish raiders, we see the struggle of the new religion against the old, the tax of war upon innocents, the bent of humanity's heart towards evil. It is realistic and painful, and because of this, it is beautiful.
This book, like any other Arthurian retelling, contains all the immorality of Camelot, though no great detail is used. I would consider it above the level of middle-graders, but teens who aren't shy of deep books would enjoy it.
4.5 stars. I don't know if it's just me, but all King Arthur retellings seem to have a similar, ethereal quality - there's just so much unexplained, so much mystery and symbolism. Guinevere was a good read for me, as it is written in beautiful, old-fashioned narration, and the characters are as shrouded in mystery as they are in The Seeing Stone, or in any of Rosemary Sutcliff's works. Written in the 80s, this book follows Guinevere through her childhood, unwrapping the early years of this young and beautiful queen who destroyed so much of her husband's kingdom without even trying to. It is steeped in Celtic lore and mythology, even bringing Epona in and validating the pagan rituals. It is written as though Celtic mythology was actually real.
It's also greatly accurate in a historical sense. We see in this book the struggle of the Brits to hold their land from the Saxons and the Irish raiders, we see the struggle of the new religion against the old, the tax of war upon innocents, the bent of humanity's heart towards evil. It is realistic and painful, and because of this, it is beautiful.
This book, like any other Arthurian retelling, contains all the immorality of Camelot, though no great detail is used. I would consider it above the level of middle-graders, but teens who aren't shy of deep books would enjoy it.
spikeabell's review
3.0
I first read this at high school in the 1990's. If I had been asked to rate it back then I would have given it 5 stars. Because I loved it so then and re read it so many times, I will always think on it with pleasure and fondness. That makes it hard to review with clarity!
More...