[Mice9]

Normally I'm a Sci Fi guy, but absolutely loved this book (and didn't care for the movie adaptation)

Question - For those who have read Marion Zimmer Bradley's The Mists of Avalon, would you classify this as fantasy, or just fiction? It had elements of both and was based on the "Myth" of King Arthur, but to me was more believable in some respects than some of the other stories about him.

- 9.

[BrianC]

Normally I'm a Sci Fi guy, but absolutely loved this book (and didn't care for the movie adaptation)

Question - For those who have read Marion Zimmer Bradley's The Mists of Avalon, would you classify this as fantasy, or just fiction? It had elements of both and was based on the "Myth" of King Arthur, but to me was more believable in some respects than some of the other stories about him.

- 9.
Good book (didn't know they'd made a movie) and an interesting question you've posed. If King Arthur were only mythological, then the stories in this canon would be unequivocally fantasy; and if he were unquestionably historical, then his stories would be history or historical fiction. But Arthur is something in between. (Jon McCalmont actually did a great post about just this subject in his blog. I'd post the link but not sure it wouldn't violate the new rules). I doubt there is a 'correct' answer, so just pick one. Me? I say it's fantasy.

[Nimea]

I'd post the link but not sure it wouldn't violate the new rules

Well, let's take a look at the new rules:

2. Information (news, examples to make a point) can be given through a link.

Well, you would give information so that it can be discussed here and in context with the original question about 'Mists' . . .

4. Individual cases will be considered in the context of relevance to the thread discussion, the intent of the poster, and past participation of the member posting.

Ah, let's see . . . relevance? Check. Intent of the poster? Don't know but doesn't sound like (self-)promoting. ;) So check. Past participation of the member posting? Far and wide and willing to discuss things. :D So check again.

The rules are not that hard, really. ;) :p

About Mists of Avalon:

BrianC - there is a tv adaptation in two parts starring Julianna Margulies. The music was the best about it. It was nice to watch but did not really translate the fascination of the book onto screen well.

I personally think this book is fantasy. It might be based on history but that history is rather hazy. It doesn't work with the probable historical background but with the Myth - in which many fantasy elements are used. So it does tell the story in a way that it really feels alive, real and still mystical. (I still remember how the book impressed me back than. And I still remember how fascinated I was by the whole Arthur legend - so I read some versions and re-tellings and of those 'Mists' was my favorite.)

Not much flesh on my words here. But I would be interested in reading what McCalmont has to say. . .

...would you classify this as fantasy, or just fiction? It had elements of both...
Mice9 - fantasy is fiction, isn't it? Would you care to elaborate?

[Yobmod]

I'm pretty sure that even people that believe in a historical King Arthur don't believe that Merlin and Morgan Le Fey etc could actually do magic.
As magic really works in these books, they are indisputably fantasy.

[Phellim]

I only saw the film adaption, and I would say it was fantasy. It was good, but not great.

Does anyone think it would be worth my time reading the book too? Because I normally wouldn't if I've already seen it on screen. I always see film adaptions of books I've read already though, it's easier to enjoy a movie when you know whats coming and the major plot twists, but it's more diffcult enjoying a book when you already know the main happenings of the story. That might just be me though.

[Yobmod]

I don't recommend this book, whether or not you've seen the adaption.
Well enough written, but almost all the female characters are venal idiots who cause their own downfalls (the only one who isn't is Morguase's sister, who is portrayed as selfish and lecherous, but at least has a brain and some self-control). It just got too annoying. Not bad, but not great.

Wierd for a supposedly feminist author....

[Mice9]

I only saw the film adaption, and I would say it was fantasy. It was good, but not great.

Does anyone think it would be worth my time reading the book too? Because I normally wouldn't if I've already seen it on screen. I always see film adaptions of books I've read already though, it's easier to enjoy a movie when you know whats coming and the major plot twists, but it's more diffcult enjoying a book when you already know the main happenings of the story. That might just be me though.

So it seems as if most folks agree that it is in fact fantasy, based on some vague historical facts.

Like I said Phellim (er, um... Phill), I thoroughly enjoyed this book. It has been awhile since I read it, so I can't refute what Yobmod is saying about the women, but I seem to recall having the impression that Morgaine was portrayed as quite noble, intelligent and spiritual. I would reccomend this book as I believe it goes far deeper than the movie did. The book managed to draw me in and not let me go for about a month. (it is 870 pages) My recollection though is that it read like butter dripping down your favorite muffin.

- 9.

[Mice9]

Mice9 - fantasy is fiction, isn't it? Would you care to elaborate?

Right, Good point. I guess I think of fantasy as a specialized area of fiction as I do with science fiction. So if I re-phrased the question it would be: Would you classify 'The Mists of Avalon' as fantasy fiction, or just historical fiction?

Does that make more sense?

[Mithfânion]

Question - For those who have read Marion Zimmer Bradley's The Mists of Avalon, would you classify this as fantasy, or just fiction?

Feminist Fantasy. I see very little historical parallels. Fantasy suits better than historical fiction.

I'm currently reading the vastly superior Merlin Trilogy by Stewart, which I'd label as a historical Fantasy, I feel is it less fantastical than Mists of Avalon.

Cornwell's Wardlord Trilogy is even more down to earth and I would label that as Historical fiction.

[Mice9]

I'm currently reading the vastly superior Merlin Trilogy by Stewart, which I'd label as a historical Fantasy, I feel is it less fantastical than Mists of Avalon.


Interesting, I'll have to read these as well. Thanks.

http://www.sffworld.com/author/518.html

http://www.carlanayland.org/reviews/merlin_trilogy.htm