[Kingslayer]

I'm thinking of getting this book but the only copy I can find is £30.It is a very nice hardback and I'm a big fan of the Arthurian legends so I would buy if I thought it was worth it.The trouble is I can't find any reviews, so if anyone has read it I'd be grateful for their opinion.Thanks.

[Cadfael]

Is it the Sir Thomas Mallory edition? If so yes... well worth the money. This is actually the book that began the myth. It was actually written as serious history of the Dark Ages... but Mallory re-wrote history and introduced all the 'magic and myth' elements... and a legend was born, or the version of that legend we have today i should say.

Okay... but it is a rather beatifull book to have on the bookshelves... I should also add this is a very very old book. Printed during the reigh of Elizabeth I... I think... but I will stand to be corrected on that.

[Kingslayer]

It is the Mallory edition.Thanks Cad, I didn't think anybody would have read it.

[Miriamele]

It was actually a bit earlier than that, I believe--I think it was originally written in the 1400s sometime, although it was originally written in French so maybe an English translation came out a bit later.

[Alle]

I think you should get it, especially if you want a well rounded fantasy collection. I have a softcover version only, but am glad to have that, even though the book itself is far from a favorite.

[Nimea]

Yes, if you like Arthurian legends, you should get it - even if I found it very hard to read. Old language, me a teen. ;)

By the way, it was finished about 1470, legends says it was written in prison. Oh, and it was written in English, not French.
And it is indeed the source for the Arthurian legends as we know them today, but the real roots go farther back. To the sixth century, I think but could be wrong.
And later the name Chretien de Troyes comes to my mind, about 1150? He was one of the medieval writers of Arthurian romances, Mallory later took his and other's stories and rewrote it in one piece, so to say.

Mmh, sorry about that. Just wanted to share these things with you. :)

[Hobbit]

Just to confuse things there is a nice new version of Morte D'Arthur which uses Mallory's text but has been revamped to make it more accurate to the original. (There were some changes in the translation in the 1400's?) I think this might be the £30 one. (Try: ISBN: 0304353671.)

It has a forward by John Boorman of Excalibur fame. You should be able to get it for less than the £30 though if you shop around, I bet.


Looks nice - I have been fancying it myself ...

[Bond]

Am I correct to assume that Malory wrote this in the Middle English and would appear something like Chaucer's Canterbury Tales? BTW why has Sir Bedivere all but gotten lost in the subsequent retellings?

[swampfaye]

The Bedevere question is a good one - since he is vital to the telling (being the one who passed the story as one of the only survivors and the Only witness to Arthurs death/departure from Camelot) - they did do a pretty good job in "Excalibur" - even down to Lancelot becoming a zealot after his betrayal. What I want to know is what ever happened to Prince Valliant? Anyone remember that story?

[SusF]

No, Mallory did not write in middle English, like Chaucer did. Chaucer needs a translation for most people to be able to read him, Mallory does not. From a linguist's point of view, Mallory would be considered modern English.

Mallory quote:

ANON withal came there upon him two great giants, well armed all save the heads, with two horrible clubs in their hands. Sir Launcelot put his shield afore him, and put the stroke away of the one giant, and with his sword he clave his head asunder. When his fellow saw that, he ran away as he were wood, for fear of the horrible strokes, and Sir Launcelot after him with all his might, and smote him on the shoulder, and clave him to the middle.

Chaucer quote:

Upon an amblere esily she sat,
Ywympled wel, and on hir heed an hat
As brood as is a bokeler or a targe;
A foot-mantel aboute hir hipes large,
And on hir feet a paire of spores sharpe.

They also wrote about a 100 years apart. You can see that the language developed in that span of time. Chaucer was one of the first people to actually write in English rather than Latin or French, which was the preferred method of writing in England at the time. This made his stories more accessible to the common folk.

Susan