Printable View
I am reading this for my book club. I'm in 50 of 700 pages. So far, it seems like a decent book, although I wouldn't deem it high literature. I'd categorize it as a book read by readers of literature.
Have people read this book and if so, did it suck you in?
That book is amazing!
I am curious about books read by non-readers of literature.
:goof:Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
I'll let you know. How about that?
I read it in my teens, though it may not be "high" literature, it's good solid and thoroughly researched entertainment. I also remember reading and enjoying "The Firebrand" by the same author, set during the Trojan war.
I like her ability to re-write these stories from a female - though not necessarily feminist - perspective.
From what I've heard, its infamous for misandry and anti-theistism.
Can someone please tell my hubby that it is fiction?
:goof:
He namely believes it is real and that the author is telling real history. I have tried to tell him that the story of Arthur (that's what's around The Mists of Avalon, right) is a story that is still in process and has been for the last 1000 odd years, but to no avail. Then he says, 'Some amongst us prefer to believe something else than mainstream.' Alhough it has been researched ad the exact person/work who/which introduced the quest, the knights, the round table and Merlin can be pinpointed... :out:
I really don't see the misandry. The author was not a feminist, but never the less chose to rewrite some mythological tales from a woman's perspective. Her female characters are, in my opinion, as flawed as the male ones. But that's actually interesting, think I'll do some research and see if I can found out what this is based on :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.lucifer
Oh that is hilarious and kindda cute! I can't wait to use that line 'Some amongst us prefer to believe something else than mainstream.' some day !Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982
Actually, you can not trace the origens of all Artur tales, you just can trace until some people who registered already existing legends. But the big point is Mists of Avalon was a top selling best-seller, it is the mainstream, not something out of it. At its time it was something akim in the chart as Da Vince Code or The Alquimist. Anyways, I am certain you can find the author, unlike some, I do not think she ever claimed to be writing something trully real.
Contrary to belief, Arthur is not a legend purely of folklore at all, but a product of truly medieval courtly lit.
It all started when an obscure leader of a British tribe was praised for his heroic victory somewhere on a hill (don't ask me where, but it is certainly in the legend which it has become in the meantime). Geoffrey of Monmouth (12th century) was the very first (if I am not mistaken) who actually named him Arthur (yes there was no name before) and then the thing kicked off. Through the whole of Europe, people started to phantasise about this great king (suddenly he had become one...). Then, he suddenly got other knights, as kings do, obviously. The knights go on quests and start to love, as knights do in courtly lit from the 11th to 15th century and last comes Merlin who was a Flemish-Dutch product as a full part of the story.
Folklore might have brought the very first legend of a heroic man, but Lancelot, the Holy Grale, the knights, the round table are clearly a fabrication of courtly lit, particularly the French side led by Chrétien de Troyes, which then in turn influenced folklore again. Many things that are told, are just re-tellings of those stories that were passed off as 'true' (naturally) by the writers.
For those who are curious here is an annotated bibliography of critical works on or including commentary on the Mists of Avalon.
Excellent! I actually just remembered that there was a class on The Arthurian Legend taught at my university last year, and Mists was part of the curriculum. So I guess despite it being rather mainstream there is something "more" to it?
This book and T.H. White's Once and Future King actually inspired me to study Arthuriana in grad school, where I am currently. But I don't think Marion Zimmer Bradley ever claimed it was historical (but it was refreshing to see the pagan, rather than Christian, elements of the Arthurian story openly acknowledged, as they probably were in the historical Arthur's time). What was unique about Bradley's story was that it retold Malory's narrative from the perspective of women, and gave an especially sympathetic portrait of the antagonist, Morgaine.
Well, I believe Marion Zimmer Bradley was exploring some of the Gnostic sects of Catholicism when she wrote the book, and that definitely foregrounded the pagan backdrop. She's not the first to relate the Gnostics to Arthurian legend; Jesse Weston did something similar in her book From Ritual to Romance, which is mostly read now to study the Arthurian elements in T.S. Eliot's Wasteland.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ane
:DQuote:
Originally Posted by kiki1982
Tennyson already used the women of Arthurian themes as the center of his poems. I think Bradley main difference is really the paganism and the return of Morgana image as both allied or enemy of Arthur.