Less Valued Checkmate

Only two to report of this time.

Book #23 is Checkmate by Dorothy Dunnett. This is the 6th and final book in the Lymond Chronicles, and I am a little sad to see them go. This definitely wasn't my favourite of the books, the series hit its high points for me with books 3 & 4, but there was still much to enjoy in this. As usual, Dunnett gets in her wonderful, action set pieces. She really is a fabulous writer of action. This book, weirdly, came across as an out and out romance novel. It hits so many beats of one; the couple realizing separately that they're in love with one another, trying to hide it from the other person, finally telling one another of their true feelings, the rivals for their affections, the families saying they shouldn't be together, trauma to the heroine she can barely overcome, and then finally, happiness in the end. Well, for most. Jerrott Blythe is back, but wow, he is not a happy camper, as his marriage to Lymond's half-sister, Marthe, is... going badly, to put it politely. But aside from the romance, the main thrust of this book is to uncover the truth behind Lymond's parentage. And we do, and I just found it... odd? Like why did Sybilla marry who she married after she thought her true love was dead? It was kinda... weird really. But whatever. I'll just overlook it.

Book #24 is The Table of Less Valued Knights by Marie Phillips. I needed something frivolous after all the Lymond, and this book fit the bill nicely. It's Arthurian in the loosest way possible (Arthur shows up at the beginning, at the Feast of Pentecost, waiting for this year's quest to show up), and is quite anachronistic, but it's obviously not taking itself seriously, so it's fine. Sir Humphrey is a bit of a wash out at Camelot, and after a distasterous quest a few years ago, has been relegated to the Table of Less Valued Knights. He's like two tiers below the Round Table, and despairs of ever returning to the box seats. Enter (after everyone else has left) Elaine (cause every other woman in the Arthurian legends is named Elaine). She has a perfectly good quest to find her kidnapped fiance, so off they go. It's a fun tale, the badguys are pretty bad, and the book is a perfectly good example of entrelacement, when we go off and meet Martha and follow her for awhile and then of course, her story links up with Humphrey's and Elaine's. So yeah, a fun little read by someone who obviously does know the conventions of what they were spoofing. That always makes the spoof better.

Pooched

How much did I pooch this blog? Last entry was in Oct. 2014. It's now the back nine of January 2015.

Sigh.

Part of my apathy was that I read the fewest number of books I have in awhile. I only managed 33, and three of those were re-reads. Meh.

So what did I read after A Queen's Play...

• The World of Ice and Fire - GRRM, Elio Garcia and Linda Antonsson (loved it)

• Celtika - Robert Holdstock (kinda liked it)

• The Best Laid Plans - Terry Fallis (didn't like it)

• The Bat - Jo Nesbo (liked the ending)

• Mistborn - Brandon Sanderson (liked it, but not liking the follow up)

• The Lily and the Lion - Maurice Druon (loved it)

I tried to branch out this year, with the reading of a couple of sci-fi books. It just reminded me why I don't read sci-fi.

I was introduced to the sublime Dorothy Dunnett and her creation Lymond of Crawford.

Lev Grossman finished his Magicians books, and I think that was my favourite of the year. Special mention goes to Serpent of Venice and Boy, Snow, Bird.

Time to up my game again for 2015. I WILL do 50 books this year darnit!

It's a Busy Life in Camelot

Another double up. Books 8 and 9 are Camelot's Destiny and Fate of Camelot by Cynthia Breeding.

Alright, so in Camelot's Destiny we get to most of the meat of the Legends; fighting Saxons, Mordred (or Medraut in this book), the Arthur/Lance/Gwen triangle and all it's complications, Camlann and Arthur's death.

And overall, it's serviceable. But you (ok, I) can really see Breeding's influences in this book. She leans heavily on Mists of Avalon for Nimue and Lancelot and the old religions and whatnot. Which is fine, just noticeable. Her Gwen is also pretty much right out of Persia Wooley's Guinevere books. Once again, that's fine, just noticable. I'm very glad she didn't take Mists' Gwen, cause she is a horrible creature. Fortunately, her Lance, Gwen and Arthur are fairly likeable. There's still too much arguing between Arthur and Gwen, but when your wife is also in love with your best friend, that does kind of make sense. Medraut is a creepy bastard and he and Morgana make good villains.

Fate of Camelot kinda... goes off the rails as Breeding attempts to do a Once and Future King kinda thing. I appreciate her trying to do a completely different take on things, but there were a few details that just didn't work for me. Seems Arthur did not die at Camlann, he was taken to Avalon, but he was healed there. Gwen had to go with him to help, basically because she's Queen. Or something. But then it gets all weird with her being stuck in Faerie because the god Cerunos is infatuated with her and yeah... I like the supernatural in my Arthurian legends, but I find it works best if it is on the edges, interacting but not intersecting. But here we have unicorns and faries and it just seemed too much. Eventually Lance rescues Gwen from Faerie (of course), and Arthur says she can go with Lance, since Arthur is too busy roaming Britain and whatnot trying to keep the peace with the Saxons. Morgana's still running around, but she's kinda ineffectual for most of the book where she just pops up now and then basically to mention, numerous times, that she has to kill Guinevere. Which she does at the end, by unleashing the bubonic plague on Camelot. Uh ok? Anyway, Morgana also dies in a most unsatisfying way and I just found a lot of this book basically that, unsatisfying.

Now what I DID like is that she got the Grail Quest with Galahad and Peredur just right. All their stupidity and wanderings and whatnot and all the details are very good, and even if her Galahad is a prat, he's not as bad a prat as Galahad's often are. I kept just wanting to stay with Galahad and groaned whenever I started a new chapter and we were back to Lance and Gwen. Cause they got boring.

A fun little read.

It's ok when it's a three way.

Number 4 this year is Lancelot and the Wolf by Sarah Luddington.

So the title of this post basically refers to what I thought (hoped) I'd be getting out of this story (or series actually as the case may be); a treatment where the triangle is depicted as being a sexual one on all three sides. It's been hinted at so many times (mainly in Mists of Avalon), but, it seems I still have yet to read one.

Because while this book gives us a bisexual Lancelot and a pretty much homosexual Arthur... Gwen is basically evil (or being evilly used for a pawn) and doesn't factor into this at all except... well to be evil.

Anyway. So that was my major let down and I was pretty disappointed. Luddington does do the relationship between Lance and Arthur well. They love one another, want to express it, and know that it's a shitstorm if they do. Interestingly, Arthur seems to be the one more willing to give up everything for Lance. This Arthur is a bit emo though, and at the start he's in a rather Theoden-like situation; he's been poisoned and manipulated by his enemies and Camelot is close to falling (he's also depressed that he had to exile Lance due to the affair, and that works).

But the lack of a good, sexy-times triangle wasn't the only thing that I didn't like... Let's face it, there was a lot I didn't like. So for simplicity, I resort to the dreaded bulleted list:

• The language was so modern it was jarring. "Don't blow this", the fact that Lance knew he had a concussion, the prolific use of "fuck" and "dick" (neither word had entered the colloquial in whatever the hell time period Luddington though she was writing in), the misuse of "too", the shitty punctuation, etc., etc. I honestly question whether or not this book had even seen an editor.
• Time period. Ok, I'm not a complete Arthurian purist, the legends don't HAVE to be set c. 500, but as that was the time Saxons were invading Britain and were the 'big bad' Arthur was fighting, it helps to have it set at that time. But as Luddington has put the Saxon invasion way on the back burner (ok, it's non-existent), I can go with her setting it in post-Norman invasion Britain. Even though I do find it jarring that Arthur is repeatedly referred to as "King of England" (Historical Arthur was no such thing, England as a nation didn't exist yet), and most of the names she used (de Clare, FitzWilliam) are Norman names, I was willing to forgive this as she was going the T.H. White route (who set Once and Future King in post-Norman England), mainly because I was going to give her the credit that it was a deliberate choice since she was using Lance as a protagonist and Lance is a post Norman invasion, French-authored insert into the legends. I think I'm being generous in giving her the credit. Because for someone whose bio says she majored in Medieval studies, what is WITH all the historical inaccuracies aside from the non-historical Arthurian time period (see previously mentioned anachronistic language)?
• Arthur's fetch, or dream representative or whatever, should be a bear. Not a stag. (ok, that's just my personal preference as one of the etymology's of Arthur's name has it come from 'arth' which is Welsh for 'bear').
• The character of Else. Wow did she not work for me. I have no problem with new characters being put into the legends, but I prefer if they actually made sense to be there. As a love interest for Lance, she added nothing new. As part of a love triangle? Why couldn't we just have the perfectly good one already there?? As a fey? Why not use any of the others who are tied to the stories already? As someone manipulated into loving Lance? Honestly, I would've preferred if she was Elaine d'Asolat (aka the Lady of Shallot) and given a bit more agency than she usually is in the tales. As a wife of Geraint? She's no Enid. I just didn't see Else as having any purpose other than giving Lance a new fuck-buddy. Ho hum.
• Nimue was a shitty bad guy. Her constant use of the word 'fuck' robbed her of any menace and her Otherwoldly fey-ness that the author was so desperately trying to give her.
• It looked like Luddington was ignoring any of the more fantastical elements in Lancelot's background (i.e. his being raised by the Lady of the Lake), but no, it was shoehorned in there that Lance was the son of some Faery king Aedan (I might have the name wrong and I can't be bothered right now to go look it up again). In pretty much every tale, Lance's father is Ban of Benoit (or Benwick), and Ban was perfectly mortal (although some tellings do have Lance as being the Lady's son and not just foster-son).  Now, the Aedan thing did ring a slight bell, but the only mention I could find (and once again, I might be wrong because I'm not sure if I have the spelling correct), is that Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the King's of Britain gives Aedan as Arthur's father (instead of the usual Uther Pendragon). So once again I'm like... whu? But then, so was Lance when he found out.  And the whole thing was never really brought up after Nimue drops this bombshell. Perhaps it's a thread that will be explored in one of the other books. But still... you'd think it might've caused a bit more stir? Bah.

Ok, enough ranting. The sad thing is that, despite all these things I didn't like, there is a germ of a good idea or two in this book. As stated, I like the idea that Arthur, Gwen and Lance all truly loved each other and were in it together. So, we at least have the Arthur/Lance part explored in not a bad way.  I liked the idea that this Arthur, basically in a fit of petty jealousy, stole Gwen away from Lance in the first place (this is a twist that's rarely seen, usually Lance and Gwen fall in love after she's betrothed to Arthur). I liked the rival fey factions fighting, but this needed to be far better explored than it is. It's like little vignettes that don't quite make a whole. And the really sad thing is that, because this book ends with them heading back to Camelot, I'm hoping that in the next book maybe the actual triangle will be explored? I probably shouldn't get my hopes up too high.

Prelude to Camelot

#3 of the year (which I actually finished earlier than I'm getting around to writing this up) is Prelude to Camelot by Cynthia Breeding (and if that's not a name of someone born to write romance novels, I know not what is)

It's a servicable little Arthurian tale. This is only the first part, but as of yet it hasn't brought anything new and thought provoking to the tales, but neither has it made me go 'huh'?

I appreciate an Arthurian author who gives me a likable trio of Gwen, Arthur and Lance, because so often, at least one (if not all three) are quite abhorrent and I just don't GET the triangle. Although I guess, if all three are horrid, then that makes sense as to why they're together. But I digress...

Here we have a strong, smart, likable, easy to follow Arthur. Bit of a womanizer again, but that seems to be the trend in Arthurs lately. But here, we can see why he's going to be king, we can see why all the Companions think he's the bees knees, we can see that he is Arthur.

Lance is likewise good. He seems earnest and likeable and definitely wants to impress Arthur and you can see the friendship build between them. This Lance has that more mystical background that I like, and the author uses it quite well to explain his rather incredible success with the ladies.

This Guinevere is of the tom-boy sort, but smart and strong-willed and resourceful, so once again, at least she's someone you can understand both Lance and Arthur falling for (although Arthur does seem to reach his decision to marry her merely because he's being a dick).

Her Morgan is of the oversexualized female villain type that I usually grow quickly bored of, so I'm hoping she can do more with her here.

The triangle is well set up and I appreciate that enough to carry on and see how she does with the other aspects of the Legends in the follow up books.

Camelot and Hawaii

So books 22 and 23...

Book #22 is Unfamiliar Fishes by Sarah Vowell. This is my second Vowell book on American history and I'm liking her style. And I'm liking learning about American history. Score! Anyway, this book is about the American colonization and eventual annexation of the Hawaiian islands. I realize that aside from the fact that two of my all-time favourite TV shows being set and/or filmed in Hawaii (that would be Magnum P.I. and Lost), I really know nothing about it. So this book was fascinating as it chronicled the early Protestant missionaries who gave up their comfy lives in New England to go proselytize on some tiny, gorgeous islands that were very different from anything they'd ever known. This took place shortly after the great King Kamehameha had conquered and united all the islands under him. The missionaries did some good things, they introduce literacy, including facilitating creating a written component for the native Hawaiian language. Of course, this was all done under the auspices of converting the native population to Christiantiy and basically helped almost eventually stamp out the native Hawaiian language... but y'know, nothing really new there. And of course, also with the missionaries and the new trading and whatnot, came the western diseases, with small pox devastating the native population, driving their numbers down from hundreds of thousands to just 40,000 or so by the time the white missionaries and land-owners overthrew the last Queen of Hawaii and offered the islands to the States for annexation. It's a very interesting, and personal book too about a time when America was very busy being an imperial power and gobbling up smaller islands they deemed as strategically important. 

Book #23 is In the Shadow of the King by Helen Hollick. This is the third and last book of Hollick's very, very historical based Arthur. I see now that she actually did do a good job of fitting the legend side of things into a more historical basis. She even had a triangle going there, with the more Celtic Bedwyr standing in for the late-comer Lancelot. But her Arthur was a douche and I got SO SICK of all the arguing and fighting he did with Gwenwyfar. I might as well have been watching a post-Roman Britain version of Moonlighting where everyone's just yelling at one another all the time. Ick. Also, it got to the point where I was having a tough time keeping track of all of Arthur's illegitimate kids. Hollick's Arthur was a lot of a dog. Like his father. So yeah, definitely not my favourite telling of the legends, but as we know, I tend to prefer my Arthurian legends with magic and Lancelot included.

MORE catchup!

I don't know why I'm finding it so hard to update this thing this year, but I am. So here's a whole whack of books I've read and only a little bit about them. Sigh. I need to get back on the timely update train.

Book # 14: Kingdom of the Grail by Judith Tarr - I'd read another book of hers way back when, it was about King John I of England and how he wasn't actually a huge jerk, just misunderstood. It was ok, but I sure didn't love it. I saw this book in a used bookstore and of course went Grail! Arthur! So let's just say I was a little surprised when reading the cover blurb that no, not Arthur... Roland? Hmm ok then. I don't really know too much about the whole Roland, Charlamange tales. I know a little, but not a lot, so I figured ah what the heck, let's give it a try. (Plus a friend of mine's new PC in our RPGs was of Roland's lineage, so I thought this would be fun to try out). Overall, not bad. Roland's got magical powers and is a relation of Merlin's. There is a big Grail quest, and lots of Grail lore that I thought worked out fine. Nothing earth shattering going on here, but enjoyable enough.

Book #15: The Iron King by Maurice Druon - This is another in the 'read ALL the source material for ASoIaF' initiative. Well ok, that's really not possible, so this is part of my 'read ALL the source material for ASoIaF that GRRM says is source material for ASoIaF'. Having gone through Costain's meditations on the Plantagents, I decided to check out Druon's books for the French side of things. As despite my many, many readings of English history, I don't know much of the French side of what happened. So this book is a French translation about the latter part of the reign of Philip the Fair, contemporary of Edward I and II of England. Philip is responsible for the destruction of the Knights Templar and the relocation of the papal court to Avingnon. I can see why GRRM lists these novels as an inspiration for ASoIaF because there is a LOT of court intrigue going on. Affairs and curses and traps and all sorts of fun stuff. Bonus being this is all historical! I am interested in continuing on with this series.

Book #16: The Tyrant's Law by Daniel Abraham - The 3rd book in Abraham's Coin and Dagger series. Things are definitely ramping up. Geder has launched the Spider Cult in other countries he is busily invading and is just becoming more and more reprehensible. And you can tell that deep, deep down he knows this, or at least this is why I assume he's allowed Jory to re-enter court life despite the treason his father committed? Or perhaps it is just selfishness in that Jory was always nice to Geder. I don't know. I think the best though is that Clara has become a one-woman resistance force, reaching out to anyone who might be able to help wrest the country away from Geder. Cithrin becomes more of a major player, but in trying to use Geder's love for her to help others, she's just placed herself in a very dangerous predicament. We know Geder is very big on revenge. And we also have West's quest to find a way to destroy the Spider Cult. While it initially ends in disappointment, a VERY game-changing discovery is made later. Abraham keeps everything moving forward very nicely. And I'm glad he gets one of these books out pretty quickly.

Book #17: Becoming Shakespeare by Jack Lynch - A very interesting look at how Shakespeare's plays survived through the ages, allowing for the 'cult' of Shakespeare we have now. He examines different publications of the plays, and a very good look at productions through the years and how the plays were changed or adapted for the times they were shown in, and even how today we don't get the 'pure' Shakespeare we've tricked ourselves into thinking we do, mainly because there wasn't really a 'pure' Shakespeare to begin with.

Boook #18: The Wind Through the Keyhole by Stephen King - Yes, I am a masochist who went back to the world of the Dark Tower. But as this was another book telling a tale from Roland's past, I thought I'd try it. I'm fond of Dark Tower books where half the main characters don't show up much. This was one of them. It's also an interesting narrative, since King is telling a story within a story, and I liked that aspect of it. It doesn't have the same emotional weight that Wizards and Glass had, but overall, this was a nice re-visit with the Dark Tower. It takes some of the bad taste that was left in my mouth after finishing the series away.

Book #19: The Kingmaking by Helen Hollick -  Historical Arthur is a bit of a douchecanoe, but I'll let it go. There's no magic, no Lancelot... yeah, the elements I like best in my Arthurian legends are not here.

Book #20: Pendragon's Banner by Helen Hollick - See above.

Book # 21: The Golem and the Jinni by Helene Wecker - Wow I enjoyed this book. Blew right through it. A lovely, charming, sad and even suspenseful tale of immigration to NYC, but told through the eyes of two fantastic creatures from other worlds; a djinn and a golem. They both find themselves in turn of the century NYC alone and very, very lost. The jinni is a magnificent, selfish and restless creature, trapped centuries before, only to be reawakened by a lowly tin-smith in the Arab speaking portion of NYC. The golem, created to be a perfect wife for a man who dies on the voyage over, has no master, no one to truly serve, and she is lost and vulnerable without one. The two creatures try to fit in, but they find it so difficult to, and once they find each other, they see they can be themselves, but their natures are so very different, and theirs is still a tumultuous relationship. Throw into this mix the creator of the golem trying to find her and you also have a wonderful villain in the mix. I highly recommend this one.

On Second Thought, Let's Not Go to Camelot...

Book #4 is The Camelot Papers by Peter David

It was through comic books (of course) that I was first introduced to Peter David. And these days, his X-Factor is one of the few comics I'm still reading. Over the years, I've branched out and read a fair amount of his prose too, most of which I've also reviewed here.

Peter had a stroke at the end of last year. He's recovering nicely (yay!), but of course, his health insurance doesn't cover everything, so when the call went out to buy some of his books in order to help him out, I immediately did so. Which brings us to The Camelot Papers.

Written in the form of a diary (and with a framing device that these are 'authentic' writings that were discovered and are now being studied) authored by Viviana, a name often ascribed to the Lady of the Lake in the Legends. Not so much here.

Viviana is a slave, sold into servitude by her debt-ridden father, she ends up at Camelot, working in the kitchens, until her intelligence is noticed by... pretty much everyone and she becomes a lady-in-waiting to the new Queen, Guinevere.

Peter plays about with the structure and characters of Camelot quite a bit here, and still (mostly) makes it fit the overall Legends. His Arthur is a dimwitted, too tenderhearted, yet extremely likable doofus. Guinevere is a headstrong tomboy. She and Morgan are sisters (and yes, Morgan is still half-sister to Arthur as well. Mordred is an incredibly intelligent (and creepy) albino child. And Lancelot is a big, French jerk (sigh). And Galahad is a completely fabricated knight of Viviana's invention.

In his other Arthurian books, Peter gets very political-allegory like, and he does so again here. He uses the time-honoured attack on Guinevere and Igraine by Meleagrance as a (not at all) veiled allegory for the Iraq war. Which is fine in and of itself, but I'm not entirely sure what the point was. Yes, Arthur (and the kingdom) lose it's innocence over this, but working in a framework of tales where the characters were often and always at war, it's hard to really feel that this was any worse than anything else Arthur has done in the tales (can you say Childslayer?), so for me, the ill-found war against Meleagrance and his WMD's (yes, that acronym is actually employed) didn't really hit home for me.

That said though, I did enjoy the characterizations and seeing things unfold through Vivana's eyes and interpretations. So yes, I liked this book even if this Lancelot was a jerk :)

Arthur meets Shakespeare

Book #25: The Tragedy of Arthur by Arthur Phillips.

When I first heard of this book, my immediate reaction was (excuse the swearing) FUCK YEAH! It combines two of my very favourite things; Shakespeare and Arthurian Legends. More specifically, a supposed lost play about King Arthur, written by Shakespeare. Fuck yeah again!

The bulk of this book is Arthur Phillips' 'Introduction' to the previously unknown play The Tragedy of Arthur, discovered and given to him by his dying father. Now, this would be remarkable on it's own... a completely unknown play? This isn't even like Cardinio or Love's Labours Found, plays we know existed, but don't have the texts for, no, there is no record whatsoever of this play. Which makes Phillips wary. Why? Because his father is a con man, more specifically, a forger.

So Phillips lays out his extremely complicated relationship with his father, and with his twin sister Dana, and even with Shakespeare. Phillips has no love for the Bard, and he makes this abundantly clear. So of course, he is the one his father enlists (and not Shakespeare loving Dana) to shepherd this play into publication. Which is very interesting, because it means Phillips is fairly skeptical from the beginning of the play's authenticity. 

So after the introduction, we get to the play itself. That's right, the actual play is included in it's entirety. It's no Hamlet, but it's enough like Shakespeare's early plays to pass for one. The language is quite perfect, but it really doesn't have that extra bit of magic, of playfullness, that Shakespeare is so capable of. But still, the play is done well enough and there were some lovely scenes in it. 

I'll probably end up reading the play a few times, just for fun :) 

(and yes, I am aware that there was an actual incident of  forged Shakespearean plays, 'found' in the 1790s, called Vortigern and Rowena (the other was Henry II). Vortigern,  was the British warlord/king that  Arthur Pendragon's family defeated for the throne of Britain)

Books have been read, but not blogged, so let's do a catch up post:

Number 3 of the year is Some Great Thing by Lawerence Hill. Saw this book for cheap, and since I enjoyed his Book of Negroes, thought I'd give something else by him a shot. This book tells the story of the unlikely named Mahatma Grafton, a young, rather aimless black man who returns to his hometown of Winnipeg and gets a job as a reporter with the Winnipeg Herald. He doesn't partcularly care about the job, nor about Winnipeg, nor about his father's ambitions for him. Hat is like a lot of his generation, he just doesn't really care about much. But that changes over the course of the book as he gets involved with racial tensions and the entire Manitoba language-rights issues. It's a very interesting read because it's something I really knew nothing about. Oh sure I remember language-rights as an issue overall, plus of course the Referendum, but this book is a nice microcosm of the unrest that was happening over a lot of Canada at the time. The characters are all well done, and, despite being a large cast, quite memorable. There's some oddities that make it really fun (the exchange reporter from Cameroon for one) and overall, it's a very clever novel.

Number 4 of the year is Gwenhwyfar by Mercedes Lackey. Not a bad book. I definitely like books where Gwen isn't a whiny bitch, but this also felt like Lackey had watched that horrendous King Arthur movie (y'know, the one with Clive Owen) and decided that Warrior! Gwen needed some backstory. So yeah, this Gwen is a warrior, which is fine and dandy but doesn't really bring that much new to the character. I did like that Lackey brought the idea of the 'three Gwens' that Arthur marries into one tale (this is something that isn't dealt with much in most of the Legends) and I liked that she gave Gwen some interesting sisters. But overall, the 'Arthurian' part of the story isn't dealt with at all so the book actually feels strangely disconnected from what it should seemlessly be a part of. As a look at gender roles and equality in early Britain, it's a great book, as an Arthurian tale? Not so much.

Number 5 of the year is Bloodsucking Fiends by Christopher Moore. This is the first book of his tale of Jody and Thomas, and the one I should've started with rather than You Suck. So it was nice to get the backstory down and how it all got started. Fun as always, Moore is rarely disappointing. Best line? "He's doing rather well for a non-swimmer".

Ok, gotta get reading some more it seems.

Number 21 of the year may prove to be the last for a little bit as on July 6, our little girl was born, so I find I have time for not much other than staying awake most of the night, feeding a hungry new born. Which is just fine :) Anyway, number 21 is The Book of Mordred by Vivian Vende Velde. This book is aimed at teen readers, so I wasn't expecting too much from it, and it did prove a little frustrating to me. Basically, it centers around Mordred, and three women in his life, the young, magically adept Kiera, her mother, Alayna, and the sorceress Nimue. Now, the story is told from their point of views (kinda a Mists of Avalon-lite) and starts after Kiera is kidnapped, basically because she is magically gifted. Alayna journeys to Camelot for help, and it is Mordred who helps her, and goes with her to a known-wizard's castle.

The plot is ok, but the thing I had the hardest time with was basically the overall point of the book I guess. The author quotes, at the beginning, an excerpt from a letter written by Sir Thomas Mallory, where he basically says that Mordred is the bad guy in the Arthurian Legends, and beyond that, he doesn't need much depth or explanation. So I gathered that we were going to get a better look at Mordred and his motivations through his relationship with these three women. Except I didn't really get any of that. If anything, the three women found him to be just as much an enigma as everyone else does in every other tale. I was a little disappointed nothing was really different. Even at the end, when Mordred was attempting to usurp Arthur's throne (or rather in this case Arthur had agreed to divvy up his kingdom between the two of them in order to keep the peace), there didn't seem to be much motivation for it other than that's what Mordred does, he is a divisive force. Also, why did he take part in the plot to trap Lancelot and Guinevere? I never felt there was much reason given other than he wanted Arthur to be shamed, which is a pretty run of the mill reason as far as the tales go.

So yes, while the characters were all fine and dandy, but I just felt this book kinda missed it's own raison d'etre.

I'm throwing rocks tonight! (basically just meaning I've been reading things quickly again...)

Number 15 is Fall of Knight by Peter David. Fall of Knight is the third in David's Arthurian cycle, and like the others, its enjoyable, is a nice continuation of the myths, and yet feels rather heavy-handed in some places.

I know, from reading various things in comic book circles, that Peter David is a very liberal (with a small 'l' since he's American) person, and this often shows up in his writing. He's had some, overall, goodnatured 'spats' with fellow comic writer (and uber-conservative) Chuck Dixon, and I always found myself more in line with Peter David's views.

So, while Knight Life was mainly just David's view of politics, One Knight Only became more political, and was obviously his reaction to 9-11 and the current administration's reaction to it and terrorism in general. And now, with Fall of Knight, David is tackling the issue of faith.

I like Peter David's Arthur. He is strong-willed, charismatic, charming, smart and yet, often times bull-headed, a little arrogant and pretty used to getting his own way (after all, he was King). I think the personality suits him perfectly, and of course, there are the nice touches such as the simulataneous world-weariness and yet also the niavety he has about the modern world.

Arthur, since awakening from his thousand year slumber, has been mayor of New York City, then President of the United States. Fall of Knight opens with him and Gwen in retirement, on a sailboat in the middle of the Pacific, where he's basically bored out of his skull. The problem is, they cannot go back, because no one is to know that Gwen has recovered from her coma (induced by a terrorist/assassin's bullet to her head) and is in fact fully healed, due to the Holy Grail (as was done in One Knight Only). Gwen is the recipient of a miracle no one would believe in.

But of course, Gwen's recovery is discovered, and Arthur (with Gwen and Percival, the Grail Knight's support) Arthur goes public with who he is and that the Holy Grail is in his possession. Well, as you can imagine, the shit hits the fan. People want to be cured. The Catholic Church wants the Grail. The US Government wants the Grail. And of course, the main badguy, a near-immortal necromancer/alchemist calling himself Paracelsus, also wants the Grail. Of course, the church and the state wish to study the Grail, afirm its divinity, that sort of thing, but Paracelsus wants it because he wishes to use it to wipe humanity from the Earth. And he's pretty close to being able to do so, considering he also has the Spear of Destiny in his posession.

But overall, the theme of faith is what drives this book. Arthur, his faith in a higher power pretty much shattered by his Grail Quest (for he finds out the Grail is much, much older than Christ) and so he shares this with people who find themselves likewise disaffected from modern, organized religion. Of course though, some people see Arthur himself as a new messiah-like figure, and turn to 'worshipping' him. This makes the Church rather upset and they denounce him thoroughly. A lot of Arthur's message can be seen as 'think for yourself' (a message anyone versed in Monty Python's "The Life of Brian" will be familiar with), but after awhile, it does seem that even Arthur is believing his own hype as a saviour of humanity.

Arthur, in his efforts to help as many people as he can, launches on a scheme to bottle water that has been poured into the Grail, then diluted, and sell it to as many people around the world as he can. The product, called Grail Ale, sells out immediately and performs all sorts of miraculous cures. Arthur is happy with this, however, lots have misgivings, including the loyal Percival.

Of course, it all goes to shit, the person who came up with the plan to bottle Grail Ale is actually Paracelsus, who, knowing that magic always has a balance (i.e., the more good that is done with the Grail means the more 'bad' energy is also being built up. So you know, Karma) is waiting for the Grail to basically be 'full' of goodness, so he can use its power and that of the Spear to purge humanity off the earth. And of course, its up to Arthur to stop him.

He does, of course, but Percival is lost in the battle, as is Excalibur. Its interesting that, when the chips are down and Arthur doesn't have his remaining Knight and Merlin is trapped (Nimue again of course), he is moved to prayer. I'm not sure if I liked this part, it seemed too pat for someone who was not only questioning faith, but also the divinity of Christ, would then turn back down that path, but perhaps it was David saying that when all else is lost or gone, it is natural for people to hope that there is something/someone out there who will lend a guiding hand, or rainstorm in this case.

I guess overall, I did find it interesting because alot of what Peter David was questioning wasn't exactly faith, but faith in how religion is presented to us in a modern age. He brings up the old standbys - how much blood has been spilt in the name of one who's message was predominately peaceful, how could God so completely turn his back on his creation and let so much evil flourish, if Christ did return today, would he be accepted or simply shut up in an institution somewhere as one of the nameless mentally ill? All excellent questions really. He doesn't really go so far as to portray the Church in a negative light, but they aren't exactly positive either, which is probably the best way to look at them.

Overall, I liked this trilogy. David crafted a likeable bunch of characters and his knowlege of they legends are extensive and his reworkings of them never feel wrong. In fact, one of my favourite scenes in this book was Arthur telling Gwen that, in reality, when she was ordered to burn at the stake for her treason against Arthur (over the affair with Lancelot), there was no intention on Arthur's part of having Gwen rescued by Lancelot. In David's version, Lancelot was under siege in his own home, unable to leave, and so Gwen wasn't rescued, she burned, and Arthur, consumed with vengence for his betrayal, was perfectly fine with this. Arthur tells Gwen that her rescue was tacked on later, by the various writers, to make things more 'romantic', but it was not true. This was a great retelling of that particular moment in the legends, for it reminds one that Arthur came from a brutal time, and perhaps wasn't as 'accepting' of the affair as many of the retellings say, that in fact, he was pissed off, and had more than enough power to make Gwen and Lance pay heavily for it. It was a powerful moment in the book.

Mordred, you bastard.

Numeral 13 is Mordred: Bastard Son by Douglas Clegg.

I love Arthurian legends, as I may have mentioned before. I read a lot about them. It is a rich legend full of interesting characters that you really can do just about anything with. So, I never usually mind when new things are tacked onto characters or small twists or turns are taken with things, so long as the story still stays true to the overall legend, so long as the internal consistency of the legends are intact.

But now and then, a change is made or something is added to a character that I just don't quite agree with, or it just doesn't ring true with me. And that's what's happened in this book.

Mordred: Bastard Son is supposedly the first part in a trilogy, where Mordred is telling about his life, so basically, this is the Arthurian Legends told from Mordred's POV. Which isn't novel, its been done before, and that's fine. Mordred, in the tales, has been everything from misunderstood to outright evil. I don't really have a preference, he is what he is, and ultimately, that is the villian of the piece.

Clegg has obviously read his Mists of Avalon, for that's very much what Mordred: Bastard Son feels like. This book deals with Mordred's upbringing in Broceliande, under the tutaledge of his mother, Morgan Le Fey, Viviane, the Lady of the Lake, and of course, Merlin. Mordred lives in a fantasy-like setting, surrounded by people of the old Celtic tribes, hidden away from a vengeful and fearful father, where he learns all manner of magic. There's really nothing wrong with the character of Mordred, he seems to be an earnest lad, he wants to learn, he wants his family (mainly his mother) to be happy, and he's unsure about the awesome, distant father he has, especially since his father so wronged his mother (we're lead to believe that rather than Arthur being the victim here, it was he who forced himself on his half-sister Morgan, and then tried to have her killed when he found out she was pregnant). No, but the main divergence in Mordred's character in this book is that Clegg has made him gay.

Now, homosexual/homoerotic undertones (or overt-tones) are not new in Arthurian legends either. Its been noted in various places, such as Mists of Avalon, and heck, even in Monty Python's The Holy Grail, that the deep love Arthur and Lancelot feel for one another is not a strictly platonic thing. Mists of Avalon goes one further in actually having Arthur, Lancelot and Guinevere engage in a threesome, and after awhile, you get the idea that Gwen felt rather left out. And that never bothered me, in fact, I thought it kinda made sense, in some of the tales, I sometimes got the idea that Lancelot had that all consuming love for Guinevere because that was the closest he could get to displaying his love for Arthur in a physical way; that Guinevere was an extension of her husband. But this is the first time (that I can remember) where I've seen Mordred portrayed as gay, and I think I don't like it because it feels like its too much.

Mordred's role in just about every tale is to be the villain, yes, but also to be that of the Other. Due to the circumstances of his birth, he is always considered tainted, the child of incest can never be fully accepted by society because he is the product of an extremely large societal taboo. Now I'm not saying this is correct because really, the blame shouldn't fall on him for something he could do nothing about, but that's the way it is in the tales. Mordred is forever on the outside looking in, and in those tales where he desperately wants to be accepted but never will, those are the ones that are most poignant. But making him gay, placing another societal 'taboo' on him, is nearly overkill. The deck is already stacked against Mordred, does it really need to be more so? I don't think so. Oh sure, I guess it adds another angle of angst to the character, but I just think its an unnecessary one.

I don't disagree with the choice to have Mordred's first lover be Lancelot. As I said, Lance has often been portrayed as having homosexual tendencies, and Lance has a long history of having ties to the Lady of the Lake and the Otherworld in which Mordred is raised in this novel, so its not far-fetched that their paths would cross. Of course though, in making Lance be rather more homosexual than just having homosexual leanings or perhaps being bi-sexual, I do wonder how Clegg will reconcile the more famous triangle that Lance is part of, because it seems to me, that by having Lance sleep with Arthur's gay son (who could be Arthur's sexual proxy in Lancelot's mind?), it makes one wonder just why Lance would switch teams and fall for Guinevere (although sometimes Arthurian authors make Gwen so horrible I'm often left questioning why Lance or Arthur fall for her, regardless of their sexual orientation). Of course, Clegg could just use some old standbys, magic spell, potion, etc, or he could just ignore it completely (ugh), but I guess we'll have to wait and see.

By the end of the novel, we've reached the end of Mordred's 'childhood'; he's well versed in magic and the martial arts, and he's just rescued the princess Guinevere from a plot devised by his mad aunt Morgause (who is currently the villain of the piece) and will now return the princess to her betrothed, King Arthur, therefore paving the way for the first meeting between the estranged father and son.

I am interested in reading on, but sometimes, this book focuses too much on the magic (an extended conversation with some practioners of magic of the goddess Hecate went on for what felt like ever), and I feel like I'm starting to have to skip the magic-babble like I would skip the techno-babble in a Tom Clancy novel, or the whaling-babble in Moby Dick or the marching-song babble in Fellowship of the Rings. Sure, stuff like that adds flavour, but after too much of it, I'm pretty freaking full.

It would seem to me that Clegg is obviously setting up Mordred as a more sympathetic character who has reasons other than just being evil to bring down his father's shining kingdom, so once again, its feeling very Mists of Avalonesque. But right now, Mordred is really the only well-drawn character and this lack of any interesting tertiary characters hurts a bit. By the end, this Lancelot was starting to feel a little more well-rounded, which is good, because well, a large part of my enjoyment of any Arthurian related book is how well Lancelot is portrayed. After all, he is my favourite.

Ok, since last post I have indeed finished Bury the Chains. VERY good book. Has made me want to swear off eating sugar for good, but I know that's damned near impossible these days. Funny thing is, while reading the book, the CBC rebroadcast their 'Big Sugar' documentary, which looked at modern day sugar-cane plantations, and all the ways sugar is a very big problem in our world. Those who harvest sugar-cane on modern day plantations are living a life of slavery in all but name. Its like nothing really changed over the past two hundred years, and Bury the Chains have said that many of the Caribbean nations (like Haiti) have never really recovered from the slave rebellions that destroyed much of the island's wealth. The show Big Sugar also heavily referenced Bury the Chains, as they showed the abolitionist movement was very directly tied to sugar. They also mentioned how WHO had been trying to get a bill tabled at the United Nations about sanctioning big sugar, in order to protect children from the growing obesity problem, but the US refused to sign it and threatened to withdraw funding from WHO should anyone mention it again. Guess who is a large contributer to the Republicans? Yeah, sugar companies...

After finishing Bury the Chains, I started Knight Life by Peter David. Not bad at all and a fun little read as a re-awakened Arthur runs for mayor of New York City. I did have a slight panic attack worrying that perhaps this book might be too close to what I've come up with for the plot of my romance novel, but fortunately PAD's Lancelot is a non-factor in the book, and although Gwen might have some characteristics in common with my heroine, I think they're still different enough. The Arthur in this book was pretty good, and came off as very charismatic. Morgan was an ehn villainess, but I loved that Mordred was a top PR man. He was great. So yeah, overall, a nice book, I'll probably end up picking up the sequal, One Knight Only.

I've also been re-reading Byron's Don Juan (don't ask; personal reasons). I read this originally in second-year university, I had to do my Romantics seminar on it. I had an episode of Cheers taped where Diane was doing her psychology thesis on why Sam was a text-book case of Don Juan syndrome. Sam was a compulsive womanizer, and so yes, was a perfect example of the psychological Don Juan. However, as I read through Byron's poem, I realized that his Don Juan was not the compulsive womanizer that Sam was, rather Byron's Don Juan was more of a romantic, and it was usually always the women who pursued him. Byron's Don Juan was almost a niaf, and I found that rather fascinating, given the almost negative connotations being called a 'Don Juan' has in modern society. Byron's Don Juan isn't really what we think of as a stereotypical Don Juan. It is a lovely poem, full of romantic imagery, but also quite humourous as well. I'm having fun re-reading it. Oh, and way back when, I got an A on that Romantics seminar. Thanks Cheers :)

It's the time of year again when my reading time will seriously suffer because the Stanley Cup playoffs have started and there is MUCH hockey to be watched. This year isn't as bad as the past few, since the Leafs didn't make the playoffs, I'm only having to pay attention to my beloved Wings. But since Detroit is playing a Canadian team in the first round, I'm actually getting to see the games. Which is awesome. But as I said, my reading suffers in the Spring.

But despite the distraction the playoffs present, I did manage to finish Mad Merlin by J. Robert King. It wasn't bad, but it is the first time that I actually felt like... yeah yeah, I know what's going to happen, Arthur beats the Saxons at Badon Hill, blah, blah. I never usually feel like that with an Arthurian book, I mean face it, I ALWAYS know what's going to happen with an Arthur book. Depending on when in his life they're focusing, I know that he becomes King, marries Guinevere, founds the Round Table, fights a lot of Saxons, defeats the Saxons, has years of security, the knights go off to find the Holy Grail, gets killed by Mordred. End of story (unless you're doing the once and FUTURE king side of his story). But this book is obviously ending early in Arthur's reign, and is going to be using the victory at Badon over the Saxons as the climax, but I'm just kinda... ehn about it.

It's not that I'm not enjoying the book, it has some neat ideas, like Merlin being the fallen ex-god Jupiter and Excalibur forged from the actual word of the Christian God, but I've found the characters rather hard to enage in because there's SO much focus on the magic and the clash of religions. Wow, I cannot believe I'm actually complaining that there might've been too much magic in this Arthurian telling, but I think I am.

I did like that the conflict with the Saxons was also them bringing their gods with them to conquor Britannia, but we all know that didn't work. The Saxon people might've eventually won, but it was the Christian God who won the religious wars, stamping out or appropriating the gods of the Saxons, the Celts, the Romans, etc. So yeah, that aspect I did find interesting, but I did think there was a little too much focus on such things.

Still have to finish Dave Gorman's Googlewhack Adventure though. But I also started re-reading my run of Y: The Last Man, since I just got all my trades back from a friend who had borrowed them.