Bernard Cornwell - warlord chronicles and beyond

[Which Tyler]

@Zorral.

Can you tell now, why we all want Theda to read these books? - and blog about doing so!

[Centrist Simon Steele]

On 10/15/2018 at 5:48 AM, red snow said:

Just finished the Warlord Chronicles and I have to admit I was blown away by it. I recall asking the forum for recs on King Arthur several years ago and this was the most popular. However, I felt that I wasn't looking for a "realistic" take on the legend and was wanting the anachronistic knights in armour and magic. Then again I've learned not to ignore the voice of the literature forum and put it on my "to read" list. Turns out this was the Arthur book I didn't know I wanted and to be honest the next Arthur book will probably have its work cut out to top this. I loved this down to earth take and Cornwell's approach to magic was an eye-opener for me. Not only do I like his magic as merely being a mix of "clever people using knowledge as magic" and "the power of superstition" but it's given me a potential new insight into how magic and gods worked in ancient times - something I've always had trouble grasping.

I also liked how Derfel as the narrator still had many flaws despite him not acknowledging them fully himself. He clearly did a poor job

  Hide contents

raising Mordred and also made a poor ruler of his kingdom/territory choosing to spend more time with Arthur than try and address issues

. A brilliant soldier but a poor salesman.

There were parts of the book where I was frustrated at how Arthur's honour system essentially allowed his enemies to thrive and I do feel like the tragic ending is a classic case of "evil just needing good men to do nothing" but it fits with the legend of Arthur and his knights. There were also moments in the last book where the magic felt genuine and couldn't be explained by "real" things

  Hide contents

how Derfel was able to break the curse on his wife by cutting off his hand. Although I guess his wife may have been poisoned and that Morgan knew the cure once she knew the curse. The severing of the hand could have just been a case of pointless superstition. However, I can't find a plausible explanation for how the killing of Merlin could have caused the storm. Maybe it was dramatic license using coincidence or Nimue was just been harsh and was a good weather forecaster and Merlin was for show?

. Beyond those minor issues the series was a great success for me.

The TV adaptation has been optioned and in development for several years now. I'm left scratching my head at how "the last kingdom" was made first. Surely Arthur grabs attention better? Maybe the fact there are more instalments of "the last kingdom" made it more appealing for TV? Or maybe "the last kingdom" is as good? I don't know but this would make a great TV show and needs to be made.

I thought I'd start the new thread as the old one was archived after 4 years of inactivity. The gist there seemed to suggest that the Grail series and Agincourt were probably the best options with Cornwell's other books. Given how much I enjoyed this series it'd be a surprise/shame if his other work doesn't reach similar levels of quality. On the other hand I'm not sure I'd want to diminish my appreciation of the author if the other books are vastly inferior. I'm guessing his books set in later time periods don't feature the magic which I think was a big element of my enjoyment of the warlord chronicles. That said I've heard his Stonehenge book is a bit trippy.

I'm so glad you liked it! I came to this book with the same POV (I wanted magic, not historical fiction) but, honestly? I think I was sold by the first line of the Winter King. Derfel is such a great character, and the way he tells the stories are always just right. I loved it. I remember reading the last third of Excalibur listening to the music from the old 80s Excalibur movie. It was awesome!

I haven't found a Cornwell book (series or singular) that I've liked as much as this one. One series I loved almost as much was the Troy series by David Gemmell. Those were the first books I read by him, and I fell in love with the story he crafted--I definitely recommended it. When I read some of Gemmell's other (highly recommended) work, it all fell flat. 

But as for the Arthur series--that's the best telling of the story I've ever read, I think. 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

On 10/15/2018 at 2:48 PM, Zorral said:

Because the series Merlin and Camelot -- especially with Camelot crashing and burning just as badly as it deserved to.

Also because Vikings rolling so well, let's find another take on that.

Because Martin endorsed the Last Kingdom books.

As you may have noticed, putting Arthur on the screen hasn't worked very well in these last decades.  What have we had beyond that awful Arthur: Legend of the Sword, and the Tristan and Isolde romance of 2006.  Excalibur had really good parts but even more really awful ones.  The Sword in the Stone was a kids' flick. 

Someone ranked Arthur movies here:

https://www.tor.com/2017/05/23/lets-rank-all-the-king-arthur-movies-to-find-the-true-once-and-future-king/

Nothing Arthurian has seemed to work for screen - stage, since Camelot.

 

 

I wonder if a good story like the Warlord Chronicles would change that. Finding a good actor to play Arthur seems to be the hardest part though. The guy from Sons of Anarchy? I hate that. It was on par with the (Showtime? Cinemax) series that came out years ago. Just young, skinny, model-handsome dudes. Barf. The Excalibur Arthur is terrible for his strange acting, but I find him a bit endearing at times. He's probably the best...

If they did the Warlord Chronicles as a series of movies or TV series, I now realize Arthur will be cast as some young bad actor with perfect facial symmetry. 

[Zorral]

13 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

I wonder if a good story like the Warlord Chronicles would change that. Finding a good actor to play Arthur seems to be the hardest part though. The guy from Sons of Anarchy? I hate that. It was on par with the (Showtime? Cinemax) series that came out years ago. Just young, skinny, model-handsome dudes. Barf. The Excalibur Arthur is terrible for his strange acting, but I find him a bit endearing at times. He's probably the best...

If they did the Warlord Chronicles as a series of movies or TV series, I now realize Arthur will be cast as some young bad actor with perfect facial symmetry. 

I keep thinking about this, and how difficult to do this and keep any flavor and integrity to the books.

First of all, we get everything through the perspective, voice and testimony of Derfel Cadarn.  He's the one with the relationship with Nimue.  He talks to us, he talks to Igraine, he talks to everybody, and he tells us information, which makes all we receive, we receive at least 2 and even 3 removes from Arthur.. IOW, Arthur really isn't the protagonist.  He's the pretext, maybe even a McGuffin.  This worked very well on the page.  But you can't do that on screen.

Removing Derfel's voice and perspective, which is what would have to happen if they wanted an Arthurian tale, well, you just don't have the story at all.

These problems do not exist for The Lost Kingdom, so it works beautifully.  When we switch perspectives on screen, so did we in the books.  Ultimately still, of course, Uhtred is the organizing principle of narrative, action and story, and he's the protagonist, even as he tells others' stories.  But Derfel isn't the protagonist in the story of Arthur, though he certainly is of the book he is writing, though he pretends otherwise.  It's about his life, which matters because of its connection to Arthur's.

Ya, complicated vision here!

 

[Spockydog]

The Last Kingdom books are written from Uhtred's perspective. IIRC, that doesn't change until much later in the series, when we get some POV chapters from his son.

 

[Mark Antony]

1 hour ago, Spockydog said:

The Last Kingdom books are written from Uhtred's perspective. IIRC, that doesn't change until much later in the series, when we get some POV chapters from his son.

 

We only got one prologue from the son and it kinda disappointed me cause I was hoping he’d take over. Elderly Uhtred is still fun though. 

[ljkeane]

30 minutes ago, Mark Antony said:

We only got one prologue from the son and it kinda disappointed me cause I was hoping he’d take over. Elderly Uhtred is still fun though. 

I think he's got a fairly obvious endpoint in mind for the series but it's probably too long a period to have covered with one character, he probably should have shifted to Uhtred the younger version taking over.

On an unrelated note I do find it entertaining that a lot of the recent books in the series are based in large part very near to where I live.

[Mosi Mynn]

16 hours ago, Zorral said:

Arthur really isn't the protagonist.  He's the pretext, maybe even a McGuffin.  

I agree that casting Arthur would be the key to any adaptation.  He has to be believable as a warrior, a leader, a diplomat, a legend, fierce, kind, charismatic and very flawed

I don't agree that he's a Maguffin.  One of the reasons I love this series so much is because Cornwell gives the legends (often taken over by Lancelot and others in later tellings ) back to Arthur, and shows why his name has lived on in myth all these centuries later.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

17 hours ago, Zorral said:

I keep thinking about this, and how difficult to do this and keep any flavor and integrity to the books.

First of all, we get everything through the perspective, voice and testimony of Derfel Cadarn.  He's the one with the relationship with Nimue.  He talks to us, he talks to Igraine, he talks to everybody, and he tells us information, which makes all we receive, we receive at least 2 and even 3 removes from Arthur.. IOW, Arthur really isn't the protagonist.  He's the pretext, maybe even a McGuffin.  This worked very well on the page.  But you can't do that on screen.

Removing Derfel's voice and perspective, which is what would have to happen if they wanted an Arthurian tale, well, you just don't have the story at all.

These problems do not exist for The Lost Kingdom, so it works beautifully.  When we switch perspectives on screen, so did we in the books.  Ultimately still, of course, Uhtred is the organizing principle of narrative, action and story, and he's the protagonist, even as he tells others' stories.  But Derfel isn't the protagonist in the story of Arthur, though he certainly is of the book he is writing, though he pretends otherwise.  It's about his life, which matters because of its connection to Arthur's.

Ya, complicated vision here!

 

I think you kind of hit on how to make this work--Derfel IS the main character, and I hadn't considered that when thinking about this as a film or series. I think seeing Arthur through Derfel's eyes would take care of so many issues we've had with Arthur in the movies. Arthur is a legend, and he shouldn't be the main character--seeing him through the eyes of a follower who essentially glorifies him? That's something!

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, Simon Steele said:

I think you kind of hit on how to make this work--Derfel IS the main character, and I hadn't considered that when thinking about this as a film or series. I think seeing Arthur through Derfel's eyes would take care of so many issues we've had with Arthur in the movies. Arthur is a legend, and he shouldn't be the main character--seeing him through the eyes of a follower who essentially glorifies him? That's something!

Fantasy writer, Katharine Kerr, has produced a multi-volume "Celtic" series, known as the Deverry Cycle, with a further complication of reincarnation of the characters over eras and centuries.  They don't know this, of course. But the Merlin-figure does.  In about the middle of the series a figure much like Arthur shows up.  The magician works a glamour spell on the fellow, that allows him to appear to shine, be taller, more handsome, charismatic, and so on, to attract and retain followers.  He wasn't really that superior to everyone else, but the glamour helps him to appear so.