What is the best King Arthur adaptation

[Isis]

I only read the first book (and maybe the second? Can't recall) of the Warlord Chronicles and was... Unimpressed. It was OK, but I don't see what the fuss is about.

T.H. white is awesome. So is Bradley in a different fashion. Malory should probably be read too just because, even though 15th century stuff can be a bitch to read.

T H White and Cornwell - they are totally different styles, you can't compare them or say one is better than the other, I don't think. Personally I loved them both and would recommend them both.

[Gigei]

Malory's Morte d'Arthur

Gawain and the Green Knight

TH White's The Once and Future King

Mary Stewart's Merlin books

Idylls of the Queen by Phyllis Ann Karr - a subversive look at canon, all characters and events are "canon" but told from the POV of the bitter, aging Sir Kay. It's told as a murder mystery that revolves around the murder of Sir Patrise (this is in Malory). It's fun because the reader views the heroic/chivalric events through the eyes of an old curmudgeon...lol. I would not necessarily rec this book to anyone but for those who are familiar with Arthurian legend, it's a refreshing look at the Knights of the Round Table.

*pssst* You have watched Monty Python and Holy Grail, too, right? It's an absolute must for us Arthurian legend lovers. ;)

[red snow]

*pssst* You have watched Monty Python and Holy Grail, too, right? It's an absolute must for us Arthurian legend lovers. ;)

Several times and the musical, spamalot, once :)

[red snow]

It looks like I need to add Cornwell's series to my read list as well.

It's quite interesting how after all this time there are still so many interpretations of the legend/real Arthur. This could end up feeling like my old History classes where I got to read several sources and came up with my own idea of the "truth".

I also found out that the BBC and showtime are doing a "contemporary" Camelot series. It's by Michael Hurst (Tudors). Based on Hurst's tv/film work, I'd hazard that the contemporary means the 6th century version, as opposed to a modern day telling but I have yet to find any more details. Strange that BBC is funding this and AGOT?

It could be worth a look. Timing wise both this and AGOT could be airing together, so I suspect they will be direct competition.

[Kouran]

I cant believe that no one has mentioned Steinbeck yet? His "The Acts of King Arthur and His Noble Knights" http://www.amazon.com/Acts-King-Arthur-Nob...541&sr=1-23 is an excellent book, sadly Steinbeck died before he could finish it.

[snookyrump]

I'll cast another "aye" vote for Bernard Cornwell and The Warlord Chronicles.

There is no other version of the Arthur classic as organic and riveting as this one, in my opinion.

The Dark Ages truly come alive.

[Myrddin]

Several times and the musical, spamalot, once :)

Heh Spamalot is great. The guy who played Herbert really stole the show.

Geoffrey Ashe, one of the most respected Arthurian scholars, was asked which King Arthur movie was the closest to the real historical figure of Arthur. He replied, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, because it was a bunch of guys running around not knowing what was going on. :)

To add to the recommedations, if you're looking to read a fictionalized version of the classic tales (ie King Arthur placed in a sudo Medieval England), then Once and Future King is your best bet.

If you want to read something more grounded in history (ie 5th century Britain), then I'd recommend the Winter King.

Parke Godwin's Firelord was good gritty Roman based version too, though I liked his take on Robin Hood better in his Sherwood*.

Another personal favorite Arthur series is the Pendragon Cycle from Stephen Lawhead. He places the story in a histroically accurate era and captures the Celtic spirit of the age better, but he also weaves in Atlantis into the mix and emphasizes the role of Christianity in Britain. If find his prose to be fantastic. It embodies the Heroic spirit of the Celts better than anyone. The first book is Taliesin, mostly about the fall of Atlantis and the fall of Rome in Britain, and it's impact on the Celtic tribes. The second book is called Merlin and the third is Arthur. There are two more, written years after the trilogy, but I didn't enjoy them as much.

Classic Legendary Arthur: Once and Future King

Gritty Historic Romanized Arthur: Winter King (and following) and/or Firelord

Celtic Christian Arthur: Pendragon Cycle

Or you can read them all. :)

*Reading Sherwood brought a complete duh! moment for me. The classic legend takes place during the imprisonment of King Richard, but why would the Saxons care about rasoming a king who never came to England and didn't even speak English? By placing the legend just after the Normans conquest of England, the Robin Hood tale makes much more sense. Sherwood is highly recommended)

[Galactus]

*Reading Sherwood brought a complete duh! moment for me. The classic legend takes place during the imprisonment of King Richard, but why would the Saxons care about rasoming a king who never came to England and didn't even speak English? By placing the legend just after the Normans conquest of England, the Robin Hood tale makes much more sense. Sherwood is highly recommended)

Irony is that it wasn't King Richard in the original legend, it was a King Edward... Most historical research seems to place Robin Hood (if he ever existed) at a LATER rather than earlier date.

[Myrddin]

Irony is that it wasn't King Richard in the original legend, it was a King Edward... Most historical research seems to place Robin Hood (if he ever existed) at a LATER rather than earlier date.

Robin Hood probably predates Longshanks, as "Robin Hood" was already a common bandit name by the 1220's.

I'm not saying there was a Robin Hood who stole from the rich to give to the poor in a Saxon vs Norman class war. Like Arthur, there was probably a figure in history who inspired the legend, but the reality and legend are probably leagues apart.

[End of Disc One]

Robin Hood probably predates Longshanks, as "Robin Hood" was already a common bandit name by the 1220's.

I'm not saying there was a Robin Hood who stole from the rich to give to the poor in a Saxon vs Norman class war. Like Arthur, there was probably a figure in history who inspired the legend, but the reality and legend are probably leagues apart.

I don't know much but I'll just throw this in - my humanities professor who specializes in the Middle Ages said that Robin Hood is probably more real than King Arthur.

[Ouroboros]

That's like saying Huck Finn has a better chance of being real next to Harry Potter.

Both Hood and Arthur only have the loosest grounding in reality, works of fiction based on men that had been dead for years.

[Myrddin]

I don't know much but I'll just throw this in - my humanities professor who specializes in the Middle Ages said that Robin Hood is probably more real than King Arthur.

No, there is indications of a real battle chief named Arthur (or a variation there of) in the late 5th/early 6th century.

He was likely a tribal chief or possibly a commander in chief of a coalition of celtic forces. Here's a good article on it. Actually, there's a lot of good material on britannia.com about the historical Arthur, including translations of the actual historical accounts (Nennius, Gildas, etc).

I did a lot of research about 10 years ago for a book I was thinking about writing. Arthur is never mentioned in the Anglo Saxon Chronicles, though it's interesting if you lay their accounts over top the traditional dates of Arthur. By their account, the Saxons advanced across Britain unhindered for decades. The Chronicles are full of references of defeating this British tribe or that one. And then suddenly for 40 years, they just fight amongst themselves. No records of fighting the Britains, until after 540 or so, then their conquest moves forward again without much resistance.

537 is one of the proposed dates for Arthur's death. ;)

Talk about omitting your failures from your history books.

No mention of round tables, knights, sword in the stone, Morgain, etc until much later. I believe Geoffrey of Monmouth was the first with his History of the Kings of Britain (1136) which is more myth than historical. Chivalry was definately a Medieval invention 700 years later, and the Lancelot/Gweneviere/Arthur love triangle a French import about that time too (during the time when courtly love was fashionable).

A man existed, but whether he was a battle chief, a king, or a high king is very much shrouded by history.

[Jerol]

I am reading Enemy of God right now and it is a princely good time. I don't know if I would rank The Warlord Chronicles up next to tOaFK but it's damn good. Solid prose and fantastic story-telling.

[King James]

Personally, I would say the best are T.H. White's Once & Future King, along with Thomas Berger's Arthur Rex. You'll get a lot of recommendations for tO&FK so I'll talk about Arthur Rex. It is a fictional telling of the story (the knights all wear plate armor). The story is very colorful, with the point-of-views switching back and forth from Arthur and his knights. There are monsters (dragons, giants, fairies, wizards, witches, wyverns, cockatrices etc.), knights (obviously) duels, battles, intrigue, and humor. The humor is especially great because it isn't overbearing (meaning the book isn't a comedy) but it blooms in such characters as Sir Kay, who is a born noble, meant for knighthood, but would rather lead a battalion of chefs in the kitchen than a legion of knights on the battlefield.

Thomas Berger also shows a stunning control of the English language (something akin to Jack Vance), if that's your thing.

I've only ever seen this book mentioned once before on this site (it's pretty obscure, which is a TRAGEDY), but I would recommend it as highly as tO&FK. You can buy it off amazon or ebay for very little money. You may be able to get it from a Barnes & Noble but if so I'd expect you would have to order it. I hope that helps.

* Here is a link to the book on amazon. It has only five reviews, but they're all five-star ones....

:thumbsup:

I actually looked at this thread with the intent of reccomending this very book (Arthur Rex). IMO it the best contemporary telling of the tale. Very entertaining

[Galactus]

Robin Hood probably predates Longshanks, as "Robin Hood" was already a common bandit name by the 1220's.

I'm not saying there was a Robin Hood who stole from the rich to give to the poor in a Saxon vs Norman class war. Like Arthur, there was probably a figure in history who inspired the legend, but the reality and legend are probably leagues apart.

"Robin Hood" or similar names (Hode, Woode, Hoade, Hod, Hobbehod, etc.) are common as dirt in medieval England. But when we get the first songs about him we're talking, IIRC, 15th century. And the geste can probably be located relatively specifically in time and place.

And IIRC the most likely king to be "King Edward" isn't Longshanks but some of the less illustrious ones. It could even refer to Edward the Confessor, although that is *highly* unlikely. The entire Norman/Saxon thing is really a construction of 19th century victorians and doesen't really appear in the original geste.

No, there is indications of a real battle chief named Arthur (or a variation there of) in the late 5th/early 6th century.

Correct.

No mention of round tables, knights, sword in the stone, Morgain, etc until much later. I believe Geoffrey of Monmouth was the first with his History of the Kings of Britain (1136) which is more myth than historical. Chivalry was definately a Medieval invention 700 years later, and the Lancelot/Gweneviere/Arthur love triangle a French import about that time too (during the time when courtly love was fashionable).

Morgaine of course is from the Matter of France originally...

[BookWyrm]

:thumbsup:

I actually looked at this thread with the intent of reccomending this very book (Arthur Rex). IMO it the best contemporary telling of the tale. Very entertaining

Yay, I'm glad there's another fan of Berger's Arthur! :cheers:

[Werthead]

It looks like I need to add Cornwell's series to my read list as well.

It's quite interesting how after all this time there are still so many interpretations of the legend/real Arthur. This could end up feeling like my old History classes where I got to read several sources and came up with my own idea of the "truth".

I also found out that the BBC and showtime are doing a "contemporary" Camelot series. It's by Michael Hurst (Tudors). Based on Hurst's tv/film work, I'd hazard that the contemporary means the 6th century version, as opposed to a modern day telling but I have yet to find any more details. Strange that BBC is funding this and AGOT?

It could be worth a look. Timing wise both this and AGOT could be airing together, so I suspect they will be direct competition.

Not quite. Hirst will be starting work on the Camelot series only after The Tudors wraps up in mid-2010. Depending on how Showtime handle it, AGoT should beat it to the air by several months, unless Showtime rush it into production for airing in early 2011, where it could clash with AGoT (assuming AGoT goes to series and there aren't any delays).

It is odd that the BBC are putting money into this when they are already filming the second season of the more family-oriented Merlin to air later this year, but I suppose they might want to get on board with a new Showtime series, given that The Tudors has done okay business for them.

[williamjm]

It is odd that the BBC are putting money into this when they are already filming the second season of the more family-oriented Merlin to air later this year, but I suppose they might want to get on board with a new Showtime series, given that The Tudors has done okay business for them.

Since Merlin usually seems to barely have anything to do with the traditional legends other than the character names, maybe they feel they can do a more faithful adaptation of Arthurian Legend in addition to it.

[tzanth]

I loved the Mists of Avalon, although I have not read very many of the others recommended here.

[A Time for Wolves]

T. H. White and Mary Stewart both did brilliant jobs.

I didn't like Bernard Cornwell's The Winter King retelling, although others did. I found the characters very flat and 2-D, and the storytelling definitely lacking in other areas. Ditto for The Mists of Avalon, which I thought was ridiculously feminazi and man-hating...er, yeah. Not my favorite. :P It was a pity because some of the female characters started out very strong and compelling, but then completely did a 180. The Mists of Avalon must be credited with making Morgan le Fay my favorite Arthurian figure, however.

But seriously, read Mary Stewart's Merlin trilogy. Not only is her prose mouthwateringly lush and beautiful, but the story is excellent too, and it concentrates more on the Welsh influences of the legend than on the later French influences, which I found refreshing.