A highly readable translation of this classic.

Read this largely because I felt like I should know something about the age of chivalry and the King Arthur legends. There's so much art based on them, but I didn't really know the original story (to the extent that there is an original story, since it's all based on fragmented myths and legends). This is a 1960s retelling, based largely on Thomas Malory's work from the 15th century, but put into plainer language. It also cuts quite a bit of repetitive stuff, according to the intro, so it's probably a good primer on the Arthurian legends.

I liked it, though there were some boring, repetitive parts right around the middle -- basically knights riding around, meeting other knights, jousting, then the winner either chopping the loser's head off, or showing mercy. Same thing, over and over.

One thing I learned from the book is that chivalry isn't at all what I thought it was, apparently. For instance, the knights do fight to defend women, and certain knights have certain women they're devoted to (usually queens or titled women). But just as often it seemed that if a knight fought for a woman who was being wronged, she was expected to become his mistress, or even his property; sometimes the knights will "give" women they've fought for to another knight as a sign of favor to that second knight.

Also, for macho guys who live by the sword, the knights faint surprisingly often. For instance when they hear bad news or see someone they thought was dead, they'll faint. (Okay, and sometimes when they've been wounded and their entrails are falling out of their body.)

Another thing I didn't expect is that the knights are kind of coy. They're constantly entering tournaments incognito, or just traveling around in disguise and fighting other knights, saying things like "I cannot reveal my identity, but it will be proved that I am of noble birth." I guess they're doing it to prove themselves without rank or family connections entering into it, but a lot of the time it seems like they're just doing it to get people asking "Who is that mysterious knight!?"

Overall I liked the book. If anyone has good recommendations for books that explain chivalry and the whole code of conduct, let me know. I'm curious.

Crazy long piece of work. Definitely appreciate it, but not my cup of tea. It was interesting learning about Arthur and seeing Malory's take on the story. I'm sure if you're a medieval fanatic you'll love it.

I enjoyed most of this greatly, at least more than I initially thought I would. There is a lot of drama and sometimes humorous scenes (for example, the random chapter where Sir Launcelot gets shot in the buttocks with an arrow) interspersed with vast amounts of sword fighting, jousting, and tournaments. I found the fights to be less engaging, as they were incredibly repetitive and seemed like an archaic form of filler.

Most likely, this is a book that would benefit from a lot of background reading to supplement it, and although admittedly I am currently not as knowledgeable on the form of medieval literature as I would like to be, I still had fun reading about the adventures of the knights of the Round Table. The edition I read, edited by John Matthews, had a large preface / introduction, which provided a lot of interesting information on a few different contextual facts, including the argument over the true identity of the author, Thomas Malory. This is intriguing especially as the most suspected person for authorship was a repeated criminal, responsible for severe crimes such as rape and kidnapping, despite the messages of Christian purity and chivalry that are promoted within Le Morte D'Arthur.

Although dense, this is a wonderful place to be introduced to many characters of Arthurian literature, and allows the reader (if they so desire) to delve further into individual stories written by other authors.

Le Morte d’Arthur
By Sir Thomas Malory
modern idiom by Keith Baines
Publisher: Bramhall House
Published In: New York City, NY, USA
Date: 1962
Pgs: 512

Summary:
A modern idiom version of the stories of Arthur gathered and written in prose by Sir Thomas Mallory. From Arthur’s birth, through his ascension to the throne, to his betrayal by his wife and his friend, the rise of his opponents, and onward to his fall. The rise and fall of the once and future king. The foundation of the Round Table and the breaking of such.

Genre:
fiction, myth, the classics, knights and ladies, chivalry

Why this book:
It is a 1960s book in great shape. It is a version of King Arthur, how could I resist.

This Story is About:
The ideal of chivalry in a mythical content that wishful thinking cannot make exist.

Favorite Character:
King Arthur, son of rape, favored of the mystical, opponent and lover of his aunt/sister, once and future king, lord of the Britons. The putting the sons of noble birth who were born near a certain day into a small boat and setting them adrift in an attempt to derail Merlin’s prophecy is very Biblical/Pharaoh of him though it stands in opposition to the heroic ideal and chivalry as it was supposed to be.

Least Favorite Character:
Lancelot

Character I Most Identified With:
Lancelot. He is swept into the situation by his passions. I know his pain. Things get said. Things get done. And guilt mixed with love is a horrible thing to have to deal with in the fullness of time.

The Feel:
There’s a stiffness to this version that I’m not comfortable with.

Favorite Scene:
The sword from the stone.

Settings:
Middle Age England, France, and Italy

Pacing:
The pacing is rough, probably due to the idiom.

Plot Holes/Out of Character:
I’m not a fan of the repetition where in one story the “adventure” is credited to one knight. And, then, in the next, a very similar story is told and credited to another.

Last Page Sound:
Meh. I expected this to become my favorite. It’s a great story...set of stories, if you like Knights and such. The adventure doesn’t come through enough in this version. Maybe the blame for my disappointment is tied up in the translation into modern idiom. I like Arthur and the Knights to sound as if they are Shakespearean or Asgardian.

Author Assessment:
I’m a fan of Arthur in all his shapes and forms through the Ages. Not so much, his being a claimant to the throne of the Holy Roman Empire, but by and large, I love the mythos surrounding him and his. This version is a bit heavy on the “this many knights and soldiers went to war and were slew in their multitudes” comes across almost like the “begats” in The Bible.

Editorial Assessment:
The modern idiomatic version does rob the text of something. My favorite versions have been the movie Excalibur(1981) and Pendragon by Catherine Christian(1979).

Disposition of Book:
I’ll probably keep this, but I’m almost certainly not going to re-read it. The idiomatic version is problematic to me.

Why isn’t there a screenplay?
There are many.

Casting call:
The Arthur mythos was perfectly cast in the movie Excalibur, my favorite version. And alternatively, Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Would recommend to:
fans of the classics, those fascinated by chivalry

I read this for my Arthurian Legends class in college (hi Kim!). The stories told in it are beautiful, and I plan to read it again sometime so I can remember them better than I do now!

Too many names, too much blood and gore, too exaggerated for my taste.