|
|
57 of 61 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Part delightful, part extraordinary, but not for everyone, 8 Feb 2003
You may have met the Sword in the Stone either as the Disney animation (which I confess I have never managed to sit through) or as a standalone book for children - which is how I first encountered it.The Sword in the Stone, it turns out, is just the first part of T H White's retelling of parts of the Arthur cycle. But it is very, very unlike the parts that follow, and it's probably worth considering them separately, even though they appear under one cover. The Sword in the Stone, then, is a rumbustiously delightful re-envisioning of Arthur's youth as a second class child in the home of Sir Ector and his son Kay. There are two things which make this book delightful. The first is the character writing, which is witty and insightful. This is something that runs through the entire sequence of books. The second is the rampant imaginative disregard for any kind of historicity. This book is a firework display of deliberate anachronisms. The famous set pieces, including the magician's duel, crop up frequently in comprehension pieces in schools. TH White has no compunction in putting Robin Hood in with the mix, even though five centuries or so separated the purported dates of Arthur and Robin. Before you imagine this to be a flaw, think again. The nature of the Arthurian cycle, whether in Chretien de Troyes, Geoffrey of Monmouth, the anonymous middle-english ballads, or Mallory's late sometimes tedious, sometimes brilliant retelling, is that they mix things from all over the place. Almost none of the adventures attributed to Arthur could have taken place in the time of the war-leader that the historian Nennius describes - even if they were possible anyway. So T H White has in many ways captured the excitement of storytelling which characterises the Arthur cycle far more accurately than any of the attempts to place Arthur in a historical context. So, instead of a tedious historicity, T H White lets rip and we have a book which sparkles on every page with detail and adventure. What then, about the books that follow? First, these are really for an older audience. They are much darker, and become steadily more dark as they progress. White's brilliance of imagination is still there, but it is subdued behind a deeper purpose. It is very hard to knit together the Arthur cycle into anything which seems like coherence. Roger Lancelyn Green achieves it in his 'King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table', but, in doing so he never achieves the psychological immediacy that White offers us. So, T H White offers us a portrait of the Arthurian cycle which is based in the psychology of the characters - and especially in the way in which Arthur's enemies used his trusting, open-hearted nature against him with increasing effectiveness as the story moves on. From my perspective, the only way to enjoy the entire sequence is to read the first book with an eye to understanding Arthur (Wart). From here, the books flow naturally onwards, opening up a dark, disturbing, but also satisfying and rewarding reworking of the cycle. A must for Arthurophiles, but people coming from the Disney film may well find the first book enjoyable and the rest of the sequence discouraging. Warmly recommended, nonetheless.
|