Started: June 4, 2021
Finished: June 26, 2021
Summary
Published in 1903, this is yet another retelling of the King Arthur legend by famous illustrator and children’s author Howard Pyle.
This is the first book of a series, and only covers the beginnings of the King Arthur legend. It’s written in a faux-old English type prose that may be difficult for children nowadays.
Pyle’s version leans heavily on the fairy tale aspects of the story: valleys, castles, and magical lakes all hidden in enchanted forests. It can be a lot of fun to just imagine the landscapes.
The actual plots and resolutions, however, are very repetitive. Everything always ends with two knights jousting against each other, and one being thrown from his horse.
The characters are also bland and the various knights of the round table are all interchangeable.
I was a bit bored with this book at times, but I found it readable enough. (146 words)
[That's me attempting to be concise. If you want my usual long-winded version, continue on to The Full Review]
[That's me attempting to be concise. If you want my usual long-winded version, continue on to The Full Review]
Why I Read This Book
I discovered Howard Pyle recently upon stumbling across The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood in my school's library (*1)
As I wrote in that review:
Based on his Wikipedia page, Howard Pyle seems like an interesting guy who did a lot of fantasy and adventure books. I'd be interested in reading more of him.Well, our school had one more book by Howard Pyle: The Story of King Arthur and his Knights.
I did, however, briefly debate with myself whether or not I wanted to start this book at this precise moment in time. You see, I currently - have - several - half - read - books - sitting - on my shelf right now, and my reading goal for this year is to finally get around to finishing the books I've already started, and not starting more books. In fact the only reason I read The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood (as I mentioned in the review) was because I had a couple hour reading block at work and I had forgotten my usual books. But The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood was supposed to be just a quick read before getting back to the other books. It was not supposed to be the start of a whole new reading project.
On the other hand, I know from experience that it's very dangerous for me to say "I'll get around to that book later, someday, when I have more time." At my reading pace, it could be easily ten years before I come back to that book again. (See, for example HERE and HERE). If I was interested in Howard Pyle now, it was better to just grab the next book and start it now. Otherwise who knows when I would come back to Howard Pyle?
And besides, it's just one more book, right?
Well... as it turns out (and I realized this after I had already started) this book is part of a whole series Howard Pyle did on King Arthur. The story is continued in The Story of the Champions of the Round Table (W), The Story of Sir Launcelot and His Companions (W), The Story of the Grail and the Passing of King Arthur (W).
Ah, crap! Have I just committed myself to another series?
Well, at any rate, here is my review of the first book: The Story of King Arthur and His Knights.
Repeating Myself from the Previous Review
I'm going to be repeating myself a lot from my previous review of The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood by Howard Pyle. Because a lot of the things I noticed in The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood (hereafter "Robin Hood" for short) are also evident in this book as well. For example:
On the other hand, I know from experience that it's very dangerous for me to say "I'll get around to that book later, someday, when I have more time." At my reading pace, it could be easily ten years before I come back to that book again. (See, for example HERE and HERE). If I was interested in Howard Pyle now, it was better to just grab the next book and start it now. Otherwise who knows when I would come back to Howard Pyle?
And besides, it's just one more book, right?
Well... as it turns out (and I realized this after I had already started) this book is part of a whole series Howard Pyle did on King Arthur. The story is continued in The Story of the Champions of the Round Table (W), The Story of Sir Launcelot and His Companions (W), The Story of the Grail and the Passing of King Arthur (W).
Ah, crap! Have I just committed myself to another series?
Well, at any rate, here is my review of the first book: The Story of King Arthur and His Knights.
Repeating Myself from the Previous Review
I'm going to be repeating myself a lot from my previous review of The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood by Howard Pyle. Because a lot of the things I noticed in The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood (hereafter "Robin Hood" for short) are also evident in this book as well. For example:
* Howard Pyle's Robin Hood was written in the 19th Century, but was written in a type of faux-Shakespearian English. The same is true of Howard Pyle's King Arthur. In both books, this faux-Shakespearian English is mostly limited to the dialogue, but occasionally spills over into the narration.
* And, as with Howard Pyle's Robin Hood, this was originally published as a children's book back in its day (1903), but the prose has now aged to the point where this would be challenging for a child nowadays. So much so that the same publisher (Sterling's books) now also publishes an adapted version written in simpler English intended for children in grades 3 to 6
* Both books feel very episodic. And both books are very repetitive (the same basic structure and conflict playing out across multiple different stories). And in both cases, I suspect this is because of the influence of the source material.
* Both books deal with old English heroes, but both books have less of an epic feel to them, and more of a folktale or fairy tale feeling to them. Again, I suspect this is because of the source material.
* In Howard Pyle's Robin Hood, I mention the odd tendency of Robin Hood and his Merry Men to pick pointless fights with every stranger that they meet. (Are these supposed to be our heroes? Or are these just a bunch of violent thugs?) And man, this is even more true of Howard Pyle's version of King Arthur and his knights. The knights seem to be under some weird compulsion to challenge everyone they meet to a fight.
* In Robin Hood, I mentioned that romanticism of nature was one of the big themes of the book, and the book was constantly describing how beautiful the English countryside and forests were. And again, this is true of King Arthur. (And both books make such a big deal out of the sound of birds singing in the morning.)
So, in many respects, it was a very similar book.
I guess maybe there's an argument to be made for waiting a bit before continuing with the same author!
* And, as with Howard Pyle's Robin Hood, this was originally published as a children's book back in its day (1903), but the prose has now aged to the point where this would be challenging for a child nowadays. So much so that the same publisher (Sterling's books) now also publishes an adapted version written in simpler English intended for children in grades 3 to 6
 |
| (Not the version I read) |
* Both books feel very episodic. And both books are very repetitive (the same basic structure and conflict playing out across multiple different stories). And in both cases, I suspect this is because of the influence of the source material.
* Both books deal with old English heroes, but both books have less of an epic feel to them, and more of a folktale or fairy tale feeling to them. Again, I suspect this is because of the source material.
* In Howard Pyle's Robin Hood, I mention the odd tendency of Robin Hood and his Merry Men to pick pointless fights with every stranger that they meet. (Are these supposed to be our heroes? Or are these just a bunch of violent thugs?) And man, this is even more true of Howard Pyle's version of King Arthur and his knights. The knights seem to be under some weird compulsion to challenge everyone they meet to a fight.
* In Robin Hood, I mentioned that romanticism of nature was one of the big themes of the book, and the book was constantly describing how beautiful the English countryside and forests were. And again, this is true of King Arthur. (And both books make such a big deal out of the sound of birds singing in the morning.)
So, in many respects, it was a very similar book.
I guess maybe there's an argument to be made for waiting a bit before continuing with the same author!
[There's one more aspect in which these books are similar, although it's unique to my edition. In my review of Howard Pyle's Robin Hood, I complained that the edition I read (the edition published by Sterling Children's Books in 2006) did not have Howard Pyle's original illustrations, and instead hired some other guy to make some scratchboard illustrations, despite the fact that Howard Pyle was a famous illustrator. Well, the version of King Arthur that our school had (the version pictured at the top of this post) is also the Sterling Children's Book edition. And, once again, they've gone with some new illustrations instead of Howard Pyle's original. So I'm going to complain about that again. (*2)]
Authenticity of this Book (and My Background with the Legend)
So, as I've written before, I don't have a ton of background with the King Arthur legend. Most of my knowledge comes from The Once and Future King by T.H. White which I read and reviewed on this blog back in 2014.
Authenticity of this Book (and My Background with the Legend)
So, as I've written before, I don't have a ton of background with the King Arthur legend. Most of my knowledge comes from The Once and Future King by T.H. White which I read and reviewed on this blog back in 2014.
And, once I realized that The Once and Future King was an extended riff on Le Morte d'Arthur by Thomas Mallory, I got intrigued and dipped my toes into Mallory a little bit. And by dipping my toes, I mean I read the Wikipedia summary of Le Morte d'Arthur. I also got my hands on a physical copy, and would occasionally flip through it, and compare some of the pivotal scenes from The Once and Future King to Le Morte d'Arthur. I made a half-hearted attempt to actually read Le Morte d'Arthur cover-to-cover, but soon gave up. (I listed it as one of my abandoned books - in 2014).
But all of that was way back in 2014, and (I hate to say it) it's now a bit foggy in my memory. I remember parts of it really well, but other parts of it not so much. (In my defense, they were both huge books, so there is a lot to remember over the years).
Some of what was in Howard Pyle's The Story of King Arthur and his Knights I recognized from Le Morte d'Arthur or The Once and Future King. But a lot of it I didn't recognize.
But of course Le Morte d'Arthur is only one of many sources for the Arthurian Legend.
On Howard Pyle's The Story of King Arthur and his Knights, Wikipedia says:
But all of that was way back in 2014, and (I hate to say it) it's now a bit foggy in my memory. I remember parts of it really well, but other parts of it not so much. (In my defense, they were both huge books, so there is a lot to remember over the years).
Some of what was in Howard Pyle's The Story of King Arthur and his Knights I recognized from Le Morte d'Arthur or The Once and Future King. But a lot of it I didn't recognize.
But of course Le Morte d'Arthur is only one of many sources for the Arthurian Legend.
On Howard Pyle's The Story of King Arthur and his Knights, Wikipedia says:
Pyle's rendition is an American adaption of traditionally English stories of the Arthurian legends. Although with some unique embellishments, it draws heavily on previous authors' stories, such as the then-recent The Boy's King Arthur (1880) by fellow American Sidney Lanier; Tennyson's Idylls of the King (1859–1885); James Thomas Knowles's The Legends of King Arthur and His Knights (1860); and ultimately Mallory's Le Morte d'Arthur (1485), the primary source material for all of the above.
But then it also later says:
Rather than simply retell the stories authored by Sidney Lanier, Alfred Lord Tennyson, and Sir Thomas Malory, Pyle created new versions of the Arthurian tales, including different adventures, and implementing his own imagination to embellish the plots.
When I first started this book, I was checking Wikipedia a lot to see what in Howard Pyle's book lined up with what I could find out about the older sources. Wikipedia's entry on any figure from the King Arthur legend is a bit confusing, because there are so many different versions. But as far as I could tell, some of Howard Pyle's version was lining up well with the older sources.
Other parts, however, I struggled to find. Like the whole story about how King Arthur was disguised as a garden boy in Guinevere's garden, which takes up a substantial part of Howard Pyle's narrative, I can't find the source for. It doesn't seem to come from Malory. I can't find it on Wikipedia. (I'm not necessarily saying it doesn't exist, but I can't find it.)
Other parts, however, I struggled to find. Like the whole story about how King Arthur was disguised as a garden boy in Guinevere's garden, which takes up a substantial part of Howard Pyle's narrative, I can't find the source for. It doesn't seem to come from Malory. I can't find it on Wikipedia. (I'm not necessarily saying it doesn't exist, but I can't find it.)
But all this research quickly became tiring, so I stopped doing it. I am not, after all, a source critic. I'm just going to try to review this book as a whole, and I'm not going to overly concern myself with what Howard Pyle's sources were. (Besides, now that this book is 120 years old, and is considered a classic, I suppose it itself is now itself part of the canon of King Arthur stories. So whatever stories are in this book are now part of the legend now by default.)
So then, let's get into the review.
The Review
Overall I enjoyed this book. I found it readable enough. Some of the stories were mildly interesting.
So then, let's get into the review.
The Review
Overall I enjoyed this book. I found it readable enough. Some of the stories were mildly interesting.
But, I also did a bit bored at times.
I've been thinking it over, and I think perhaps I'm not a huge fan of these King Arthur Chivalric Romance stories. I don't hate them necessarily, but they don't really grab me in, either. Stories of bland knights going on simple quests could entertain me, but never really fascinate me.
In fact as I wrote in my review, I got a little bit bored with some parts of The Once and Future King by T.H. White. But there were other parts of The Once and Future King which fascinated me. Namely, all the drama that took place within the inner-circle of King Arthur and his knights--all the incest, adultery, plotting, betrayal, and fighting amongst the Knights of the Round Table.
In fact as I wrote in my review, I got a little bit bored with some parts of The Once and Future King by T.H. White. But there were other parts of The Once and Future King which fascinated me. Namely, all the drama that took place within the inner-circle of King Arthur and his knights--all the incest, adultery, plotting, betrayal, and fighting amongst the Knights of the Round Table.
(This was, by the way, the main reason why I started dipping my toes into Le Morte d'Arthur at the time. I kept thinking, "Is this really part of the King Arthur Legend, or is T.H. White making this part up?" And every time I went back to check, it turned out it was really part of the original Le Morte d'Arthur.)
But, Howard Pyle's The Story of King Arthur and His Knights contains none of this drama. Partly, one suspects, because this is the first part of the King Arthur story, and all the betrayal and fighting among the Knights of the Round Table doesn't happen until the end of the story. And partly, I'm guessing, because Howard Pyle is trying to sanitize the story for his young readers. (The story of how Arthur is conceived by a deceitful adulterous liaison is left out of Howard Pyle's version. (*3) Nor is the incestuous conception of Mordred included. (*4))
So let's talk about what is included instead.
This book is divided into two parts: The Book of King Arthur, and The Book of Three Worthies. (Don't be confused by the name--both "books" are part of the same book, of course.)
Each so-called book is itself divided into 3 parts.
The Book of King Arthur starts out with Part I: The Winning of Kinghood, which is yet another retelling of The Sword in the Stone story. This is a story I was already familiar with from The Once and Future King. (And of course, from the Disney version). Howard Pyle spends 40 pages on The Sword and the Stone story, which I thought got a little bit tiresome (I mean, we all know where this story is going), but for the most part readable.
Now, in Le Morte d'Arthur, following The Sword in the Stone, there are a series of battles to describe how King Arthur won his kingdom. But these are skipped over in Howard Pyle's version. (They are summarized in just one paragraph.) Instead, in the next part, Part II: The Winning of a Sword, we follow Arthur on various quests he goes on, and the awarding of Excalibur.
Then Part III: The Winning of a Queen, which is a story about King Arthur being so in love with Princess Guinevere that he disguises himself as a gardener boy in her garden. As I mentioned above, I can't find the source for this story anywhere, but it could well be I'm overlooking something. (I found this section a bit boring, and it went on for far too long. Guinevere should have realized what was happening long before she did.)
Then comes The Book of Three Worthies. Part I is The Story of Merlin (*5), Part II is The Story of Sir Pellias and Part III is The Story of Sir Gawaine. The story of King Arthur is woven throughout the stories of Merlin, Pellias, and Gawaine.
I enjoyed the second half of the book more than the first, partly because the conflicts were a bit more interesting, and the stories were a bit less predictable, but the second half of the book also had many of the same faults as the first half.
So let's talk about what is included instead.
This book is divided into two parts: The Book of King Arthur, and The Book of Three Worthies. (Don't be confused by the name--both "books" are part of the same book, of course.)
Each so-called book is itself divided into 3 parts.
The Book of King Arthur starts out with Part I: The Winning of Kinghood, which is yet another retelling of The Sword in the Stone story. This is a story I was already familiar with from The Once and Future King. (And of course, from the Disney version). Howard Pyle spends 40 pages on The Sword and the Stone story, which I thought got a little bit tiresome (I mean, we all know where this story is going), but for the most part readable.
Now, in Le Morte d'Arthur, following The Sword in the Stone, there are a series of battles to describe how King Arthur won his kingdom. But these are skipped over in Howard Pyle's version. (They are summarized in just one paragraph.) Instead, in the next part, Part II: The Winning of a Sword, we follow Arthur on various quests he goes on, and the awarding of Excalibur.
Then Part III: The Winning of a Queen, which is a story about King Arthur being so in love with Princess Guinevere that he disguises himself as a gardener boy in her garden. As I mentioned above, I can't find the source for this story anywhere, but it could well be I'm overlooking something. (I found this section a bit boring, and it went on for far too long. Guinevere should have realized what was happening long before she did.)
Then comes The Book of Three Worthies. Part I is The Story of Merlin (*5), Part II is The Story of Sir Pellias and Part III is The Story of Sir Gawaine. The story of King Arthur is woven throughout the stories of Merlin, Pellias, and Gawaine.
I enjoyed the second half of the book more than the first, partly because the conflicts were a bit more interesting, and the stories were a bit less predictable, but the second half of the book also had many of the same faults as the first half.
But let's start with the positives first.
Howard Pyle is leaning hard into the fantasy/fairytale atmosphere of these stories. He spends a lot of time describing these dreamlike landscapes with flowers everywhere and beautiful lakes.
Now about the middle of the afternoon King Arthur and Merlin came, of a sudden, out from the forest and upon a fair and level plain, bedight all over with such a number of flowers that no man could conceive of their quantity nor of the beauty thereof.Although Howard Pyle was a famous illustrator back in his day, I got the impression that if he had been alive today in the age of computer illustration, he would totally have been into those fantasy landscape illustrations that you see all over the Internet nowadays.
And this was a very wonderful land, for, lo! all the air appeared as it here and there upon that plain were sundry trees all in blossom; and the fragrance of the blossoms was so sweet that the King had never smelt any fragrance like to it. And in the branches of those trees were a multitude of birds of many colors, and the melody of their singing ravished the heart of the hearer. And midway in the plain was a lake of water as bright as silver, and all around the borders of the lake were incredible numbers of lilies and of daffodils. Yet, although this place was so exceedingly fair, there was, nevertheless, nowhere about it a single sign of human life of any sort, but it appeared altogether as lonely as the hollow sky upon a day of summer. So, because of all the marvellous beauty of this place, and because of its strangeness and its entire solitude, King Arthur perceived that he must have come into a land of powerful enchantment where, happily, dwelt a fairy of very exalted quality; wherefore his spirit was enwrapped in a manner of fear, as he pushed his great milk-white war-horse through that long fair grass, all bedight with flowers, and he wist not what strange things were about to befall him. (p.68)
 |
| You know, like this one for example. https://p0.pikist.com/photos/41/685/fantasy-forest-moss-lake-meadow-flowers-sunlight-mystical-lighting.jpg |
...At the very least, this seems to be the kind of thing that's he's trying hard to evoke in your mind's eye. And so I was doing my best to picture these type of beautiful idyllic fairytale type landscapes as I read the book.
The geography of this book makes no rational sense if you try to apply real world logic. Not once, but several times, King Arthur or his Knights will stumble upon a castle hidden away in the forest somewhere. How is it that King Arthur is completely unaware of all these castles within his own kingdom? What is a castle doing in the middle of the forest? How does a castle even get built in the middle of the forest? (How do the stones get carried into the middle of the forest with no roads?) Et cetera. (*6)
But of course, the whole book is fairy tale logic. You're not supposed to think rationally about these things. You're just supposed to go back to the mindset of when you were a child walking through the woods, and you thought it was possible that anything at all could be around the next corner. And indeed, this is very much the type of story where anything at all could be around the next corner once you enter into the forest. And again, that's all part of the fun of a book like this, if you can let yourself go with it.
The geography of this book makes no rational sense if you try to apply real world logic. Not once, but several times, King Arthur or his Knights will stumble upon a castle hidden away in the forest somewhere. How is it that King Arthur is completely unaware of all these castles within his own kingdom? What is a castle doing in the middle of the forest? How does a castle even get built in the middle of the forest? (How do the stones get carried into the middle of the forest with no roads?) Et cetera. (*6)
But of course, the whole book is fairy tale logic. You're not supposed to think rationally about these things. You're just supposed to go back to the mindset of when you were a child walking through the woods, and you thought it was possible that anything at all could be around the next corner. And indeed, this is very much the type of story where anything at all could be around the next corner once you enter into the forest. And again, that's all part of the fun of a book like this, if you can let yourself go with it.
The book definitely has a fairy tale vibe going on it. I was particularly reminded of Grimm Brothers' tales like The Story of the Youth Who Went Forth to Learn about Fear or The King of the Golden Mountain--stories where characters encounter strange magical castles, and then have to overcome the obstacles within them.
Unfortunately, in Howard Pyle's book, the obstacle is always another knight, and overcoming them always ends up being a jousting competition.
Unfortunately, in Howard Pyle's book, the obstacle is always another knight, and overcoming them always ends up being a jousting competition.
And here we come to the main negative of this book --it's so repetitive. Every story revolves around two knights having to fight each other. And the fight scenes always have the same structure. The two knights will run at each other on horseback and aim their spears. One knight's spear will break on the other knight's shield. The other spear will not break, and will throw the losing knight off of his horse.
A typical example below:
A typical example below:
So each knight saluted the other, and thereupon each took such a stand as should cast the encounter immediately beneath where those three fair demoiselles looked down from the balcony. Then each knight dressed his spear and his shield, and, having made ready for the encounter, each sat for a small space entirely prepared. Then each shouted to his war-horse, and drave spur into its flank, and launched forth with wonderful speed to the assault. So they met in the very midst of the course with a force so vehement that the noise thereof was wonderfully appalling for to hear. And each knight smote the other in the very centre of his defences. And, lo! the spear of Sir Geraint burst into small pieces, even to the truncheon thereof; but the spear of King Arthur held, and Sir Geraint was cast so violently backward that both he and his horse were overthrown into the dust with a tumult like to a monstrous roaring of thunder. (p.104)I wish I had kept a running tally of how often this same scene plays out in the book, because it repeats itself over and over and over again. And all this repetition becomes very boring very quickly.
It also struck me as a bit strange. The characters within the story (King Arthur and his knights) firmly believe that this kind of contest is the only way to determine who is the better knight. And yet, as it's portrayed in the narration, it seems to be just pure luck whose spear will break and whose spear will hold. I don't know, maybe there's some sort of a technique into how you aim your spear in order to keep it from breaking? But if there is, it's not portrayed at all in the book.
So why does this kind of contest always determine who is the better knight? I don't know, but it does. (*7)
But the jousting is not the only repetitive element. Many story elements are repeated again and again.
For example as a prelude to the battle against the Sable Knight, King Arthur a shield on the ground, and the shield is inscribed with the words "Whoso Smiteth This Shield Doeth So at His Peril" (p.55). King Arthur, never one to back down from a challenge, immediately smites the shield with a loud blow. Then the Sable Knight comes out and they fight.
But then, the exact same set-up is used for when King Arthur fights Sir Pellias. That is, King Arthur finds a shield on a tree, with the words "Whoso Smiteth upon this shield Doeth so at the peril of his body" (p.108). So King Arthur again smites the shield, and then he and Sir Pellias fight.
And speaking of Sable Knights, later on in the story, another Sable Knight appears. ("Sable", according to the dictionary, means a coat of arms that is black.)
The Knights of the Round Table have separate adventures, but they all sound the same and talk the same and are pretty much indistinguishable from each other as characters.
To summarize:
The set-ups to the various adventurers can start out interesting, but the characters are all the same, and the conflict and resolution is always the same.
The Knights of the Round Table have separate adventures, but they all sound the same and talk the same and are pretty much indistinguishable from each other as characters.
To summarize:
The set-ups to the various adventurers can start out interesting, but the characters are all the same, and the conflict and resolution is always the same.
Howard Pyle and the Morality of This Book
So, Howard Pyle really loved writing this book. And he really wants you to know how much he loved writing it.
From the Foreword:
Well, for whatever reason, Howard Pyle really loved immersing himself in the fantasy of Knights and Castles and Fairies. And I don't blame him for that.
What does irk me, however, is his consistent attempt to draw morals out of these stories. In addition to constantly telling the reader how much he loves the stories, Howard Pyle is also telling his young audience what a great role model for virtue these stories are.
From the Foreword:
But then the stories that follow cannot possibly bear the burden of being exemplars of virtue. King Arthur and his Knights are vain, preening, quarrelsome, constantly insecure about their honor, sore losers, violent, vindictive, petty, reckless, et cetera.
So, Howard Pyle really loved writing this book. And he really wants you to know how much he loved writing it.
From the Foreword:
...it has at last come about, by the Grace of God, that I have been able to write this work with such pleasure of spirit that, if it gives to you but a part of the joy that it hath afforded me, I shall be very well content with what I have done (p.1)And from the introduction to Part II:
For it hath given me such pleasure to write these things that my heart would, at times, be diluted as with a pure joy... (p.42)And from the conclusion to Part III:
So endeth this Book of King Arthur which hath been told by me with such joyousness of spirit that I find it to be a very great pleasure... (p.145)Sheesh! Okay, okay, I get it. Calm down.
Well, for whatever reason, Howard Pyle really loved immersing himself in the fantasy of Knights and Castles and Fairies. And I don't blame him for that.
What does irk me, however, is his consistent attempt to draw morals out of these stories. In addition to constantly telling the reader how much he loves the stories, Howard Pyle is also telling his young audience what a great role model for virtue these stories are.
From the Foreword:
...and this note is repeated throughout the book.For when, in pursuing this history, I have come to consider the high nobility of spirit that moved these excellent men to act as they did, I have felt that they have afforded such a perfect example of courage and humility that anyone might do exceedingly well to follow after their manner of behavior in such measure as he is able to do.For I believe that King Arthur was the most honorable, gentle Knight who ever lived in all the world. And those who were his fellows of the Round Table—taking him as their looking-glass of chivalry—made, altogether, such a company of noble knights that it is hardly to be supposed that their like will ever be seen again in this world. Wherefore it is that I have had such extraordinary pleasure in beholding how those famous knights behaved whenever circumstances called upon them to perform their endeavor. (p.1)
But then the stories that follow cannot possibly bear the burden of being exemplars of virtue. King Arthur and his Knights are vain, preening, quarrelsome, constantly insecure about their honor, sore losers, violent, vindictive, petty, reckless, et cetera.
I don't fault this necessarily as storytelling. If these knights didn't have such fragile egos, they wouldn't be constantly getting into fights with every other they encountered. And if they weren't constantly fighting every other knight, then there would be no story. (As mentioned above, when it comes to conflict and resolution, this book is a one-trick pony.)
So as storytelling its fine. But then why try to get morality out of these stories? (*8)
Comparisons with Don Quixote
So as storytelling its fine. But then why try to get morality out of these stories? (*8)
Comparisons with Don Quixote
It may have been a mistake to read this book so soon after completing Don Quixote. Just about everything that Cervantes mocks about the Chivalric Romances is in this book, and I was constantly getting pulled out of the story by remembering Don Quixote's take on the tropes in this book.
For example: the idea that if you wanted to find adventure, all you had to do was let your horse wander in any direction. (This idea was mocked in Don Quixote, but it is taken seriously in Howard Pyle's book.) Or the idea that you should constantly be looking to fight with other people to protect the honor of your lady. Or the idea that if you defeated someone in combat, or saved someone from peril, then you needed to tell them to make a pilgrimage back to your lady. Or the idea of magic healing balms. Or the idea of keeping watch over your armor overnight in a chapel as an entrance to knighthood. Or the idea of beautiful young maidens being transformed into ugly old woman. Et cetera.
Basically, the whole time I was reading through this book, I kept thinking to myself, "I remember how Don Quixote made fun of this same idea."
Of course, Howard Pyle (writing in 1903), was well after the publication of Don Quixote. But he was still drawing on the same sources that Cervantes had parodied.
At the same time, however, reading this book has made me think I was too generous to Cervantes. In my review of Don Quixote, I said:
For example: the idea that if you wanted to find adventure, all you had to do was let your horse wander in any direction. (This idea was mocked in Don Quixote, but it is taken seriously in Howard Pyle's book.) Or the idea that you should constantly be looking to fight with other people to protect the honor of your lady. Or the idea that if you defeated someone in combat, or saved someone from peril, then you needed to tell them to make a pilgrimage back to your lady. Or the idea of magic healing balms. Or the idea of keeping watch over your armor overnight in a chapel as an entrance to knighthood. Or the idea of beautiful young maidens being transformed into ugly old woman. Et cetera.
Basically, the whole time I was reading through this book, I kept thinking to myself, "I remember how Don Quixote made fun of this same idea."
Of course, Howard Pyle (writing in 1903), was well after the publication of Don Quixote. But he was still drawing on the same sources that Cervantes had parodied.
At the same time, however, reading this book has made me think I was too generous to Cervantes. In my review of Don Quixote, I said:
Even though I'm not well-read in the chivalric romances myself, it's always fun to see a sharp critic rip something to shreds. Just as it was good fun to read Mark Twain's satire on King Arthur, it's just as fun to read Cervantes' satire of the genre.
...but it now strikes me that making fun of this stuff is really low-hanging fruit. I mean, of course nothing in these Chivalric Romances makes any sense. It's not supposed to make sense. It's operating by fairy tale logic. Why even bother trying to satirize it? (*9)
Speaking of Mark Twain, his satire on this genre, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court, also is applicable here.
I'm particularly reminded of Mark Twain's criticism of the dialogue in Arthurian Romances:
This is not good form. Sir Marhaus the king’s son of Ireland talks like all the rest; you ought to give him a brogue, or at least a characteristic expletive; by this means one would recognize him as soon as he spoke, without his ever being named. It is a common literary device with the great authors. You should make him say, ‘In this country, be jabers, came never knight since it was christened, but he found strange adventures, be jabers.’ You see how much better that sounds? (A scene from A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, when the Yankee is complaining about the storytelling techniques of King Arthur's court.)
Ah, yes! The "all the characters talk the same" syndrome (including Sir Marhaus) is definitely noticeable in Howard Pyle's book as well. (For an author who did manage to avoid this problem, see T.H. White.)
Continuing On To the Other Books
So, to return to the question I started this review with:
There are three more books in Howard Pyle's King Arthur series: The Story of the Champions of the Round Table (W), The Story of Sir Launcelot and His Companions (W), The Story of the Grail and the Passing of King Arthur (W).
Will I continue on with them?
Not now, I've decided. As you can see from my review, I wasn't overly enamored with this book. But that wasn't the deciding factor. It was readable enough. If I had easy access to the other books, I would continue. But the other books aren't in my school's library. And tracking down books in Vietnam is always an issue.
(They are all in the public domain, and thus all on Project Gutenberg. But I don't like reading books off of a computer screen. In the past I've gotten books printed up at the print shop here in Vietnam, but at the moment we're in another Covid lockdown. Plus, even if we weren't, it seems like too much trouble at the moment.)
So, possibly if I ever encounter those books in the future, I might read them. But for the moment I'm going to call it quits with this series.
Footnotes (docs, pub)
(*1) On My Claim to Having Discovered Howard Pyle Only Recently: It is true, as I wrote in my review, that I did once check Howard Pyle's The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood out of the library way back when I was in second grade. But the name Howard Pyle had not stuck in my memory through the years--I only remembered that there was some old Robin Hood book in our school library that I had once attempted, and I had forgotten the name of the author. It wasn't until doing some Internet research while reading the book that I confirmed that the Howard Pyle version was the same Robin Hood book I had once checked out all those years ago.
(*2) Complaining about how Howard Pyle's original illustrations are not in the Sterling Children's Books edition: It's particularly unfortunate, because according to Wikipedia, these original illustrations were a big part of the reception of the book:
Why the original artwork wasn't used in the Sterling edition, I have no idea. But I'm guessing it must have been too much money to print these elaborate pictures?
It appears, however, that there are editions of this book out there which do feature the original artwork:
(*1) On My Claim to Having Discovered Howard Pyle Only Recently: It is true, as I wrote in my review, that I did once check Howard Pyle's The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood out of the library way back when I was in second grade. But the name Howard Pyle had not stuck in my memory through the years--I only remembered that there was some old Robin Hood book in our school library that I had once attempted, and I had forgotten the name of the author. It wasn't until doing some Internet research while reading the book that I confirmed that the Howard Pyle version was the same Robin Hood book I had once checked out all those years ago.
(*2) Complaining about how Howard Pyle's original illustrations are not in the Sterling Children's Books edition: It's particularly unfortunate, because according to Wikipedia, these original illustrations were a big part of the reception of the book:
Pyle's writing of the Arthurian stories "[used] text and illustrations to complement one another ... in the presentation of natural description".[3] Helmut Nickel, in his essay "Arms and Armor in Arthurian Films", called Pyle's illustrations "glorious", and worthy of use for inspiration for any Arthurian film.[4]
Fortunately, though, as with Robin Hood, all of Howard Pyle's original illustrations are in the public domain, and viewable on the Internet. So at least I can see what I was missing out on.
It appears, however, that there are editions of this book out there which do feature the original artwork:
(*3) On King Arthur's Conception: Although according to Wikipedia, there are numerous different accounts of how King Arthur was conceived. So by going with a less salacious version, Howard Pyle is not necessarily wrong. Just less interesting.
(*4) On Mordred's Conception: Of course, Mordred as a major plot piece in the King Arthur story won't occur until the end. But his conception should be set up early on. Also, again as with Arthur's conception, there are numerous versions. (With everything that happens in the King Arthur story, there are numerous versions, so it's seldom possible for me to say Howard Pyle got anything wrong--at least not without doing a lot more research. But you can say he went with less interesting versions.)
(*4) On Mordred's Conception: Of course, Mordred as a major plot piece in the King Arthur story won't occur until the end. But his conception should be set up early on. Also, again as with Arthur's conception, there are numerous versions. (With everything that happens in the King Arthur story, there are numerous versions, so it's seldom possible for me to say Howard Pyle got anything wrong--at least not without doing a lot more research. But you can say he went with less interesting versions.)
(*5) The Story of Merlin: This describes how Merlin was betrayed by his apprentice Vivien. The same character was named Nimue in The Once and Future King, but (once again) searching Wikipedia shows that there are a lot of different versions of the story.
(*6) On Castles Being Hidden in the Woods: Lest I get accused of hypocrisy, I should confess that I am currently writing, on one of my other blogs, a fantasy story called The Castle in the Magic Forest, which is about (you guessed it) a castle hidden away in the forest. So obviously I'm making use of the same fairytale type of logic. Although in my defense, I've so far only contained myself to just one castle hidden away in the forest. And also the whole premise behind the story is that it is a very unusual thing to have a castle in the middle of the forest.
(*7) More Thoughts on Jousting: The Knights in this book meet each other for combat at the drop of a hat. Sometimes they fight because they are true enemies, but just as often they encounter another knight in the woods, and they want to see who is the better knight.
It was a bit unclear to me what the dangers of jousting were. For much of the book, I was under the impression that the worst that could happen was being thrown from your horse. But then near the end, Sir Pellias gets dangerously wounded when the iron from the jousting spear pierces his armor. So they are apparently jousting with real spears and real iron points. Which makes me question all the wisdom of all the times that they jousted for no real good reason. But I guess that's just part of the story. No use trying to over-analyze fairy tales.
It was a bit unclear to me what the dangers of jousting were. For much of the book, I was under the impression that the worst that could happen was being thrown from your horse. But then near the end, Sir Pellias gets dangerously wounded when the iron from the jousting spear pierces his armor. So they are apparently jousting with real spears and real iron points. Which makes me question all the wisdom of all the times that they jousted for no real good reason. But I guess that's just part of the story. No use trying to over-analyze fairy tales.
(*8) On the Misplaced Moralizing Tone Throughout the Book: I had the same complaint about Tales of Troy and Greece by Andrew Lang, which tried to use the ancient Greek Myths as moral examples despite the fact that these stories also cannot bear that burden.
Both of these books were published around the same time: The Story of King Arthur and His Knights was 1903, Tales of Troy and Greece was 1907. I wonder if there was this thing about turn of the century children's authors where they felt like they had to try to make all of their stories about morality.
(*9) Why Even Bother Satirizing This Stuff? Although thinking about the idea of satire, it does strike me that there's no genre in our culture so inherently silly that someone won't think it worthwhile to satirize. Fairy tales, Disney Princess movies, Superhero comic books, Tom and Jerry, all have been satirized.
Weekly Reading Vlogs:
Both of these books were published around the same time: The Story of King Arthur and His Knights was 1903, Tales of Troy and Greece was 1907. I wonder if there was this thing about turn of the century children's authors where they felt like they had to try to make all of their stories about morality.
(*9) Why Even Bother Satirizing This Stuff? Although thinking about the idea of satire, it does strike me that there's no genre in our culture so inherently silly that someone won't think it worthwhile to satirize. Fairy tales, Disney Princess movies, Superhero comic books, Tom and Jerry, all have been satirized.
Weekly Reading Vlogs:
June 6, 2021 The Story of King Arthur and His Knights by Howard Pyle p.0-54
June 13, 2021 The Story of King Arthur and His Knights by Howard Pyle p.54-118
June 20, 2021 The Story of King Arthur and His Knights by Howard Pyle p.118-178
June 27, 2021 The Story of King Arthur and His Knights by Howard Pyle p.178-301 (finished) 2nd reading p.1-6
Video Review (Playlist HERE)
June 13, 2021 The Story of King Arthur and His Knights by Howard Pyle p.54-118
June 20, 2021 The Story of King Arthur and His Knights by Howard Pyle p.118-178
June 27, 2021 The Story of King Arthur and His Knights by Howard Pyle p.178-301 (finished) 2nd reading p.1-6
Video Review (Playlist HERE)
No comments:
Post a Comment