As a confirmed fan of the Arthurian Legend and the various retellings, I should probably like this series more than I do. I can't claim that it's because I'm a traditionalist - one of my favorite retellings is Patricia Kennealy-Morrison's three-book subset of her Keltiad series known as "The Tales of Arthur". For those of you who haven't read it, it's a great series referred to by both to the author and its aficionados as "Celts in Space", so use your imagination. And, it's not because A. A. Attanasio's series is poorly written. The prose is lyrical, yet strong, and the characterizations are full. I think it may be because even though the series is original and the setting non-traditional, it reaches too far for my personal tastes. In this series, Arthur (or, Arthor, as he starts out), is certainly a featured character, but not the main one. Arthur's tale is lost in the maze of all the immortals in all the galaxies in all the universes of the cosmos. The story has its beginning in the beginning of time when all was chaos. To keep it brief, Merlin starts out as the demon Lailoken, spawn of Lucifer along with the others of his ilk, who through a series of miraculous events is given birth as a human living backwards in time, i.e., his body grows younger as time progresses. As a result, Merlin sheds his demonic ways, becomes a devout Christian, and is tasked with guiding Arthor on his quest of uniting the British Isles under the umbrella of Christianity. Opposing him are the Furor and the old (pagan) gods. The Furor is Odin and his cohorts the rest of the cadre of the Norse deities. Throw in the Firelords (i.e., the "good" angels), the immortal Nine Queens of Avalon, and the elfin Daione Sid, and you have a battle royale par excellence. Oh, and throw in the fact additional fact that the earth 's core is formed by a sleeping dragon who is cosmically connected to every other dragon that forms the core of every other planet in the Creation. . . As many of the characters are gods or have god-like characters, time tripping abounds and everyone, save the puny mortal humans, can see the future and has their own ways of trying to prevent the holocaust they all foresee. The fact that they all have different ideas about how to accomplish this is what provides the conflict that makes the story go. Mr. Attanasio tells the story far better than I do, but I find the constantly shifting points of view to be difficult to follow. I like the straight-ahead descriptions of Arthur's dealings well enough, but tend to get lost and gloss over the philosophical and mystical mumbo-jumbo. Also, there are some incongruities with the mainstream Arthurian legend that seem to serve no real purpose, or none that I'm smart enough to discern. The Fisher King appears in the book, but Arthur's the one with the wound that will not heal. Call me an ignorant, lowbrow Philistine, and that's OK with me. I like thoughtful fantasy, but a little sword and sorcery floats my boat, too. As I intimated earlier, I don't dislike these books. I've read all four to date, and will read any more that are published. Which brings up another question in my mind - this book has a complete enough ending that it could be the last in the series. However, it leaves us at the very beginning of Arthur's reign. Will there be more? I can't tell. . . The books are well written and mostly enjoyable. They are a strong addition to the store of Arthurian lore that exists. There not my personal favorites, but I do recommend that anyone who enjoys Arthurian literature at all give them a try and formulate their own opinion.