Mad Merlin (Hardcover)

Books based on the Arthur legends can be predictable, and in a sense this isn't any different. However, King throws so many interesting side elements into the mix that the reader is constantly wondering what's going to come next. He has created, in Mad Merlin, a very interesting character that you want to read about. Not only is he destined to aid Arthur in his quest, but through Arthur he will come to know his own mind. He is truly mad at the beginning of the book, and it is only through his actions and his time with Arthur that he slowly becomes aware of who and what he is. What is his relation to Excalibur? What is the source of his power? As the book goes on, you find out more and more and the story never lets you go. I'm not going to reveal Merlin's secret, but it just adds another intriguing layer to an already interesting character.

The side elements are the flavoring for the Arthurian myths, and they make the book a great read. King throws in the Roman pantheon of gods, the Norse gods, the land of the fey (fairies, pixies, nayads, and many other mystical creatures) and tells a tale not just of personal destiny (in the case of King Arthur) but also of religious destiny. The war is not just between men, but between gods. There are a lot of Christian images that will infringe on the other pantheons if they don't fight back. Christ himself is not portrayed in any way, but the Christian mythos is portrayed as an overwhelming force that will wipe out anything that stands in its path.

I liked how this book moved beyond the typical Arthurian legends, even as it rewrote them. All of the main elements are there: Merlin, Guinevere, Excalibur, the Lady of the Lake (though she's called something different in this one), Camelot, and the Round Table. Lancelot doesn't show up until the next book, though (one which I will also review shortly). Even the origins of Morgan Le Fay and Arthur's son Mordred are detailed, probably in much the same way as the legends go, though the details surrounding these events are different. There's even the act of Arthur removing the sword from the stone, though the circumstances are very different, and it even becomes a bad thing that he does it when he does. This impulsive mistake drives the action for the rest of the book, and adds an interesting element to the mix.

The language and the prose King uses are magnificent. It took me forever to read this book (and the next one), and I thought it was because of the mood I was in. But I'm reading another, lighter book now, and I'm breezing through it. Looking back on this book, I realize that it's the beauty of the imagery and description that kept me going so slowly. King really knows how to tell a story. When the battles rage, you're right there with blood flowing, heads being caved in and swords finding their way into the seams of plate mail armour. The good times, the festive and romantic times are also well told. At times King gets a bit excessive with the description, but it's so beautiful (or chilling, depending on what is happening), that you normally don't notice. You just notice that you haven't moved very far into the book.

There is one strange thing about this book, however. It feels like it's two separate books combined into one. There's no hint that this is true, and books are divided into "Books 1 and 2" quite often. However, the second book begins with a bunch of description of the previous events, a recap of sorts, that isn't really needed considering the events in question happened just a few pages ago. It's almost like the second book was supposed to be published separately (or it was published without any indication in this book of this fact). I found it quite distracting, but thankfully that only lasted until I got into the second book. It was quickly gone again.

A couple of other minor problems mar what would otherwise be a marvelous book, both having to do with the ending. The final battle just drags on a little too long, and then the sequence with Loki in the land of the Saxon gods, while entertaining at times, seems a bit useless. I realize that Loki's exploits have a lot to do with Excalibur so they are important to the story, but the writing of these events just makes them feel extraneous. It's the only place where the writing fails a little, and it makes the final sequence more of a chore to get through than it should be. This combined with the seemingly never-ending final battle makes for a dull thud of an ending.

All in all, though, this is a great King Arthur book. I picked it up on a whim, and I'm glad I did. What a marvelous mixture of everything. You think you know King Arthur? Think again. Then read this book, and its sequel. You'll be glad you did.

David Roy

This story has to be looked at in the same vein. There are a lot of gods, godesses, Celtic and Norse mythology and even some T. H. White thrown into this mix, all hung on the framework of what we "know" of Arthur. We Know there's going to be a Modred and that Morgan will bring him into being from her hate for Arthur becuase of what Uther and Merlin did. The story doesn't have to explain her motivation for that hate more than that because we Know that hate exists. It is not a "classic" Arthur, but it fits within the frameowrk. Jack Whytes wonderful "Eagles Brood" series or Godwin's superb "Firelord" aren't "classic" either, but tehy do fit within teh History and events of Arthur as we Know them. Does the retelling under inspection remain true to the legend even if the details vary? As long as a story does this, it is OK to look at the legend though a differnt lens.

This King does, and his take is marvelous. The other reviews talk a bit how he does this, but I will just recommend this book without reservation.