Customer Reviews

Winter King

5 star:		(75)
4 star:		(17)
3 star:		(8)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Being British I have always had an interest into legend of Arthur. This book is a fantastic insight of what the reality behind the legend may well have been. It has been well researched and truly feels like a Celtic epic. A bitter-sweet tale which left me dying for the sequels.

(Which were excellent too!)

I just bought the sequel to The Winter King, which made me want to go back and review it before I read Enemy of God.

The Winter King presents an Arthurian world full of grit not glamour, told through the eyes of one of Arthur's warrior band, Derfel. It is totally unromanticized, and therefore, much more realistic. It's a warrior's world discussing military and political strategies in an engaging manner.

The use of a framing device, Derfel as an old monk recording his memories of his days with Arthur, adds a sense unity. We can see what's missing in his present world; it is in contrast to the world of the flashbacks, which makes what Arthur accomplished stand apart even more.

Next to the Saxons (although Derfel is one), Derfel's greatest enemy becomes Lancelot. The negative portrayal of Lancelot shouldn't come as a shock; afterall, he and Guinevere often take the role as destroyers of Arthur's ideal realm. But nothing in this book is that simple. As with life, the consequences of actions produce multiple results, and we can never predict them all, not even Arthur.

If you like this depiction of Arthur, you might also enjoy Parke Godwin's Firelord.

Starts off rather nicely (lots of books which get published today seem to) but it didn't really carry through. This was a rather pedestrian tale, in the final analysis, w/little staying power once you've closed the covers -- though it's readable enough. I think it suffered from the decision to make it a trilogy since you don't really see that in the beginning and when the story finally winds down to its climactic battle (and "winds down" is not a poor way of putting it), it leaves the reader rather cold. As though the book just ground to a halt, mid-stream, with everything still to be determined! The story, itself, while workmanlike, is also quite uninspired. Not much insight here into the times portrayed or the people who filled those times. The only real character of interest is Merlin as a quick change artist, although his presence is telegraphed well before he reveals himself to the seeking Arthur. Who Arthur really was and what he did remains something of a mystery -- but he sure wasn't much, or worth all those legends, if this was him. I hate it when the promise of the first few pages gets broken and scattered between the covers of a book. But that's what happened here. --- Stuart W. Mirsky (swmirsky@usa.net

With the fall of Rome, Britain is left with no protection against the outside world. The story is told through the eyes of Derfel, a Saxon fighting for (King) Arthur. The story
brings us close to the post-Roman Celtic world with its politics. This book is the one of the best Arthurian books ever written full of exitement, romance and a very beliviable Arthur. The other Aurturian caracters are vell portrayed in new ways we are not used to as well as less known caracters from acient manuscripts as Derfel and Sagramor, Arthurs African(ex-Roman soldier) commmander. Better than Mists of Avalon.

I love medieval adventures and the Arthurian tales have long been rich in these. And yet this one didn't work for me as well as it might have.

Actually, it started off rather nicely (lots of books which get published these days seem to) but it didn't really carry through. In the end it was a rather pedestrian tale, with little staying power once I'd closed the covers . . . though it was readable enough.

I think it suffered from the decision to make it a trilogy since you don't really see that in the beginning and when the story finally winds down to its climactic battle (and "winds down" is not a poor way of putting it), it leaves the reader rather cold . . . as though the book just ground to a halt, mid-stream, with everything still to be determined! The story, itself, while workmanlike, was also quite uninspired. Not much insight here into the times portrayed or the people who filled those times.

In fact, the only real character of interest was Merlin, portayed as a quick change artist, although his presence is telegraphed well before he reveals himself to the seeking Arthur. Who Arthur really was and what he did remains something of a mystery . . . but he sure wasn't much, or worth all those legends, if this was him.

I hate it when the promise of the first few pages gets broken and scattered between the covers of a book. But that's what happened here. Based on the first volume, I decided to forego the next two installments, for better or worse. But others, plainly, do not share my disappointment so perhaps I am being unduly harsh. The book is readable, though it did not meet my expectations! Give it a try if Arthurian tales are your thing. In light of all the positive reviews here, I may just have been the wrong reader for this one.

SWM

If you are a devotee of Arthurian Legend, be prepared to be surprised. Cromwell weaves a fascinating and highly detailed tale that blows the fairy tale of traditional Arthur to pieces. Arthur will not pull a sword from a stone. Guinevere seduces Arthur away from his betrothed in a sudden elopement. Lancelot is a selfish, narcissistic, spoiled prince. And don't be flipping through the pages looking for Camelot, it doesn't exist. But don't despair! The story unfolds as told through the eyes Derfel, a Saxson slave who rises to the rank of Lord through his service as a warrior. Derfel's telling is earthy and detailed, bringing to life for the reader the gritty realities of day-to-day life as it must have been in this period of history, and this is the most engaging factor of this book. The struggle between the newly emerging Christian religion and the established Druids is a fascinating sub-current throughout the book. Cornwell includes a map of Ancient Britian at the back of the book, which I referred to often and was very helpful in keeping track of "where" the story is taking place, since the names are not familiar to modern day Britain. I found this book to be a slightly dark but enjoyable read.

Mr. Cornwell obviously does his homework. Rather than being an obscure time in an obscure part of Britain, Cornwell does an excellent job of weaving a believable place in history. Moreover, the politics involved are much more intricate and realistic than most books on this subject. It is clear that Cornwell is trying to tell a story as it might have arisen out of actual history - that the sword IN the stone was the sword ON the stone, except that the story got changed over time. Or that Lancelot was known far and wide as a fearless and triumphant warrior mainly because of a public relations campaign. I also liked the narrating character, Derfel. It was fun to follow his progress. However, this book lacks the detail that would have made it truly great. Rather than detailing characters and relationships, they are thrown into the book with broad strokes. I was interested to see Cornwell's interpretation of Arthur and Guiniverre, but disappointed that it came down to (paraphrasing) "Arthur looked upon Guiniverre and fell in love. They married the next week. We went back to the palace." Without that detail, it was hard to develop a connection with the characters.

Cornwell's King Arthur books have the same strengths and weaknesses as do his Sharpe's books. These can be a fun read, the action is good, and the research is good. But what eventually causes me to grind to a halt with Cornwell is his prose. His writing is like reading hurried jornalism -- flat, undistinguished, and monotonous. The editorial review suggests that this is American diction, but Cornwell is, in fact, English. It's just language without music. For myself, I need better prose to stick with someone, and for popular ficton that means someone such as P.D. James or John Le Carre, who have the ability both to engage you with their style and to entertain you with the story. Cornwell is okay reading, but eventually I just look elsewhere.

While I enjoyed this novel, I found the telling of the Arthur tale slightly diminished by the emphasis on reality rather than the mystique one usually expects in the tale. There is a grittiness in the story that is reminiscent of Michael Crichton's novel, Timeline, which may appeal to the reader.

The story left me with a similar feling that the original Batman movie did, with its heavy atmosphere of darkness weighing me down.

The most striking thing about this novel is how it inverts the traditional Arthurian myths - making Lancelot into a scheming coward and Merlin into a dirty old man. It deals with the rise of Arthur to power in the old British kingdoms after the fall of Rome and the Saxon invasions.

The narrative is realistically done - often brutally, since this is quite a violent book in parts. That is part of the attraction. The depictions of violence and war are vivid and bloody, as to be expected from Cornwell whose writing is readable as normal. The characterisation can be a bit frustrating and repetitive but is generally good. On the whole this an interesting novel, though one might argue not on a par with the original Arthurian myths. It lacks the supernatural elements which make them so timeless.