- Joined
- Jan 22, 2008
- Messages
- 8,097
This is, I think, one of the best fantasy novels ever written, and it is a great shame that it isn’t better-known. In the 1950s John Steinbeck, the author of Of Mice and Men and The Grapes of Wrath, began a project to translate Sir Thomas Mallory’s medieval book Le Morte D’Arthur into modern English. He never finished it. The Acts of King Arthur is a loose translation, and Steinbeck added considerable amounts to Mallory’s original work to flesh it out and make it more interesting for modern readers. That is not to say that this is a flabby book: it’s lean, engaging and by any standards (but exceptionally so for fantasy) very well written.
I say that the project was unfinished, in that Steinbeck never reached Arthur’s death or the corruption of the Round Table, but this book concludes on a very important and satisfying note – the beginning of the end, if you like. As such it works as a complete book, but is divided into sections, some dealing with the adventures of different knights, and is perhaps closer in structure to a portmanteau novel like Sapkowski’s The Last Wish.
The obvious comparison is T.H. White’s The Once and Future King, but White’s books are for a much younger audience, and they are far more fantastical. The other-worldly elements in Steinbeck’s book are mystical rather than magical – nobody casts a spell, no dragons appear – and that makes them all the more powerful. The story of the Knight with Two Swords, for instance, is overshadowed by a weird, supernatural sense of doom that is never quite explained, and which makes it all the more peculiar. Merlin’s (early) death is dealt with briskly and mysteriously. While I get the impression that Steinbeck wasn’t really interested in the more fantastical aspects of the story, when they do occur, they’re convincing.
Steinbeck manages to make his world both three-dimensional and mysterious at once, avoiding the airy-fairy and dung-spattered excesses of both ends of the spectrum. Interestingly, the prose and characterisation become more complex as the story goes on. At the start, there’s an awkwardness to the writing that makes it seem quite like a literal translation of an ancient text: this lasts only a few chapters, before the book takes on a more modern style.
Despite its (comparatively) short length, this is a book full of striking episodes. The strange relationship between Lady Lynne and the young knight she trains, the adventure of the older knight Sir Marhalt and his companion and the troubles of Launcelot all seem convincing because Steinbeck fleshes out the characters so well. The world Steinbeck creates is full of small details that often mean more to the reader than the characters: Launcelot uses a “magical” road, clearly built by Romans. Two Welsh bowmen give a brutal demonstration of the less glamorous, more democratic future that appalls a gallant young knight.
I think that The Acts of King Arthur lies at one end of the fantasy spectrum, and as such doesn’t contain some of the elements that people might want from a fantasy novel. To me it suggests a way that fantasy could have done if it hadn’t become fixated with Tolkien: small in scope, character-driven, with a strong sense of place that is firmly anchored to the real world. It is more like our own world seen through a distorting lens than a fantasy kingdom.
So, I would definitely recommend this book: it’s one of the greats. However, it starts slowly and awkwardly, and what it becomes may well not be for everyone’s tastes.
(Also: the version I have includes a number of letters between Steinbeck and his agent and publishers about writing the book. I don't know if all editions include these, but I would have thought they'd be of interest to anyone writing fantasy).
I say that the project was unfinished, in that Steinbeck never reached Arthur’s death or the corruption of the Round Table, but this book concludes on a very important and satisfying note – the beginning of the end, if you like. As such it works as a complete book, but is divided into sections, some dealing with the adventures of different knights, and is perhaps closer in structure to a portmanteau novel like Sapkowski’s The Last Wish.
The obvious comparison is T.H. White’s The Once and Future King, but White’s books are for a much younger audience, and they are far more fantastical. The other-worldly elements in Steinbeck’s book are mystical rather than magical – nobody casts a spell, no dragons appear – and that makes them all the more powerful. The story of the Knight with Two Swords, for instance, is overshadowed by a weird, supernatural sense of doom that is never quite explained, and which makes it all the more peculiar. Merlin’s (early) death is dealt with briskly and mysteriously. While I get the impression that Steinbeck wasn’t really interested in the more fantastical aspects of the story, when they do occur, they’re convincing.
Steinbeck manages to make his world both three-dimensional and mysterious at once, avoiding the airy-fairy and dung-spattered excesses of both ends of the spectrum. Interestingly, the prose and characterisation become more complex as the story goes on. At the start, there’s an awkwardness to the writing that makes it seem quite like a literal translation of an ancient text: this lasts only a few chapters, before the book takes on a more modern style.
Despite its (comparatively) short length, this is a book full of striking episodes. The strange relationship between Lady Lynne and the young knight she trains, the adventure of the older knight Sir Marhalt and his companion and the troubles of Launcelot all seem convincing because Steinbeck fleshes out the characters so well. The world Steinbeck creates is full of small details that often mean more to the reader than the characters: Launcelot uses a “magical” road, clearly built by Romans. Two Welsh bowmen give a brutal demonstration of the less glamorous, more democratic future that appalls a gallant young knight.
I think that The Acts of King Arthur lies at one end of the fantasy spectrum, and as such doesn’t contain some of the elements that people might want from a fantasy novel. To me it suggests a way that fantasy could have done if it hadn’t become fixated with Tolkien: small in scope, character-driven, with a strong sense of place that is firmly anchored to the real world. It is more like our own world seen through a distorting lens than a fantasy kingdom.
So, I would definitely recommend this book: it’s one of the greats. However, it starts slowly and awkwardly, and what it becomes may well not be for everyone’s tastes.
(Also: the version I have includes a number of letters between Steinbeck and his agent and publishers about writing the book. I don't know if all editions include these, but I would have thought they'd be of interest to anyone writing fantasy).
