The Once and Future King

Very long version of the King Arthur tale, made up of four books that were originally published separately and then revised and put into this volume.

The first book, The Sword in the Stone, was the most enjoyable as it had humorous moments and a fun take on Merlin who knows the future because he's traveling backward through time.

Merlin gets my favorite quote from the book:

“The best thing for being sad,” replied Merlyn, beginning to puff and blow, “is to learn something. That is the only thing that never fails. You may grow old and trembling in your anatomies, you may lie awake at night listening to the disorder of your veins, you may miss your only love, you may see the world about you devastated by evil lunatics, or know your honour trampled in the sewers of baser minds. There is only one thing for it then—to learn. Learn why the world wags and what wags it. That is the only thing which the mind can never exhaust, never alienate, never be tortured by, never fear or distrust, and never dream of regretting. “

White makes you aware throughout the book that he's telling a story and frequently refers to Le Morte d'Arthur by Sir Thomas Malory, making the reader aware of how the story was told there and the differences. There are many anachronisms in The Once and Future King.

The primary problem Arthur tackles throughout the book is the idea that Might is Right, or more importantly, how Arthur can get his nights to use their might–fighting skills and bravery–to help others and do good things rather than impose their will on people.

The Ill Made Knight was my least favorite. This part was focused on Lancelot, who is portrayed as a wet blanket. He's so concerned with being virtuous and good that he causes his own problems. (Virtuous in his eyes centering on his virginity.) Makes a good story but somehow it's not for me. This is also the part of the King Arthur story I'm most familiar with, the Camelot musical and love triangle and all of that.

I do appreciate how none of the heroes are portrayed as perfect, they all have their complexities and issues. As far as the villains, well, Mordred is interesting but his mother, Morgause, never gets any depth or sympathy. I never knew that Morgause was different from Morgan le Fay; this is the first time I've ever seen it told that way.

As someone who was never a big King Arthur fan, I can't say if this is a must-read classic for Fantasy fans, or a dusty version of a story that could use a fresh take?

An excellent book marred by the questionable last volume which takes a confusing step into an entirely new direction. Despite this, the series reaches such highs particularly in the new third and fourth books that they are must reads.

This was a reread for me, but still enjoyed it. That's why the 5-stars. If I can enjoy something and still laugh or be surprised by it, it should get a good review. :)

I really enjoyed the stories up until The Book of Merlyn, to which I was falling asleep to half the time. Otherwise, fantastic stories. It made the King Arthur legend come to life in ways it never has.

I loved this. Funny and simple and complicated at the same time. Arthur's ideas of war speak to me at high levels. I loved the political complexity and the human morality described in here. I missed Merlyn though, and some parts were certainly too slow. Still, beautiful, heart moving book. I understand why so many people love it.

Perhaps the best children's book about King Arthur and the Round Table. Somewhat akin to Harry Potter in quality. I did not like neither, not the kind of book for me.

If you know the story, how many pages of Arthur as a fish do you think it takes to capture its essence? If the answer is a whole chapter, this book might be for you.

So this was a big book. I don't mean that in terms of long (though it's that as well), but it has scope. It's one of those fantasy classics I've always meant to read but never got around to until it was on a convenient book club list. Parts of it I really liked. Parts of it I found myself skimming. Parts were magically transportive (Am I making up that word? I might be). Parts were woefully dated. Let me break this down.

Of the four parts of this book, I liked the first and the fourth the best. “The Sword and the Stone,” apart from taking me back to the Disney features of my youth, was utterly charming. It's a children's story that an adult can enjoy, similar in tone to The Hobbit or The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. At times it gets a little saccharine, particularly when White uses the animals as metaphors for his own philosophy, but on the whole I enjoyed the mix of Arthurian legend with anachronistic humor. I like how White takes advantage of his modern perspective to write the backwards-aging, Merlyn. It reminds the reader that this isn't a found text, but a modern retelling with the benefit of modern hindsight. Again some of those parallels hit a little hard for my taste, but I still enjoyed the device.

The book two opens, and Morgause is boiling a cat alive for fun.

The tone shift is so abrupt it took me time to adjust to it. White retells the story in an appropriate tone for the characters' ages, not the readers'. As Arthur graduates from adolescence and is thrust into the dark world of the adult court, so is the reader. For me, this was the part where the philosophy made the most sense and didn't seem as blatant. I felt Arthur's struggles to reconcile England with Merlyn's teachings. However, this section also introduces Guenevar, and there the book starts to falter.
White does not have a real understanding of women, and Guenevar makes me realize exactly why Marion Zimmer Bradley wrote “Mists of Avalon.”

The third book is almost entirely the story of Guenevar and Lancelot, and that just isn't to my palate. My reading slowed down here, and I just felt bad for Arthur. Most of my favorite side characters were absent at this point, and I just didn't have the patience for the world's best-known love triangle. I do enjoy that White makes Lancelot homely, and indeed he is brutally honest about most of the characters' age and physical appearance. From Pellinore and Piggy to Guenevar and Lancelot, everyone is described as a real human being and loved for that humanity, not any physical overlay. I appreciated that, but I still wished this book was not so very, very long.

I was faltering with the story until the fourth book where Mordred really comes onto the scene. White uses Mordred as a symbol for Hitler and references to anti-semitism, the SS, and the Hitler Youth are all very clear. Personally, though, I like taking that character at face value. Mordred is easily the most complex character, his motivations clear and entirely valid while his means are as twisted and terrifying as the history he represents. He manipulates Arthur's own impervious sense of justice against him, his family's sense of honor against them, and the entire country's sense of patriotism against it. It's a brilliant parallel on its own, but then we listen to Mordred speak. His language is maybe a bit modern, but that only serves to intrigue the reader. His confrontation with Guenevar after he's sent Arthur off is my favorite scene in the book. The way White describes him as “acting” instead of living is one of the most perfect phrasings I've ever heard. This fascinating antagonist brought me back into the story for entirely different reasons than I was first engaged.

The Once and Future King hasn't become one of my top fantasy classics, but I definitely have an appreciation for White's literary range and philosophical ideals. The slow parts may have been slow, but the fast parts made my heart race along. If you have time and haven't read it yet, you won't regret it.

I couldn't get into this book. The writing style keeps you at a distance instead of putting you in the action. For example,the narrator is describing the castle, and then says that it is mostly falling down now, and that it is nice to lay on one of the exposed floors and watch the sky while tourists walk around below.

The author's writing style just didn't work for me,I had to put this book down and move on.

This is the definitive book about King Arthur, first published in 1939. All the characters in this book are seen with soft eyes, the eyes of a forgiving man, who finds ways to explain even the most cruel of actions. A few depictions seemed surprising; Lancelot, for example, is portrayed as an ugly man. It is the big view of the author that I found most compelling. The author looked at Arthur's reign as a major change in the way humanity lived, not living to take revenge on its enemies, but attempting to settle squabbles with diplomacy.