The Mists of Avalon (1982)

I read this forever ago, don't think I even finished it. It was just "girl power" gone horribly wrong. ( )

As a scholar, I find The Mists of Avalon very interesting. What it does with the story of Arthur is fascinating: Arthur's story is always used to the author's own ends, and Marion Zimmer Bradley is very conscious of that. Her emphasis on feminine power is well done -- I loved the opening part, with its insight into Igraine's thoughts and feelings, her fears, her hopes. This version of the story is driven largely by the women, and it isn't the vision of steel and lances and damsels in distress that the more traditional Arthurian court promotes.

I enjoyed what she did with the ideas of the Lady of the Lake and the Merlin: even in traditional stories, there are a lot of different aspects to them, and the idea of them as positions rather than single people works reasonably well. The whole story line with Kevin is interesting.

But.

I didn't read this book in its entirety. I skipped and skimmed. I just couldn't settle down and enjoy it, because it felt like nothing happened, and that it was wholly invested in a kind of spirituality that doesn't say much to me (my religion doesn't have so much as a creed, let alone a set of rituals or any set scripture). It seems to take forever to get anywhere.

I am going to have to do more than skim it, eventually, if I want to write an essay on it, during my Master's degree. For now, feel free to take my review and rating with a pinch of salt.

(Initially, at least, rating it two stars, "it was okay". I enjoyed the ideas, the way she chose to spin the retelling, but not the execution. The ideas may bump it up a star or two if I do read it later.) ( )

I know I finished my initial skim-read of The Mists of Avalon not that long ago, but then I realised it's necessary for my essay. So I grabbed the Kindle edition, and got my mother to bribe me into reading it (if I could finish it before midnight on Christmas Day, I got a £10 gift voucher for books), and this time I am truly triumphant.

I'm... still not enamoured. In fact, I think perhaps I like it even less than I did the first time. Thinking about it in terms of my essay, it's obvious that it's been immensely influential when it comes to portraying the women of the Arthurian stories, and on neopaganism as well. But parts of it read like awful romance novels, and it could be significantly shorter without losing anything essential to the plot.

One thing that I did like was the somewhat tortured relationship between Lancelet and Arthur. Their deep friendship, their smothered sexual attraction to each other... A development from T.H. White, I believe.

For the most part, though, it's interesting to read from an academic standpoint -- more so the more I can relate it to other texts -- but otherwise, no thank you. I won't be reading it again, unless by ill-luck my thesis requires me to. ( )

Revisited 2/2010

Sprawling and desperately in need of an editor, this book is still very close to my heart. Bradley's deep distrust of Christians infuses every word, and her illumination of the dangers of fanaticism of any stripe rings achingly true. There are thousands of versions of the Arthurian legend out in the world, but for me, this is the truth upon which those legends are based. I can't come to it very often because it is so hard to read as the characters choose the wrong path at every fork, and the tragedy compounds as the book goes along, but it is still an engrossing and involving book despite its flaws.

2005
Bradley's take on the Arthurian legend from the point of view of the principal female characters is still, for me, the definitive version. It also is very hard to listen to as each character makes bad choice after bad choice and the tragic denouement rushes up and engulfs them all. This audio version is a treat to listen to, provided you can take the requisite time to do so. ( )

Read this in Haifa. I recall liking it very much. May re-read at some point.