Sword at Sunset

I love Arthurian legends and am always up for a retelling of most any kind, so I'm excited when I come across recommendations for good Arthurian stories. This one seems to be high on everyone's list of Arthur must-reads, but I found it entirely lackluster. Part of the fun in reading Arthur stories is in seeing how each writer interprets the myths, how she takes the story kernels from the legends and weaves her own tale around them. But naturally each reader will have her own favorite elements of the legends and will thus react poorly to a retelling which gives those elements short shrift. My lukewarm reaction to Sword at Sunset is at least somewhat in that vein. There's no Merlin here, hardly any magic, barely a hint of the workings of show more fate or destiny, no grail quest, and no sense that Arthur's rule is special or new or uniquely hopeful. While I don't feel a grand attachment to every one of those elements (I can usually do just fine without the grail quest, for instance), when you lose them all I start to wonder what makes this an Arthur story rather than just a story about some warrior-king in the Early Middle Ages. Sure there's the "moment of hate and sin seeding the downfall of a great man" plot (Morgan, Mordred, etc) that goes with Arthurian stories, but if Arthur isn't held up as special, why do we care so much? We would, I suppose, if the characters were entirely compelling in their own right, but Sutcliff's are not. This novel is often hailed as a good character study of Arthur (it's told from his point of view in the first person), but I didn't think the portrayal was particularly deft or enlightening or the story particularly well retold. In fact, the whole book felt a bit "stuff stuff battle Arthurian plot point stuff battle battle Arthurian plot point stuff stuff" to me. It also suffered from lack-of-map-itis, especially given the (not uncommon) use of Roman place names. Not a bad book, not at all, and certainly one that people with different expectations for an Arthur retelling might enjoy thoroughly. It would particularly appeal, I think, to readers who like the recent trend toward making Arthurian novels more historical and less legendy. show less

The fifth century is not always the easier time period to lose yourself in, but the writing of Rosemary Sutcliff is the exception. Her vivid imagination combined with great storytelling brings Artos the Bear to life. I will admit, I am not an avid reader of Arthurian tales. I do not have the details of the legend down-pat and would not know where Sutcliff takes artistic liberty. Probably the best part about Sword at Sunset is the personality of its hero, Artos the Bear. His complex character as a warrior and companion is crystal clear and believable, and dare I say, attractive? In times of battle all of his decisions are calculated and fair. I especially liked his reaction to Minnow's news that he must leave the company to marry a show more merchant's girl who is with child. I also liked his treatment of animals, particularly his taming of a fallen commander's wolfhound. The scenes of battle are appropriate and gut-wrenching. And speaking of gut-wrenching, the final betrayals by Bear's best friend and son are tragic. show less

A tale of Arthur, lord of Britain, perhaps the best I have read. Bittersweet and true, riven with betrayal but a fight worth fighting.

This novel is the sequel to the author's famous and wonderful Eagle of the Ninth trilogy. Although ostensibly written for a more adult audience, it is written in the same ageless and beautifully written style that can truly be enjoyed by readers of all ages. The narrative viewpoint changes from that of the Romans at the centre of the trilogy, to that of Artos (Arthur) the Romano-British leader fighting over several decades against the growing incursions of Saxon invaders, including Cerdic. Some of the classic elements of Arthurian myth are present, but this is very much a realistic and reasonably gritty historical novel (Sutcliff also wrote a more mythology-based trilogy on King Arthur). My only criticism would be that, at 500 pages, it show more is probably a bit too long, but with writing this good, it is a joy to read. show less

Utterly brilliant version of the Arthur legend. Manages to stick to the story but make it realistic. I suspect Marion Zimmer Bradley stole most of her version from this.

This is a realistic account of the life of Arthur told from his perspective. Realistic in that is devoid of the magic, myths, and legends that surround his story, though superstitions abide. The politics of tribal infighting and Saxon depredations in post-Roman Britain are detailed as if they are current events. This is the best account of the life, loves and politics of Arthur (Artos the Bear) that I’ve come across.

I have kept this because I like the strong old-fashioned cover illustration, and I love all things Arthurian. That said, Ms Sutcliff's Arthur is a bit of a sad sack. He lacks the charisma one expects from an "Artos", and the battle descriptions are tedious as well as gory (but then I find that with all historical novels).
Artos and indeed all the other characters spring fully-formed onto the page, and there is no personal development whatsoever. Mary Stewart's Arthur, on the other hand, and all her characters, are portrayed in a much more fascinating way. I wonder if Mrs Stewart read this and thought "I'll have a go at depicting a Dark Ages Arthur"; there are some interesting correspondences with some of the Sutcliff characters, show more particularly Ambrosius. 1963 for this book, 1970 for the Crystal Cave.
The scene-setting and description and action are brilliant though, as one expects from Ms Sutcliff. And note the reappearance of Aquila from "The Lantern Bearers", and the way the flawed emerald ring is handed on. show less