Rating: 4/5
Spoiler Alert! Sure, you might know the legend of Arthur and Merlin, but you don't know this version...be careful not to spoil it for yourself!
On to the next version of the classic Arthurian legend: Lancelot.
This lies much further into the historical fiction genre than some (read: most) of the versions of Arthur that I've read, and it's definitely more graphic! If it weren't for the topic of the book, I probably would have put it down upon the first fight scene. It was recommended (and then bought for me) by my boyfriend, who loves historic fiction and medieval warfare. So if you've never heard of Kristian's Lancelot, those are the two things you should keep in mind when it comes to deciding if you want to read it.
This version of the legend is not the idealised English legend of knights and fair maidens in the medieval period. This is warlords in Anglo-Saxon England, feasts and battles, blood and death, love in it's simplest form.
Also I cried like 200 pages in (this book is over 600 pages). So consider yourself warned. It's a sad one.
Reading Arthur's story from Lancelot's point of view was certainly a new way to consider things. In fact, so little of the story focused on Arthur that at times their friendship was so secondary to the relationship of Guinevere and Lancelot that I was much more concerned for Lancelot than I have been in a lot of other versions. His motivations in this book gave his behaviour an explanation and, in many ways, Lancelot felt justified.
By meeting Guinevere early on, the reader is given a deeper understanding of the two of them together, not just as the two who betrayed Arthur. This is their love story, their tragedy, not Arthur's.
Lancelot handled the characters in a very different way to many of the more "polished" versions. From the start, Arthur is a warlord. He's idealistic and emotional, and he willingly builds Camelot with his own bare hands, but he is also filled with anger and fear of disloyalty. Lancelot, on the other hand, is a brutal fighter. His growth throughout the book is largely based on his ability to fight; as a child, he must be protected by Nimue, but as an adult, he spends years fighting in Gaul until it is all he knows. Whilst the Lancelot of legend has a reputation as the "best and most loyal" of Arthur's knights, this was the first time I have seen physical fighting be at the forefront of the story and Lancelot's skill is clearly displayed. Violence is really not my thing and I was the tiniest bit squeamish about some of the fighting scenes, but it was so engaging to witness these knights actually fighting for once.
Merlin, as usual, is a mystery and an utter joy because of it. I'm yet to find a Merlin I don't enjoy in some way.
I suppose we need to talk about Guinevere? I still don't like her, I'm sorry. Yes, she was better than some versions, but the way Lancelot put her on a pedestal massively put me off. And this is obviously a reflection on him, not her, but I felt like I never knew who Guinevere was because of his narration. She was a wild young girl, a measured queen, and a loyal wife. And that's about all I can say for sure because Lancelot was infatuated with her and made her feel like a goddess rather than a human woman with her own wants and desires. I admired her strength but can say little more.
So how does this live up to other versions of the legend? Well, it covers Lancelot's entire life in 600 pages, moving from a devastating loss in his childhood to the moment he rides into his last battle. I cried multiple times throughout it as he lost those closest to him. I was genuinely gripped by some of the moments between Arthur and Lancelot, or Lancelot and his cousin, Bors (who was a brilliant character and incredibly loyal - perhaps it runs in the family!). But there was something not-quite-Arthurian about it which makes me love it less than other versions. It wasn't about the best of humanity, and since it's from Lancelot's point of view, the reader doesn't really see the efforts to unite England.
I didn't love Arthur, and his treatment of both Guinevere and Lancelot was pretty abysmal at times so it's hard to judge as an Arthurian retelling. As a book, however, it was incredibly gripping, well told, and never felt like it was a slog despite the length of it. The ending was a touch unsatisfying due to time-jumps, but I've been informed there is a sequel so perhaps that explains things more. As an introduction to the world of Arthur? I'd say it's a great place to start if you didn't know what happens and would definitely be more enjoyable for someone who doesn't know the plot.
Comments