Evil Storytime: The Winter King

[Fellfrosch]

No, I think that's a valid guess. I didn't even pay attention to the fact that he was missing an arm the first time I read it, but when I got to the part with Nimue and the scar it suddenly became a very intriguing detail. There's all kinds of interpretations.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

at half-way through part 3 I'm a little conflicted.

I like the story. I think he has some neat ideas

However, it takes him a good hundred pages to hit his stride. Before that I don't like his mix of detail to action. Too much detail about inconsequential things, not enough about the action. The action is fun, but I don't get any feeling of tension from it.

Also, I'm wondering why he decided to use Arthur. As Arthur isn't a main character (though he is the biggest supporting character) which isn't a big deal, you could still write about the effects he had on everyone (which Cornwell does), but he also pretty much takes every typical element of Arthurian legend and says "no, I'm not using that" with the exception of the Saxons v. Britons. I guess this could be part of his whole point, and it's interesting enough that I'll finish at least Winter King (and probably continue). I know Fell likes it because it doesn't have the "baggage" but that's kind of the point of using a legend, don't you think?

Oh, and I didn't even remember him saying he was missing it till you brought it up, but now I do. But I like that element. Cool stuff.

Is there anything else we should be doing with our discussion here? or just throwing stuff out?

[Fellfrosch]

I, for one, am enjoying the random discussion tidbits with an Arthurian scholar. That's plenty for me, though I suppose there could be more.

You said that it takes Cornwell an awfully long time to get to the action, and with that I partially agree. The real meat of the Arthurian story doesn't start for quite a while, though there's a ton of Derfel-specific stuff going on earlier. Derfel, interestingly, has a lot of the standard epic archetypes that Ehler's mentioned Arthur didn't have. Why did Cornwell write this book from Derfel's point of view and give Derfel all the things that Arthur usually gets, rather than just write it about Arthur and give them to him directly? At some level I think he did it because it's entertaining, but if that's our only answer it's a copout.

Why is the book interesting so early if the real stuff doesn't start happening until halfway through? I believe it's because we're invested in Derfel more than the Arthurian legend. In light of that, why include Arthur at all? Well, the flavor of historical fiction and the flavor of Arthurian legend are both strong, but is that the only reason? Did he include Arthur solely so that people would be interested in the story he wanted to write about Derfel (kind of a "Speaker for the Dead" scheme)? Off the top of my head I'd say that he specifically set out to do a reinterpretation of Arthur, because reinterpretations are fun, and decided it would be easiest to use an extraneous viewpoint that no one had ever used before.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I'm fine with how it was going, just wondering if there's going to be more. I'll probably have a lot more to bring up when I finish the whole book. Since it's not done, my brain wants a chance to get it all in before it fully reviews everything so far. i think a lot of my concerns will eventually be worked out. I just need to read the whole story.

I can see the new perspective, but so far, there's very little of actual Arthur happening anywhere.

Of course, this gives me thought for my own novel, which revolves around new and peripheral charcters. But I intend to use the basic Arthurian story as a more prevalant background. I also have to decide if I want to adopt completely new characters. I did essentially invent Friar Quin and the Grey Knight, but Hans, who I revolve the first story around, I simply did most of the development on. ANd Sir Carl is FAR from my character in any sense. I suppose I'll have to consider. I have some really good dynamics and some rough scenes featuring Galford, Brenna, John, Carl, TGK, and Hans though. So we'll see.

That's hardly Cornwell's novel, jsut what I'm thinking now.

[Lieutenant Kije]

I have to say that one thing I really liked was that Cornwell started the story by letting you know that it has a tragic ending.  And not just by saying it, but by setting the words in the freezing cold, spoken by a pseudo-Christian in a monastary run by a corrupt bishop.  

I suppose everyone remotely familiar with the Arthurian legend has got to know that it's a tragedy already, but I like how Cornwell comes right out and says it at the very very first.  It gives the story just the right tone in my opinion.  

So do we wait to talk about the next section until next saturday?

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I'm ready to talk about all of it. I finished it this afternoon.

I really do think Cornwell is subverting it all on purpose. He knows what fans of Arthur are expecting. Why not recue it to the most elemental level. I'll digest this and post some more when I can.

[Fellfrosch]

I'd like to try to stick to some kind of schedule, for the sake of those who aren't finished yet--the discussion will be more helpful, I think, if we can all read it without fear of spoiling a part we haven't gotten to yet. If everyone's reading faster than the schedule, of course, we can just change the schedule.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

So we should be finished with Part 2, right? Which is where he puts Arthur into the betrayer's position, which is almost a trading of places with Lancelot, with the whole willing to sacrifice his country for love, betraying his King (Mordred) essentially because of choosing a woman who was chosen already/unavailable. which is, incidentally, one of the most interesting inversions, even one we'll get to later, which might be the most easily recognized.

I'd really like to know what other thoughts are bouncing around your heads about this.

[Fellfrosch]

I was pretty intrigued by that switcharoo as well, and it really makes me wonder if the traditional Lancelot/Guinevere thing will take place. To some degree, Arthur is setting a precedent here that makes Lancelot's treachery more plausible and fitting--we've established that Guinevere is essentially a gold digger and willing to flaunt convention at almost any risk. We could talk about Lancelot's character here as well, but he doesn't show up until (I think) part 3, so we'll do that next week.

Is part 2 the part where Guinevere talks about her worship of Isis? What's that about?

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I don't thinkg G. gets into that until much later. They only just get married in part 2. Her role as a gold digger comes later too. Although we have our suspicions about Sansum confirmed in part 2. And we KNOW that her father is. Besides, she's not a gold digger, she's a power monger.

Incidentally, I'm halfway through Enemy of God and I know the answer to your question (I think, he has a pattern of messing around with your expectations) but I won't tell you as that would be a spoiler.

Part 3 is this week, right? "The Return of Merlin" which takes place mostly in Benoic (in Amorica, which we would call Brittany, or northern west France).

I think he's putting us into the role of Igraine (the one he's telling the story to, and the one who's haveing the story re-written to meet her romantic/chivalric expectations) with all these reversals. I'm liking it, even though one reason I'm attracted to the legends is because of the Chivalry and the Romance (as in the writing format, not the modern genre description). But Cornwell manages to still use traditional Arthurian themes and say new things about them, so it's pretty good stuff. (after all, I have decided to move on to books 2 and 3, not just the evil storytime assignment )

[Fellfrosch]

I think that part 3 represents an abrupt shift in the writing style: when we get to Ynys Trebes we are suddenly confronted with a houseful of very distinct, interactive characters. Dialogue has never been this important before, nor has humor or satire. It's an odd shift, if a little disconcerting. Having read ahead, I can assure you that he only keeps this style for the duration of part 3, and goes back to normal in part 4. Why does he do this? Is it a subtle way of setting Brittany apart from Britain in our minds--to show that it's an alien place? Or is it a sign of things to come in future books?

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I welcomed the change, myself.

I think the shift has to do with who he's introducing. (ironically) Lancelot can't be introduced in action. He doesn't do that in this version. I had mixed emotions about the character. I don't like Lancelot in the first place, but I don't like him not for the reasons Cornwell presents. (*counts the negatives in that sentence*). Anyway, Cornwell does an effective job. By the end of Enemy of God I keep hoping that someone will torture him to death.

[Gemm: Rock & Roll Star; Born to Rock]

OK, I've just finished part 1. I pushed myself to finally sit down, ignore everything else(fires, people screaming death, that sort of thing) and finished it.

I enjoy it, not being a super Arthur buff. The things I didn't know about(being most of it) was a new thing to me. I was surprised when Gundleus killed the baby, thinking it was Mordred, but of course I didn't think Morgan would have done the old switcheroo.

And with Nimue and Derfel, Nimue has 2 of the three tests thingys and Derfel I think has one, the test of courage I believe. The last 10 pages or so I really enjoyed. A lot of tension and the such until at last Arthur showed up.

Well, now I'm off to begin part 2, and hopefully catch up to someone. Or not. Whichever comes first.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

actually, I believe the three wounds are body, pride, and mind, corresponding to injury, rape, and insanity in layman's terms. So Derfel doesn't have any of these, unless you consider the wound Nimue gives him in the hand as the wound to the body, but it hardly seems to qualify given the wounds to the body that Nimue and Morgan have received.

Oh yeah, and it was a nice touch. I expected Gundleus to take that action, but I wasn't completely convinced it wasn't Mordred. Given how many reversals I've enountered by now, I think I would have, which is why it's a good opener. Because now he's got so many changes (i'm into the third book now) that I find myself wondering what's going to come next, . . .  and I'm supposed to know this story...

[Gemm: Rock & Roll Star; Born to Rock]

For Derfel's test I meant the first man he killed. Where he and Gorfydydd...or whatever, killed those two scouts. He found that fear and something else were one in the same on the battlefield. So I'd say he has the test of mind then. But hey, I just finished reading that part, so what do I know since your on the third book, right?