"A deluxe hardcover edition of the world's greatest fantasy classic--part of Penguin Galaxy, a collectible series of six sci-fi/fantasy classics, featuring a series introduction by Neil Gaiman T. H. White's masterful retelling of the saga of King Arthur is a fantasy classic as legendary as the sword Excalibur and city of Camelot that are found within its pages. This magical epic takes Arthur from the glorious lyrical phase of his youth, through the disillusioning early years of his reign, to maturity when his vision of the Round Table develops into the search for the Holy Grail, and finally to his weary old age. With memorable characters like Merlin and Owl and Guinevere, beasts who talk and men who fly, wizardry and war, The Once and Future King has become the fantasy masterpiece against which all others are judged, a poignant story of adventure, romance, and magic that has enchanted readers for generations. Penguin Galaxy Six of our greatest masterworks of science fiction and fantasy, in dazzling collector-worthy hardcover editions, and featuring a series introduction by #1 New York Times bestselling author Neil Gaiman, Penguin Galaxy represents a constellation of achievement in visionary fiction, lighting the way toward our knowledge of the universe, and of ourselves. From historical legends to mythic futures, monuments of world-building to mind-bending dystopias, these touchstones of human invention and storytelling ingenuity have transported millions of readers to distant realms, and will continue for generations to chart the frontiers of the imagination. The Once and Future King by T. H. White Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert A. Heinlein Dune by Frank Herbert 2001: A Space Odyssey by Arthur C. Clarke The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. Le Guin Neuromancer by William Gibson For more than seventy years, Penguin has been the leading publisher of classic literature in the English-speaking world. With more than 1,700 titles, Penguin Classics represents a global bookshelf of the best works throughout history and across genres and disciplines. Readers trust the series to provide authoritative texts enhanced by introductions and notes by distinguished scholars and contemporary authors, as well as up-to-date translations by award-winning translators"--
White captures both the humor and the pathos of the legend. There were places in the first section, The Sword In The Stone, where I actually laughed out loud. Later in the book, I felt the ache at the inevitability of the downfall of Camelot.
The one real drawback--although an entertaining one--is the caricature of Merlin. He appears to be a lovable hayseed with a bad memory who happens to be able to turn the Wart (Arthur) into different kinds of animals during his education. We experience none of the wizard's real power of presence.
I've read the book four times and still find it entertaining.
Merlin's advice, which I took to heart as a kid: ''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. Learning is the thing for you.' (183)
'[Arthur] was a kind, conscientious, peace-loving fellow, who had been afflicted in his youth by a tutor of genius [Merlyn]. Between the two of them they had worked out their theory that killing people, and being a tyrant over them, was wrong. To stop this sort of thing, they had invented the idea of the Table - a vague idea like democracy, or sportsmanship, or morals - and now, in the effort to impose a world of peace, he found himself up to the elbows in blood. When he was feeling healthy he did not grieve much, because he knew the dilemma was inevitable - but in weak moments he was persecuted by shame and indecision. He was one of the first Nordic men who had invented civilization, or who had desired to do otherwise than Attila the Hun had done, and the battle against chaos sometimes did not seem to be worth fighting.' (364)
On the faery folk: 'Fairies are not the kind of creatures your nurse has told you about. Some people say they are the Oldest of All, who lived in England before the Romans came here - before us Saxons, before the Old Ones themselves - and that they have been driven underground. Some say they look like humans, like dwarfs, and others that they look ordinary, and other that they don't look like anything at all, but put on various shapes as the fancy takes them. Whatever they look like, they have the knowledge of the ancient Gaels. They know things down there in their burrows which the human race has forgotten about, and quite a lot of these things are not good to hear.' (101)
The book is about questions, I think. Those so-called big philosophic questions you start to ask yourself while you are a kid - though you would not have called them philosophic back then. Naturally, while you are small you do not worry too much about what it is all about: You will surely find the answers as you grow up. And then you get older, and you don't. And the questions multiply and become more and more important, as you are struggling to make the right decisions. How much it would help you to find an answer, even if it were but for one of them! Still, the more you learn and watch and listen, everything only gets more complex, continuously.
So you find that living a life is playing a game without knowing the rules. And you try to just be friends with the idea that you won't ever find any real answer, or discover any "pure" truth, and that answers may not even be relevant. Maybe you can live, without knowing exactly what's the idea of it. All the while assuming that you are not among the lucky ones who can content thenselves with the somewhat mysterous equation that "life is its own meaning".
Ah, the book. Yes. It is about might, and society, and war and love, and youth and age, about doing the right thing, candles in the wind, passing-on-the-parcel and what-not, and about any human emotion you could think of. Just like every other good book, actually. Except that this one is better. The Once And Future King is impressively well written, as absorbing as it gets and very often very funny. By the way, this is where J.K.Rowling drew some of her inspiration from. A book I would -carefully- compare it to is: Robert M. Pirsig's Motorcycle Diaries.
I should finally mention that The Once And Future King is, as the title hints to, nothing else than story of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. Anyway!
I was forced to persevere, and I'm glad I did. Once I got used to the sporadic pacing and style, I quite enjoyed it. Especially, the last book. The tone of the novel changed with the story line, as things became more and more tragic. The pacing was weird though, and there were intentional anachronisms which just added to the oddness. There would parts that were dreadfully boring to read then it would get all actiony, then White would go on a rant. It would also be very frank in some places, then overly detailed in others.
I don't know. It was an experience, and I'm glad I (was forced to) read it.
But it’s also a story of betrayal, of self-delusion and false dreams, and of what happens when we draw lines between what’s yours and mine, between what you are and I am, and when we isolate ourselves from each other by any of the various means at our disposal. It’s a story of what happens to love when we try to divide it.
This is a sad, sad, sad, sad book. And also very funny. The first book is the funniest, and then they get sadder. It's like White took the Malory Morte d'Arthur and sucked all the silly stuff out of it so what's left is the essence of the Arthur legend in all its tragedy and glory.
And it was written at a horribly sad time. After two World Wars, things weren't looking too bright around Europe and that outlook colors EVERYTHING that was written at the time. In fact, this reminds me strongly of C.S. Lewis, of The Lord of the Rings, of every book in which writers tried to reconcile the horror of the recent past with the hope for the future.
"The best thing for being sad," replied Merlyn..."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 honor 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."
Arthur begins as an eager boy, and ends as an ever-hopeful but misguided ruler who refuses to see the sin that's taking place under his nose. Lancelot is forever undermined by the path down which love has taken him. Galahad's virtue is so rarified that he has to be removed from this world. Merlyn - oh, I wish we'd had more of Merlyn - is living life backward and understanding it forward, possibly the worst tragedy that can happen to any man.
Tragedy and hope: ladies and gentlemen, I give you the 20th century. If you want to understand it, read this. Read The Lord of the Rings. Read C.S. Lewis. Read Ray Bradbury. From our age of small wars and nameless terrors, look back and try to understand how writers used a familiar past to understand a terrifying present, and did it with a sense of humor that we just don't have.
This is one of those books that demands to be re-read. But will I ever have the courage?
The first of the four individual works, "The Sword in the Stone", is the best of all four. White's writes wonderful characters, especially young Arthur (aka Wart), in well-rounded depth. The narrative flow of this work is the best of any of them and sets up the reign of Arthur that makes the reader look forward to seeing what happens next. Unfortunately in "The Queen of Air and Darkness" the characters are not well rounded and the narrative aimlessly wanders between England and the Orkneys without connecting the two until the last chapter when an evil scheme comes to fruition that the reader did not know what actually happening. The third and longest of the individual works, "The Ill-Made Knight" focuses on an ugly Lancelot, his love affair with Guinevere, and the knightly exploits of the Round Table. While this individual work is somewhat engaging, White emasculates Arthur both physically and mentally that continues into final individual work, "The Candle in the Wind", while other characters aren't even given much depth or story arc.
Throughout the entire writing, White injects himself and modern day elements throughout the entire book making it hard for the reader to keep to the narrative flow and maintain a "suspension of disbelief". Another unfortunate decision by White was to insist his story was real history of a part of the medieval era then mention "the supposed Henry III" or "the supposed Richard the Lionhearted" throughout. Also White assumed that his readers were versed in Thomas Malory's "The Death of Arthur", which I must admit a half century ago might have been the case, nowadays readers ironically look to "The Once and Future King." And there were White's tangents, whether it was philosophy or history, that were beautifully written but had no bearing whatsoever on the plot or characters or anything else he had just written about before he went down those literary side roads.
Upon completing "The Once and Future King", I can see why many people enjoyed it and rated it highly. However, I personally can't ignore narrative stumbles or downright tangents that made three-quarters of the book harder to read than the section covering "The Sword in the Stone". My advice before reading T.H. White is to read Malory's book first and be prepared for references from the 1930s to the late 50s, or you'll be taken aback.
3. Lancelot is considered quite ugly. 4. This is not the authoritative volume of all things Arthurian. There is actually a series of books by Sir Thomas Malory collectively called Le Morte d'Arthur (I've just ordered the first book so get ready for that in the future) which were referenced more than once in The Once and Future King. This was a beautifully written book and had me so caught up that I actually missed my stop on the train...twice. It's full of damsels in distress, knights in glittering armor, love beyond measure, and above all chivalry. There's a reason that many consider this book to be the best fantasy novel ever written.
Book 1: The Sword in the Stone; tells the story of Arthur's childhood and education by Merlyn, the absent-minded magician who is living his life backward in time. It culminates, rather hastily, with Arthur repeatedly pulling the sword out of the anvil to show that he is the new king.
Book 2: The Queen of Air and Darkness, (a.k.a. The Witch of the Wood); tells of Arthur's young adulthood where he conceives the Round Table, defeats King Lot to secure the kingdom, and is seduced by Morgause - thereby sowing the seeds of future ruin.
Book 3: The Ill-Made Knight; the longest book in the volume focuses more on the adventures of Lancelot and his illicit affair with Guenever. In this book, we begin to see less humour as the tone becomes more serious and the narrative veers toward the philosohical and tragic.
Book 4: The Candle in the Wind; sees Arthur in his dotage. Trapped by the ethics of his own Round Table creation, he struggles to hold his kingdom together in the face of treachery, betrayal, and deceit.
The worst is definitely The Ill-Made Knight, the third book - which is a ill-made mixture of childish simplicity with adult themes, and feels plain odd. The books leaves all character development of its two main protagonists (Lancelot and Guenevere) for the fourth book, barely features Arthur at all, rushes past the deaths of some of the key knights, has none of the madcap creativity of the early books, and tries to do moralising and irony in the same breath.
However, you can't not love the collection as a whole, given the strengths of other books. White's textual richness is his main success, and the way he illuminates the 'dark ages', making it feel fizzing with life. Also: is there a more euphonic title than 'The Once and Future King'. Beautiful.