Customer Reviews

Guenevere, Queen of the Summer Country (Guenevere Novels)

5 star:		(20)
4 star:		(12)
3 star:		(10)
2 star:		(14)
1 star:		(19)

 

 

I read most current versions of the Arthurian legends; most of them are no great shakes. This one, sadly, falls into that category. This is not a /bad/ book, it is just not a terribly /good/ one.

Like many current works pertaining to the tales of Arthur, this one is set nebulously in "historical times". There are trappings to make it seem like tale takes place just a bit after the Romans pull out of Britain, but only hints. There are a host of anachronisms which would not stand out if only she had placed the tales outside of time, much as Sharan Newman did. Of history, there is little. Of fantasy, there is little, also -- no dragons, no magic, just a lot of very strong-willed and weak- willed people. In fact this is one of the problems -- her main characters cannot make up their minds as to whether they are dynamic leaders or merely swept along by events larger than themselves.

Guenevere is neither a truly strong nor engaging character. At least half of her dialogue takes place in her head; she seems incredibly reticent to speak her mind. Her love for Arthur is immediate and wholehearted, without any real reason. She leads a group of vague pagans who all worship The Mother, a wholy benign being who seems to insist on a lot of sex, very little ceremony, and no strong thought other than "We Are Not Christian". Apparently Guenevere should be a warleader as well as a political leader for her people, yet despite the fact that she is 20-odd years old when we first meet her, she has had no training in battle. On the other hand, she has an immediate grasp of tactics the moment she views a battle.

I rather like the fact that Merlin is a dark character in this work -- so many Merlins since TH White have been such nice, sanitized people that one forgets he was a figure of mystery and even terror in the early legends, the product of a nun and a demon. On the other hand, his characterization is again rather shallow -- somehow he is connected to the Pendragon household and is determined to see it continue in a position of power, but he has these visions of nubile young things that taunt him in is unguarded moments. Once he finds a woman, he is imprisoned as a madman. Poof. End of Merlin.

I put this book in the same rough category as Nancy McKenzie's "Child Queen", Joan Wolf's "The Road to Avalon", and Helen Hollick's "Pendragon's Bannder series" -- not bad, but not really good. If you are looking for a good version of the tales from a female perspective, I heartily recommend either Vera Chapman or Fay Sampson. Ms. Miles' work is merely there, another novel that will go through a single printing and be forgotten.

I love Arthuriana and am always interested in any new take on the legend. I was happy to find this book at the library...until I started reading it. I wish I could give it zero stars, but Amazon doesn't allow that.

Previous reviewers have already pointed out everything I found bad about the book (character inconsistencies, poor writing, etc.) I did finish the book (stupidly hoping beyond hope that it would improve) so I feel comfortable advising people looking for an entertaining read to avoid this. If you're interested in Guenevere I'd recommend Nancy McKenzie's "Queen of Camelot", Sharan Newman's series or Persia Woolley's trilogy. I would also recommend Helen Hollick's series for those looking for a telling devoid of magic.

It's always a delight to find yet another perspective of the Arthurian legends, and this one is intriguing. I loved the Mists of Avalon, of course, but Ms. Miles' story encourages us to take another look at Bradley's Morgan and Guenevere. For those of us who haven't read the 80 plus Arthurian books that other reviewers refer to, this is a wonderful story that doesn't dull our wits with Welsh names that are impossible to pronounce (as much as I love Wales... don't get me wrong...). In short, it is a wonderful story and it presents the reader with new ideas. The only reason I didn't give it five stars was because it could have given the "witches" at Morgan's convent a more comprehensive historical background. I am looking forward to reading the next in the series.

Guenevere is the daughter of the Queen of the Summer Country, a title she takes on upon her mother's inopportune death, engineered by Merlin. Merlin has foreseen the dangers that Guenevere poses to Arthur, so he arranges everything he can to prevent the two from meeting. He did not forsee the persistence of Arthur, indeed, does not foresee that Arthur can think for himself. In this novel, it is always a danger when Arthur thinks for himself. He is much better off when he takes the advice of his advisors, rather than thinking on his own.

Unlike most recent novels that try to avoid Mallory and his romantic predecessors by focusing instead on Celtic and Roman legends and mythologies, Miles tries to blend the two. It might have been a successful blend had the characters been more likeable and fully fleshed. Guenevere is not the powerful Celtic queen, but the helpless, selfless (and I hate to use the term) nag whose extreme love for her and Arthur's son leads to a breakdown in their marriage, especially after Arthur (yet again following his own counsel) takes the boy to the battle that leads to the boy's death. Arthur finally falls victim to Morgan's wiles (who inexplicably is always trying to destroy Arthur. Apparently you are supposed to kill the son of the man who imprisoned you, even when the son is the one who gets you out of the nunnery and gives you your very own palace.) and Guenevere starts her liaison with Lancelot in the annoying manner of courtly love. Reading Lancelot whine about his honor sets one's teeth on edge.

The characters rarely break one dimension, especially Lancelot, but this follows in the tradition of Mallory and de Troyes. I have complained in other reviews that the character of Arthur is rarely fully fleshed out. This novel is no exception. Miles' efforts to make Arthur human have only served to diminished him. He seems nice enough, but he is moody and dependent, on Merlin and Guenevere. He easily falls victim to the evil plots of Morgan and Merlin. As mentioned above, anytime he makes a decision on his own, disaster strikes. The only successful thing he accomplished on his own is rescuing Guenevere from Malgaunt. Dishwater has more charisma than this Arthur.

This must be the first in a series. I will avoid the second like the plague, and recommend the first be avoided as well.

I love fictional retellings of Arthurian legends. After reading Marion Zimmer Bradley's Mists of Avalon, this book was a little disappointing. Ms. Miles hypes Guinevere to be a "strong female character," however the actions and thoughts of the character do not portray her as being anything but flighty. The repetition of the phrases in her thoughts "oh Arthur, oh Arthur" becomes more than annoying for a character who is supposed to be the heroine.

I do not think that this book deserves the strong criticism of previous reviewers, however. I enjoyed the book, for the most part, and will continue reading the trilogy as books are released. I am very curious to see how Ms. Miles will be able to fill another 2 books, when the largest part of the story was told in the first novel. She appears to be retelling the saga in a different chronological order than I have seen before, so I feel that this is definitely worth a second look.

I was a little leary of reading this book - the reviews did not sound all that great. I am fascinated and passionate about the Arthurian legend and have read various wonderful fictional series as well as non-fictional accounts of the "real" Arthur and the characters associated with him. What has always seemed to fascinate me the most was the "religion" of the legends - primarily the "Great Mother" Goddess worship - the female rule - and it's real relationship to the introduction of Christianity in religious history. It is fascinating to me that this is in fact a very real part of Christian history and heritage - and it was portrayed in this book in a potent manner despite it's simplicity.

This was basically a very simple book to read - but this in no way distracted me from loving it. It very passionately portrayed Gwenevere as the queen she was revered as. I did not understand the various reviews which described her as cold and unfeeling. She was the ruling queen of her people - she was a strong woman - sensual and bold in her own right - capable of the greatest love and compassion. Love is the tragedy of her story. I loved her character. I loved her spirit. I loved her story in this book.

It is true that this book adds no new "twists" to the old legend - the same characters appear (though not always in the same roles) fighting in the same battles - in their hearts as well as their battlegrounds - but for those who read a story such as this because of a love of the romance, chivalry, magic and mystery of the legend it will not be a disappointment. The re-telling of this story through Genevere's eyes and heart was simply a good "twist". It has the same aura (though not quite) of the incomparable Mists of Avalon - a high compliment coming from me! I look forward to reading the sequels.

This book did not live up to its hype. It tries to do for Guenevere what Mists of Avalon did for Morgan le Fey, but it fails sorely because the title character is an embittered shrew. The plot repeats itself endlessly over the course of three novels. Guenevere loves Arthur, she hates Arthur, she forgives Arthur, she loves Arthur again, no wait, she hates him.... Arthur, by the way, is a weak, feeble-minded, doddering simpleton. This is not the great king of Arthurian legend at all. Lancelot is still a tasty dish, but there is no apparent reason why he would love a bitter, jealous, middle-aged woman who repeatedly casts him away. Morgan le Fey starts out as a promising character, but becomes a demonic harpy-type creature. And the tone is excessively anti-Christian. I'm not a religious person at all, but even I was offended by the way Christians are depicted in this novel. It's just not a pleasant read. If you want a great trilogy told from Guenevere's point of view, read Persia Woolley's Guenevere trilogy or Nancy McKenzie's Queen of Camelot. They're well worth the time and effort.

I have lost track of the number of Arthurian retellings I've consumed in 30-odd years of insatiable reading. I have no problem that there are so many out there; the Matter of Britain is one of the central mythologies of Western European culture. But I really expect that a writer who feels moved to deal with the subject should have something new to say. Rosalind Miles really doesn't and what she does say is so superficial, characterless and just plain wrong that this book is a trial for an educated person to read.

Here we have Gunevere presented as a Pagan Celtic Queen of a Matriarchal tradition (a la Persia Woolley's books). I have no problem with this idea. But it becomes obvious fairly early on that Ms. Miles doesn't actually know anything about Pagan religions, either modern or ancient, besides the names of the holidays and the fact that women practice(d) some kind of sexual freedom. I tried hard to say "this is only a fantasy novel," but I happen to know that a great many people take what they read about such things in novels as absolutely true. So when Ms. Miles related that Imbolc--a Pagan spring holiday celebrating new life and healing--was sacred to the "dark maiden of death" I about blew a gasket.

That was one problem. Next was that the book is utterly ungrounded in any timeframe. Although it goes back to Welsh tradition, most of the Arthurian legend we are familiar with is based on 12th & 13th century French romances. The fashion currently is to draw on the older sources and try to find a possible historical basis, making Arthur a Roman Legionary, a Celtic Warrior King, or anything else that would potentially be possible for a dark ages leader of about the 6th century. Rosalind Miles chose to ignore this and her work harks back to Mallory in its castles, tournaments, and code of chivalry. I am not categorically opposed to this. But trying to merge a Middle Ages sentiment of that sort with a Neo-Pagan Matriarchal basis Just Didn't Work. It was very jarring and, rather than gving a new interpretation of the events, it just made them seems arbitrary.

Another thing that really bothered me was the way Ms. Miles jumps around in time without regard to events and without letting the reader know what's going on. One minute it's Beltain and the next it's midsummer, seemingly without transisiton. One day Arthur's setting out to deal with the infant Mordred and when he returns a week later Mordred appears at a tournament seven years old or so. No one seems to remark on this.

I could go on about how flat the characters are and how, although she seems to try to give people basis for their actions, Ms Miles' falls far short of the mark when it comes to creating real, believable situations. Most of the action is sensationalist. I get that the Matter of Britain deals with a lot of sensational stuff like rape and incest. But I'm looking for more than the bare bones these days.

If you've never read any reimagining of Arthurian myth, this book may not actually annoy you. It won't really teach you anything, either. I'd recommend giving it a miss. There's a thousand better boks on the subject than this travesty. I'd give it zero stars if I could.

Having read a good 80 books on the subjects of King Arthur and Guenevere, I was extremely disappointed in this one. Miles has created a completely unsympathetic character -- one that is so shallow, annoying and at times infuriating that I almost didn't care enough about her to finish the book. And what makes this even more disappointing is the fact that Miles' voice and writing style are good, and there is so much more she could have done. The story has so much potential that is squandered in this book.

This book and its sequel are so uninteresting that, although devoted to Arthuriana, I can't bring myself to read the third book in the series. There's no new perspective on the characters or story; it just grinds unpleasantly along. Strangely enough, this is one of four recent and dreary Arthurian series (along with those by Stephen Lawhead, Bernard Cornwell and Jack Whyte). I'd rather spend my time re-reading Mary Stewart's Merlin series, Persia Woolley's Guinevere trilogy, Marion Zimmer Bradley's "The Mists of Avalon" or Rosemary Sutcliff's "Sword at Sunset."