Customer Reviews

King Arthur

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(10)

 

 

For years, Norma Lorre Goodrich has tried to fleece an unsuspecting public with her absurd works of Arthurian pseudo-scholarship. Hundreds of books, articles, and conference presentations annually address the question of King Arthur; not all of them are wonderful, but among them are some real gems. However, since they're aimed at a scholarly audience, the public doesn't generally know about them, and Goodrich, realizing she can profit from the gullibility of people curious about King Arthur, comes along with her ersatz academic moonshine and nets lucrative book contracts.

Goodrich's most alarming fault is that she takes literature as history, leading to chapter after chapter of fiction, speculation, and wild conjecture. Goodrich's books are NOT the honest investigations of a scholar, and I urge people interested in King Arthur to talk to their English or history professors and discover books by historians, archaeologists, and literary historians who pursue the truth with objectivity and honesty.

I'm not sure if this book even merits one star, but it was the lowest rating allowed by Amazon's format. Take it from a guy who has been studying this subject for years: this is probably the very worst book you can find on this subject. I am encouraged by the fact that some people recognize this, but I am equally dismayed that many people have been fooled into thinking that this and Goodrich's related books are good scholarship. While Goodrich may be highly intelligent and educated, she appears also to be out of touch with reality. I am not saying this to be mean or spiteful! That is simply my impression from watching her irresponsibly butcher and rewrite history with shameless abandon. There is a tenet which says that the most reliable interpretation of the evidence will almost always be the simplest, and this is the problem I have with Goodrich; her theories (which are really assumptions and presumptions) are so wacky and overly complicated that they appear to be the product of a mind which has blurred the line between history and fiction. She goes on and on and on and on, writing as if in a manic state, giving little clue as to where she's comming from or where she's going with her tedious, blow-by-blow analyses of medieval romances, which she then tries to pass off as scholarly proofs of her rediculous ideas. If that were not enough of a crime against historical scholarship, she then proceeds in her bibliography to viciously slander great scholars (such as Leslie Alcock and Geoffrey Ashe, whose books I've reviewed as well) and their excellent, ground-breaking research. I don't mean to be nasty about this, but as an avid ameteur historian with a passion for distinguishing good scholarship from the bad and the bogus, I feel it is my duty to warn readers and publishers that it is easy to mistake this sort of work as scholarly if you don't already have a good background in this subject. I easily recognized the problems with this book because I've read a heap of books and articles on this subject over the years, but had this been the first book I had ever read on reconstructing a historical Arthur figure, I may have mistaken Gookrich's work as sound. To give an analogy, if you came across a book on American history whose maps portrayed not 13 colonies, but 6 principalities, and which told you that George Washington was not of Anglo stock, but Polish, and that his wife, Martha, was an Algonquin, etc. would you not have to ask yourself where the author came up with such ideas and why he or she is so blatantly contradicting data common to all other books on the subject without even properly explaining why? This is exactly what Goodrich does. She says that Arthur was Gaelic and that Guinevere was a Pict, while all the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that Arthur (and Gwenhwyvaer, if she really existed) was (were) Romano-British (i.e. Welsh). Her maps also carve Britain up in ways which are incompatable with what is known of the dark-age kingdoms. Really, there are so very many superior books available on this topic to get you going in the right direction if you are interested in learning about it. If you don't already have a good background in this, a book like this can only serve to mislead and misinform. If it were being marketed as fiction instead of history, there would be no need to criticize it so harshly. I could only recomend it to someone, who already had a strong background in this area, for laughs.

The notion that the legends of King Arthur were impacted by history from northern Britain is a completely defensible position with a great deal of research and archaeological evidence to support it. Unfortunately, Dr. Goodrich seems to be oblivious to what Arthurian scholars are doing even though she cites several of their books in her bibliography. The text is riddled with errors, inaccuracies and misrepresentations. In the first few pages Dr. Goodrich claims that she is the first to offer proof of an historical Arthur (She needs to recheck her bibliography.), accepts a twelfth-century forgery as an actual relic (the infamous Excalibur forgery), accepts proof on the basis of etymology alone, decides it's important that we don't know precisely how to spell Guinevere's name (Spelling wasn't standardized until well after the Middle Ages and names continued to vary long after that.), says that Thesus pulled a sword from a stone (He didn't.), ignores the possibility of &! ! quot;Artorius" as an origin for Arthur's name, and claims that Gildas "first testified to the historicity of Arthur" (Gildas's failure to mention Arthur is one of the major arguments against his historicity.). The rest of the book is no better. Educators should be familiar with the text so that they know where students' erroneous ideas about Arthur come from, but the book should definitely be read with the idea that Dr. Goodrich is presenting fiction, not fact.

I found it well-researched and extremely well written. Ms. Goodrich's arguments differ considerably from orthodox, academic views, which perhaps explains the marked and mean-spirited hostility which has greeted this book in some quarters. That hostility is very much in contrast to Ms. Goodrich's tone, which I found quite polite and low key. At any rate her argument that Arthur wasn't really medieval, but was instead the 'last of the Romans' is reasonable and very well argued. If it turns out in the long run that she is incorrect, then she will have at least introduced an extraordinarily interesting theory to the current mix. If on the other hand it turns out that she is right, then her sharp critics will have some nasty words to swallow. Perhaps these defenders of orthodoxy are feeling threatened?

This is the first book about the search for historical King Arthur that I've read. I found the author's arguments convincing and was very impressed by her knowledge of ancient languages and culture. Her writing style, however, was very difficult to follow and her logic was in some places brilliant and in others, completely unfounded. I would have loved more maps, end notes, more Arthurian background information, and better outlined arguments. The biggest problem with the book as I see it, was the editing.

Reviewers' opinions of Norma Lorre Goodrich's "King Arthur" jump from those who hate it to those who love it. There's not much middle ground. "What grief and what a shame!" as Lancelot says on page 160. It's time to bridge the extremes. Speaking of bridges, I shall cross carefully, as if on Lancelot's sword bridge (p.167). Of course, as Goodrich tells us, the blade-like quality of that bridge was nothing of the sort. It was a mis-translation which gave French listeners a good laugh to imagine English knights doing something as stupid as walking on blades. If only Goodrich employed more humor she would score points for explaining such pieces of arcana, leaving fewer reviewers mad at her. (I can't resist this digression. Lancelot's sword bridge falls into the category of Cinderella's slippers. In the original French they weren't glass--verre. They were made of highly prized squirrel fur--vaire. English ears never learned to discriminate between those words.)

Here's what is really at work between these covers: impeccable, exhaustive research is rescued from its envelope of academic writing by a great index, making "King Arthur" a valuable reference book. And not just about Arthur and his court, but also the machinations of King Henry II of England and his consort Eleanor of Aquitaine, who pressed the legends of Arthur into use as a political tool. Like Arthur, they ruled a large empire (from the Scottish border to the Pyrenees) whose peoples had different customs, spoke different languages and owed loyalty to different lords. Henry II, struggling to reassert the broken line of his grandfather after nineteen years of dynastic war in England, promoted the Arthurian legends as a shining possibility, of a polyglot empire enjoying peace under a central government such as Arthur's in a former, golden age.

Goodrich's book limits the great wizard Merlin in these pages, perhaps because the author was holding him back: Merlin would become the subject of her next book a few years later.

I used Goodrich's "King Arthur" as valuable research. If you are a general reader, here's a tip: open it at random and read section by section; or open to the index and wander from there. Personally, I needed to learn about Queen Eleanor's propagandist, the author Wace. Not many other books give thirteen page references for Wace. Goodrich can, and does. Accept what she gives in good grace. If you let your mind bend like a reed to the subject, you'll enjoy her "King Arthur" on its own terms. If you want a quick read, this is not for you.

By Robert Fripp, author,
"Power of a Woman. Memoirs of a turbulent life: Eleanor of Aquitaine"

Goodrich is, apparently, a trained academic, but you would never know it from this piece of nonsense. I didn't make it more than 20 pages in before I simply had to put this book down in disgust and move on to something more worthy of my reading time - as a medievalist, I'm simply not going to bother with a work of "history" by someone that clearly can't be bothered to write accurately about the most basic matters. When she mentioned 5th century Vikings, I nearly threw the book across the room but decided not to. If I ever overcome the guilt I'd have from foisting this work of misinformation on an unsuspecting buyer, I want it to be in salable condition. Presumably it would make a decent paperweight, perhaps for a stack of ACTUAL history.

This is my original, four star review-"I waited a long time to pick this book up and I am sorry I did not do it sooner. This book gets many bad reviews, most claiming that it's unreadable or not well researched. While the reading may be tough going for some, to claim that this book isn't well researched shows that you didn't read it. The author loses a star for her method of research though, because she mainly deduces sixth century locations from the consistencies in twelfth century texts.The author is a philologist so most of her arguments are based in those ancient languages in which she is an expert. Most of her arguments are convincing and some are not, but her work should not be discounted when trying to locate Arthur in history.

After being reminded by a fellow reviewer that the research is "misapplied and misinterpreted" and re-reading my review, I thoroughly agree and if I could I would only give this book one star. After all what is this if not a book containing research. If the research, thorough as it may be, was not the correct way to go about delving into the subject matter, the book and conclusions within are without merit.

When people come to me looking for references on King Arthur, Norma Lorre Goodrich's book is the first place I send them. She also has these wonderful titles on Guinevere and Merlin (books by those titles also). She has done so much research it's pathetic. She manages to keep the flavor of the mythology while also making you think and helping you sort through the details. An Arthur researcher who is familiar with this many of the old languages? You just don't find this. My original copies of the books are long gone from giving them to people who needed them. Start here on your Arthur reading, then include T.H. White's Once and Future King and Robert Nye's Merlin (I believe that's the guy's name). You really need nothing else to get acquainted. Beats the heck out of all that bad Celtic fan writing out there. Just do it right, guys!

I seem to one of the few reviewers that see this book in more than one way. I originally read this when it was first published and though I realise it is somewhat haphazard in its presentation and divurges too often on its subject matter. Also is sometimes doubtful in its conjectures and inaccurate and the editing process used is very unorthodox,(to say the least),there is merit in the depth of her research and fresh idealism. The overt feminism at times and some of her theories are rather debatable though. For example-the gaelic and pict ideas and tendencies to believe wholeheartedly the 'clues' of medieval romance writers like about the doves and comb concerning Guinivere appear overdone and gullible. Nevertheless, the possibility that Geoffrey wasn't always wrong or lying and the consideration of the in-depth Northern hypothesis is interesting and led me to further reseach of my own. Unfortunately, many writers cloak their pet theories in factual attire and need to keep some perspective in scholarship more evident. I am sure that is one reason she is so harshly criticized. There has been much research and writing done since this time and more theories and evidence have been put forward, so to sum up, as long as your well versed in various aspects of Arthuriana this is a fairly good book to peruse all in all. If not,it wouldn't be a good idea to start with this.