Customer Reviews

Merlin

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

Goodrich claims that Merlin was a Celtic Christian scientist, political advisor and religious leader. She may well be right. Indeed, I would like to think that she is right. But if I disagreed with her conclusions, her arguments would not convince me. As other reviews of her writing have said, it is full of non sequiters. I have a Ph.D. in religious studies, and teach religion and philosophy. But I could not explain to a third party her arguments for her conclusions. If you want some exposure to ancient/medieval texts that bear on the identity of Merlin, this book might be useful. But don't expect to come to any clear conclusion (for or against her views) with the help of her writing. She mixes textual exposition and argument without stating where one leaves off and another begins. The reader is constantly wondering: is this what her sourse says? Is it what Goodrich THINKS it says? Is it evidence for her point of view? If so, how? A tangle of confused writing.

Ms. Goodrich undoubtedly knows what she is talking about, and has done her research. However, her writing style and grammar are so horrific that I was completely unable to finish even the first quarter of the book.

Her sentences are disjointed, she makes frequent reference to events and myths without sufficient background information for the reader, and cannot seem to hold a cohesive thought in her head for more than the length of a sentence. Her writing skips off on tangents and rabbit trails, and generally fails to lead to any logical conclusions or coherent presentation.

The research is there, but she's unable to express it to her audience in either a narrative format or a reference format. A huge, huge disappointment.

The major problem are with the major claims of this book:
1) Camelot was Stirling, Scotland.
2) Avalon was the Isle of Man.
3) Gallia was Wales.
4) Merlin was the archbishop ( Saint) Dubricius.
This book is not your grandfather's Merlin ( or that of T. H. White).
I think maybe the worst part is that the author says Merlin was
thought to be a bastard son of a high born woman/ Nun ( a son of a demon
in church terms) and that he was a Christian and not a Celtic-Druid
as has been pretty much the accepted wisdom.
His role a a Celtic vagabond priest fits his "disguises" better
than that he was afraid of being killed.
This author does her best to empty out all the "magic"
from the King Arthur legend.
Since she uses the best "documentation" which is at best a lot of third hand stories written down several centuries after the fact
which most don't agree with each other, she has a hard case to prove.
If there were any archaeological evidence toward her case, I haven't heard of it.
The place names, language, customs and the very people of England had changed before the tale was made into high literature as poetry.
Anyone that demands fact of legendary epic poetry is bound to be disappointing.
I pretty much got disgusted with her changing places and names to suit herself and her ideas.
I'm not saying that there might not be some truth/fact to some of her claims, just that they really don't agree with the traditional story at all. And in the case of a legend what more do we really have than the traditional story? When she says Churchill, Malory, White, Tennyson, Rolleston
and many, many others had it all wrong, she is really saying a lot?

This work from Dr. Goodrich was the first of her
books I've read. If you're looking for a piece
of historical fiction, this isn't it.
On the other hand, the author using her command
of Medieval languages has opened up some volumes
of historical fiction/prose which were
once accounted "romances" by the European
courtesans. Cooincidentally, much of what we
consider "Arthurian" literature falls into this
category.

The genius of Dr. Goodrich in recounting some of
the geographical details and old world customs
of social-enumeration/entitlement, gives the
reader of this biography a lively sense of the
role of the character in life.
The people of the past were not bound, according
to her telling to simply a "name" + "surname"
sort of scheme as we know our families in
today's world.
Rather, the people of history who became
legendary took to themselves multiple titles in
their routines and associations which asserted
their experiences or higher social associations
much like we confer the titles of rank and
courtship and educational status today.
(ie. Dr, Esquire, Senator, Professor, etc.)

The character of Merlin seems to have carried a
variety of titles bequeathed by the Celtic/Britons
and Roman/Christians of the 5th century A.D.
This author explores some of the meanings of
these titles and associations.
She also recounts the details of her visits in
search of historically mentioned sites
in this book and also her work on "Arthur."

A review of the book isn't the place to expound
all the implications of the characters and
characteristics associated with Merlin.
But for my part, I appreciate the
references included in this book wherein I've
even found the earliest known Arthurian tale.
I bought that book from Amazon but they've
lost the note of it. If you buy "Merlin," by
Dr. Goodrich, then you'll find
(if you don't already know) what story that is.

Two characters associated with Merlin and Morganna
and Arthur are known in the the names of my
family for one and a half thousand years.
These being Wyn/Winne and Meredydd/Marilyn with
assorted variations. And I'm particularly
intrigued with the Celtic Christian church
abberrations the author has mentioned in her book.
(Stripped of it's mythological trappings, the
grail is of interest as a peculiar heirloom
of migrants to the Roman colonial territory
of Brittain.)

But, to you dear reader I leave the mystery
to uncover. And be undaunted by the "florrid"
prose of the author as some have described her
work. it isn't nearly so confounding as the
(included)scraps of Merlin's prophecy which
have survived. (Now that's something that would
stymie Nostradamus.)

This review is the opinion of
"Elwyn"

.
This is not an easy read because it is not in narritave form, but it is loaded with the information you need to draw your own conclusions.

I had the distinct privilege of helping Dr. Goodrich prepare two of her books and she gratiously gave me mention in them, Guinevere and Priestesses. I have also counted her as a close personal friend for over 25 years and am familiar with her writing style and research methods, sometimes spanning many years on site in England, Scotland, Wales, France, and Ireland. Norma is fluent in ancient French, Latin, and the Celtic languages. She has free rein in the archives of the University of Paris and the research centers of Aachen, Germany, as well as the major universities in the United Kingdom. In short, she is more than qualified to do her research from the original manuscripts rather than rehashing the works of more recent writers, as so many other "experts" have done.

Other revierwer are quite right in saying that Norma's writing is difficult to read. To many it appears disjointed, but her style is that of a researcher, not a novelest or story teller. More than once I have suggested to her that it would be helpful to the lay reader to put a final chapter in each of her books summarizing in narritive form her beliefs and conclusions based on her foregoing research chapters. She agreed that it might be helpful but she never followed through, preferring to leave it up to the readers to form their own conclusions based on her research.

The subject matter is so esoteric and sparse, and so far into the distant past of the dark ages that details must often be teased out of legands and peripheral contemporary resources. Like her other works Merlin must be read then re-read for true understanding of the man and the world he lived in.

Norma's books have been used in law classes to illustrate the way cogent arguments should be made for or against a premise. Her readers are the jury and are obliged to form their own conclusions based on the evidence and arguments she presents.

Many readers don't like this approach, preferring to be led by the hand, but I find it refreshing.

Unfortunately, someone may read this book and believe the author to be well-informed and knowledgeable. A person may also receive the impression that Norma L. Goodrich know of what she writes.

This is quite untrue. There are many instances, not just in "Merlin", but in all of her Arthurian books, where she grossly misleads the reader due to her pitiable research. This writer is a disgrace to her profession and all historians and researchers. One of the reviewers states "The subject matter is so esoteric and sparse, and so far into the distant past of the dark ages that details must often be teased out of legands [sic] and peripheral contemporary resources." This is a true statement. Dr. Goodrich is so ignorant of the peripheral contemporary resources that she doesn't even know what the actual "peripheral contemporary resources" are. An instance of this is when she tries to use the poet Ossian as a source (in one of her other books). That is so utterly pathetic it's laughable. An uninformed reader may not realize the debate surrounding Ossian. Regrettably, Dr. Goodrich doesn't seem to realize it either. A true historian/researcher who would wish to use such a source would at the very least discuss the credibility of the source before citing it as gospel and basing his or her entire premise on the source.

Nutshell review: This is not what I think most people would call a "summer read", but if you're willing to wade through copious footnotes and rigorous, meticulous research, you'll definitely be rewarded. The Man surpasses the Myth!

I have enjoyed the connected books by Norma L Goodrich. I have read Arthur and Guinevere as well. I made them gifts to my sisters several years ago since we all share the same interest in mid-evil books.

On page 24 Ms. Goodrich talks about Merlin's Grass, which she says is from the Asklepios (sic) family & she says Merlin's Grass (Quillwort) is also pleurisy root & Butterfly weed. Unfortunately she is wrong. Isoetes lacustris (lake quillwort or Merlin's grass) is a boreal Quillwort Lycopodiaphyte. Butterfly Weed is from the plant genus Asclepias (this is the correct spelling)& is Asclepias tuberosa, also called pleurisy root. So Quillwort/Merlin's Grass is not Butterfly Weed/Pluerisy Root. They are two different plants, Quillwort being an aquarian pond plant, that looks like grass, with no flowers & Butterfly Weed, being an herb, with orange flowers used as a tea & treatment for congested lungs.

Merlin is the second book by Goodrich that I've read. Ms. Goodrich's writing is intelligent and impressive. It's interesting to read a book that considers the Arthurian legend to be a historical reality, and Ms. Goodrich comes up with lots of evidence to back up her claims. The best part of this book, in my opinion, is "The Prophecy of Merlin" and the author's explanation of it. Merlin must have lived! Reading this book made me a believer.