The Mists Of Avalon

This review is not as complete as I would like, but I had to publish something here.

Ok, first of all, this book is HUGE! I should have written a review for each of the 4 parts, which are available as separate books as well. Overall it has many flaws, a few of which are major ones, specially in the last book. But I enjoyed so much that I can gladly overlook them.

The book is a retelling of the classical King Arthur story through the point of view of the women, so much that I could see how a men would take issue as how the male characters are under represented, and also how women often feel reading the typical male centered medieval fantasy stories.

However, I don't have strong opinions on the gender issue, and I try to judge a story by it's quality alone, not political correctness issues. When I read a book with a unidimensional female character, I think of her as an unidimensional female person, and if that fits well within the plot is what interests me.

Before talking about the story itself, this book is beautifully written. It could be used as a teaching aid in how to write, even by modern standards.

Anyway, this phrase has been repeated to death, what does it mean “from the point of view of the women”? Well, the women are the main focus of the story, and the book is written in a first person point of view, alternating between the protagonists. In order of importance and amount of appearance, first comes Morgaine and then Gwenhwyfar (copy and pasted this, of course). The first book is almost exclusively of Igraine, Morgaine's mother. Also throughout all the books, main roles are given to Morgause, Morgaine's aunt and Viviane, the Lady of the Lake and Morgaine's foster mother. Some minor roles are given to to Nimue, a priestess used to seduce an enemy, and Niniane, Viviane's successor.

The arthurian story, although very much present, is used as a backdrop for the lives of these women. They are fully fleshed out characters whose emotions, motivations and desires are beautifully conveyed.

Most of the myths regarding the classic tale are expressed as rational facts, adding even more to the original story. Excalibur? Forged from the metal of an meteorite, granting some of its legendary attributes, like being indestructible. Magic? Mostly explained by the interaction of wise and intelligent individuals dealing with unneducated common folk. Somethings like clever reading of another's body language in order do “divine” what they are thinking, deep understanding of human psychology in order to predict the future. Also praying on peoples false beliefs to apply some clever trick and to fool them.

The myth of King Arthur is told as an actual historical account, with real names of places, accurate dates relating events. The story is also enriched by explanations like the origin of Lancelot's name. His real name is Galahad. Which is what he calls his son. In fact, all of the knights of the round table have intrinsic relations with each other. All very well constructed.

Everything about Morgaine is nicely exposed. How she gainned her reputation as first a sorceress, then an evil one.

Nimue's plot in the last book was the weakest one, although it was still pleasantly written. The priestesses were quiet for a long time in the face of much depredation of their faith, and the case the they decided to use their powers was such an inconsequential one.

Also, the shift of attitude in Morgaine was way too sudden. Her motivation was very clear, but the way it was represented was like she woke up one day and decided to destroy Arthur.