Each book of the quadrilogy is markedly different both in tone and style to its brethren. The first sees King Arthur as a boy, the second as a young leader and introduces the Orkney clan, the third almost entirely deals with Lancelot and the final with the war which eventually rent Camelot in two.
![]() |
| courtesy: indiebound.org |
As is now the norm - but TOAFK begets - only the man whose ambition destroys all that Arthur - who in the end loses faith in justice - had judicially achieved, is portrayed as evil and motivated by hate. His brothers - a few of them co-conspirators - are unlikeable or selfish, but none so evil as Mordred.
White's obvious gift was in taking an idea and running with it - The Sword in the Stone could praecied as two hundred pages of one boy's experiences as a pike, hawk, goose and frog. That Merlyn, a proto-Who/Dumbledore, lives backwards in time only serves to highlight an almost futile existence.
It's certainly languid, expansive and a little self-indulgent, but enjoyable nonetheless. It'll take you a fair amount to get through, but this isn't a typical light-hearted swords-n-sorcery epic. This is big, sad and will always be theArthurian novel against which all are judged. Footballs - but I preferred The Winter King.
