<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: This is such a great book, I think other kids should read it
Review: I waited for a long time for this book to finally come out. I am so excited that I finally have it.I liked when Arthur pulled the sword out of the stone the best. I liked very much how he illustrated it. This book inspired me to draw pictures about the middle ages. I think other kids that like king arthur stories should read this exciting book. I also wrote my own king arthur legend. Brian Kelly age 7
Rating: 
Summary: In Camelot, this is how conditions are
Review: I'll put my criticism into context. I love T.H. White's, "The Sword in the Stone" and I've a funny bit of affection in my heart for the Disney animated version of the film. Coming to Robert San Souci's 1997 version of the story (one in a series of tales told about the younger versions of characters in the Arthurian tales), "Young Arthur" had some definite potential. Robert San Souci has, after all, retold multiple adept classics like, "Sootface" or "Fa Mulan", amongst others. So I opened up this book and found, to my amazement, that is was just no good. Not a jot. It is sloppily told, poorly illustrated, and a great deal less interesting than its original sources. The story follows the birth and subsequent discovery of Arthur, son of King Uther. We begin with a bizarre view of Stonehenge (yes, Stonehenge) where the king and Merlin (who is never really described or explained in this book) view the shape of a dragon, apparently foretelling the greatness of Arthur. When evil rebels (?!) threaten the life of the child, Merlin hides the babe with a Lord and Lady to be raised by them. The boy grows up with his foster brother Kay and is squired to Kay when the elder brother becomes a knight. When Merlin produces the sword in a stone as a means of locating the kingdom's rightful ruler, Arthur is the only one able to pull it out and he goes on to unite his people and free the land of tyranny. The end. The text of the story is, according to an author's note, drawing on at least nine different Authurian sources. Everything from Alfred Lord Tennyson's, "King Arthur: Tales of the Round Table" to Geoffrey Ashe's "The Quest for Arthur's Britain". I wish I could say that it is as full and rich a story as you could hope could be attained from such prestigious sources. Alas this is not the case. The story seems like nothing so much as a variation on the Disney movie, recasting Kay as a greedy unlikable older brother and Arthur without flaw. Because the tale does not end with Arthur's coronation, we are privy to scenes of him fighting rebels, flying with Merlin, and defeating others in battle. For those kids interested in war, this is a fine (if uninformative) text. All in all, though I was unimpressed with the final product, the book could have remained perfectly all right if the narrative was the only flaw. There is, however, the illustrator to content with. From the moment you view the cover of this book, you may begin to suspect you're in trouble. Illustrator Jamichael Henterly has created a work that, despite its 1997 publication date, looks like nothing so much as a product of the late 1980s. The phrase, "poorly drawn" doesn't do it justice. This artist has no sense of movement or proportion. In a fight scene between Kay and Arthur (Kay looking roughly 39 and Arthur 35 despite their stated ages of 19 and 15, respectively) Kay has apparently swung his sword at his brother. But the picture looks static and posed. In every shot of this book, characters seem to have been froze just after or just before they were about to move. The shot of Arthur pulling the sword from the stone in front of a crowd had a very He-Man from Masters of the Universe feel. Entirely apart from that is just how cheap the entire enterprise feels. The book is gaudy. It seems to try to minimize the poor illustrations of the people by occasionally tossing a Celtic band or design on the opposite page. Characters with sometimes wear Celtic broaches or fight in halls where dragons appear on tapestries. Too little too late, says I. Henterly obviously didn't do any research or take any real interest in the authentic Arthurian England, leaving most of these pictures to appear as the cardboard cut-outs we've already seen so many times before. There is nothing new, exciting, or different about this book. To call this picture book a travesty is a bit much. Let's just call it a failure. The pictures are poorly drawn, the story is repetitive and dry, and the entire presentation is cheap. There are plenty of lovely Arthurian stories out there. Most will have illustrations that impress and some may even take your breath away. Why waste your time pouring over this pale pitiful hodgepodge of legend, myth, and text when there are so many better books in the world? Please don't waste a flicker of an eyelash (let alone a cent) on this book. It's just not worth it.
Rating:
Summary: In Camelot, this is how conditions are
Review: I'll put my criticism into context. I love T.H. White's, "The Sword in the Stone" and I've a funny bit of affection in my heart for the Disney animated version of the film. Coming to Robert San Souci's 1997 version of the story (one in a series of tales told about the younger versions of characters in the Arthurian tales), "Young Arthur" had some definite potential. Robert San Souci has, after all, retold multiple adept classics like, "Sootface" or "Fa Mulan", amongst others. So I opened up this book and found, to my amazement, that is was just no good. Not a jot. It is sloppily told, poorly illustrated, and a great deal less interesting than its original sources. The story follows the birth and subsequent discovery of Arthur, son of King Uther. We begin with a bizarre view of Stonehenge (yes, Stonehenge) where the king and Merlin (who is never really described or explained in this book) view the shape of a dragon, apparently foretelling the greatness of Arthur. When evil rebels (?!) threaten the life of the child, Merlin hides the babe with a Lord and Lady to be raised by them. The boy grows up with his foster brother Kay and is squired to Kay when the elder brother becomes a knight. When Merlin produces the sword in a stone as a means of locating the kingdom's rightful ruler, Arthur is the only one able to pull it out and he goes on to unite his people and free the land of tyranny. The end. The text of the story is, according to an author's note, drawing on at least nine different Authurian sources. Everything from Alfred Lord Tennyson's, "King Arthur: Tales of the Round Table" to Geoffrey Ashe's "The Quest for Arthur's Britain". I wish I could say that it is as full and rich a story as you could hope could be attained from such prestigious sources. Alas this is not the case. The story seems like nothing so much as a variation on the Disney movie, recasting Kay as a greedy unlikable older brother and Arthur without flaw. Because the tale does not end with Arthur's coronation, we are privy to scenes of him fighting rebels, flying with Merlin, and defeating others in battle. For those kids interested in war, this is a fine (if uninformative) text. All in all, though I was unimpressed with the final product, the book could have remained perfectly all right if the narrative was the only flaw. There is, however, the illustrator to content with. From the moment you view the cover of this book, you may begin to suspect you're in trouble. Illustrator Jamichael Henterly has created a work that, despite its 1997 publication date, looks like nothing so much as a product of the late 1980s. The phrase, "poorly drawn" doesn't do it justice. This artist has no sense of movement or proportion. In a fight scene between Kay and Arthur (Kay looking roughly 39 and Arthur 35 despite their stated ages of 19 and 15, respectively) Kay has apparently swung his sword at his brother. But the picture looks static and posed. In every shot of this book, characters seem to have been froze just after or just before they were about to move. The shot of Arthur pulling the sword from the stone in front of a crowd had a very He-Man from Masters of the Universe feel. Entirely apart from that is just how cheap the entire enterprise feels. The book is gaudy. It seems to try to minimize the poor illustrations of the people by occasionally tossing a Celtic band or design on the opposite page. Characters with sometimes wear Celtic broaches or fight in halls where dragons appear on tapestries. Too little too late, says I. Henterly obviously didn't do any research or take any real interest in the authentic Arthurian England, leaving most of these pictures to appear as the cardboard cut-outs we've already seen so many times before. There is nothing new, exciting, or different about this book. To call this picture book a travesty is a bit much. Let's just call it a failure. The pictures are poorly drawn, the story is repetitive and dry, and the entire presentation is cheap. There are plenty of lovely Arthurian stories out there. Most will have illustrations that impress and some may even take your breath away. Why waste your time pouring over this pale pitiful hodgepodge of legend, myth, and text when there are so many better books in the world? Please don't waste a flicker of an eyelash (let alone a cent) on this book. It's just not worth it.
<< 1 >>
|
