Rating: 
Summary: Boring and annoying fantasy
Review: This is not a historical novel but a romantic fantasy 'and not even a good one.
King Arthur was just a Breton kinglet that commanded cavalry corps, and was left to his own devises when the Romans took infantry away from Britain at the beginning of the Vth century. So Arthur lived in the Vth or VIth century. It's a pity no Procopius or Eginhard told his history. So monks and poets have fantasize about him for ages, making gross mistakes as Rosalind Miles does in this book.
There's a moment when Saxons (Vth century) are confused with Vikings (VIII-XIth centuries). The book is full of abbots and monasteries, but this kind of community of prayers was brought to the Western part of the Roman Empire by Saint Benito of Nursia, who lived 480-547, more or less the time in which Arthur was supposed to have lived. But of course, the expansion of that religious experience did not happened in his time, but later.
Some characters are told to speak English, others speak French, while none of those languages existed in those days. The first written proof of French was the Strasbourg Oath (year 842, this is IXth century). Certainly it existed before that date but, could it be spoken four hundred years before?
Fortresses existed from old times, but stone castles as are described in this book were built in the Romanic (not Roman) times (Xth century and later).
They talk about and idealistic chivalry and knighthood, but those ideas of honor and serving the lady, with a quasi-religious ceremonies, belong to later ages. And they arrived to England in the times of Elionor of Aquitaine (1122-1204), this is, seven hundred years later.
What can I say about the wine from the Canary islands? These islands were 'discovered' for Western Europe by Spaniards in 1417, who brougth grape vines to them. This is: nearly one thousand years after the death of Arthur, so it's impossible to Queen Guenevere to drink Canary wine.
While I was reading it I was asking myself: Did windows that could be opened exist in those times? Did they burn witches in those days? So it's not a page-turner.Is there anything good in this book?
Well, I could point certain variations from the old theme: Merlin is an interfering randy old man, there's an interesting fight between christianity and ancient religions, and christianity is a symbol of patriarchy and submission of women; sir Lancelot du Lac is a stallion that appeases the hunger of a sad woman of about thirty, King Arthur is an interesting puppet in the hands of others and Morgana, ... well she hardly speaks or acts in the book, she's always a misterious shadow, you can never know what she really does or why she does it. So, I can say, some things are good in the characters.
Rating:
Summary: this version of the Arthurian legends sets my teeth on edge.
Review: A few other reviewers went into great detail and said alot of things I have to agree with. I picked this book up as part of my resource and research materials for an Arthurian novel I'm in the process of writing, and the twists and turns and liberties she's taken with the traditional storyline just really bug me. If I wanted a pagan-heavy, feminist viewpointed version of the story, I'd reread Mists of Avalon. This was too heavy-handed and seems alot more like a romance novel than fantasy. Merlin was a twisted old man bent on revenge who hallucinated women and cackled.. Guenevere was a pagan queen from a society that believed in polyamory and her right to change lovers/consorts every 7 years, and while Arthur did have the pendragon tattooos on his wrists (ties to the old ways) he followed the Christians. I just really couldn't stand the thing.
Rating:
Summary: Couldn't Finish It
Review: I don't know much about King Arthur, other than the basic storyline (squire pulls sword from stone, becomes king, marries Guinevere, starts Round Table, wife cheats on him, etc..). So when I saw this book at the store, I thought, "Oh, won't that be interesting? The story in novel form, told from Guinevere's (I also prefer this spelling) point of view."
Well, perhaps it might have been interesting, had not the author chosen to make a political/sociological point (and badly, at that) instead of writing a novel. Miles' Guinevere is a Pagan Goddess worshipper, which would be fine, although there is apparently (I've looked) no actual evidence that this was so, whether the legends are true or not. The problem is the heavy-handed way in which the author shoves Guinevere's religion and way of life down our throat. Every other thought the woman has is, "Oh, Goddess, Mother.." (the thoughts that aren't about the Goddess are about Arthur). There is also at least one completely laughable moment, in which Miles, after spending the first third of the book setting up this kingdom (sorry, Queendom) of Goddess worshippers, where women take a different man every night, where Queens and not Kings have the power, and husbands are mere escorts, to be discarded for an evenings fun if the woman desires (all women have the right to "thigh-friendship", a silly and awkward phrase, with whomsoever they desire, and virginity is "wrtched"), then has Guinevere wonder if she should marry Arthur, because of all that women "give up" when they marry. (Not to mention why this particular place-the "Summer Country" is described as "small", considering that with all the "celebration" going on there, the pregnancy rate must be sky-high.) What exactly Guinevere is worried about "giving up" isn't quite clear.
Frankly, I found that all of this got in the way of the story, and I grew bored. I also grew tired of the many discussions of Christianity's evils. While nobody is claiming that the early Church was a barrel of laughs, Guinevere views them as little more than nosy, close-minded [people], from whom she demands tolerance but refuses to reciprocate. If you are looking for a very puzzling bit of misinformation, check out the "Celtic wheel of the year/Christian wheel of the Year" provided in the back, which seems to imply that Bonfire Night (November 5th-Guy Fawkes Day in England, nothing in America) is a Christian holiday, rather than a political one. There are several other Christian holidays mentioned that are incorrect. (Lammastide is celebrated now in August not June, for example, and in medieval times Michaelmas was Sept 29 not 21, so I'm not sure what time period her calendar is from).
My last complaint (still with me?) is that there is no author's note. Most works of historical fiction have them; this does not. Instead, there is a lengthly "List of Characters", and a "List of Places." I visited the author's website but there was no information there about her thoughts on this trilogy either.
Suffice it to say this is not a book I enjoyed, and it is one of the only books I've ever started that I've not finished.
Rating: 
Summary: Good Enough Interpretation of Arthurian Legend
Review: GUENEVERE Queen of the Summer Country is a novel that makes for easy reading. It's a cinch to follow the events of the book, especially if you have prior knowledge of the life and times of King Arthur. It was just all right; I actually give it 3 1/2 stars. I just choose not to give it a five-star review despite its redeeming qualities because, although Rosalind Miles gives the old legend a different spin, there still wasn't much to make me feel that this was more than a recycled story. It also felt like the characters are a safe distance away from the reader, like we can't get inside their heads and really sympathize with them. And how could we, when very few of them (and these are the characters who don't play a huge role in the novel) are portrayed as likable? In my opinion, if you want a really fresh--and CLEARER--take on this tale, THE MISTS OF AVALON by Marion Zimmer Bradley is the book for you. But if you've a keen interest in anything Arthurian, then this first installment in the Guenevere trilogy is an okay read.
Rating: 
Summary: An Amazing Trilogy!
Review: If you haven't already started reading Rosalind Miles, GUENEVERE will not disappoint you! My reading circle has become addicted to Guenevere's story (and the story of her sister-queen Isolde, a new trilogy which begins with ISOLDE, QUEEN OF THE WESTERN ISLE). Rosalind Miles' writing is romantic but not sappy or predictable like most paperback romance novels, and it tells the story of a fairytale queen in a way that's completely real to a modern reader. Guenevere is passionate, loyal and strong-willed, and not afraid to claim her own destiny. And the men in her life come across as real human beings instead of just gorgeous hunks. The story goes on for three books and leads up to a dramatic and surprising--but totally satisfying--ending. You will see yourself in her characters, which is not something I'd say about many novels, especially ones set in the past. Guenevere's story continues in KNIGHT OF THE SACRED LAKE, the second book of the trilogy, and concludes with CHILD OF THE HOLY GRAIL. These books are not overly expensive and are well worth the money--you won't be able to put them down!
Rating:
Summary: A tremendous work of storytelling
Review: This book was a pure delight to read. It was given to me as a gift and I had not read many Arthurian novels before, but I was immediately swept up in the human drama and the gorgeous setting. Rosalind Miles manages to tell a story in a way that's cinematic and vividly detailed, without losing sight of the emotions and humanity of her characters (she also succeeds at making people from past ages seem as immediate and human as those who live today). I would definitely recommend this for any reader who loves stories of strong women and their lives, and not just fans of historical fiction--it's just that good.
Rating: 
Summary: What a fanastic trip down fanasty land!
Review: Growing up, one hears about the magical court of Arthur and his Knights. One only hears the legend of Guenevere falling for Lancelot and she's automatically branded as a fallen woman. Not in this book. Oh what a book!! Rosalind Miles portrays the Queen as someone very human. Yes, Guenevere falls in love with Arthur and marries him despite Merlin's protests. For a long time, the marriage was a happy one till Morgan, Arthur's demented sister, destroyed it and their child. This is a story about how one wife rises above the ashes of grief and finds love again ... only to lose it. Then finds it again in an unexpected source. This is a fun novel to read ~~ and so incredibly romantic. It is a light-hearted read as well. I highly recommend this book for anyone who likes fiction and wants to explore fanasty reading. This is a good choice for a beginner (like me!) to read. I am anxiously awaiting to read the next book in the series. 1-23-02
Rating:
Summary: Wonderful Fantasy and Romance!
Review: I am not an expert on the stories of that time or of all the Arthur and Guenevere stories. In fact, this is the first series I have read. But I can't wait until I can get my hands on the third book! This is a wonderful story and Miles told it very beautifully. You will laugh and celebrate when Guenevere is happy and you will cry when she is sad. I felt her pain and confusion when she felt betrayed by Arthur and frightened for her when she found love with Lancelot. Yes, I see the spin on the evil male and good female. And I did have a concern about the way she makes Christians look. But this is FICTION! It is fantasy! And above all it is Romance! I would have given anything to have a chosen one and champion to fight for me in my times of trouble! Plus, I feel that the ideas of men and women, pagan and Christian she presents are entirely appropriate for that time period. It may not be fair and equal, but is real life any more fair or equal? I would be more than happy to recommend this trilogy to anyone who enjoys reading and going to a different time. She did a good job!
Rating:
Summary: Three Cheers for Guenevere!
Review: Rosalind Miles has created a wonderful world that I just immersed myself in. This was a total reading experience--transporting me through the mists of time with lyrical flowing prose. There are a lot of books out there about the Arthurian legend, but not many that focus on the women's side of the story, especially the story of Guenevere (by the way, this is much better than Alice Borchardt's Guenevere book, which is ridiculously overwritten). I could identify with these characters and was absolutely drawn into their experiences. I was delighted to find this in a bookstore and I will definitely recommend it to my friends and read the rest of the trilogy. In these times when we're all looking for reading that's somewhat escapist, but without sacrificing quality of writing, this is the perfect read for you. If you read Guenevere, you are really in for a treat!
Rating:
Summary: very different take on the Arthurian legend
Review: But I still didn't like it. The book is very readable, but I was unhappy with this retelling. This retelling just wouldn't stop beating me over the head with how the world would be better if women ruled over men and everyone worshipped The Goddess. Paxson and Bradley also wrote feminist pro-pagan versions of the Arthurian mythos, but their books had a more balanced point of view. I prefer Paxson's more neutral account, with balanced perspectives on men/women, christian/pagan, and saxon/briton over Miles' extreme agenda. One issue I had was her treatment of men. Rosalind Miles' usually portrays men as being base creatures, and women as good. Arthur is a child of rape in Miles' book, because Uther rapes Igraine. And of course, King Lot is an evil person who, naturally being male (if you follow Miles' logic) wants to rape and abuse women. There are few males in the book that are treated sympathetically. In Miles' earth religion, the goddess is supreme above all, with the god being a mere footnote. Rosalind equates men with christianity and women with paganism. There are pagan men, but for the most part, she portrays men taking the part of Christianity in order to have power over women. In Miles', the grail is a coveted object that the Christians plot to steal and make their own. To compare to Paxson, the grail is all things to all people, both pagans and christians see the beauty in it. Paxson's characters find spirituality in the union between men and women as Gods and Goddesses incarnate. Miles portrays Arthur as weak, ineffectual, and limp - similarly, her male Gods are nigh-invisible. Particularly, her treatment of Merlin is unusual. Most Arthurian retellings show him as good or neutral. Miles' Merlin is somewhat ambigious, but mostly misguided and being male, wants to give all the power to men. Instead of sacrificing himself, he is locked up by the ladies of the lake. In general, I disliked her treatment of the characters and her views about women (I too am a feminist, but I believe in equality and that men are as good or evil as women). If you can get past her biases, the book is a good read. I, however, do not think I could take the propaganda again, so I will not be reading the followup novels.
|
