Rating: 
Summary: disappointing
Review: As much as I enjoyed all of Lawheads other Arthurian books, I was left with the feeling that he simply turned this one out too quickly. While the beginning of the book caught my intrest, and kept me reading, as I went along, I began to feel that I was in the middle of a daytime soap opera. The characters were shallow, the situations increasing unbelievable, and the plot ground to a halt about 100 pages before the book did. The ending left me completely flat, and disappointed. There were too many things left unanswered. Why did Waring have such a vituperative hatered of the monarchy, and what happened to him? Such people do not just disappear. Where was the great evil of Morgian-Moira, she was a bit of a joke. And why mention the Lia Fail, and then no more about it again? Merlin was underutilized, no great shakes came from his character at all. James and Jenny were too good to be true, and while you can't help liking them, they were not well developed as real humans, with real human failings. And come on, beaten, stabbed, bitten by pit bulls, twice, save the baby, and a bit of antiseptic and a tetnus shot, and back on the road? Pu-leeze. Not to mention shot, and burned. The only thing left out was a good hanging, maybe that will be in the next book. And where was Excalibur? A central part of the legend forgotten. A king without a sword and all that.
Altogether, I think if Mr. Lawhead had taken more time, added another 100 pages or so, worked the plot to the end, and remembered the background he so magically created for Taliesin - Grail, this could have been a wonderful way to bring the story into modern times. But, it fell flat and failed to deliver the magic of the previous books. I have re-read all the other books at least 4 times, this one will sit on the bottom shelf with the dust bunnies.
Rating: 
Summary: The premise enticed me, but . . .
Review: As someone who has been fascinated with the history, symbolism, and ritual of the British monarchy, the premise of Avalon captured my attention, but ultimately, I found it a bit disappointing. Lawhead is dealing with interesting issues, but doesn't develop them in a very compelling way and spends to many words describing things that don't matter much overall. I sensed that much of what fascinates Lawhead about British national identity also fascinates me, but I never got the impression that his knowledge of British history, or of issues in contemporary British culture, was that extensive. Obviously, the figure of Arthur represents an ideal, and it would have been interesting to see more of the drama of recorded British history somehow woven into the narrative of legendary Arthur coming back to the 21st Century. I was left wondering what figures (royal or otherwise) in British history aroused the author's admiration in terms of standing in the tradition of inspired leadership idealized by Arthur. Given the surname of the main character and a couple of other statements, one gets the impression that Lawhead believes that the royal succession in Britain took a wrong turn with the transition from the House of Stuart to the House of Hanover. However, this does not demonstrate any appreciation for the fact that the personal character traits and positive public perceptions of monarchs like George III, Victoria (and her consort Prince Albert), George V, George VI, and Elizabeth II have helped the monarchy to survive to this day. Even though they do not bear the name of Stuart, those monarchs do descend from King James I. Also, does Lawhead see good things in the development of parliametary democracy? Lawhead doesn't really effectively argue the case for constitutional monarchy so much as he argues for inspired leadership. He implies that the new Arthur represented in James Stuart is going to exercise more political clout than present monarchs, but in this age of democracy, how would that be accepted and what would it look like? How would a religiously pluralistic culture influenced by secular humanism react to the unabashedly Christian coronation ceremony depicted near the book's end? Also, just how far into the 21st Century is the story set? How has E.U. developed? Is the United Kingdom still united? Historical and cultural issues aside, the main characters suffer from a lack of development. It would have been interesting to see James Stuart struggle with real human weaknesses and how his professed Christian faith gives him hope and perseverence. As someone else noted, Prime Minister Waring is a cardboard villain who is not a formidable antagonist. So once again, exploring the ideal of Christian kingship in the setting of 21st Century Britain presents compelling ideas, but as someone noted, Avalon is not up to the literary level of a work by C.S. Lewis or J.R.R. Tolkien. If the premise of this novel interested you, I would recommend the non-fiction books "The Abolition of Britain: From Winston Churchill to Princess Diana," by Peter Hitchens, and "God Save the Queen: The Spiritual Dimension of Monarchy" by Ian Bradley.
Rating:
Summary: The premise enticed me, but . . .
Review: As someone who has been fascinated with the history, symbolism, and ritual of the British monarchy, the premise of Avalon captured my attention, but ultimately, I found it a bit disappointing. Lawhead is dealing with interesting issues, but doesn't develop them in a very compelling way and spends to many words describing things that don't matter much overall. I sensed that much of what fascinates Lawhead about British national identity also fascinates me, but I never got the impression that his knowledge of British history, or of issues in contemporary British culture, was that extensive. Obviously, the figure of Arthur represents an ideal, and it would have been interesting to see more of the drama of recorded British history somehow woven into the narrative of legendary Arthur coming back to the 21st Century. I was left wondering what figures (royal or otherwise) in British history aroused the author's admiration in terms of standing in the tradition of inspired leadership idealized by Arthur. Given the surname of the main character and a couple of other statements, one gets the impression that Lawhead believes that the royal succession in Britain took a wrong turn with the transition from the House of Stuart to the House of Hanover. However, this does not demonstrate any appreciation for the fact that the personal character traits and positive public perceptions of monarchs like George III, Victoria (and her consort Prince Albert), George V, George VI, and Elizabeth II have helped the monarchy to survive to this day. Even though they do not bear the name of Stuart, those monarchs do descend from King James I. Also, does Lawhead see good things in the development of parliametary democracy? Lawhead doesn't really effectively argue the case for constitutional monarchy so much as he argues for inspired leadership. He implies that the new Arthur represented in James Stuart is going to exercise more political clout than present monarchs, but in this age of democracy, how would that be accepted and what would it look like? How would a religiously pluralistic culture influenced by secular humanism react to the unabashedly Christian coronation ceremony depicted near the book's end? Also, just how far into the 21st Century is the story set? How has E.U. developed? Is the United Kingdom still united? Historical and cultural issues aside, the main characters suffer from a lack of development. It would have been interesting to see James Stuart struggle with real human weaknesses and how his professed Christian faith gives him hope and perseverence. As someone else noted, Prime Minister Waring is a cardboard villain who is not a formidable antagonist. So once again, exploring the ideal of Christian kingship in the setting of 21st Century Britain presents compelling ideas, but as someone noted, Avalon is not up to the literary level of a work by C.S. Lewis or J.R.R. Tolkien. If the premise of this novel interested you, I would recommend the non-fiction books "The Abolition of Britain: From Winston Churchill to Princess Diana," by Peter Hitchens, and "God Save the Queen: The Spiritual Dimension of Monarchy" by Ian Bradley.
Rating: 
Summary: Fitting Conclusion to Lawhead's Arthurian Epic
Review: Avalon is the final book in Lawhead's wonderful Pendragon series. Unlike the other books in the series, it is set during conteporary times when England is threatened by an evil so great that only a revitalized monarchy can save it. Enter James Arthur Stuart, an army officer, who is told by an old man named Merlin that he is the legitimate heir to the throne. It turned out that he was conceived in secret and his existence hidden, raised by a foster family, in much the same way as King Arthur was. Lawhead adds contemporary versions of Arthur's knights and advisors as well as his enemies. Sometimes this book gets lost in Lawhead's rather grandiosse style which fits much better with the ancient rather than the contemporary, but overall, this is an enjoyable and interesting novel. A fitting conclusion to the King Arthur story.
Rating:
Summary: well written, but not what i expected
Review: Having never read this author before, I can't compare this book to any of his others. Avalon was well written- and even engaging- but certainly not what I expected when I bought it. The dust jacket and synopsis make it seem as though the story was about the rebirth of Arthur into modern England. Instead we are left with an interesting albeit off-topic tale of the battle between the "evil" Prime Minister who wants to overthrow the monarchy, and the Man Who Would Be King. The idea for the book seemed like a great one, I just struggled with the manner in which it was laid out. I mean, if this book was really about Arthur, why do we have so few examples of his life (via flashbacks or whatever), and so many chapters full of the Prime Minister bantering with his flunkies? I can only hope that perhaps this is the first in a series of books, and Lawhead will eventually show us more of how his modern-day Arthur would lead the England of the future. An interesting read, but not "Arthurian" enough for me.
Rating: 
Summary: Second half of this book saves it
Review: Having previously read "Byzantium" and "Iron Lance", I was curious to see how Lawhead would handle a story set in modern times. His writing is still superior to much of the stuff thats out there these days. However, the protaganist in this story is not nearly as engaging as in Lawhead's previous works. You admire the character, but I didn't feel the connection with him the way I did in Lawhead's other books. The first half of this book moved much too slow for me. Only at about the midway point did the pace quicken to my liking. Every writer is allowed to delve into uncharted waters. My only hope is that Lawhead sticks to what he seems to do so well - writing in the distant past as opposed to the present day.
Rating:
Summary: The swift sure hand falls short
Review: I have to agree with the reviewers who find this one below Lawhead's average. Although the writing was a bit insipid by his standards, and the plot dragged, my biggest problem wasn't with the "evil prime minister" (who didn't seem much worse than most politicians) or the "return of Arthur" storyline (which was referred often enough.) Instead, it was with Arthur/Stuart's message. Running on a platform of the "swift sure hand" and a Christian theocracy is one thing in the 6th century, but in the 21st? Didn't all the Muslims and Hindus, not to mention free-thinkers and atheists, have something to say about that? All Waring had to do was run a few of the juicier quotes on a continuous loop, and he would have won in a landslide - and probably gotten Stuart and his supporters deported to boot. And after the Archbishop's Falwell-routine at the funeral, the fifth referendum would have shuttered the Anglican Church and sent Rippon and *his* supporters packing.
Not a bad book, in its own way, but disappointing nonetheless.
Rating:
Summary: Disappointing
Review: I liked Lawhead's Pendragon trilogy when it was just a trilogy - he should have left it at that. In Avalon he avoids what I saw as the main flaw of both Pendragon and Grail - the overuse of lengthy sermons - but fails to deliver on plot. The modern-day Moira simply isn't as frightening as she used to be. Far from being the incarnation of all that is evil in Britain, whose plots destroyed knights and brought ruin to the kingdom, here she is not even competent. When she does kill somebody, it has no negative effect at all. When she sends barbarians after Arthur they are laughable and serve only to increase Arthur's popularity. The rest of her schemes just fizzle out, with the result that Arthur and Merlin face no serious challenge. When you take what ought to be an epic struggle between good and evil from an author of Christian novels and remove the evil, then reduce the Christianity to a few throw-away lines, you're left with a watered-down story that is neither interesting nor thought-provoking.
Rating:
Summary: Predictable, bland and full of cliches...
Review: I was very disappointed in this book.
Let me start by saying that I have a strong interest in British history, and after reading Marion Zimmer Bradley's "The Mists of Avalon", I was anxious to continue on to other titles.
This book raises an interesting premise-what if the legendary King Arthur returned? Unfortunately, I found this book to have one-dimensional characters, plot resolutions I could see coming from a mile away and utterly unconvincing situations.
The book focuses on James Arthur Stuart, a man who is told by the reincarnated Merlin that he is in fact King Arthur. James holds a strong affection for Jenny (who later is revealed to be a major link in the story) and enjoys a close friendship with childhood companion Cal. Once James is told by modern-day Merlin that he is Great Britain's rightful King, James decided to claim the throne, much to the disgust of Prime Minister Waring, who is behind the recent abolition of the monarchy. He is determined that James (aka Arthur)will never take the throne.
This is the plotline, in a nutshell. The story, alas, is ruined by several things.
1. The characters are stereotypical, cardboard cutouts...no real personality is shown or motivation explained. PM Waring may as well have horns and a tail.(You can tell because he swears a lot) Jenny, James' girlfriend, is, of course, perfect in looks and manner. And James himself is handsome, brave, smart, honest, loving, sincere AND almost singlehandedly takes down a group of Neo-Nazis with pitbulls! Puh-LEEZE.
2. The author is obviously very pro-monarchy...or at least, very anti-politician (not to mention, rabidly anti-journalist). I would almost argue that he has some sort of axe to grind. There are several moments in the book where James/Arthur defends his claim to the throne by saying that the Monarchy was established by God, and besides, Parliament has done an awful job anyway. I know it's just a work of fiction, but there is no sincere discussion in this book of why Britain may be genuinely better off without the monarchy. One passage, where James/Arthur pompously tells the demonized Prime Minister that he is there in office purely out of James/Arthur's kindness is particularly offputting. I frankly found none of the major characters to be particularly likeable or interesting.
3. There are better writers in this genre...and yes, I do mean Marion Zimmer Bradley, to mention one. She writes extensively on early England/Britain with a complexity and clarity that Lawhead doesn't. Basically, I was disappointed that I bought this book. I can see this being the basis for a "straight-to-DVD" movie, starring obscure B actors.
Rating:
Summary: A very intelligent approach to a eye-misting dream
Review: I've never read Lawhead before, but will now, and had enjoyed lighter treatments of the theme of Arthur's return, i.e. "The Forever King" and "The Broken Sword" or "Arthur King" or a couple of mid-90's novels that did put modern folks with chivalric dreams in the bodies of authentic,cruder Arthurian court figures. Lawhead has avoided most of the potential whimsy, grappling with thinking through how such an extravagant idea could work in a complex, modern England. The contrast between the wasted opportunities of Britain's royalty since Queen Victoria and what a leader could do was particularly powerful and pounded home so a deaf man could hear it. The characters are well done, the plot moves along modern political thriller lines instead of a few whacks from the Caliburn blade to resolve things, and there is a lot of long reflection obvious in the entire book. If you enjoy the many interpretations of Arthur, you'll enjoy this as well.
|
