Book of Merlyn

Rating:
Summary: White out of his element
Review: This is the "Lost Ending" to the classic "Once And Future King." Aside from the Disney movie and a quick passage in a high-school anthology, I am clueless to E. B. White. So that means I have undergone a great voyage of discovery!

White's strength is his characterization. Aged Arthur still sees adolescent at times, and Merlyn is the wise man who still has his share of foibles. The Nazi's were army ants, and even Archimedes and the Badger had warm personalities. As I read, the "charming: keeps coming to mind.

The problem with "The Book of Merlyn" is that White stopped retelling Mallory's Le Mort d'Arthur, and began running down his own political deer-trail.

Don't get me wrong: I think White's insights into humanity and into specific human is keen. There was an edge to the way he dealt with Lancelot, and his Merlyn is far more affectionate the C. S. Lewis's in "That Hideous Strength." But the problem with the book is that he got "off message," and got off of his element.

This book is but about Arthur or Merlyn, or the Round Table, but is really White's response to the events around World War II. He is , in effect, doing to Camelot what Nietzsche did to Zoroastrianism: use a good medium to expresses a bad idea.

To the point, White analyzes humanity in relation to other animals. Merlyn, Arthur and the councils of animals are unable to decide what and how to solve the human problem. They begin the discussion by try to name human. Is he Homo Ferox (Ferocious Man), Homo Stultus (Inefficient Man), or is he Homo Impoliticus (Impolitic Man)?

On the surface, the discussion between Arthur and the council of animals is great parody on the level of Gulliver. The Nazi as ants is brilliant, especially the part about "done" and "not done." On second glance, there are some problems. We can look to the animals for examples, but in reality, we are reading humanity into the animals. Then, we takes these mythical non-existent animals, and use them to criticize humans.

Sure, we can look to geese as being very sociable, but geese do not have agency and intelligence. That is, the do not know better but behave differently. It is all instinct. Their behavior is neither good nor bad, since that cannot choose to be bad. Congratulating the geese on behaving nicely would be like congratulating the sun for rising.

This logical error is called "Anthropomorphic Fallacy" where we read human behavior into inanimate or animal objects. Poet (and White is one par excellence) use this to great aesthetic affect. Btu it is the blackest of all rational errors. White's fantasy gets in the way of the point he is trying to make.

Secondly, White merely focuses on externals. The solution to peace is to remove all borders. In 1776, the United States had open borders between the states, but that did not prevent the civil war. In both the Civil War and World War II, the key issue was not borders. A closed border meant nothing to Hitler, since he would just driver a tank across it. But the key issue was freedom and how to use it. Hitler's nationalism was just a catalyst for more sinister ends.

White did hit the truth in Chapter 1. The issue is one of Original Sin or Original Virtue. Merlyn points out "To disbelieve in original sin, does not mean that you must believe in original virtue. It only means that you must not believe that people are utterly wicked."

He knew the question or peace was one of human nature; he just forgot it in writing the rest of the book.

Rating:
Summary: White out of his element
Review: This is the "Lost Ending" to the classic "Once And Future King." Aside from the Disney movie and a quick passage in a high-school anthology, I am clueless to E. B. White. So that means I have undergone a great voyage of discovery!

White's strength is his characterization. Aged Arthur still sees adolescent at times, and Merlyn is the wise man who still has his share of foibles. The Nazi's were army ants, and even Archimedes and the Badger had warm personalities. As I read, the "charming: keeps coming to mind.

The problem with "The Book of Merlyn" is that White stopped retelling Mallory's Le Mort d'Arthur, and began running down his own political deer-trail.

Don't get me wrong: I think White's insights into humanity and into specific human is keen. There was an edge to the way he dealt with Lancelot, and his Merlyn is far more affectionate the C. S. Lewis's in "That Hideous Strength." But the problem with the book is that he got "off message," and got off of his element.

This book is but about Arthur or Merlyn, or the Round Table, but is really White's response to the events around World War II. He is , in effect, doing to Camelot what Nietzsche did to Zoroastrianism: use a good medium to expresses a bad idea.

To the point, White analyzes humanity in relation to other animals. Merlyn, Arthur and the councils of animals are unable to decide what and how to solve the human problem. They begin the discussion by try to name human. Is he Homo Ferox (Ferocious Man), Homo Stultus (Inefficient Man), or is he Homo Impoliticus (Impolitic Man)?

On the surface, the discussion between Arthur and the council of animals is great parody on the level of Gulliver. The Nazi as ants is brilliant, especially the part about "done" and "not done." On second glance, there are some problems. We can look to the animals for examples, but in reality, we are reading humanity into the animals. Then, we takes these mythical non-existent animals, and use them to criticize humans.

Sure, we can look to geese as being very sociable, but geese do not have agency and intelligence. That is, the do not know better but behave differently. It is all instinct. Their behavior is neither good nor bad, since that cannot choose to be bad. Congratulating the geese on behaving nicely would be like congratulating the sun for rising.

This logical error is called "Anthropomorphic Fallacy" where we read human behavior into inanimate or animal objects. Poet (and White is one par excellence) use this to great aesthetic affect. Btu it is the blackest of all rational errors. White's fantasy gets in the way of the point he is trying to make.

Secondly, White merely focuses on externals. The solution to peace is to remove all borders. In 1776, the United States had open borders between the states, but that did not prevent the civil war. In both the Civil War and World War II, the key issue was not borders. A closed border meant nothing to Hitler, since he would just driver a tank across it. But the key issue was freedom and how to use it. Hitler's nationalism was just a catalyst for more sinister ends.

White did hit the truth in Chapter 1. The issue is one of Original Sin or Original Virtue. Merlyn points out "To disbelieve in original sin, does not mean that you must believe in original virtue. It only means that you must not believe that people are utterly wicked."

He knew the question or peace was one of human nature; he just forgot it in writing the rest of the book.

Rating:
Summary: Deceptive.
Review: This is the fifth and final volume in The Once and Future King pantalogy (after The Sword in the Stone, The Witch in the Wood, The Ill-Made Knight and The Candle in the Wind).

The day before the final confrontation with his son Mordred, Arthur follows Merlyn to the Combination Room, where lives his menagerie. There he listens to the magician and Archimedes, Badger, Urchin and so on, who are in a political debate on how the human way of considering life and the world is different from that of animals.

I was disappointed with the Book of Merlyn, which in fact is hardly a novel. Merlyn's supposedly natural history lesson is but an excuse for discoursing on war and the bellicosity of Man. The only passages where there's an actual story are when Arthur visits the ant nest and travels with the wild geese, but these chapters were already included in The Sword in the Stone. As for what happened to Lancelot and Guenever, it is briefly mentioned in the manner of history books. The introduction on T. H. White's life is interesting, and there are some nice illustrations, but as a whole I found nothing worth recommending this book.

Rating:
Summary: If you are a King Arthur fan, this is a must-read.
Review: This stunning conclusion to White's "The Once and Future King" is a vast departure from the tone that is set in the earlier work. Still, the characterization is extraordinary as White uses stream-of-consciousness to impart an aura not felt in "Once and Future." This is the final conflict, yet it is more of an internal conflict than an external one. This is not a struggle between good and evil, but of good versus good, which is the basis of many classics. This is destined to become such a tale

Rating:
Summary: Not as good as I thought...
Review: Well, I have to read this book for school. I really thought I was going to like it because I normally like Old English Literature. But, this book just goes into sooooooooooo much detail. It drags on forever and ever and seems to never end.

Just thought I'd share..

Rating:
Summary: Believing in Camelot
Review: White packs the politics and philosophy into Book of Merlyn, but if you believe that Might doesn't make Right, his foray into analyziing human conflict is welcome.

Still, there is plenty of moments in the Book of Merlyn that capture White's wonderful magical voice that permeates the Once and Future King.

It's a shame White never got it included with the full book.