Here’s the blurb
Years have passed since the clash of shield-walls echoed across the land . . .
The Saxons are now the lords of Britain. And yet the bards still sing of Arthur – ‘In our darkest time, when we need him most, shall he come again.’
Ageing mercenary Beran has no love of bards’ songs. Nor of people. Unless they are paying him to steal or kill. Now he has been ordered to murder a boy. But this is no ordinary child. The son of King Constantine and the grandson of High King Ambrosius, this boy could be the saviour of Britain . . . if he lives.
Betraying his companions and returning to a world he believed he’d forsaken, Beran vows to take the boy to the one place that still holds out against the invader: Camelot.
Hunted by Saxons, Queen Morgana and those he deceived, he will seek the help of Guivret, called the Little King, and the Saracen, Palamedes who once rode beneath Arthur’s banner. They will meet the doomed lovers, Tristan and Isolde. And they will fight for their lives and for each other.
For if there’s to be any hope for Britain, Beran must deliver the boy to Camelot. And to do that, he must come to terms with his past . . .
Arthur is the breathtaking new novel from the author of the bestselling Lancelot, called ‘a masterpiece’ by Conn Iggulden . . .
Purchase Link
https://amzn.to/4aPRjzL
My Review
Arthur by Giles Kristian is the third and final book in his retelling of the Arthurian Legend, in sub-Roman, or Post-Roman, Britain. I’ve read all three books, although they have been spread over several years. I adored Lancelot and enjoyed Camelot, which takes us to Arthur.
Arthur has left me somewhat perplexed. I’ve not jumped right on here to write a review. I needed time to think about it. I’m unsure if this is because of the book or because of my mind putting some pieces together about the entire legend and asking even more questions about the legend rather than the book. However, there are a few authors whose work I really enjoy, but I seem to take away something different from others (Mark Lawrence being one of those authors), and this is also one of those books.
The world-building is both vast and intimate. The characters we meet, a young Arthur, Beran and Constantine’s grandson, are intriguing choices. True to the legend as we know it, Arthur falls prey to some ill-advised antics and seeks to distance himself from them and his father, although that’s never going to work. Beran is an old, tired man, aching and bedevilled by his past and the main driving force of the narrative. Constantine’s grandson embodies a young boy, entirely out of his element, believing his position is all he needs to ensure his survival in a world turned upside down. The twin storylines very much run independently of one another. Arthur, as a young man, never quite feels fully formed – the story depends very much on readers knowing the legends of Arthur. Beran feels more fully formed, and his decisions perhaps make more sense to a modern audience. The juxtaposition between Beran and Constantine’s grandson gains poignancy as the tale progresses.
Yet, as beautiful as some of the phrases are, some of them are not. The world-building is both well done and also somewhat laboured and repetitive. Huge elements of the storyline are only explained much later in the book, and for much of it, I was unsure why I persisted in reading. The title is particularly vexing. I fear readers will not persevere to understand its relevance. I’m glad that I did.
The poignancy of a world lost is perfectly evoked. The men and women living in it are almost ‘out of time,’ with events taking place around them. The book is tinged with sorrow.
I think that if I had read all three books together, the trilogy would work very well. Returning to the trilogy after so many years means I’ve lost the threads from Lancelot and Camelot, which both feature Arthur.
This is a bold end to a trilogy that has tried to be very different. I believe readers will love it or hate it. I can certainly appreciate the crafting of the story, even if I’m left perplexed by it. It is an absorbing tale, sucking me in and not letting me go. I read it in a few days. Perhaps, after all, it is as ephemeral as the legends themselves, and that is a testament to the author evoking such a response in me.
Check out my reviews for Lancelot and Camelot
If you read my reviews, you’ll know I don’t usually highlight elements of them, but for Arthur I want you as a perspective reader to understand that I feel much of my reaction was perhaps as personal as the writing of the novel was for the author.
