Saturday, January 12, 2013
Book Review of #1 The Sword in the Stone by TH White
Author: TH White
Part of a Series: The Once and Future King
Type of book: Fantasy, Medieval, legends, myths, England, 1200s, childhood, animals, lessons
Year it was published: 1939
The whole world knows and loves this book. It is the magical epic of King Arthur and his shining Camelot; of Merlyn and Owl and Guinevere; of beasts who talk and men who fly; of wizardry and war. It is the book of all things lost and wonderful and sad. It is the fantasy masterpiece by which all others are judged.
I think that the only character that does change through the book is Arthur because he has observed the animals and so forth. But I think the character remain the same and flat and nothing else changes about them. I think I would have enjoyed it more if I wasn't wondering whether or not what's accurate and what's not.
Learn from animals.
Third person from Arthur's point of view. Briefly it also focuses on Arthur's guardians and Kay's father. Other than that, everything is from Arthur's point of view. Its a boring read, even if you read lots of other books and gleaned a lot of old vocabulary from them. I didn't enjoy the reading or the moments or whatnot. Animal world tended to be kind of fun but boring at the same time, and I couldn't understand why Merlyn was so mean to Kay and so forth.
May 29, 1906 in Bombay, India
January 17, 1964
Literature & Fiction, Children's Books, Historical Fiction
About this author
Born in Bombay to English parents, Terence Hanbury White was educated at Cambridge and taught for some time at Stowe before deciding to write full-time. White moved to Ireland in 1939 as a conscientious objector to WWII, and lived out his years there.
I would like to confer a title on this book: "Sveta's Mount Everest". I bought this book in 2002, at a tender age of sixteen at a library. Since then I have attempted to read it but first chapter always stops me. Why? Very confusing vocabulary. What the hell is Summulae Logicales? What about astrolabe? And so forth? Although I have conquered and finally read the first book in the series, I still feel its a bad and inaccurate book. Why? The animal world is not very accurate, or so I felt. If a strange ant, for example, comes to a different nest, then he'll be torn apart. And since when does King Arthur have Robin Hood/Wood mythology? I thought Robin Hood was after King Arthur myths? Why was Communism described negatively? I was bored by the book. The exciting part happened at the very end. I'm happy that I'm through the first novel. Perhaps the other books will be more fun and exciting.
2 out of 5
(0: Stay away unless a masochist 1: Good for insomnia 2: Horrible but readable; 3: Readable and quickly forgettable, 4: Good, enjoyable 5: Buy it, keep it and never let it go.)