Review: The Mists of Avalon

Marion Zimmer Bradley’s Arthurian masterpiece is the sort of book that gets burned or banned by critics unable to refute and too timid either to try or to call in greater masters to do so, and unwilling to take the care that it find its way only into prepared hands. The unwary reader, if not repulsed, will certainly be drawn under its spell and left troubled; even the careful reader will have to careful sort through thoughts jarred loose.

What is this book? It has layers. From the title, anyone can deduce that it is a modern retelling of the Arthurian saga. The work, though, tells the story with the women around Arthur as the main characters; and for the most part devotees of – at least a literary version of – the Druidic religion, which is pointedly pagan and licentious.

And this is where the danger comes in: it seems to me that to a reader unfamiliar with other tales of Arthur, or without strong moral convications of his own, Bradley’s characters are so strongly drawn as to color the reader’s imagination ever after. The narrator’s opinion is that all religion is potentially a legitimate yearning for the supernatural Mysteries; the Druidic God and Goddess shade into pantheism; Christianity is not refuted and indeed triumphs – but the priests, mostly nameless, are the only persons routinely belittled, and for narrow-mindedness and ignorance even of their own faith. However, I suspect Bradley is most true to herself in the characters who are – openly or quietly – agnostic: they seem to me to be about the only likeable ones.

This is also an openly feminist work: the principle put forth by the Druidic priestesses is that men may be needed to fight and die for the land – and father children – but women should rule and guide, though perhaps never stated so succinctly. The wiser kings are made to consult with their wives; Morgause rules comfortably as Queen in her own right after King Lot dies; King Arthur in war is indispensible but in peace Gwenhwyfar comes more to the fore.

Yet this is not a perfectionist feminism: this is still a tragedy. I call it feminist because these women – mainly of Avalon – are made to bear the responsibility, while the warriors and courtiers do as they will. But this is still a tragedy: hubris is the name of the day and if at any point our various leading ladies had simply stopped meddling and let things go, a happy ending for all concerned would have been hard to avoid. But as a story-telling device, I must admit that providing motivations for the actions of all concerned is more satisfying, to my modern taste at least, than the older tales where a barge or boat or arm holding a sword or whatever shows up with no explanation or any reason beyond the necessity of the plot. On the other hand, Bradley does assume that the basic plot is known to the reader – however compelling the story she tells, some of her effect depends on the reader being expected to notice how the story is changed this time.

There are, I think, two faults with the book as a work of art. First, the main narrative is periodically interrupted with reflections by Morgaine in the first person, and I struggle to find anything that they add. They suggest Bradley could have told the story quite well in the first person, but the perspective is not in any significant way different from the main narration, so that the shift mostly seems to me to disrupt the flow of the story.

Second, the conclusion is handled awfully hamfistedly. Since this is an Arthurian retelling, the events are not really in doubt, and any number of the intricate schemes set up through the book could have gone awry and prompted them. Instead we have Morgause – whom any number of people have considered ambitious, but without real cause – suddenly dabbling in blood magic; Mordred claiming – without any previous narrative justification, but with no need or plausible case for lying – that Morgause put him up to proving Gwenhwyfar’s infidelity; and no real reason – every other war we get more, and again enough provocations are suggested that even a hint could easily be given – why Mordred and Arthur should fight. Of course, the story is well-enough known that the prepared reader can be assumed to interpolate from other accounts: but this is the one place the book really fails if taken purely on its own terms.

Despite these few faults and the great number of cautions, I have no doubt that as a literary work this is a worthy addition to the collection of the tales of King Arthur.

8 thoughts on “Review: The Mists of Avalon

  1. The story of king Arthur is about RAPE. There is NO other story to tell about Arthur and what he asked Merlin to help him do. You dare post under feminism? Ok. Let’s talk about King Arthur and Rape.

    • It’s true that in the traditional British account, Arthur is conceived after the rape of Igraine by Merlin’s deception on behalf of Uther. There are other rapes recounted in various sources; but I can’t recall a version in which Merlin does anything similar for Arthur, or even in which Arthur is himself guilty of rape. ​Admittedly I haven’t read all the available sources and I’m not prepared to swear by my memory. But even if there were account making Arthur a rapist – and actually I don’t doubt someone somewhere has told it that way – to say there’s “no other story” to the Arthurian tradition is grossly unfair. It’s missing the forest through fixation on one particular tree.

      Certainly the most familiar rendition – this is my impression – does present the tragedy of Arthur as stemming from the rape: Arthur hidden because he can’t be acknowledged; Arthur’s affair with his sister is incestuous unknowing because he is not yet identified; and the bitterness of Mordred, fitting in nowhere as an illegitimate heir where no “proper” one is given. A little bit of a morality play – but the villains are Uther and, as you say, Merlin; not Arthur.

      With regard to The Mists of Avalon, It was not my purpose in a brief review to examine everything Bradley suggests about power, sex, and exploitation. You could write a whole book detailing this, without even getting to whether or not we should agree with her. The narration says a great deal and implies more (whether these situations are literally – or effectively – rape or not). In some cases she makes good points – for instance, her suggestion that Roman Christianity carried over even the tyrannical elements of the “pater familias” without due examination – but on the whole and as to her conclusions, I don’t so much agree.

      And as for that – I use tags on my blog to indicate subject matter, not necessarily my own views. In fact I don’t claim to be a feminist at all, but I certainly have a right to talk about it.

      • Merlin’s generational bewitching is like a modern ruffie. Druging women so she thinks she is with her husband is rape. Lancelot is who Arthur’s queen loves. Not Arther, Arther asks Merlin for Gwen, he doesn’t seduce her himself. You enter in his sister and it’s all a story of rape.

      • Last word: The one thing all stories have told about Arthur is a story of RAPE.
        If you make it modern and discount the brutality, and the rape… the coveting of women, you are mistaken.

    • The user Sebastian has not done anything offensive on my blog. If you have a problem with that user’s own work, you can continue attempting to report that yourself, or even document the problem on your own site for other users to be aware of. If Sebastian tries to comment here he’ll be subject to moderation just like anyone else. As far as I’m concerned, spamming comments on my blog about another user who hasn’t said anything here is not helpful behavior.

      • I did report “Sebastian” who is actually two guys, evidently. I am letting you know, that that blog doesn’t have to “comment” in order to troll. It actually tags feminist blogs and women it views as vulnerable among others, in order to glean an audience. If you are drawn to that blog, you will find abuse to women in the writing.
        It’s my job to let you know who is liking you and who is around you on wordpress.
        Thank you for allowing my comment and best wishes to you.

      • But if I may say one more thing, people who say, ‘they never did anything to me’ so I have no problem with them and ignore what they have done to other women, are I don’t know what to call you… yes not empathetic… but I wouldn’t wish rape on you in order for you to feel it or help anyone out. I would not wish that for you. But people who say, “he never did anything to me” are ASSHOLES.
        I am letting you know who is “liking” you and that blog is not sincere. They want to grift likes. They prey on women and feminists and whomever they view as weak.
        Again, thanks for allowing my comments and best wishes.
        Sometimes the freedom of speech on wordpress isn’t going to assist after a report.
        Apparently Sebastian is an outside blog using this forum. Whatever that means it means you can be grifted here among writers. I am telling you this because I saw the tag, not because of anything you did.
        But if it keeps tagging you, you might want to see who it is and ask why.

Speak Your Mind - Politely

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s