Ok, first, let me say that I know that King Arthur is a legend far removed from any real historical character at best, and complete fiction at "worst." However, it's universally accepted that King Arthur is "medieval" - which, yes, I know that leaves about a 1,000 year swath in which the tales can be set. They were first written down in the 12th century (though mentions of names from the Arthurian legends can be found as early as the 800's), but most Arthurian scholars now agree that if Arthur were a real person that he likely lived around 500 AD - technically medieval, but so close to the fall of Rome that it straddles that ancient/medieval line. Personally, this is the era I think of when I think of King Arthur... but my perception is colored by the fact that I saw The Mists of Avalon (set in that early 500ish-600ish "the Saxons are invading" era) before I read any of the original (Mallory or Monmouth) Arthurian works.
Still, going on the "classic" interpretation of Arthur being high medieval (knights in armor) - such as you would expect from Mallory, Monmouth, and De Troyes - or even going on the idea of Arthur somehow being Victorian - per the works of Tennyson and the Rossettis (which of course is at odds with British history of not just the British Isles, but a good chunk of the world being united under Victoria) - that still leaves things just all over the place in terms of artifacts, costumes, architecture and other details in this book. Yes, I know it's a legend - put pick an era and stick with it.
(I recently watched a video on Youtube where the creator broke down the MuLan films by what time period the legend of MuLan is supposed to be set in. This is exactly what I'm talking about. This "legend" is supposed to take place in such-and-such century - let's try and make our film accurate to that period.)
In any case, first - how to classify the time period, as it is written in Half Sick of Shadows?
Throughout the book there is the constant reminder that "Albion" (an old word for England - not including Scotland) is not unified - placing this pre-Alfred the Great (late 9th century). Characters also comment multiple times that someone wearing a risque outfit would get stoned to death if seen like that in Camelot. While I don't know for sure that stoning people for infractions took place in medieval or ancient Britain, that definitely does seems more of an early period punishment (whereas late medieval/early renaissance, you could just as easily be labeled a witchy temptress, but that would get you hanged or burned at the stake, not stoned). But there are also knights in full plate armor (late medieval, and Renaissance era) as well as architecture described in such a way as to make me think of high Gothic (approximately 1100) or later. Glass windows and mirrors are commonplace. The clothing feels even later - corsets are prevalent in the court of Camelot, and at a coronation the courtiers are wearing powdered wigs. Between that, the teacups, the hot cocoa, and the mention of chenille - a fabric that wasn't invented until the 1830's - I want to ask the author if this book takes place inside a Rossetti painting (the Rossettis being Victorian painters that were fond of painting knights, ladies, and other Arthuriana). There was even a point where Merlin mentions that Excalibur was placed in the stone by the ancient first king of Camelot that I started to wonder that maybe this whole thing was taking place in the far future.
I know that's a big long rant. I did mostly enjoy the book. The characters were interesting, the whole premise of moving between past, present, and future as Elaine's visions unfold was fascinating. Indeed there were several nights that I was up reading later than I should have been.
There were a couple places I was disappointed, though:
Visions of the future/spoilers follow
-What happened to Mattie? At one point Elaine, a seer, is introduced to her neice Mathilde (referred to as Mattie to differentiate from another relative by the same name). Mattie has seen the same vision of Elaine's death that Elaine references at the beginning of the book. After the scene where she's introduced to Morgana and Elaine, who discover her skills as a seer, Elaine arranges for Mattie's family to come to court at Camelot so that she (Elaine) can mentor her. But after that scene Mattie is never seen nor referred to again.
-Elaine's saccrifice negated
Elaine and the reader both know from the get-go that Elaine will drown, and that it will be her own choice not to fight back up to the surface. We know this, we know this, we know this. We know this, just as anyone who has read Tennyson's "The Lady of Shalot" (or heard Loreena McKenna's adaptation thereof, or listened to Emilie Autumn's "Shalot" which of course is a retelling of Tennyson's work) knows that Elaine, the Lady of Shallot, dies. It's the why and the when that we don't know.
In the end, it turns out that Elaine, having spent the last 400 pages seeing visions of the people she loves the most betray each other in ways that she is tangentially involved in, in ways that she has "set them on the path" of, she decides to take herself out of the equation and drown herself in the lake that surrounds Avalon. It seems a fitting end to a young lady who has spent her time sacrificing to protect others, to a character we know MUST have a tragic end. But wait... what's this? Elaine is... not dead? Brought back to life by the Lady of the Lake? She's now the new Lady of the Lake and... basically hides out on Avalon to watch fate unroll.
I mean... I love a happy ending. I love a book where when all seems lost the characters are somehow able to pull a happy ending out of the air. Don't get me wrong, when it's done well it's incredible. But this made it seem like there was no depth or meaning to her sacrifice, and made the fact that Arthur, Gweneviere, and Lancelot would mourne her unnecessarily seem cruel to those characters. (Though I will say that the author explains in her afterword that she started writing this in high school, rewriting, and rewriting again, and finally finishing over the course of more than a decade. So maybe the ending was something she came up with as a teenager. It is not only what I would have written in highschool but also what I would have wanted to read in high school. And as someone who has been working on 3 novels for more than 10 years now I don't exactly have room to talk...)
1: -What happened to Mattie? At one point Elaine, a seer, is introduced to her neice Mathilde (referred to as Mattie to differentiate from another relative by the same name). Mattie has seen the same vision of Elaine's death that Elaine references at the beginning of the book. After the scene where she's introduced to Morgana and Elaine, who discover her skills as a seer, Elaine arranges for Mattie's family to come to court at Camelot so that she (Elaine) can mentor her. But after that scene Mattie is never seen nor referred to again. -Elaine's saccrifice negated Elaine and the reader both know from the get-go that Elaine will drown, and that it will be her own choice not to fight back up to the surface. We know this, we know this, we know this. We know this, just as anyone who has read Tennyson's The Lady of Shalot (or heard Loreena McKenna's adaptation thereof, or listened to Emilie Autumn's "Shalot" which of course is a retelling of Tennyson's work) knows that Elaine, the Lady of Shallot, dies. It's the why and the when that we don't know. In the end, it turns out that Elaine, having spent the last 400 pages seeing visions of the people she loves the most betray each other in ways that she is tangentially involved in, in ways that she has "set them on the path" of, she decides to take herself out of the equation and drown herself in the lake that surrounds Avalon. It seems a fitting end to a young lady who has spent her time sacrificing to protect others, to a character we know MUST have a tragic end. But wait... what's this? Elaine is... not dead? Brought back to life by the Lady of the Lake? She's now the new Lady of the Lake and... basically hides out on Avalon to watch fate unroll. I mean... I love a happy ending. I love a book where when all seems lost the characters are somehow able to pull a happy ending out of the air. Don't get me wrong, when it's done well it's incredible. But this made it seem like there was no depth or meaning to her sacrifice, and made the fact that Arthur, Gweneviere, and Lancelot would mourne her unnecessarily seem cruel to those characters. (Though I will say that the author explains in her afterword that she started writing this in high school, rewriting, and rewriting again, and finally finishing over the course of more than a decade. So maybe the ending was something she came up with as a teenager. It is not only what I would have written in highschool but also what I would have wanted to read in high school. And as someone who has been working on 3 novels for more than 10 years now I don't exactly have room to talk...) -Gweneviere is a warrior AND a werewolf Yes, really. Full stop. Um, excuse me, why isn't this the main storyline? That sounds funny and sarcastic, but I mean it sincerely. When you have a character whose story is explosively more interesting than the other major characters' stories, it makes me wonder why she isn't the focus. I say this as someone who is very aware that the main character in at least one of my novels-in-progress may be overshadowed by cooler characters in her story.
-Gweneviere is a warrior AND a werewolf Yes, really. Full stop. Um, excuse me, why isn't this the main storyline? That sounds funny and sarcastic, but I mean it sincerely. When you have a character whose story is explosively more interesting than the other major characters' stories, it makes me wonder why she isn't the focus. I say this as someone who is very aware that the main character in at least one of my novels-in-progress may be overshadowed by cooler characters in her story.
With all that said, though, it wasn't a bad book. Honestly, most people aren't anywhere near as picky as me about all the stuff I went off on above. So, really, this time around I will say don't let my opinion color whether or not you read the book.
Enjoyed this post? Want to see more content like this? Make sure to follow me on social media!
Follow me on Facebook and Twitter for several small snippets each week.
Or, if you're looking for more professional content (less frequent, but more closely related to writing, publishing, or libraries), connect with me on LinkedIn. (I do ask that if you request a connection on LinkedIn that you mention this blog so that I know how you heard of me.)