The Mists of Avalon

This was my second time through Marion Zimmer Bradley's epic retelling of the King Arthur legend. The first time was over a decade ago, when I was still in high school. I remember really liking the book and wanting to read it again. I also remember punching it at one point because of something Gwenhwyfer did. But mostly I remember a fun fantasy that was a cool twist on the Arthurian legends; the tale is told entirely through the point of view of the female characters.

What I manage to forget, somehow, every single time I come back to King Arthur, is that this tale is a tragedy. I think this may be because I usually only listen to the first half of the Camelot soundtrack. The story is the Golden Age of Camelot and all the great, chivalrous deeds that the Knights of the Round Table perform. But it's ultimately about the destruction of that Golden Age. Arthur's rule was too good to last. People are not fundamentally good and desires and loyalties twist into sins and betrayals, even as everyone is trying to do their best. As hopeful and idyllic as the beginning of the story is, it ends in death, the way all tragedies must.

Mists of Avalon frames the tragedy in terms of Christianity's triumph over Paganism, and the wiping out of old beliefs. This also represents a triumph of a patriarchy over a matriarchy, which allows for a strong feminist theme to run throughout. But it ultimately plays out in the clash between Morgaine and Gwenhwyfer, the two women with the most influence over Arthur and his rule.

I have to say that Gwenhwyfer still pisses me off. While I have a better understanding of her now than I did as a teenager, she still comes across as judgmental and hypocritical. I have problems with Guinevere in most version of the Arthur legend, but it's strongest in Mists of Avalon. She represents a lot of things that I simply do not like, most of all a holier-than-thou attitude that she simply cannot keep in check.

It's not that I'm completely sympathetic with Morgaine either. This time around I saw more clearly how imperfect she was. She makes her fair share of mistakes. But she tends to own up to them and tries harder to understand and empathize with other people's points of view.

Or maybe I just like her more because she's clearly positioned as the protagonist in this book, with Gwenhwyfer taking on the role of main antagonist. Honestly, I don't like either of them as much as Morgause, who wears her ruthlessness and ambition on her sleeve. Everything Morgause does is for her own personal benefit, but she owns it.

Anyway, I greatly enjoyed this book, and I'm glad I finally got around to reading it again. There's a lot of subtlety that I'm sure I missed the first time through. And I picked up on several references that I never would have seen had I not taken a class in Arthurian Literature in college. Bradley weaves in tales of Pellinore's dragon and Tristan and Isolde (here Drustan and Isotta) and makes reference to the Fisher King. The characters also discuss Beowulf and various characters in Greek and Roman mythology (this book taking place not that long after the collapse of the Roman Empire, all of these references fit). It's always fun to recognize a story within a story and see all the parallels between, say Beowulf and Lancelet's slaying of the dragon.