King Arthur

Rating:
Summary: Pseudo-academic moonshine.
Review: Anyone who subscribes to the romance and mystery of the Arthurian legends will be upset and confused by this book. Those who have open minds and have not been blinded by what has been written centuries before, will apppreciate Ms. Goodrich's dilligent efforts. Modern man and woman have had the wool pulled over their eyes too many years where Arthur and Camelot have been concerned. It's time that the story be told correctly!

Rating:
Summary: Interesting, but Weak
Review: Goodrich has both advocates and detractors, both sometimes quite vociferous. She is a good writer, and she has some interesting insights and ideas. I find fault in her excessive reliance upon the medieval Romances (especially those of Chretien de Troyes of the late 12th Century) to reconstruct history. The Romances were intended and written as entertaining fiction and therefore incorporate too much material from ancient Celtic legends, as well as wholly new medieval story ideas. Goodrich should have concentrated instead on earlier sources, including Gildas Sapiens, Nennius, William of Malmesbury and Geoffrey of Monmouth (who all intended to write history), as well as the growing body of archaeological evidence.

Rating:
Summary: FASCINATING
Review: Goodrich's works have enriched my knowledge of the Arthurian genre. In fact, it's roused my curiousity so much that I'm presently researching the Holy Grail, the Templar Knights, and Celtic Christianity and their influence on the Arthurian canon.

Rating:
Summary: FASCINATING
Review: Goodrich's works have enriched my knowledge of the Arthurian genre. In fact, it's roused my curiousity so much that I'm presently researching the Holy Grail, the Templar Knights, and Celtic Christianity and their influence on the Arthurian canon.

Rating:
Summary: Thoroughly plausible; a very good read
Review: I found it well-researched and extremely well written. Ms. Goodrich's arguments differ considerably from orthodox, academic views, which perhaps explains the marked and mean-spirited hostility which has greeted this book in some quarters. That hostility is very much in contrast to Ms. Goodrich's tone, which I found quite polite and low key. At any rate her argument that Arthur wasn't really medieval, but was instead the 'last of the Romans' is reasonable and very well argued. If it turns out in the long run that she is incorrect, then she will have at least introduced an extraordinarily interesting theory to the current mix. If on the other hand it turns out that she is right, then her sharp critics will have some nasty words to swallow. Perhaps these defenders of orthodoxy are feeling threatened?

Rating:
Summary: Off topic and lots more
Review: I had a professor who once likened Ms. Goodrich's manner of research to that of a person much in love with a book and determined to never see it end. His other comment went along this line. (as Goodrich) "Ah, I have my copy of Malory! Now I am in Scotland! Well, Malory describes a place much like this, so Arthur must have been here" (as himself) "...forgetting of course that, assuming Arthur even lived, the story would have taken place about 1000 years before Malory was born."

Goodrich is not a careful scholar. She is not even realy a scholar, if these are her credentials. Nor is she a good enough writer to provide much other than confusion to a standard reader of Arthurian material. This book, and those that followed, are a hopeless tangle of badly put together theories that bear as much resemblance to Arthur as "Braveheart" did to William Wallace.

Rating:
Summary: Great Conclusions & Research, Bad Writing
Review: This is the first book about the search for historical King Arthur that I've read. I found the author's arguments convincing and was very impressed by her knowledge of ancient languages and culture. Her writing style, however, was very difficult to follow and her logic was in some places brilliant and in others, completely unfounded. I would have loved more maps, end notes, more Arthurian background information, and better outlined arguments. The biggest problem with the book as I see it, was the editing.

Rating:
Summary: Great Conclusions & Research, Bad Writing
Review: This is the first book about the search for historical King Arthur that I've read. I found the author's arguments convincing and was very impressed by her knowledge of ancient languages and culture. Her writing style, however, was very difficult to follow and her logic was in some places brilliant and in others, completely unfounded. I would have loved more maps, end notes, more Arthurian background information, and better outlined arguments. The biggest problem with the book as I see it, was the editing.

Rating:
Summary: Weak
Review: whoever would like to know something more about king Arthur and Early british history should avoid this book.
first of all because the theory of Mrs. goodrich is not clearly developed and at the end of each chapter is not easy to point out what the author has really been able to prove about the historical arthur, secondly because the analitycal methods of the writer are poor, misleading and lack of a deep integration with other sciences (archeology, philology...).
nevertheless, some points of her argument are interesting, but useful only to readers with an already rich arthurian background.