King Arthur

Goodrich uses excellent practical pursuits of getting her historical evidence. Knowing Old French and having many strings of critical foreign words that relate to her research was hard on some of the brain-dead critics. Old French was spoken by Arthur. Norma died at 89 and spent her whole life studying this material. Because she was not officially from a Historian Background(professor of comparative Literature) does not mean her material is suspect. It means Historians should be more respectful of her work until they know what is going on themselves. Professional Arrogance gets in the way of their quick bias reviews. Most of these stupid thoughts by young people who have never really read the book or had the capacity to understand her thinking should be using reverence of how to polish her shoes. This books abounds in interesting information from a time frame so far back that is tricky to get a picture of the Situation. Goodrich is very careful of how she decides to accept some premise and reject others. Edward J Stack

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?

Goodrich provides evidence that King Arthur had life beyond the myth, based on Medieval documents, her knowledge of Middle-Ages languages, and present-day Ordinance maps. In conjunction with her works on Merlin, Guenievere, and The Holy Grail she documents his life and times and is most persuasive. She cites research by Marie of France, Eleanore of Aquitane's daughter, and the story that one written account was lost by Richard the Lionheart in a card game.This dense-with-information study takes dilligence -- I'm a college graduate with an English minor and it's the hardest book I ever read. But well worth it.

Reviewers' opinions of Norma Lorre Goodrich's "King Arthur" jump from those who hate it to those who love it. There's not much middle ground. "What grief and what a shame!" as Lancelot says on page 160. It's time to bridge the extremes. Speaking of bridges, I shall cross carefully, as if on Lancelot's sword bridge (p.167). Of course, as Goodrich tells us, the blade-like quality of that bridge was nothing of the sort. It was a mis-translation which gave French listeners a good laugh to imagine English knights doing something as stupid as walking on blades. If only Goodrich employed more humor she would score points for explaining such pieces of arcana, leaving fewer reviewers mad at her. (I can't resist this digression. Lancelot's sword bridge falls into the category of Cinderella's slippers. In the original French they weren't glass--verre. They were made of highly prized squirrel fur--vaire. English ears never learned to discriminate between those words.)Here's what is really at work between these covers: impeccable, exhaustive research is rescued from its envelope of academic writing by a great index, making "King Arthur" a valuable reference book. And not just about Arthur and his court, but also the machinations of King Henry II of England and his consort Eleanor of Aquitaine, who pressed the legends of Arthur into use as a political tool. Like Arthur, they ruled a large empire (from the Scottish border to the Pyrenees) whose peoples had different customs, spoke different languages and owed loyalty to different lords. Henry II, struggling to reassert the broken line of his grandfather after nineteen years of dynastic war in England, promoted the Arthurian legends as a shining possibility, of a polyglot empire enjoying peace under a central government such as Arthur's in a former, golden age.Goodrich's book limits the great wizard Merlin in these pages, perhaps because the author was holding him back: Merlin would become the subject of her next book a few years later.I used Goodrich's "King Arthur" as valuable research. If you are a general reader, here's a tip: open it at random and read section by section; or open to the index and wander from there. Personally, I needed to learn about Queen Eleanor's propagandist, the author Wace. Not many other books give thirteen page references for Wace. Goodrich can, and does. Accept what she gives in good grace. If you let your mind bend like a reed to the subject, you'll enjoy her "King Arthur" on its own terms. If you want a quick read, this is not for you.By Robert Fripp, author," Power of a Woman. Memoirs of a turbulent life: Eleanor of Aquitaine "

A most entertaining book, something of which I had been wondering about. I am so glad this person elected to do the research. And too, I wonder if she is related if Goodrich is her maiden name and if not, I wonder if her husband is related to me I am a descendent of Ensign William Goodrich.

I purchased the book for a friend. I already owned one. We were discussing what we were reading presently (my second time through the book), and I found out of his interest in King Arthur. I received the book in a timely manner; it was in great shape.

I was reading Michael Bradley and he mentioned this book. Although Michael didn't agree with this thesis regarding Arthur I find the research sublime and the assertions thought provoking. Serious thought must weigh in when this presentation is read.

Another great story of the mythical and legend of King Arthur and the knights of the round table

Ottimo per gli appassionati. Con tanti riferimenti bibliografici.Una bussola per lo studio arturiano.