The mists of Avalon   by Marion Bradley

April 2005     From the Canteen of Detmold Theater.

I have not finished the book yet, (on the 7th of April,) but I'm passionate about the first 125 pages that I read of it, (yesterday.) Unfortunately, for this book, the passion is not for it's qualities: It's for a criticism I have.

First of all though, I should introduce the book properly: It's a long, (1000 pages,) telling of the legend of King Arthur, but through the voice of his sister/lover, Morgaine. (As well as some parts told from the perspectives of Gwenevere, or Igraine, Arthur's mother.)

Now then, what I object to, is the way Igraine is characterised. The writing feels a little like the old school feministic views. (and this book was written in 1982, so I guess there is some excuse for it's being the way it is. But I still object to it.) What I mean by this, is that There's a certain... fire, and aggressiveness in the stating that this woman, (Igraine,) is an independant, intelligent, spiritual, tender, Woman, with a capital W. To me, all that doesn't need to be stated: it's rather like a given. And when it's put so aggressively, so forcefully stated, as if challenging anyone to disagree... well, it tires and annoys me. -a little.

A lot, however, when on top of that, this character is, at heart, the shallow, simple, caricature of a useless woman. -All right, I'm over reacting, but she shows that tendency to have no real idea of what she thinks, (which seems to suggest that she Doesn't think.) To be specific, She decides that she Hates her husband, and how he behaves. Then decides that she appreciates him. Absolutely. That is without ANY doubt her real feeling, now that she understands herself. No, She Hates him again. He is Terrible. No, she's affectionate for him, and feels some love. No, She's had an argument, and swears she'll never, Never think well of him again. No, he's doomed to die, so she forgives him, and decides that really, she always appreciated him.

Such is her flip-flop personality. And it's the same with her new husband, Uther. (Whom she decides is stupid. No, kind. No, unfair. No, wonderful.) And then, my reaction to this is greatly magnified by one of my friends behaving in the same way. (She would swear with absolute certainty to something she'll do. And then change her mind, and be equally definite about that -until she changes her mind again. AND THEN... she says "That's just normal: I'm a woman." And I burn at that, with rage, and disgust. I have known so many women, who are capable of knowing their own minds. There's no reason at all to be giving that gender a bad name that way. She might as well say, "I'm a woman, I can't do math." or "I'm a woman, I could never make important decisions." It's so, SO wrong! -And especially the second one, because if she CAN'T make up her own mind, about most things, then she Shouldn't ever be allowed to make important decisions, -due to the likeliness that it will end up only being "one of her feminine Whims," with no forethought what so ever.

And I will never, never Never believe that women are actually such shallow, mindless creatures as that.

(pant pant pant.) So, this shallow, mindless woman in the book, who goes on a little about how she's something more that property to be passed between this man and that, gets under my skin, and aggravates me.

May 2005. -Now that the book is finished.

What have I found? That this was only one of the annoying women in the book. And that Marion Bradley must have something... special in her writing style, because I had a strong reaction to many of her characters. I should first better introduce the way that the book is written; as I said in my first reactionary article, It's the King Aurthur legend, told through the eyes of mainly Morgain. -But with parts of the book also being inside the heads of Igrain, (Aurthur's Mother,) Gweneffyr, Morgause, (Arthur's Aunt,) and a few sections through various other women. Perhaps, a better description of the plot though, is the Life of Morgaine. (The story realy is about her, although there are sections only about Aurthur, or Lancelot. In the end though, they are in some way needed to explain the life of Morgaine.)

Now, onto these characters that I reacted so strongly to.

As I've said, Igraine, was flip-flop, illogical, reactional, and shallow. (Perhaps not shallow, but that's one of the things I want to call her.) I was not fond of her, and wanted to tell her off.

Morgaine, in contrast, I liked. I agreed with many of her outlooks, and ways of living. I could appreciate her struggles, and devotion. I could cheer her on, as she tried to accept the way her world was, and the necessity for her to be an outcast. The only time I saw that she was "false" and she didn't see it that way, was in her extraordinary blaming of herself. I found that she was too harsh on herself, without letting up. She could have had more understanding, for her limitations. I liked her, and supported her in everything she was trying to accomplish. Hooray for Morgaine.

Gwenhwifar, (That's how it's spelled in the book,) was another thing all together. And this something was Not enjoyed by me. I felt nearly always flustered and angry when the book would be through Gwen.'s viewpoint. She was too much for me to stand. Let me take a few deep breaths, and try to calmly explain.

She is shown as an extreme, right wing Christian. Of the utmost devotion. (All fine so far.) With No tolerance What So Ever of any other view. She's the type who loudly speaks out, at every opportunity, against anything which is not utmost holy, Christian Holy. She is endlessly blaming the sins of others for her sterility, (I'm feeling nasty against her, so let me instead say "Barrenness.") Particularly, she likes to brow-beat Aurthur, her king, for not killing or converting everyone in the land that doesn't follow the christian priests. ("After all, surely, if you forced your will, I mean, God's will on all those people, surely God would then reward us with a child. Or would help us crush the infidels.")

She was the most narrow minded person in the whole book. And then, she's all the more vicious and impatient, and "Holyer then Thou" with everyone, because of her own guilt about only feeling love for Lancelot. -I can understand that everyone is most impatient with people who reflect their own short-comings, but still... This feels like such hypocrisy.

She's close minded. She's bitter. If she'd only ACCEPT the goddess, and the old ways, and understand that loving someone is natural and RIGHT, she'd be completely happy. BUT, she's the devoutest little nincompoop ever to live. Eternally convinced that all women are evil, because the priests say so. -She makes me sick.

(Once again, I'd here note the fact that M. Bradley must be doing something right: because I sure as heck have a strong reaction.)

These were the three main viewpoints of the book. There was also the person of Morgause. She's portrayed as ... a lover of power. She's more self centered. Not extremely so, but I have to say it, because it explains why she... just doesn't care what happens with other people. Unlike the three main people, and many of the characters in the book, she just accepts the short-comings in others. She doesn't try to change other people, but only sees how she can use them, or ignore them as they are. In this way, she is a good woman. She's devoted to her children, and to the only son of Morgaine, who she's given to foster. She remains wrapped up in her plans to have her own family on the throne, but she's not so utterly aggressive to force these plans to completion. I didn't mind her at all.

There was also a bit with Nimue, who's a young priestess of Avalon, sent to destroy Kevin, the master harper that has betrayed them. She was a good girl, devoted to the goddess, accepting of others, and compassionate, even with this Harper who she despises for betraying her home and religion. She's one of the tragic characters in the book: who is only good, does nothing wrong, but is fated to die in sadness.

I think there was also some parts told through Viviane, the grandmother of Aurther and Morgaine, but I recall little of those sections. Through the whole book, she was portrayed as a stern, strong willed leader of her people, (She was the high priestess of Avalon. Their ruler and queen.)

So, that's that.

As you can see, the author was able to portray a variety of people, in depth, and convincing. And with entirely opposite personalities. As for the rest of her writing style, I found nothing really lacking. There was only one place that I was surprised, and thought she had overlooked something;

In one scene, Arthur was discussing politics and religion with some others, and the Queen was there. The thing was, she didn't cut in, and cut him off, and insist that there's only the one true Christ, and that he should forcibly prevent anything that remotely suggests anything else. (She does intervene in conversations in such a way in every other chance she has in this book.) So, either she should have done so here, or, if the conversation Had to take place, the author should have specifically removed her from the room first. It was... unbelievable. (I mean... uncreditable.)

Anyhow, that was the only flaw I found in the writing. Her style flowed, and the changing of viewpoints gave it good dynamics. The nature and world was both pleasant, and at times, unpleasant to be in. (I could feel the chilly, foggy wet nights, as well as the violence and battles.) -Don't be misled though. There were a remarkable lack of battles. This might even be another element that makes this a "Woman's book." (The classic idea being that only men, and all men, are interested in fighting and wars.) There were still deaths that had to happen, and they did. But there were no long descriptions of battles.

And that's about all I have to say about it. The writing and the story didn't rouse me greatly... but the characters sure did.