March 25, 2008
I actually read this book first when I was 11 or 12 and would have rated it a 5 with that self. When I was a girl I was lucky enough to be a tomboy and have male figures in my life who taught me the things I would later realize were traditionally "guy stuff". I remembered this book with a mystical fondness because I remember absolutely identifying with the character of Merlin and cast myself in the role of boy adventurer.
Unfortunately, I have to now temper that literal reading with things I am aware of now-- that all the women in this book, with no exception-- fall into one of three roles: martyr, slut, or witch. Not to go too far down that path, but it's a shame when a book gives you such magic as a child and is laid bare in a more disappointing way when you grow up. I looked, in Mary Stewart's afterword, for some kind of explanation of this betrayal, but I was even more disappointed by her admission that though the work was inspired by fact, she makes it apologetically clear (in a scholarly sort of humility), that it is purely a work of fiction and in terms of the character of Merlin- fantasy.
A terrible thing to admit is also something useful in looking at my adult reaction to this book. Throughout the sections on battles and skirmishes (which are many), I kept thinking this exact thought: "for a woman, she's strangely interested in the details of war". I admit this because it shows that even now I have these prejudices imbedded in my psyche. I imagine Mary Stewart had them to an even greater degree.
However, there are countless books of the same period (and earlier) written by women, which do not deal with women simply as glyphs.
I didn't really want to go down this path in reviewing this book, but the shock of my disappointment with reading this book as an adult was centered firmly in that single complaint-- that it reads as if a misogynist wrote it. Or, maybe there's a better word-- an agnogynist? Someone that does not believe women are human beings.
Unfortunately, I have to now temper that literal reading with things I am aware of now-- that all the women in this book, with no exception-- fall into one of three roles: martyr, slut, or witch. Not to go too far down that path, but it's a shame when a book gives you such magic as a child and is laid bare in a more disappointing way when you grow up. I looked, in Mary Stewart's afterword, for some kind of explanation of this betrayal, but I was even more disappointed by her admission that though the work was inspired by fact, she makes it apologetically clear (in a scholarly sort of humility), that it is purely a work of fiction and in terms of the character of Merlin- fantasy.
A terrible thing to admit is also something useful in looking at my adult reaction to this book. Throughout the sections on battles and skirmishes (which are many), I kept thinking this exact thought: "for a woman, she's strangely interested in the details of war". I admit this because it shows that even now I have these prejudices imbedded in my psyche. I imagine Mary Stewart had them to an even greater degree.
However, there are countless books of the same period (and earlier) written by women, which do not deal with women simply as glyphs.
I didn't really want to go down this path in reviewing this book, but the shock of my disappointment with reading this book as an adult was centered firmly in that single complaint-- that it reads as if a misogynist wrote it. Or, maybe there's a better word-- an agnogynist? Someone that does not believe women are human beings.
