June Book Study - The Once and Future King

[Fenika]

Hello, and welcome to the F/SF Book Study.

This thread is for discussion of The Once and Future King by Terence Hanbury White.

***Spoilers*** will be streaking through this thread unpredictably. You have been warned.

If anyone wants to compare to previous book studies:

2008:
Ender's Game (August)
Lies of Locke Lamora (September)
A Deepness in the Sky (October)
A Fire in the Deep (November)
Storm Front (December)
2009:
I Am Legend (January)
The Onion Girl (February)
Lord of Light (March)
Small Gods (April)
Beggars in Spain (May)

Thank you to Broken Fingers for starting the book study!

Cheers

-----------

Here is the list, compiled by Fingers, of possible discussion topics. Feel free to tackle something off the list or come up with your own points.

-----------

First of all: Did you enjoy the book? Why or why not?
What was your impression of it?

And I’ll list some of the possible things we can discuss:

The Beginning:
- How effective was the opening hook?
- How effective was the first sentence? The first paragraph? The first page? The first chapter?
- When were you pulled into the author’s world? By the end of the first chapter?
- If not, when?
- How do you think this was accomplished? Or why do you think it wasn’t accomplished?
- What would you have done to change it/make it better?
- If you were an editor, what would your reaction be to the first chapter?
- Why do you think the average reader liked it so much?
And more…

The Protagonist:
- What did you like/dislike about the protagonist?
- How did the author introduce the protagonist?
- How did the author get you to become invested in the protagonist?
- What was different about the protagonist as opposed to other protagonists? What was the same? Did the author make the protag distinguishable? If so, how?
- What techniques did the author use to show the protagonist throughout the story?
- What were some of the characteristics the author gave the character and how did they work/not work?

The Characters:
- Did the author make the characters come alive for you?
- How did he/she do this?
- How were they described?
- How were they distinctive?
And more…

The Setting:
- Was the author’s world convincing?
- Did he/she make you feel you were there? How?
- What about the setting did you like? Not like?
- What would you have done differently?
And more….

The Plot/Story:
- Did you enjoy it? Why or why not?
- Was it different or similar to other plotlines in the genre? How?
- Was it believable? Predictable?
- Were there any twists, turns or surprises?
- Would you have thought of it? How does it compare to your own plotline of your WIP?
- Did it pull you through or did you have to wade through it?
- How was this done or how do you think it should’ve been done?
- If you were buying stories for a publisher, and this manuscript hit your desk (not knowing what you do now about its sales) would you have bought it or expected it to be successful?
- Why do you think the buying public enjoyed it so much?
- What variations, if any, would you have added to the storyline/plot?
And more…

The Style:
- What did you think of the author’s style of writing? Like it? Hate it?
- How much do you think this had to do with the success of the book, if any?
- What type of POV was used? How effective was it? Would the book have turned out different if the POV were done differently?
- How removed was the author from the story or how intrusive?
And more…

The Structure:
- How did the author unfold the story?
- Were the beginning, middle and end equally strong?
- How effective was the way the author gave you all the information?
Was it straightforward? Suspenseful? Predictable? Surprising?
- Could it have been done another way?
- Was it a linear structure or did the scenes jump around? How did this add/detract from the story or your enjoyment of it?
And more…..

The Theme:
- Was there any? What was it?
- Did you think it had an impact on your enjoyment of the story?
- Was it blatant or subtle?
- Do you think the average reader registered this?
- Do you think it may have affected him/her or contributed in any way to the success of the book?
And more…

Conflict:
- What was the main conflict?
- How was it handled?
- Was it a large part of the story or did the author keep it lying under the surface?
- What other conflicts did the author use in the story and when? (Internal and external.)
- What purpose did they serve?
- Would the story have been as enjoyable with less conflict? More?
- What types of conflict could’ve added to the story? Which conflicts subtracted from the story?
And more…

Dialogue:
- Was it realistic?
- Was it readable?
- How did the author handle ‘tags’?
- Was there a lot of dialogue or a little?
- Were there dialects? Slang? Profanity? Vulgarity?
And more…

The Ending:
- Was it satisfying? Why or why not?
- Did it come as a surprise or did you see it coming from page two?
- Would you have ended it the same?
- Was everything resolved?
- Would you be able to write a sequel?
- Would you buy another book from this author?
And more….
__________________

 

[Etola]

I'll post my thoughts soon, as soon as I finish this book! D: I'm almost at the end of "The Ill-Made Knight." Should be within the week, I hope!

 

[ELMontague]

I'm actually finding OFK a bit of a drag. My teenage enthusiasm doesn't seem to be surviving Pre-WWII writing style, which is all quite a surprise to me.

 

[Etola]

I'm actually finding OFK a bit of a drag. My teenage enthusiasm doesn't seem to be surviving Pre-WWII writing style, which is all quite a surprise to me.

I admit some of the chapters get a bit detail-heavy on the nitty-gritty details of medieval life. I love the story, it's just...I'm not that familiar with medieval falconing jargon.

But I'm still liking the story! If I made it through Moby Dick and enjoyed it, I can get through this! ^.^

 

[som1luvsmi]

I like the story, but I'm having a really hard time sticking with it. Which is totally unlike me.

I don't get it. *shakes head in disbelief*

But I'm going to press on and try to make it through.

 

[ELMontague]

Well, quite truthfully, I remember enjoying it quite a bit when I was forced to read it by Mrs. Blackwell twenty years ago. Now, though, not so much. I think a big part of my issue is that it is written in story telling style with analogies in contemporary terms that in themselves now quite old.

I think there may be a better telling of Arthur.

 

[Etola]

Well, quite truthfully, I remember enjoying it quite a bit when I was forced to read it by Mrs. Blackwell twenty years ago. Now, though, not so much. I think a big part of my issue is that it is written in story telling style with analogies in contemporary terms that in themselves now quite old.

I think there may be a better telling of Arthur.

I actually really like the narrative storytelling style, though of course that's going to be a matter of opinion. As far as the anachronisms, they may be outdated 70 years later, but I find the temporal ambiguity to be a big source of the humor (and later, the emotional impact, esp. in regards to Mordred). At one point, iirc, White actually hangs a lampshade on the anachronisms. There is quite a bit of tongue-in-cheekness here, especially in the earlier parts.

By better, in what regard do you mean? More historically accurate? Tighter writing? Etc.

 

[ELMontague]

I guess I'm really saying style. I would much prefer a story that put us right in there with Arthur. This one makes me feel like I'm sitting on the back porch with Grandpa and I can't seem to lose sight of the picket fence.

 

[Etola]

I guess I'm really saying style. I would much prefer a story that put us right in there with Arthur. This one makes me feel like I'm sitting on the back porch with Grandpa and I can't seem to lose sight of the picket fence.

Fair enough. I tend to like this style a lot, and even though I feel somewhat removed from Arthur, I'm still growing to love him as a character regardless. I find it very different from Arthur in other versions--more likeable and sympathetic, IMHO.

 

[AMCrenshaw]

I'm ahead of schedule by a few weeks. I vote for Little, Big by John Crowley as the next book...






AMC

 

[ELMontague]

Down to the last fifty pages or so and I think I don't like OFK much at all. And it all boils down to style. White seems to just totally gloss over all the interesting stories and just plod along through the plot. It's like he wants us to know the tale of Arthur and his knights of the round table, but couldn't really be bothered to tell us the stories themselves. He spends half his time saying, if you want the details of that story go read Malory.

Yuck.

 

[Etola]

I see your point. The only time I was really bothered by the glossing was when he skipped over Gareth's adventures when he first came to Arthur. But that's because I'm a Gareth fangirl I did notice a few places where he said "Go read Malory"--though having read Malory a few months ago, the places where that happened often were lengthy battles with long lists of who unhorsed whom, or the list of every single knight who searched the wounds of that cursed king.

I wonder if Malory was a much more common read at the time TOaFK was written? Such that White could assume that most of his readers would have read Le Morte Darthur and been familiar with the plot, allowing his own work to be more of a companion piece, an in-depth exploration of character? If you look at the first three sections of the book (The Sword in the Stone, the Queen of Air and Darkness, The Ill-Made Knight), each of them serve as more of a character study than any focus on plot. And the fourth section shows how the personalities of all those characters (Arthur, Guinevere, Lancelot, the Orkneys) interact and clash in such a way as to bring about the final tragedy.

 

[ELMontague]

I suppose, but while I love reading, I've been avoiding it while working through OFK. That's a sad statement for me. So, I am afraid TH White has earned my first yick for his work.

 

[Kitty Pryde]

Oh noes! Nobody likes OAFK! I have to say that I'm really enjoying it. I originally read it in 6th grade and thought it was the greatest, and I went on to read Le Morte D'Arthur right after, which was also awesome but harder to read.

Upon rereading it 15 years later, wow. I'm finding it hilarious this time around, which is weird because the first time I read it apparently I did not understand a single joke in it. I found it all terribly serious. But anyway, the writing style totally works for me. There's so much great imagery that I get caught up in the story. And the characterization is perfect. And I love Arthur, I think because I love earnest characters.

I'll post more when I'm further into the story!

 

[mscelina]

The Once and Future King is one of my favorite retellings of the Arthurian legend. Keep in mind that White's masterpiece was really the first major departure from Le Morte D'Arthur and the medieval troubador stories that make up the whole of the Arthurian legend.

A lot of the anachronisms, stemming as they do from Merlin living backwards in time, just make the story more effective IMO. Also, the emphasis placed on Arthur as a truly reluctant hero and the saga of the Orkneys gives the tale a different focus, one in which the reader can truly empathize with the characters instead of holding them up on a pedestal and worshipping them from afar--which has been a mainstay of Arthurian legend since minstrels first sang their songs of love and lore at Eleanor of Aquitaine's feet.

 

[ELMontague]

I must be the odd one in the bunch, because I'm really not into it. I see what he's trying to say. I see the reluctant hero. I see the way Lancelot loves Arthur and Gwen and God. I see the troubled children of the Orkney's. And yet, I am not invested at all.

 

[Ladyhawke_18]

I have always wanted to see a movie that focuses on Gawain as the main character, but as he is in OAFK. For me, his childhood with his brothers is the most interesting thing in the book.

I also like that Lancelot is not ultra-good looking and cocky. I like that his relationship with Gwen began b/c he was sorry he hurt her feelings.

~Sasha