I think it took me well over a month to read Rosemary Sutcliff’s Arthurian epic, Sword and Sunset. It is a book just a few pages short of 500 and I had to put it down for a bit when school took over my life. But it is good reading.
Originally published around 1963, Sutcliff took the interesting step at the time of removing Arthur from the realm of legend and myth and writing his story based on the historical record. There is no magic in the book, no mystical religious rites, just a story told pretty much in a realistic style. I say pretty much because at time Artos the Bear (that’s Arthur) believes a little too much in Fate and does absolutely nothing to try and change it especially when it comes to his relationship with his son Medraut. But then however close to history and the realistic you are writing, everyone knows Arthur’s story and so perhaps Sutcliff’s way of keeping Artos from making an effort to change his Fate is a result of not being able to change the ultimate outcome of the story. Which makes me wonder, if an author is writing a story that has been told and retold countless times, does that make it easier or more difficult to write?
This Arthur story is placed in Britain after the Romans have left. Artos was born in the hills near Snowden (Yr Widdfa) mountain in Wales, his father was a Roman and his mother British, or Welsh I suppose (the people who are not invaders from outside the country are simply called British there is no Wales or England or Ireland there is a Scotland though). After the Romans left, the country was broken up among princelings and tribes but the seat of power remained at Venta (Winchester), an old Roman city that had seen better days. Artos’s half brother, Ambrosius, is King of Britain though this doesn’t really mean all that much since the British aren’t very united.
The Saxons have always been a problem but it is growing worse. At the appropriate age, Artos asks his brother permission to leave to go north and try what he could to keep out the Saxons. All he asked was for 300 cavalry. These 300 come to be known as the Companions. There are other troops that come and go as the Saxons are fought here and there, but the Companions are sworn to serve until death or Artos releases them from service.
About two-thirds of the book is spent with Artos fighting the Saxons and more and more men from across Britain coming to join him. He does not become King until after his brother dies and the culminating battle for Britain is fought and won. He is king for the last third of the book and this zips along, skipping over years of time because Artos as administrator of a kingdom is not as interesting as Artos building a kingdom. But we all know it falls apart in the end.
The battle scenes are tense and well written, much more detailed on the strategy than the gore that you know is going on. And while when I started the book I was bugged that everyone had different names and I didn’t know who was who, it didn’t really matter that much when things really got going. Sutcliff writes some beautiful descriptions of the countryside and she is marvelous at picking out the seemingly insignificant detail that gives scenes a fullness and depth that bring them to life.
Sword at Sunset is a well done telling of the Arthur story, less fantasy than it is historical fiction. It is a book that I think will appeal to fans of both genres. I’m sure it won’t take anyone as long to read as it took me with all my stopping and starting. But if it does, the book is easy to fall back into as though it had never been put down.
Interesting review. I’ve never read any Rosemary Sutcliffe, but my son had her retelling of The Iliad on tape and we listened, spellbound, to that. As for the Arthurian romance, I read Mary Stewart at a formative age and have never found anything I liked better (although this could just be that lingering memory of being blitzed by a book at 15!!).
LikeLike
It’s been awhile, but I remember loving this novel. I was writing my master’s thesis on Arthurian revisions and this was on my reading list. This wonderful review makes me want to go back and read it again (as well as the brilliant Mary Stewart trilogy).
LikeLike
I love Arthurian stuff. This sounds very good. I do wonder about retellings… I would think it would be challenging to re-tell a story where everyone already knows what happens in the end…
LikeLike
This sounds interesting. I think I would enjoy reading something in a realistic style about that time period. It’s a fascinating time. Actually, I like learning about earlier time periods a lot — anything, say, Renaissance or earlier. I’m so curious about what life was like back then.
LikeLike
I know all about King Arthur…I’ve seen Spamalot twice!
LikeLike
I love historical fiction but I realize I tend to go back in time just so far and so I can’t even think of any Arthurian tale I’ve read. But, after my recent trip I sort of am in the mood for older stories. Folk tales and sagas are sounding very interesting to me. I will be adding this one to my radar, Stefanie!
LikeLike
Litlove, she has a retelling of The Iliad? That might be fun to read sometime. You know, I never did read the Mary Stewart books. I should probably do that one of these days.
Inkslinger, what a fun topic to write a thesis on! I do think this is one of the better retellings.
Daphne, if you like Arthurian stuff then you should definitely read this. It is really different from the usual. I think it would be challenging to re-tell a story too, very hard to make it fresh.
Dorothy, she did a great job at portraying the pagan/Christian elements, the superstitions, and what amounts to racism and distrust between the different peoples of Britain.
Sister, um right.
Iliana, I’ve had my eye on the Icelandic sagas for a while so if you read those you might inspire me. And you might like this book too. It’s a fun read.
LikeLike
I’m sold! Off to Goodreads to add it to the list.
LikeLike