NetGalley ARC | Castles of England

I received a free digital ARC from the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.

Rating ⭐⭐⭐1/2

I love a good ghost story, but that is not what I was expecting here so it kind of threw me off. I was expecting a book about the history of castles in England, from their beginnings up to present day. We get that here, but we also gets tons of stories of mysteries - unsolved murders, deaths of prisoners, executions, and so on.

I was anticipating much more in regards to physical histories and family histories, and there really was so much more that was paranormal. You might think it is weird that I am so hung up on that part, but it's just not what I was looking for from this book, so I think that's why I was honestly kind of annoyed.

The origin of the castle, or castellum in Latin, is so deeply imbedded in the history of England. You can't discuss the country's history without an in-depth focus on these structures. Castles are part of the landscape, and have been for 1,000 years. To not see one is far more strange.

Luckily there are so many to choose from, and whether you prefer crumbling ruins or castles that transport you back to the middle ages into a still-functioning relic of the period, everyone will find some castles of interest here.

Even this review is hard to write and I am struggling with it. The book just wasn't what I expected, and had such a heavy focus on the myths and legends, usually paranormal. I wanted to know more about architecture, builders, etc. I would have also loved more photographs.

The Politics of Myth

Rating: 3 Stars

Review:

I received this as an ARC via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.

If I would have seen this book cover in the store instead of for free on NetGalley, there is a very good chance I would have skipped it altogether. I get it, it is definitely Jackie and Diana looking at us in the collage, and they are certainly almost mythic figures at this point, but they are not even figures discussed in the book. And really, it is more creepy than anything to me.

I wavered for along time on the rating for this one and I think if I think about it anymore, it would end up being two stars. So, I will go forward as is, trying to review a book that all at once seemed to know its direct purpose and path, yet seemed to get lost along the way.

The idea of myth are interesting and so are all the figures addressed here: King Arthur, Guinevere, Merlin, Ned Kelly, Joan of Arc, Shakespeare, Sherlock Holmes, Robin Hood and Elizabeth I. Some are, of course, real historical people who lived and died in well-documented ways. Others are figures who may have had some basis in reality but over centuries have evolved into something bigger than their humble beginnings.

Truthfully, I found the historical aspects of all those discussed to be far more interesting than the actual premise of the book, the politics behind these myths and how they can used and misused to further the ideas and agendas of others well into our own century. Even Ned Kelly, who is easily the one I knew the least about - along with Sherlock Holmes - was able to keep my interest for the history and facts, though I am not inclined to seek further information about him.

One major issue I do take with the book aside from its meandering, is the fact that there are only nine figures discussed, yet three of them are figures who are very much entwined in one anothers' stories - Arthur, Guinevere and Merlin. Were there seriously no other mythical figures in history that fit this idea that the author had? I find that hard to believe, though when you look at the figures, there are all of British, French or Australian origin, so perhaps that says something about the intent as well.

Unrelated to the purpose of the book, some things I appreciate greatly include the fact that Mary was given a bit better look here when discussing Elizabeth's reign. Certainly Mary does deserve more credit than she gets about the positive things she did in her short reign and I dig that. I also was pleased to see this author does not think Shakespeare is anyone other than the Stratford man we know him as. None of these other supposed writers are given much credit, nor should they be, as I do not buy into the nonsense that Shakespeare was a secret identity.

Speaking of Shakespeare, I have a bone to pick with the author about this line when discussing the Bard in the 20th Century: "...and Kenneth Branagh in some unremarkable recent films." Now, I never saw him in 'Hamlet' (1996), but I most certainly saw 'Much Ado About Nothing' (1993) and I certainly hope that is not what the author is referring to because Much Ado was fantastic. I would suppose they are the films he is referring to though, as these would still qualify as recent (within the last 22 years) when discussing someone who has been dead for 400 years. So, boo to that. I love Much Ado.

Anyway, this is one I can take or leave. it was okay, but I found myself skimming more and more toward the end. Perhaps I am just not the target audience for this one.

Finding Arthur: The True Origins of the Once and Future King

Rating: 1.5 Stars (On Goodreads I gave it a straight 1)

Review:

So much wrong, I don't even know where to begin. I don't mean with the THEORY itself (because regardless what this guy would have you believe, it is still just a theory), but I mean the presentation, tone, so much. It was a gigantic struggle just to finish this by the last two chapters. I hardly got through the epilogue. I was so excited to find another Arthur book, I can't get enough. Unfortunately by page 53, I was already beginning to regret my decision to read this one, as the tone was incredibly self-righteous and pompous. Certainly not the way to grab readers and earn their respect. Or better yet, get them to buy into your theory.

Now, I love Scotland.It is my favorite country in the world. Edinburgh is the city I belong to (despite me being entirely a US citizen of German and Swedish heritage) and want so badly to make my home there some day. So, I would not be at all opposed to the finding of any evidence indicating Arthur was actually a Scottish. I too hold a special place in my heart for England, so if he was King of the Britons, I am down with that. For me, it is more so a matter of, "did he really live?" For the author it is a matter of "where did he really live?" I get the Scottish pride thing, I have it and I am not remotely Scottish, but due to years of bullying and repression by England, the author is bound and determined to prove Arthur is Scottish.

Unfortunately, all he basically has is what amounts to word play. "This place sounds like this place, this name sounds like this name. We don't know this guy's real name but we know where he might be from, which sounds like this, but it certainly can't be that place because that place is south." He hardly actually refers to England by name at all, ever. It is always 'south'. He doesn't actually have any evidence (unless you count the book "Finding Merlin" which, incidentally, he wrote himself. No joke, he actually uses the phrase, "according to Finding Merlin". And he references it all the time. I think you might need to read that one in order to understand his weird double naming thing he does here with Merlin. But, whatever). There are two problems with this little word play game he has going on. First of all, it is not solid evidence. It is him taking names that sound like other names and saying they sound similar. That's great that they do - to him. To others, perhaps they are not close enough. He uses the very thing he calls others who have come before him for doing. That does not make a lot of sense to me. Same goes for his use of conjecture, which he readily admits multiply times under the guise of being humble, yet continues to state without a doubt that Arthur was a Scottish warrior.

The author has a major axe to grind with Christianity. He states very early in the book that Arthur was not and could not have been a Christian king, and constantly refers to Druids as those of The Old Way. He even goes on to say later (page 252) that it is, "...just daft - holy product placement" in regards to references to Arthur carrying a cross at the battle of Badon. Perhaps it never occurred to him in all his infinite wisdom that this statement could mean Arthur had a cross painted on or affixed to his shield. Certainly other authors have come to such a conclusion - authors who are willing to look at multiply theories, places, and names, and not just fixate on one and say it is right and that is that. I also enjoyed (sarcasm alert!) the part where he said those who have looked and continue to look for the Holy Grail are 'deluded' (page 74). His opinions on Christianity shine through VERY early on.

In addition to the word play he calls evidence for locating the real Arthur, he does a lot of this in regards to his own family name. He references this a lot, about how peoples' last names are only interesting to them, his is so rare, blah blah. You are right buddy, I do not care one iota about your super rare last name or the fact that it is so rare, you are related to everyone who has it. Perhaps this was included to show how great you are at deducing which words in ancient times are equal to our words of today. Either way it was pointless and filler and I have expected him to make the claim that he had discovered he was a descendant of Arthur. Maybe he did, I don't actually know because I skipped over the personal stuff.

I guess you have to give the guy a little credit (thought I can't give him much, because his arrogance and pompousness are evident, page after page) for being bold enough to make claims like, "To exist in the south in Britain it was necessary for Arthur to become a legendary figure, because Arthur did not exist in the history of the south" (page 225).

So, in the end I have to say pass on this one. I had high hopes but they were dashed quickly. Big disappointment here, so if you are looking for books about Arthur, look elsewhere.

King Arthur: The Truth Behind the Legend

Rating: 4 Stars

Review:

First and foremost, any digging at this point to find Arthur will only result in conjecture. It's been too long and any evidence is almost certainly long gone. However, the author is convincing in that I'm now quite sure an Arthur did exist. Not as we think of Arthur in mythology now, the Once and Future King who will some day awaken and reclaim his throne, but a living, breathing warrior king who united his people (as best he could) against the invaders.

I found this a rather easy read and enjoyed it. I also enjoyed that the author didn't aim for one theory, ignore others, and make the evidence fit what he thinks. He explored several options, while naturally indicating which one makes the most sense to him. Nicely done.