The Winter King by Bernard Cornwell

Vertigo

Mad Mountain Man
Supporter
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
8,629
Location
Scottish Highlands
The Winter King is the first book in Cornwell’s Arthurian trilogy presenting the reader with a believable take on the legend that is firmly grounded in the history of the times. The post Roman Britons are being displaced by the invading Saxons, the remnants of druidic religion have never really recovered from Roman persecution and the remaining Briton kingdoms are too busy fighting with each other to unite and fight the invaders. Into this mess steps a flawed but militarily brilliant warlord; Arthur.

Once again, Cornwell ends this book with a historical note putting everything into the best context the rather limited historical records allow him. He tells us with disarming honestly where he has taken best historical knowledge, where he has occasionally modified it and where he has purely speculated or given himself artistic licence. I strongly recommend reading this note before reading the story as it gives a solid foundation to the reader’s understanding of these times. As does Cornwell’s interlude technique of showing the story being written down by one of the main protagonists in his old age. All of which results in, for me, my first reading of an Arthur story that is totally convincing and believable; that has completely done away with all the ridiculous nights in shining armour charging out from under the portcullises of castles centuries ahead of their time and replaced them with the grim world of a society still declining after the departure of the Romans a century earlier. A land full of superstition and ancient religion struggling against the growing but still very grubby pockets of Christianity.

Having just finished Cornwell’s Saxon stories of Uhtred which I mostly loved this trilogy seemed like a good logical next step. They are set in a world that is, to some extent, rather grimmer than the Saxon world of four centuries later but also not so dissimilar. And I find myself deeply intrigued by that world and loving Cornwell’s matchless ability to bring it to vivid life. I am very much looking forward to the remaining two books.
 
Ah-ha -- another of the rare meeting of our minds, Vertigo! I read the trilogy a couple of years ago and thoroughly enjoyed each book -- it was clever how he brought in all the usual names as characters but warped our vision of them. Though since you're not so fond of fantasy I'll be interested in your take of the books as they progress, as if I'm remembering right, by the end magic plays a prominent part in the action.
 
Ah-ha -- another of the rare meeting of our minds, Vertigo! I read the trilogy a couple of years ago and thoroughly enjoyed each book -- it was clever how he brought in all the usual names as characters but warped our vision of them. Though since you're not so fond of fantasy I'll be interested in your take of the books as they progress, as if I'm remembering right, by the end magic plays a prominent part in the action.
Ah well I think in this context - the real historical world in which everyone (including the Christians) genuinely believed in magic, demons and spirits - I can probably roll with it :ROFLMAO:
 
Ah-ha -- another of the rare meeting of our minds, Vertigo! I read the trilogy a couple of years ago and thoroughly enjoyed each book -- it was clever how he brought in all the usual names as characters but warped our vision of them. Though since you're not so fond of fantasy I'll be interested in your take of the books as they progress, as if I'm remembering right, by the end magic plays a prominent part in the action.

It is not quite magic. He plays on the superstitions of the people of the time. Which again shows his brilliance in putting the world in context. It is all suggestion. Don't want to go into any spoilers for Vertigo.
 
It is not quite magic. He plays on the superstitions of the people of the time. Which again shows his brilliance in putting the world in context. It is all suggestion. Don't want to go into any spoilers for Vertigo.
This is actually more what I'm expecting.

However it's likely to be getting on for spring before I get onto the next book so it'll be a while before I know! :D
 
Certainly that's how I read it in the first book, yet I thought it went beyond that at the end. We'll have to wait until later in the year when Vertigo gets there -- and I'll need to refresh my memory with a quick re-read anyway!
 
Look forward to your thoughts and a belated Vertigo's on the magic element.
 
Look forward to your thoughts and a belated Vertigo's on the magic element.
I've not been finding the time to write proper (-ish) reviews lately and only putting in a paragraph per book in the current reading threads. After the third book I summarised my feelings on the magic element with this:

However, he doesn’t seem to have quite decided whether he was writing a speculative historical novel or a fantasy. If the former then it’s fine to show the superstitious beliefs held in those times, if it’s the latter then it’s fine to have those superstitions be real. The books begin with the former and slowly morph to the latter.

And I confess those elements made the books less enjoyable, for me, than, say, his Saxon books about Uhtred, where there was lots of belief in magic but very little evidence of it.
 
To my reading of the books he kept it very much to the former. I always felt there was a logical reasoning to the magical elements. It is what made the books so good. People of that time would have had a stronger sense of the other world. The landscape, unexplained phenomena could all be used by very clever people who said they represented the gods.
 
To my reading of the books he kept it very much to the former. I always felt there was a logical reasoning to the magical elements. It is what made the books so good. People of that time would have had a stronger sense of the other world. The landscape, unexplained phenomena could all be used by very clever people who said they represented the gods.
I would have agreed with you in the first book but by the time we reached the third one I felt he was presenting elements of the story that only made sense if the magic was real not just superstition.
 
I don't want to overstate it; I did enjoy the books and most of the time he does keep it to superstition. The most recent Robert Fabbri Vespasian book that I read went much further over the line and, whilst I still enjoy those enough to continue, it's with a much smaller margin than Cornwell's books.
 
My view is that Cornwell has very deliberately left the question open. The story works if you think it's all smoke and mirrors and coincidence and desire to believe, the story works if you think there's genuine magic and divine intervention afoot. I would agree that he presses the idea that it could be magic harder through the series, but for me that is necessary to make it an open question rather than have it be obviously all smoke and mirrors.

The ambiguity is one of my favourite things about the trilogy, which is also very much a wonderful piece of writing all round, despite doing a lot of things I'm now bored of. I find the anachronistic impossibility takes on Arthur far more interesting these days, largely because I never see them. I should reread.
 
Hi Peat,

Can you expand those anachronistic takes on Arthur. I might be able to help with suggestions for you.
 
My view is that Cornwell has very deliberately left the question open. The story works if you think it's all smoke and mirrors and coincidence and desire to believe, the story works if you think there's genuine magic and divine intervention afoot. I would agree that he presses the idea that it could be magic harder through the series, but for me that is necessary to make it an open question rather than have it be obviously all smoke and mirrors.

The ambiguity is one of my favourite things about the trilogy, which is also very much a wonderful piece of writing all round, despite doing a lot of things I'm now bored of. I find the anachronistic impossibility takes on Arthur far more interesting these days, largely because I never see them. I should reread.

How does it compare to Mary Stewarts Merlin Trilogy ? :unsure:

Im finishing up book 3 of her series right now.:)
 
Hi Peat,

Can you expand those anachronistic takes on Arthur. I might be able to help with suggestions for you.

Essentially, write it like Chretien de Troyes or Malory would have. Write them as idealised medieval knights in an idealised medieval land with not even a hint it might have been otherwise. Don't mention Rome unless Arthur is conquering it.

I get why authors aim to do something different, but by now their different is more of the same.
 
Now I understand. Placing Arthur in the 5th/6th century is understandable from a modern writer's perspective. We know more now and obviously knights, chivalry etc have yet to happen. Mary Stewart combined both into her stories quite effectively. Gillian Bradshaw, whilst keeping mainly to a historical setting included some of the tales from Malory. Also to brilliant effect
 

Similar threads


Back
Top