I can definitely see why Cornwell's take on the Arthur legend has been so popular and acclaimed. It's very well written, and an historically quite plausible explanation for Arthur and his knights ('warriors' in Cornwell's story). In this version, narrated by aged monk but one time warrior Derfel, Arthur is no king but a war leader, appointed to defend the kingship of High King Uther's baby son Mordred in the chaotic decades after the Romans left the shores of Britain. I laughed aloud at the unflattering portrait of Lancelot, a vain, boastful and cowardly liar who spreads tales about his own prowess on the battlefield. Arthur is a gifted strategist and inspired leader, but he is also flawed -- breaking a valuable alliance in order to marry Guinevere, maybe a touch vain and arrogant himself. Merlin, a wise but capricious Druid, doesn't appear until about halfway through the novel, though his shadow looms long over the story.
If Marion Zimmer Bradley's The Mists of Avalon is the Arthur story from a female perspective (I'm so upset that my conscience will no longer allow me to read it), then The Winter King is told from an emphatically male point of view (though there are a respectable number of strong and complicated women). This is a brutal world of death, battle, rape and sacrifice. Druids slaughter captives to read the future in their entrails. Derfel narrowly escapes an early death when a marauding warrior hurls him into a pit of spikes as a child. Nimue is raped and loses an eye at fourteen. The narrative pivots on battles, described in gory and unflinching detail.
The Winter King ends on an unlikely victory for Arthur which seems set to award him the High Kingship of Britain. I'm not sure whether I'll continue the story through the next two volumes -- I feel I've got the flavour of what Cornwell is doing and it might be a bit strong meat for a wimp like me.















