I just finished my Advanced Reading copy (yes, it does make
me feel delightfully important to be the recipient of an Advanced Reading copy)
of Suzannah Rowntree’s novel, Pendragon’s
Heir. The book is essentially a retelling of the story of Camelot, and
therefore an exploration of the elusive, tragically costly, yet beautiful
vision of building a city of light upon earth. Our young protagonist, Blanche,
has been raised in Edwardian England. However, she discovers very early in the
story that she is both the subject of prophecy and the daughter and heir of
King Arthur. Or at least, she probably is--gossip about her mother’s chastity
has sown doubt in some minds. Initially resistant to the idea of giving up her
pleasant life in order to re-enter the medieval world of errant knights and
rampaging villains, Blanche gradually matures into her role of heiress to a
struggling kingdom. Meanwhile, her relationship with the impetuous, gallant
(and admiring) Sir Percival also grows.
I soon found myself caring about the protagonists and
enjoying all of the characters. Did I mention that there are several of the fey
folk in this story? They are delightfully handled, and I am a sucker for
well-portrayed fey folk. The relationships between characters are nuanced and
often unexpected, and I was impressed by the action sequences and the author’s
ability to write so many tense, believable, non-repetitive scenes of combat
(although I admit that I know absolutely nothing about how to fight, and might
not notice if the blows and techniques were unrealistic). In addition, the
story explores significant themes. It is satisfying overall and demonstrates the
degree to which the author has immersed herself in medieval and Arthurian
imagery. I recommend that you read it.
In fact, the book is so good that I feel free to critique
and analyze it as freely as if it came from the presses of a major publishing company.
There is no need for me to be “kind” to the author by keeping any complaints,
quibbles, or questions to myself. The pacing of the book is not perfect.
Although both the beginning and end are taut and fast-paced, there was a
section in the middle that felt a little too slow and episodic. I think this is
because the main threads of the overall plot (and the relationships between the
main characters) were allowed to sink out of sight while the characters
gathered information and experienced minor adventures. The information and the
adventures were needed for the overall story, but did not convey as much of a
feeling of forward momentum. Some readers may disagree with this, and argue
that I merely have a short attention span for knightly adventures.
I also find myself deeply struck by the problem of Simon
Corbin, an articulate character who attempts to prevent Blanche from taking up
her role as heir. In the language of a free-thinking Edwardian skeptic, he
rejects belief in God as well as the idea that anyone owes a duty to a kingdom,
a higher power, or a moral code. He argues for modern progress instead of
feudal virtue. In a later scene, he challenges an idealistic knight with the
argument that, just as even the “best” leaders sin, and just as good men use
ignoble methods in war and conflict, it is delusional to believe that right can
be defended without doing wrong. Ultimately, the conflict of the book could be
said to be between these two positions: between those who wish to use only
ethical means to create a kingdom patterned on visions of heaven (even though
they know this struggle appears doomed), and those who wish to use any means
necessary to create a kingdom according to their own ideas of what would be
best.
On the one hand, I commend the author for creating Simon
Corbin, because he is no straw man. It adds realism that our hero and heroine
cannot best him in debate. However, I rather wonder if some readers (especially
those who do not share the author’s beliefs) will not find Mr. Corbin’s
arguments the more compelling (I once ran into this problem in a short story of
my own: I tried to let both sides speak for themselves, and my liberal teacher
thought that my story had made a much stronger case for liberal relativism than
for conservative beliefs, because those were the arguments that resonated with
her). Will such readers wonder if someone like Corbin might not have made a
better ruler than a king who allows random knights to run around, walloping
each other into an early grave, while the peasants do all the actual work?
After all, Mr. Corbin is the only one who addresses “realistic” issues such as
sanitation and the suffering of the poor.
The motivations of the good characters are harder to put
forth in tidy, convincing arguments, and they rest more heavily on what might
uncharitably be called mystical naivete. Here of course we see, in a nutshell,
the challenge of a Christian author who speaks from her own perspective while
trying to avoid heavy-handedly “proving” her own point, or pausing the
narrative for a discussion of theology. If one speaks too often or too directly
about God, one risks alienating non-Christian readers or of failing to remain
in the role of novelist. If one approaches philosophical and religious themes
more obliquely, one can have trouble providing a full, compelling picture of
one’s beliefs.
I have been asking myself if Miss Rowtree should have
handled her story any differently. It might have strengthened her tale if the
good characters had defined Arthur’s kingdom more concretely, and, in
particular, truly acknowledged the humanity and needs of the peasantry. I
realize that this story is intended to fit into the tradition of the knightly
tale, not that of a realistic novel, of course, but I wonder if Mr. Corbin
should have been allowed to introduce the sufferings of the poor without having
the protagonists also truly acknowledge this issue.
Such questions aside, I enjoyed reading this novel, and I
enjoyed thinking about the questions it raised in my mind. Many thanks to
Suzannah for the opportunity to do so! I loved (and still love) her characters,
and I look forward to seeing what she writes next.
Hello Anna,
ReplyDeleteThat's a deep, thought-provoking review of Pendragon's Heir; well done! I've been following Suzannah's blog for a while now, and have been intrigued by what she'll share through her fiction, having had a glimpse of her non-fiction. I cannot wait for its publication and for reading it.
It is fascinating topic you brought up about the different perspectives - Christian, and liberal. It is really so hard, isn't it, to strike up that balance in one's work. I often struggle with that too.
But I definitely would give Ms. Rowntree a thumbs up for addressing those topics, even if the Christian argument is a little more subtle. Many Christian novelist these days, just hide away in their corner producing pulp fiction that never deals with the tougher, meatier issues of life and philosophy.
Joy, I agree that it is important to address "real" issues as a Christian author, and I would rather read a book like Suzannah's than a heavy-handed, pulpy one any day. I certainly do not intend to argue that Mr. Corbin become LESS articulate and intelligent as much as that his opponents might need to become a bit MORE convincing. The question of how to do that is the challenge for all of us!
Delete