Tolkien'a "Fall of Arthur" to be published: confirmed
 

Official HarperCollins press release http://www.harpercollins.co.uk/Title...-9780007489947

Edited by CT

Good stuff.

I've wanted to read this ever since seeing the few lines from it in Carpenter's biography back in '78. It will be really interesting to compare Tolkien's take on the Arthurian legend with Williams', which, apparently, Tolkien didn't much care for. Can't help wondering if Tolkien was in any way put off completing his version by the existence of Taliesin through Logres & Region of the Summer Stars. I've often thought of digging out my copy of Williams Arthurian poems again & this will be a good excuse. I doubt Tolkien's take will be anything like as (frankly) weird as CW's.

Its interesting that Tolkien would have approached the Arthurian legends at all, given his stated dislike of their use of Christianity (mingling the Primary & Secondary worlds too blatantly). It will be especially interesting to see if the Grail even appears - does Tolkien use the older legends as his source & avoid the Christian dimension at all?

(Wish I could lay my hands on Lewis' Arthurian Torso again - came across it in a local library many years ago & read it in one sitting - too quickly as I can't remember a thing about it now!)

Splendid news, I hope Christopher regards this now as a hobby not a duty .....noone could accuse him of not having a productive retirement.

does Tolkien use the older legends as his source & avoid the Christian dimension at all?

Apparently T more than anything was inspired by a Middle English poem (of course!), the 14th-c. Alliterative Morte Arthure, with secondary influence from the Stanzaic Morte Arthur. The former was based closely on Geoffrey of Monmouth, an essentially military legend, together with the early Middle English Brut of Layamon; whereas the latter was based on a French original and incorporates the trovere traditions like Lancelot and the love-triangle.

So, yes, these would be fully Christian--as were ALL the Arthurian legends; the very earliest documents were written by monks, and after all represented the perspective of the Romanized and thus Christian Britons against the pagan Saxons.

Grauniad has a piece on the publication - http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012...em-king-arthur

Here are the opening lines

This is terrific!

I love the brief snippet davem's linked article provides that describes Mordred:

What a villain!

I can hardly wait 'til spring!

I take umbrage with John Garth over this though: "...snippets published so far are encouraging, showing him in darkly evocative mode writing about one of the great English villains, Mordred..."

English? Does he not mean British? 'English' came in with the Saxons ;)

Romanised as in having just been part of the Roman empire or as in following the Roman church? Because at the time that Arthur is supposed to have been active and when the earliest texts such as the Y Gododdin were being written, then the Christian church was more Celtic Christian, especially in more western areas which is overwhelmingly the area associated with Arthur (and where many of those early texts were produced), places such as Cornwall, Wales, Galloway, Lancashire and Somerset.

I'm itching to see what he has made of the story. Having an evil Mordred isn't promising, though follows what Geoffrey of Monmouth started, and I'll be interested where he 'places' his version of Arthur geographically.