Mallory appears to me to be an encyclopedia written in a biblical style. Much of the first half is: "this guy did this and said this in this time, and so shall it be." It makes it very hard to trudge your way through the book, which then means that you get behind on the reading, and before long you begin to wonder if you'll ever catch up. I suppose that's what the weekend is for, yes?

Also, for being named Le Morte Darthur, Arthur has very little role in the book itself. He's present in the beginning, and he's not represented very well by Mallory (as has been mentioned in class, he's clearly drawing from the French version of Arthur), but after page 95, he's not really mentioned much at all. We are given Lancelot's story, and Gareth's story, which is fine, and I'm sure we'll head back to Arthur at the end, just in time to see him die, but I do feel like the title is misleading.

Maybe it's just me, but I think Arthur needs a better story. So far, in what we've read, Arthur is a dolt, a terrible husband, not a great king, or he's a conquerer and not much else. I look forward to reading a story where he's actually good at his job, good at being a husband (albeit without an heir), and a good man/knight. Arthur is one of my favorite characters, and to see him so badly represented irks me. I know many don't like him, and prefer Lancelot, or Tristan (Tristram?), or the like more so, but Arthur has always been my favorite - a fact for which I blame "The First Knight".