Discussion about this post

User's avatar
The Dark Herald's avatar

The material in the first two books is solid.

Arthur is kind of a problem.

Epic fantasy wasn't as big in a pre-Jordan world.

Lawhead knew there was a good chance the third book would be the last, so it had to do too many things at once: Conclude the Taliesin–Merlin mythic arc, provide emotional closure in case the series died (which it did), and soft-launch the Arthurian legend in case his publisher gave him the green light. These objectives were in conflict.

Arthur was just presented as complete instead of developed as character, because something had to go.

I'm hoping the TV series does well enough to justify telling Arthur's story the way Stephen Lawhead wanted to originally.

Neural Foundry's avatar

Really sharp analysis of why Lawhead's multi-generational structure is both a risk and an opportunity. The point about character-driven dialogue scenes being cheaper than CGI spectacle is somthing more studios should consider, especially when the source material leans into internal conflict. I've always thought the best adaptations happen when budget constraints force creative focus on what matters. The family-freindly angle might be the real differentiator here.

3 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?