The Wolf and the Crown

The Perilous Order of Camelot, Volume 3

De: A. A. Attanasio

Narrado por: Erin Jones

Arthor, Eagle of Thor, with Merlin's help has claimed the throne of Britain. Already rolling on the roads from Tintagel to Camelot is the great wheel that will become the Round Table.

Though he possesses the legendary sword Excalibur, the boy-king "Arthor" discovers that he must earn the respect of the warring lords of Britain before he can truly claim his place at their head. The third volume in Attanasio's epic re-creation of the Arthurian cycle follows young "Arthor" through his first difficult year of kingship. Drawing liberally from both Norse and Celtic mythologies, the author adds his own cosmic embellishments to a story that spans not only the island of Britain but the lands of faerie, the Otherworld, and the spaces between the stars as well.

©1998 A. A. Attanasio (P)2014 A. A. Attanasio

Too much with the sex.

loved the conceit of the first book, putting old myth into modern scientific terms.

Aside from the unnecessarily graphic nature of some of the sex scenes. I grew tired of some of the other problems.

In an historical fiction/science fiction, I normally dont care much about the historical liberties taken....

Except when the liberties include more than one case of making inaccurate historical assertions that support modern twists of a theological tradition over 1800 years old.

I overlooked a couple, but the constant nature of it was...oppressive. The constant pushing of reincarnation and the trans migration of souls...I overlooked that. The equating of the old pagan druids with the monotheistic religions...around a time when real people like St Boniface were chopping down the sacred Oak of Thor and stopping human sacrifice....I kinda overlooked that.


The constant calling God a female started to grate on me...I mean, is it really PC to ignore God's chosen pronouns? you'd get arrested for that if you did that on a human in some places nowadays.

Then there were the multiple allusions to the idea that lay people would take turns acting like a Priest and confecting the Eucharist....the straight saying that women would take turns confecting the Eucharist.....

These are too close to modern historical revisionism to support modernist and anti-Catholic philosophies.

Any well-formed and educated Catholic, or even secular historian, will understand that the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist would have made such practices impossible.