I'm going to make myself (more?) unpopular now by admitting that I really truly hate this book!
I love the Arthurian legends, but I can't stand how this series of books takes liberties with the stories in a way that to me seems to subvert or disrespect the tradition. I've got no problem with modern rewrites, or even re-interpretations, but IMO these are better if done in a sensitive way that develops existing strands in the narritive, bringing out elements that are below the surface or changing things in a way that adds meaning. I'd cite Boorman's Excalibur film, and John Steinbeck's reworking of the legend as examples of how it can be done, making artistic and creative changes whilst staying within the 'stream' of the original naratives.
Too many people seem to have their entire knowledge (or should that be misinformation?) about the Matter of Britain from the contents of MofA and that is sad when there is so much amiss with that book.
Plus its also a tedious slog, typically bloated American novel (do they sell books by weight in the US?). I hated all the characters, the terrible wimpy and unsympathetic male leads (hello...these are Heroes
) and the ludicrously Mills and Boon type females who seem to spend all their time whining. It even manages to taint the genuine, truly touching and beautiful romance between Lancelot and Guinevere as portrayed in Chretien de Troyes 'Knight of the Cart'.
There I've said it, you can start throwing stuff at me now!