This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject King Arthur, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of King Arthur, the Arthurian era and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.King ArthurWikipedia:WikiProject King ArthurTemplate:WikiProject King ArthurKing Arthur articles
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Is this book notable? There is no mention of it's relation to the main King Arthur legend. Also, if it is a children's book, then why is the plot so long? Is it rather a chapter book and therefore not a children's book? And again if so why is it special? ~Rayvn 19:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
All four books by Pyle are considered some of the best versions of these legends, right up there with Malory and Lanier. They are definitely considered to be one of the most accessible versions, without a lot of the academic aire some of the others have. They have been continuously in print since they were first published over 100 years ago. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)Reply