It's curious to me that this is the best-selling version of the King Arthur story in the kindle store, because it's a singularly flawed collection, well-eclipsed by other variants that are also available for free online; I suspect its popularity is an artifact of the search engine, not the book's own merits.
The author, Sir James Knowles, was an architect and friend of Tennyson, best known for founding the Metaphysical Society; this is, therefore, a very Victorian Arthur. In this case, "victorian" means "bowdlerized to the point of inanity." The story of Merlin's enchantment of Uther and Igraine to arrange Arthur's conception is almost completely elided ("When Uther, therefore, was at length happily wedded" -- yep, that's the whole story); Sir Tristram is apparently completely chaste with Iseult (King Mark just doesn't like him for some indiscernible reason) and even when Lancelot and Guinevere are caught together and the entire course of the story turns on adultery, such that bowdlerization was completely impossible, Gawain suggests that "it may well be that Lancelot was in her chamber for no evil." The story of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is simply not included at all.
I suppose that kind of bowdlerization might be acceptable in a children's version of the Arthur stories, but this edition isn't good for that either, for two reasons: 1) like many free kindle ebooks, all illustrations have been removed, and 2) it's a kindle edition, and who gives a $250 ebook reader to a child too young to read a story with adultery in it?
There are other problems also. The King of Gaul (Sir Bors) is an ally for the first third and last third of the book, but in the middle, Gaul has a different king, Flollo, and Arthur conquers Gaul six ways from Sunday (mostly as a stopover in his conquest of Rome); timelines don't add up; so on, so forth. I didn't feel the author did a good job of telling the Arthur legends, in any particular. In short, this is a bad version of the King Arthur story and the general reader would be better off not wasting time on it.
I'm sure people are going to say "hey, it's an early victorian version, don't hold it to such high standards," but there's no reason for a modern reader to read these, any more than there's reason to read Sir Thomas Bowdler's "Family Shakespeare". For more "historical" versions of the Arthur legend, either of this versions' main source materials -- Geoffrey of Monmouth's _History of the Kings of Britain_ or Sir Thomas Malory's _Morte D'Arthur_ -- are superior reads (though I'll admit you'd want to skim Monmouth heavily). My own personal favorite, Howard Pyle's three-book version of the Arthur story ("The Story of King Arthur and His Knights," "The Story of the Champions of the Round Table," and "The Story of the Grail and the Passing of Arthur") is similarly available for free online in the public domain, can be found with excellent illustrations by Pyle himself, is written in a fashion suitable for children and adults, and does a far better job of capturing the romance of the Arthur legends.
But whatever version you pick, this one is a poor place to start. It does have some strengths -- chiefly an encylopedic compilation of at least some version of almost every PG Arthur-related tale -- but the author's victorian mores seem to have twisted far too many of the stories into unrecognizability. Not recommended.
