Timewaster's Guide Archive
Departments => Books => Topic started by: Fellfrosch on June 17, 2003, 01:18:07 PM
-
Use this thread for all discussions related to our current Evil Storytime book, The Winter King by Bernard Cornwell. If you're reading along at home, have the first sub-book read by Saturday.
-
I want to start this discussion by asking Saint (or anyone else who knows) to explain the traditional relationships and characters that Cornwell is playing with. Specifically, I want to know about Uther, Igraine, Morgan, Arthur, Mordred, Nimue, and Pellinore. I think I know some of it: Uther is Arthur and Morgan's dad, I think (who is Morgause? I always get her and Morgan confused, so I'm highly pleased that Cornwell only uses one of them). I know that Mordred is traditionally the illegitimate/incestuous son of Arthur and Morgan (right?), but in this story they have two and I'm wondering if there's a precedent for that.
So, somebody explain this to me. I understand Cornwell's version, but I want to how it coincides and differentiates from the "traditional" version.
-
Not to interupt, but I thought that Arthur and Morgan were only half sibblings. Igraine was their mother but they had different fathers. Arhtur's was Uther and Morgan's was Duke of Tintagil. Maybe I'm wrong.
-
Ok, this is where things get confusing. Igraine, Morgan, and Morgause are frequently conflated, expanded on, shaken, stirred, and served a la carte. I could go on and on referring to various "standards" of work, but even those aren't always terribly enlightening (Mallory, usually makes things confusing, for example, in his attempt to be comprehensive).
So, for simplicity, I'll summarize what The New Arthurian Encyclopedia says, which is hardly perfect, but is frequently used as an essential reference by Arthurian literary scholars and is more often than not looked at as authoritative.
Arthur (Artos, Artorius): It's hard to go into any detail on him without going into LOTS of detail. He's the King. He is rarely an active participant in much plot, and he has some historical basis, but hardly as a high king or emporer. He is sometimes too young/childish/immature/inexperience, sometimes old and feeble. He rarely acts in anger, but often acts hastily. you can't often realistically place a "tragic flaw" on him convincingly.
Igraine (Yguerne, Igrayne): The wife of the Duke of Tintagel, seduced by Uther in disguise as her husband. The issue of her virtue is universally important in Arthurian lit. She is almost always either ignorant of uther's deception, or their relations begin when the Duke is dead (even if they don't know he's dead and it's only a moment or two after his last breath).
Mordred (Modred, Medraut): The Incestuous son of Arthur and his sister. This is our typical understanding, anyway. many time he is simply a nephew. It is his treachery that destroys Camelot. The treachery has a tendency to become more and more severe the later in the history of Arthurian lit you go. Mallory kind of crowns it by having him rape and/or force Guenevere to marry him, AFTER engineering a war between Arthur and his best friend Lancelot, and ending the whole cycle by killing his father/uncle.
Morgan (Morgaine): Often derived or even understood to be a Celtic deity. She is almost always a witch or a at least a pagan priestess. She hates Guenevere more than Arthur, but is certainly an enemy of Arthur. Conflicts surround the engineering of attempted assassinations of Arthur, and stealing Excaliber. In the last century, she is often Mordred's mother.
Morgause (morgawse, Margawse): Igraine's daughter, therefore Arthur's (half-)sister. When Mordred is Arthur's incestuous son, Morgause is *usually* the mother. She is married to King Lot (an opponent of Arthur) and the mother of Gawain, Agravain, Gaheris, and Gareth (3 of which are among Arthur's best knights ever). Mallory makes Morgause and Morgan sisters. often, these two are conflated or confused.
Nimue: Nimue is a largely recent usage as a prominant character, unless you count Vivianne's appearance, who she typically replaces. She's the nymph/sorceress/girl with whom Merlin falls in love. Sometimes it's reciprocated. Other times she just imprisons him in stone. Sometimes Nimue is conflated with the Lady of the Lake.
Pellinore: King of the Isles. He's also often the father of important knights of the round table. He's also involved in the rift between Arthur and Lancelot, killing Lot and being killed by Gawain. He breaks the sword Arthur drew from the stone and Merlin replaced it with Excaliber. He also chases the "Questing Beast" in many stories, starting with Mallory. The Questing Beast, in later stories, is very dragon likes, but it always makes a sound compared to the barking of (questing) of a large number of dogs. The word "questing" is often used in an anachronistic sense to mean "pursuing a quest." I personally like the sense (if I may editorialize) and use it that way.
Uther: Arthur's father. He's almost always blood-thirsty, lusty, and warlike. He either rapes Igraine (in disguise) or contrives to have her husband killed so he can marry her (or both). Sometimes a nominal Christian (if religion is an issue) who ends a long series of feuding, fractious, and destructive Kings finally uniting England (but then throwing it back into chaos when he dies).
-
Just to make clear: these are typical patterns. Individual Arthurian stories may make VAST changes. Also, some of the spellings are variable or even undemonstratable.
Also, Jeff has a right idea about Uther/Morgan/Arthur. As you can see from my comments, ONE of the right ideas, and the usual one in most recent arthurian lit.
-
Cool. That answers a lot of questions. Let me lay out what I understand of Cornwell's version:
Uther is a staunchly Pagan king, very old, who's only son Mordred died in battle. He blames this death on his illegitimate son Arthur and banishes him, then marries Mordred's wife and has another son, the club-footed Mordred.
Nimue is a druid-in-training under Merlin's supervision. Morgan is Arthur's full sister, also a druid (or a witch, whatever). Pellinore is a raving lunatic in a cage. Igraine is in the future (ie, the frame story) as a queen who commissions the writing of Arthur's legend and adds a lot of embellishments after the fact. There's anothe Igraine, but I can't remember who she is.
We'll get to the other characters as we go, I guess.
I'd like to point out my single favorite thing about this book so far: it glosses over Arthur's childhood and gets right to the good stuff. I don't think I could have handled another Sword and the Stone.
-
Uther is a staunchly Pagan king
That's pretty typical, but the rest is very atypical. It's hard to read this, as I have too many expectations. I suspect once I get into it I'll have an easier time. I keep confusing characters' traditional roles with the roles being established in this book.
Nimue is a druid-in-training under Merlin's supervision.
This is also fairly customary, even in the works where she imprisons him.
There's anothe Igraine, but I can't remember who she is.
She's Morgan's assistant. This is a relationship not too far off. In White Igraine, Morgan, and Morgause are witch sisters, for example.
I'd like to point out my single favorite thing about this book so far: it glosses over Arthur's childhood and gets right to the good stuff. I don't think I could have handled another Sword and the Stone.
Sword and the Stone was based on the first part of White's Once and Future.... It's pretty faithful, but very Disneyfied. White handles it much better and sets up some very interesting themes for the remainder of the novel. For another good account of Arthur's childhood, try Mary Stewart's series (which is actually more about Merlin than anyone else).
I was also going to say more about Arthur. You're probably all familiar with this, but he's very much a Christ figure. He's supposed to return one day in many stories, and set England straight. He's a classic example of someone who dreams bigger than humanity is capable of doing, but doesn't let that stop him, but we like to think that even though he failed, he'll get another chance and not fail this time.
-
He already has.
The Duke of Wellington, who won the battle of waterloo - his name was... Arthur.
:)
-
oh yeah. that fixed EVERYTHING. That's why England never has any problems at all and everyone is united.
-
Heh... Wellington was the Prime Minister who tried to stop voting rights for the middle and lower classes i recall. That sounds very feudal to me. And somehow i doubt a dark age King is a top-notch social engineer.
-
Yes, I've erad Mary Stewart and TH White--that's why I was so glad that I didn't have to read the origin story again.
-
I think the origin story is so oft repeated because it's one of the few Arthur stories that are about Arthur... as opposed to his knights. Off the top of my head, there are only three or four others: his chess game with Owain, his death, pulling the sword, the fight with accolan. And even many of these stories focus more on other characters. Arthur's "origin" focuses on Uther and Merlin, his education features Arthur, but in most tellings (besides White) it describes more of Merlin than Arthur. Arthur's death, but until he is actually skewered on Mordred's sword, we hear much more of Lancelot, Gwenevere, Gawain, and Mordred. Arthur is a fascinating character, but there are very few tales of HIS deeds as opposed to the deeds of his court (it's comparable, say, to Queen Elizabeth I, she did a couple notable things, like not get killed for plotting against her sister, which she claims not to have done in the first place; or her speech to the army before the battle in the English Channel -- which the army didn't actually participate in), but the more interesting things happen to other people during her reign, Shakespeare and Sir Francis Drake, to name a couple.
Anyway, that's why we hear so much of his childhood. because it's so revealing about his character, and it's one of the few actual legends featuring him.
Not that this means you can't still be bored with it.
-
I've been thinking about this more as I've been reading the assignment. I'm disappointed that we don't have the conception story. Are we to assume a destiny? Did Merlin have a hand in it? What's going on with that? I keep thinking of it. Of course, judging from Morgan's behavior at the council, that might be his whole point: he isn't prophecies or destined or whatever. Just food for thought. I want Cornwell to address the issue of conception more, because it IS such an issue in Arthuriana. </whine>
-
I'm very glad that he hasn't discussed conception, for precisely the reason that I stated before--it's refreshing to read a new perspective that looks at him without all of the traditional baggage. Cornwell takes great pains too paint Arthur as a man, no more and no less.
One aspect that I find very interesting, however, is the pairing of Merlin/Arthur and Nimue/Derfel. It adds a layer of epic-ness that I like. The most interesting part of it, however (at least from a writer's point of view) is the way he plays with this concept in the frame story. In the beginning, as Derfel introduces himself, he claims to have only one arm. Later (or earlier, chronologically), when he forms his bond with Nimue, she tells him that the scar on his hand binds him to her and that as long as he bears it he must serve her. My first thought upon reading that was--when and why does he lose his arm, and which one does he lose? Does he cut it off because Nimue asks something terrible of him, and he can't do it? There's an incredible amount of suspense tied up in that scar, and it might not be resolved until the end of the third book. I think it was a masterful move on Cornwell's part.
Anyway, we're in week two so we should be reading part 2, (amusingly titled "The Princess Bride"). This is the part where we really get to know Arthur, so I'm interested to see what you think.
-
My thought with how Derfel lost his hand is that Sansum, the bishop Derfel is working for when he begins writing this story, for some reason saw that as a pagan thing and may have had it cut off or something. But thats just my two cents, which I shouldn't be allowed to throw since I'm only half-way done with part 1.
-
No, I think that's a valid guess. I didn't even pay attention to the fact that he was missing an arm the first time I read it, but when I got to the part with Nimue and the scar it suddenly became a very intriguing detail. There's all kinds of interpretations.
-
at half-way through part 3 I'm a little conflicted.
I like the story. I think he has some neat ideas
However, it takes him a good hundred pages to hit his stride. Before that I don't like his mix of detail to action. Too much detail about inconsequential things, not enough about the action. The action is fun, but I don't get any feeling of tension from it.
Also, I'm wondering why he decided to use Arthur. As Arthur isn't a main character (though he is the biggest supporting character) which isn't a big deal, you could still write about the effects he had on everyone (which Cornwell does), but he also pretty much takes every typical element of Arthurian legend and says "no, I'm not using that" with the exception of the Saxons v. Britons. I guess this could be part of his whole point, and it's interesting enough that I'll finish at least Winter King (and probably continue). I know Fell likes it because it doesn't have the "baggage" but that's kind of the point of using a legend, don't you think?
Oh, and I didn't even remember him saying he was missing it till you brought it up, but now I do. But I like that element. Cool stuff.
Is there anything else we should be doing with our discussion here? or just throwing stuff out?
-
I, for one, am enjoying the random discussion tidbits with an Arthurian scholar. That's plenty for me, though I suppose there could be more.
You said that it takes Cornwell an awfully long time to get to the action, and with that I partially agree. The real meat of the Arthurian story doesn't start for quite a while, though there's a ton of Derfel-specific stuff going on earlier. Derfel, interestingly, has a lot of the standard epic archetypes that Ehler's mentioned Arthur didn't have. Why did Cornwell write this book from Derfel's point of view and give Derfel all the things that Arthur usually gets, rather than just write it about Arthur and give them to him directly? At some level I think he did it because it's entertaining, but if that's our only answer it's a copout.
Why is the book interesting so early if the real stuff doesn't start happening until halfway through? I believe it's because we're invested in Derfel more than the Arthurian legend. In light of that, why include Arthur at all? Well, the flavor of historical fiction and the flavor of Arthurian legend are both strong, but is that the only reason? Did he include Arthur solely so that people would be interested in the story he wanted to write about Derfel (kind of a "Speaker for the Dead" scheme)? Off the top of my head I'd say that he specifically set out to do a reinterpretation of Arthur, because reinterpretations are fun, and decided it would be easiest to use an extraneous viewpoint that no one had ever used before.
-
I'm fine with how it was going, just wondering if there's going to be more. I'll probably have a lot more to bring up when I finish the whole book. Since it's not done, my brain wants a chance to get it all in before it fully reviews everything so far. i think a lot of my concerns will eventually be worked out. I just need to read the whole story.
I can see the new perspective, but so far, there's very little of actual Arthur happening anywhere.
Of course, this gives me thought for my own novel, which revolves around new and peripheral charcters. But I intend to use the basic Arthurian story as a more prevalant background. I also have to decide if I want to adopt completely new characters. I did essentially invent Friar Quin and the Grey Knight, but Hans, who I revolve the first story around, I simply did most of the development on. ANd Sir Carl is FAR from my character in any sense. I suppose I'll have to consider. I have some really good dynamics and some rough scenes featuring Galford, Brenna, John, Carl, TGK, and Hans though. So we'll see.
That's hardly Cornwell's novel, jsut what I'm thinking now.
-
I have to say that one thing I really liked was that Cornwell started the story by letting you know that it has a tragic ending. And not just by saying it, but by setting the words in the freezing cold, spoken by a pseudo-Christian in a monastary run by a corrupt bishop.
I suppose everyone remotely familiar with the Arthurian legend has got to know that it's a tragedy already, but I like how Cornwell comes right out and says it at the very very first. It gives the story just the right tone in my opinion.
So do we wait to talk about the next section until next saturday?
-
I'm ready to talk about all of it. I finished it this afternoon.
I really do think Cornwell is subverting it all on purpose. He knows what fans of Arthur are expecting. Why not recue it to the most elemental level. I'll digest this and post some more when I can.
-
I'd like to try to stick to some kind of schedule, for the sake of those who aren't finished yet--the discussion will be more helpful, I think, if we can all read it without fear of spoiling a part we haven't gotten to yet. If everyone's reading faster than the schedule, of course, we can just change the schedule.
-
So we should be finished with Part 2, right? Which is where he puts Arthur into the betrayer's position, which is almost a trading of places with Lancelot, with the whole willing to sacrifice his country for love, betraying his King (Mordred) essentially because of choosing a woman who was chosen already/unavailable. which is, incidentally, one of the most interesting inversions, even one we'll get to later, which might be the most easily recognized.
I'd really like to know what other thoughts are bouncing around your heads about this.
-
I was pretty intrigued by that switcharoo as well, and it really makes me wonder if the traditional Lancelot/Guinevere thing will take place. To some degree, Arthur is setting a precedent here that makes Lancelot's treachery more plausible and fitting--we've established that Guinevere is essentially a gold digger and willing to flaunt convention at almost any risk. We could talk about Lancelot's character here as well, but he doesn't show up until (I think) part 3, so we'll do that next week.
Is part 2 the part where Guinevere talks about her worship of Isis? What's that about?
-
I don't thinkg G. gets into that until much later. They only just get married in part 2. Her role as a gold digger comes later too. Although we have our suspicions about Sansum confirmed in part 2. And we KNOW that her father is. Besides, she's not a gold digger, she's a power monger.
Incidentally, I'm halfway through Enemy of God and I know the answer to your question (I think, he has a pattern of messing around with your expectations) but I won't tell you as that would be a spoiler.
Part 3 is this week, right? "The Return of Merlin" which takes place mostly in Benoic (in Amorica, which we would call Brittany, or northern west France).
I think he's putting us into the role of Igraine (the one he's telling the story to, and the one who's haveing the story re-written to meet her romantic/chivalric expectations) with all these reversals. I'm liking it, even though one reason I'm attracted to the legends is because of the Chivalry and the Romance (as in the writing format, not the modern genre description). But Cornwell manages to still use traditional Arthurian themes and say new things about them, so it's pretty good stuff. (after all, I have decided to move on to books 2 and 3, not just the evil storytime assignment :D)
-
I think that part 3 represents an abrupt shift in the writing style: when we get to Ynys Trebes we are suddenly confronted with a houseful of very distinct, interactive characters. Dialogue has never been this important before, nor has humor or satire. It's an odd shift, if a little disconcerting. Having read ahead, I can assure you that he only keeps this style for the duration of part 3, and goes back to normal in part 4. Why does he do this? Is it a subtle way of setting Brittany apart from Britain in our minds--to show that it's an alien place? Or is it a sign of things to come in future books?
-
I welcomed the change, myself.
I think the shift has to do with who he's introducing. (ironically) Lancelot can't be introduced in action. He doesn't do that in this version. I had mixed emotions about the character. I don't like Lancelot in the first place, but I don't like him not for the reasons Cornwell presents. (*counts the negatives in that sentence*). Anyway, Cornwell does an effective job. By the end of Enemy of God I keep hoping that someone will torture him to death.
-
OK, I've just finished part 1. I pushed myself to finally sit down, ignore everything else(fires, people screaming death, that sort of thing) and finished it.
I enjoy it, not being a super Arthur buff. The things I didn't know about(being most of it) was a new thing to me. I was surprised when Gundleus killed the baby, thinking it was Mordred, but of course I didn't think Morgan would have done the old switcheroo.
And with Nimue and Derfel, Nimue has 2 of the three tests thingys and Derfel I think has one, the test of courage I believe. The last 10 pages or so I really enjoyed. A lot of tension and the such until at last Arthur showed up.
Well, now I'm off to begin part 2, and hopefully catch up to someone. Or not. Whichever comes first.
-
actually, I believe the three wounds are body, pride, and mind, corresponding to injury, rape, and insanity in layman's terms. So Derfel doesn't have any of these, unless you consider the wound Nimue gives him in the hand as the wound to the body, but it hardly seems to qualify given the wounds to the body that Nimue and Morgan have received.
Oh yeah, and it was a nice touch. I expected Gundleus to take that action, but I wasn't completely convinced it wasn't Mordred. Given how many reversals I've enountered by now, I think I would have, which is why it's a good opener. Because now he's got so many changes (i'm into the third book now) that I find myself wondering what's going to come next, . . . and I'm supposed to know this story...
-
For Derfel's test I meant the first man he killed. Where he and Gorfydydd...or whatever, killed those two scouts. He found that fear and something else were one in the same on the battlefield. So I'd say he has the test of mind then. But hey, I just finished reading that part, so what do I know since your on the third book, right?
-
Oh, I see what your'e doing. You're proposing a non-explicit slightly different set of "wounds" for warrior men than for mystic women. No, I think you have a good point for that.
-
I'm very flattered, but I don't think that point can totally go to me. Lets see if I can find the passage...
Ok, to refer to the one thing I had said pastly, on page 85 of my copy it says: "...I was released from fear as the mad, God-given joy of battle came to me for the very first time. Later, much later, I learned that the joy and the fear are the exact same things..."
Then to defend my claim of his test of mind on page 87 it says: "My vision might be blurred by tears, but I was alive and I had killed a man and I had defended my King and suddenly I was deliriously happy as Gwlyddyn led me back to the frightened fugitives and rased my arm as a sign that I had fought well."
So theres some proof and what not if you wanted it. Thats just how I cut the pages apart in my mind. I hope this isn't the schooling checking itself by subconsciously ripping arpart books I read now...
-
No, I'm not just giving it to you. I think you have a point. They're not wounds, per se, but they are marks of passage for a great warrior, and it even someone carries thematically into the other books. He has fear (mind), a kill (body), and later, an oath (pride). So I think there's an unstated corellation between his maturity and Nimue's becoming a mystic.
-
I don't know if I like how Cornwall packaged Lancelot. He certainly gives you a good reason to not like him (and I don't, nor have I ever) but part of why I never have liked him is because he was the best (traditionally) and he ended up doing the worst. Now in The Winter King you expect him to fuss up everything because of how he's portrayed. For me it's definitely more plausible (if Cornwall's going for some degree of historical plausability) but less spicy/tangy/viscerally interesting.
-
We should be finishing the book this week, right?
I have to keep pulling out the book, because I finished the trilogy last night and I can't remember what happens where. Cornwell keeps me fascinated to the end, and keeps reversing what I expect to happen till the last 50 pages or so, at which point his love for the legendary aspect forces him to write what you'd expect. There a number of other predictable events, but the novels far from suffers for it. I have to say this is one of the best Arthurian fictions of the 20th century. And it's statements like that one that make me wish Shakespeare had written an Arthur play (just wishful thinking).
I like the battle at the end of Winter King. throughout the series Guinevere keeps pointing out that Arthur shines brightest when the hopes are darkest, but in this battle he doesn't. Yes, he wins, but it's Merlin that wins it for him. In the long run, Merlin's story is the most touching of the series. Yeah, Cornwell's main schtick is reversing everything in the legends, but he keeps that fresh and he does it well. He plans everything out, and he manages to stick to the themes. and main elements of the story. But how he gets there is always unexpected.
Anyway, Yeah, Lancelot is packaged very differently. But so is Arthur, so is Guinevere, so is every single other character. And I think he partially does it because of the historical fiction feel he looks for. But he also does it just to give a new look at the character. We want it to be romantic and chivalric, and that's what Lancelot wants us to think. Reality, Derfel is fond of showing his patroness, is rarely like the songs made about it.
-
I really liked the big battle at the end as well. These books were initially recommended to me on the grounds that their battle scenes were really good, so I was pleased to see that this was true. It's a very well-written battle, both strategic and visceral, and I was caught up in both halves of it.
I really like the way he's doing Lancelot, because I (like Kije) have always hated Lancelot. It doesn't make any sense to me that a man as good as Lancelot would turn around and do what he does, so the idea that he's really just an evil coward with good PR appeals to me. That might not be as tangy, but it feels right to me.
So what do you all think of the Ceinwyn romance? It was subtly hinted at since she first appeared, and I'm pleased to see it flower the way it has. Like most things in the book, this plotline has some ominous foreshadowing in the frame story, which makes it more interesting.
Saint, you said that this is one of the best Arthurian fictions of the 20th century, and I agree with you. What would you say are the others? Which, if any, is the best?
-
Well, aside from this one, there are essentially three major Arthurian prose works. But to be fair, we'll extend it to other media. So in addition to Whites Once and Future King, Bradley's Mists of Avalon, and Stewart's Merlin Saga, we'll add the Musical Camelot and the film Excaliber. And while they're probably not in quite the same league from the perspective of Arthuriana, we should also throw in Lawhead's series and Monty Python and the Holy Grail. There are others, but the most significant of these (like TNT's production of Mists and Disney's Sword and the Stone are adaptations of those already on the list, so I'm going to exclude them partially for convenience and partially because they're too derivitive to get "greatest").
Of these, I would say the best done are Excaliber and White's book. The former for it's relative adherance to Mallory's version while still maintaining new artistic direction, and White for his drastic reinterpretation and wholesale renovation of the story. He made the Once and Future story once again, pulling in a whole new culture into it's application.
Now I'm not going to tear down most of the others. But Bradley's was, imho, really poorly poorly written - though it was frought with good ideas. Camelot I have a hard time sitting through. Maybe because I don't think it takes it as seriously as I like, though there's no denying it addresses things more seriously than would be immediately obvious from a musical. Stewart had some good ideas, but she makes some poor jumps when she gets to the end. Lawhead I haven't finished, so I'll reserve judgement. As for Monty Python: "Let's not go there. It's a silly place."
I'll just tack on at the end that I really enjoyed Hallmark's Merlin, but some of the production values interrupted me at times. Still worth watching. There are also some good children's works.
Now, again Lancelot. I hate to jump to his defense, because I, as well, don't like him. But I still can see how a good man can fall. For two reasons. One, sometimes he has just one weakness. He manages to reign in all his other passions but that one. The other is more complex: the late medieval concept of the knight is torn three ways. He's given three not always compatible loyalties: His lady, his lord, and THE Lord. Often a knight can pull this off. Lancelot, sadly, cannot. Devotion to his lady violates loyalty to his lord and to God. Devotion to either violates his loyalty to his lady. How can he pull it off? well, he doesn't, and we probably think he chooses the wrong loyalty, but to be fair, let's look at another story (one we'll see later in the series). In Tritram's story (Tristan), he falls also for the woman intended for his King (who also is his father), and they run off together. In the story, however, we clearly sympathize with Tristram, who is definitely more like Lancelot than any other character. True, Tristram and Iseult fall in love BEFORE the wedding, but well after the betrothal, and they both know. In addition, in most versions, the characters are the victims of a love potion. However, the analogy still works. Plus, how many of you would choose George Bush over the woman you love? For that manner, your best male friend over the woman you love? Ok, and even at that, some of you would, but the choice wouldn't be easy.
So yeah, Lancelot is realistic, I think. But we want our heroes to be better than us. To make good decisions without hesitation. But we find them so much more interesting when they're torn, and the interest perseveres for millenia at least in part BECAUSE of the Lancelot aspect. That's why people have recently found Superman to be dry, and why DC has started to try and make him more edgy.
-
Yes, it's true. A large part of why the story is so compelling for me is the Lancelot problem. I would it a lot easier to look over his faults if he hadn't gona and killed some of my favorites, though (chief among them Sir Gareth of Orkney.) (Man, that still miffs me every time I think about it.)
-
Well, it's not like he did it on PURPOSE. That was the thrust of one of the best submissions we ever had at TLE (imho), but the story had some content we couldn't publish at BYU, so I had to send a nice letter to the authors instead of a contract.
-
Can you refresh me on the details surrounding that? I don't know the story as thoroughly as I should.
-
The traditional method (as in Mallory and White) of this story working out:
1) Arthur goes out of town, leaving Lancelot in charge.
2) Lancelot chats up Guinevere quite a bit (there is lots of speculation of how euphemistic this "chatting up" is)
3) Mordred, with the cooperation of Aggravaine (Gawain and Gareth's brother) hatches a plan to catch Lance and Gwen in the act, which plan "works"
4) Fight ensues in Gwen's room, where Lance kills a "good guy" trying to preserve his and Gwen's lives and virtue.
5) Gwen convinces Lance to escape
6) Mordred and Aggravaine convince Arthur to burn Gwen for treason (Arthur seems kinda weak willed, but we'll just say he's depressed over learning that his best buddy may have been snogging his girl). The pretense is also that they know Lance will show up to save her, and thus they can catch him, and not have to kill Gwen.
7) Gawain refuses to go to the burning
8) Gareth and Gaheris go to the burning, but unarmed as a show of protest.
9) Lance, as expected, comes to save Gwen, and is compelled to use force of arms to do so. In the process, Gareth and Gaheris are slain, as they have no defence against a mounted, armored, sword swinging knight
10) Lance and Gwen escape to Lance's castle Joyeux Garde
11) Gawain freaks out and virtually forces Arthur to go to war against Lance
That's probably enough of the story to get it across.