Arthurian Literature

[TalmadgeMonroe]

In response/request to a few members who have expressed interest in Arthurian Lit/Legend.
I was asked if I had read The Mists of Avalon, which I have so shall we start with that?

I read it a few weeks ago and although the genealogy doesn't mesh with some of the older stories that I prefer (but thats to be expected as there is no standard) I enjoyed the book. I really liked that it was from Morgains POV as I am a fan. I also was pleased to see references to other literature of the time such as Beowulf and The Wanderer. I had previously seen the movie,which is good, but as usual the book is much better and much more complex. I think Bradley did a great job keeping the "historical flavor" considering that it was written in 1982.

Sooo many things to discuss with Arthurian lit. so lets see what we can come up with!

[Niamh]

I've read quite a bit of Arthurian Lit. The Mary Stewart books are by far my favourite. Mists Of Avalon is amazing. I couldnt get into Sword and the stone. Found it a bit wishywashy. Pendragons banner was an interesting take. More of a historical approach.

[TalmadgeMonroe]

I guess I should post a little bit of my reading thus far.
I am currently reading Malory. I have read a fair amount of the classic stuff such as Geoffrey, De Troyes, Wace, Laymon, Culhwch and Olwen etc....as well as some more modern (relativly) stuff, Bradley, Twain etc...Hope to get around to Cervantes this summer.Definatly in the next couple of months I'll read Tennyson.

[JBI]

I'm not going to lie, I am bored of so much Arthur. I think it comes with the fact that he is the quintessential English myth, but really, since the time of the Victorians, there has been far too much written about the Cycle. Every mediocre fantasy writer, and some perhaps not so mediocre ones, in England, have done their take on Arthur. I think it is such an exhausted topic - people need to new myths to interpret, but I think Arthur serves still the perfect model.

The reason? after world War I, the English pastoral went to the toilet. Now, by weaving Arthur again, they can recreate that pre-industrial romantic England that really can only exist in fiction. And then, to shake things up more, along come 5000 other writers who decide to undercut the myth, so not only do we have a billion Arthur books, we also have a Billion counter-Arthur books. Really, I think the world needs a new fantastical vision. But yeah, The Mists Of Avalon is perhaps the best of the lot.

[TalmadgeMonroe]

I am inclined to agree with you JBI on the fact that so much has been written and it can get tiring. That is why I mentioned the Traditional authors and texts in my last post. I find it interesting to take an historical view, The Matter of Britain, and the development of the texts and thus the myths. I tend to, right or wrong, put Arthurian stories into two categories. 1. Legitimate Literature (I know thats subjective) and 2. Marketing to teenage boys lost in the world of fantasy (not that theres anything wrong with that).I try to stick to the former.
I think that another reason that it is so widely popular is that it contains so many archetypal characters that they remain relevant.Combine this with the fact that one may write anything they wish as there are no copyright issues, and the possibilities are infinite.

[wateredwhisky]

I'm not going to lie, I am bored of so much Arthur. I think it comes with the fact that he is the quintessential English myth, but really, since the time of the Victorians, there has been far too much written about the Cycle. Every mediocre fantasy writer, and some perhaps not so mediocre ones, in England, have done their take on Arthur. I think it is such an exhausted topic - people need to new myths to interpret, but I think Arthur serves still the perfect model.

The reason? after world War I, the English pastoral went to the toilet. Now, by weaving Arthur again, they can recreate that pre-industrial romantic England that really can only exist in fiction. And then, to shake things up more, along come 5000 other writers who decide to undercut the myth, so not only do we have a billion Arthur books, we also have a Billion counter-Arthur books. Really, I think the world needs a new fantastical vision. But yeah, The Mists Of Avalon is perhaps the best of the lot.

If you're getting tired of the actual Arthurian tradition but still have an interest in medieval lit there are a few other texts that might be of interest. Roman de la Rose (Romance of the Rose) is a great medieval text circa 1300ish, and there are plenty of great translations out there. Another that might interest you is The Mabingion, compiled from a set of manuscripts potentially dating back to around 1100. This text in particular is fun to work with because all of the stories are transcribed from oral tales. However, they are certainly the stories that ended up directly influencing medieval romance and the Arthurian tradition, so you see a lot of familiar characters but in quite unfamiliar scenes. Another that I've heard great things about but never gotten around to reading myself is Spenser's The Faerie Queene.

As far as anything after Tennyson's Idylls, I personally am not really too interested in where Arthurian lit headed. It seems like most authors at this point (or at least the ones who had their heads on straight) realized that the Victorians had nearly over-romanticized the quest narratives in trying to make them a source of British mythos during the imperial periods.

[amalia1985]

I adore Arthurian Literature, and I try to read as many books as I can find about Arthur and his legend, although I really like to read non- fiction books concerning him and the particular era. As for The Mists Of Avalon, well, it is one of the books I've read over and over again. In fact, I am going to read it once again soon.

[crystalmoonshin]

When I was a kid, I was really intrigued by the Arthurian legends after reading a children's book (the one with a cassette tape accompanying it... It was in the 90's, CD's aren't created yet.) but I misplaced it so I didn't have it now.

Some books related to King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table (aside from "Mists of Avalon") which I've read:
1. The Squire's Tale by Gerald Morris
2. The Squire, His Knight and His Lady by Gerald Morris
3. A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court by Mark Twain (I really enjoyed this book.)

But really, is Morgan le Fay really evil? I'd like to think of her as an ally of the good.

[TalmadgeMonroe]

But really, is Morgan le Fay really evil? I'd like to think of her as an ally of the good.

Good question. My first instinct is to ask "what is evil?" I've given up on the human concepts of good and evil because they are just that, concepts. Assuming they do exist; however, it would be a stretch to call Morgaine evil,IMHO. I believe her in most cases to do what she believes is right, and how cant that be considered evil just because it happens to contradict the norm. M.O.A. is a good example of this. Consider also: After taking care of the Saxons, there was relative peace in the land and during such times people tend to get complacent. Now what motivation would they have to move forward in their chivalric pursuits were it not for Morgain stiring up the cauldron every now and then, as it were? I think SGGK a good example. Morgaine placed Gawain in a tight situation to teach him a lesson knowing that the rest of the court would follow his example ( the green belt) and thus the rest of Britain would follow the example of Arthur's court. How can this be evil?
Short answer. No. Morgaine le Fey is not evil.

[amalia1985]

I agree with you, and that's exactly why I love "Mists Of Avalon" so much. I think it goes far beyond the simplification of the "evil whitch" stereotype. Even when I think about the main- if I can use the term- version of the Arthurian Legend, which describes Morgan as the temptress who traps Arthur, I cannot bring myself to dislike her. After all, I look upon her as a victim too, taking in mind that Igraine was trapped by Merlin through Uther's transformation, leading to Gorlois' death.

[TalmadgeMonroe]

YES............which brings up another major theme, that they, and we, seem to be largely victims of circumstance or fate if you will, regardless of how we try to manage our own (and others!)destinies. Even Merlin fell victim.

[Wilde woman]

Ahhh! You beat me to it, TalmadgeMonroe! I was just about to start an Arthurian thread, since I too have been having some detailed discussions about it in PMs. But since I'm late to the party....thanks for starting it. You're right, there is much to discuss within the Arthurian canon.

I'm not going to lie, I am bored of so much Arthur. I think it comes with the fact that he is the quintessential English myth, but really, since the time of the Victorians, there has been far too much written about the Cycle

JBI, most of the time I agree with your opinions on things, but I'm passionate about Arthurian literature. May I suggest that perhaps the reason you take issue with Arthurian stuff is because you're focusing on the stuff written "since the time of the Victorians". Personally, I'm much more interested in texts written in the medieval period, much closer to the origins of Arthur.

And yes, many mediocre writers have written their own take on the Arthur legend, especially in the twentieth century, but if you ignore the "popular literature" versions there is plenty of serious scholarship out there. Sometimes I think the very mass - layers upon layers - of scholarship turns some people off of Arthurian literature, but I can think of other fields (Dante, Shakespeare, just to name two) where that is also true. To me, the fact that Arthuriana continues to thrive is proof that there something worth studying.

I am currently reading Malory. I have read a fair amount of the classic stuff such as Geoffrey, De Troyes, Wace, Laymon, Culhwch and Olwen etc....as well as some more modern (relativly) stuff, Bradley, Twain etc...Hope to get around to Cervantes this summer.Definatly in the next couple of months I'll read Tennyson.

Ooh, I'm also making my way through Malory. I'm trudging through Book X (by far, the longest book)....where are you? I, too, have read some of the older stuff. I took a class in my senior year of college where we focused on the Welsh, Breton, and Old French sources. My favorites amongst those were the Dream of Rhonabwy from the Mabinogion, Lanval by Marie de France, and the romances of Chretien de Troyes. I just bought a copy of Tennyson's Idylls, which I plan to read after finishing Malory, and hopefully I'll get to Twain sometime this summer.

As for the Mists of Avalon, I read it in my high school years and it was the book that started my obsession with Arthurian literature. Since then, I read T.H. White's The Once and Future King three or four times and it's become my favorite book. I think it's brilliant the way White works the Arthurian legend to his own agenda, all the while inserting sly little winks to Malory throughout.

I think SGGK a good example. Morgaine placed Gawain in a tight situation to teach him a lesson knowing that the rest of the court would follow his example ( the green belt) and thus the rest of Britain would follow the example of Arthur's court. How can this be evil?

I don't think it's quite so simple. Morgan isn't exactly displayed in a flattering light in SGGK. The Pearl poet makes it very clear that Morgan sent the Green Knight to Camelot out of jealousy, NOT out of some indirect way to show that Gawain is a noble knight (which is questionable throughout). You can't argue that Morgan is "not evil" just because Gawain did not get hurt. The Green Knight would've struck off Gawain's head if not for the girdle, and Morgan couldn't have known that Gawain would win the Lady Bertilak's love while not dishonoring himself. I think it's quite clear that Morgan intended to kill one of Arthur's knights and it was pure luck that Gawain didn't die. That makes Morgan malicious and deceitful at the very least.

[TalmadgeMonroe]

I don't think it's quite so simple. Morgan isn't exactly displayed in a flattering light in SGGK. The Pearl poet makes it very clear that Morgan sent the Green Knight to Camelot out of jealousy, NOT out of some indirect way to show that Gawain is a noble knight (which is questionable throughout). You can't argue that Morgan is "not evil" just because Gawain did not get hurt. The Green Knight would've struck off Gawain's head if not for the girdle, and Morgan couldn't have known that Gawain would win the Lady Bertilak's love while not dishonoring himself. I think it's quite clear that Morgan intended to kill one of Arthur's knights and it was pure luck that Gawain didn't die. That makes Morgan malicious and deceitful at the very least.

Ahhhhh Wilde Woman, I knew I would get a response to that view of SGGK!! Thank you. I think we could do a whole thread on SGGK alone.

Consider this please:

Gawain a noble knight? RELATIVE to the rest of the knights,yes. Morgaine would have known this and that he would be the one that stands up for Arthur.
I don't think we will ever know if Gawain won Lady Bertilak's love but it was her role in the game to act as if he did.All part of the bigger plan."And the wooing of my wife-it was all my scheme!" (Line 2361)
Most importantly it was not the girdle, or luck, that saved Gawain.
"he gathered up the grim ax and GUIDED IT WELL" "LET the barb at the blade's end brush the bare throat;" (lines 2309-10)"I could have dealt more directly, and done you some harm." (line 2344) The GK knew what he was doing.



This is the great and fun thing about Arthurian lit. and having so many texts. It makes for endless interpretation which is what lit. is all about!

[Wilde woman]

I think we could do a whole thread on SGGK alone.

Hi Talmadge, you're right. SGGK is a complex work and we could do a whole discussion on just this one Arthurian text.

Morgaine would have known this and that he would be the one that stands up for Arthur.

I disagree. There's no way Morgan could've known for sure that Gawain would be the one who stood up for Arthur. How could she know that it wouldn't be Lancelot or Tristan or Gareth? In retrospect, however, it makes sense that she intended the Green Knight to challenge Gawain, since we know that she prepped Lady Bertilak to fool him. Since Gawain has a reputation as a notorious womanizer, it makes sense that he was the intended target.

Most importantly it was not the girdle, or luck, that saved Gawain."he gathered up the grim ax and GUIDED IT WELL" "LET the barb at the blade's end brush the bare throat;" (lines 2309-10)"I could have dealt more directly, and done you some harm." (line 2344) The GK knew what he was doing.

These lines prove that the Green Knight did not intend to kill Gawain at that very moment. But the reason behind that is, I believe, because he saw that Gawain had the girdle. Now, according to the rules of the game between Bertilak and Gawain, Gawain should've given the girdle to Bertilak the night after he received it from the lady. Had he done so, he wouldn't have the girdle and, perhaps, the GK wouldn't have been so lenient.

What I'm trying to say is that all the events that happen are conditional; one event in the chain doesn't happen unless another, previous event causes it to happen. And I argue that Morgan could not possibly have that sort of foresight. Gawain only takes up the GK's challenge because no other knight will. Gawain only finds Bertilak's castle by chance. Gawain makes a decision not to honor his part of the game, but also not to sleep with Lady Bertilak (which seems contradictory...how could Morgan have predicted these contradictory aspects of Gawain's character?). It's because he won't sleep with her that Lady Bertilak gives Gawain the girdle in the first place.

Finally, I think it could be argued that the GK is not just an agent of Morgan, but has some agency of his own. I think that Morgan, even if she didn't want the GK to behead Gawain, would at least want him to humiliate him...by revealing that not only did Gawain NOT abide by the rules of the game, but that he dallied with his lord's wife. Instead, the GK forgives Gawain, allows him to keep the girdle, and eventually the girdle becomes a symbol of honor. Even if Morgan did not plan in the beginning to kill Gawain, she still (as far as I can tell) planned to humiliate him.

The only way I can see anyone justifying Morgan as "not evil" is by claiming that she does have foresight of every single event (which would make her the equivalent of God), and thus enabling Gawain to prove his worth...but only after enduring a series of humiliating events. Is this what you're claiming?

[TalmadgeMonroe]

Now, according to the rules of the game between Bertilak and Gawain, Gawain should've given the girdle to Bertilak the night after he received it from the lady. Had he done so, he wouldn't have the girdle and, perhaps, the GK wouldn't have been so lenient.

This seems backwards to me.If Gawain had given the girdle back, L.B would have thought Gawain was playing by the rules and been lenient, but showing up with the girdle on he would have thought WTF? and TRIED to kill Gawain. But he didn't which leads me to believe that it was his (Morgaine's)intent all along to spare Gawain.

And I argue that Morgan could not possibly have that sort of foresight. Gawain only takes up the GK's challenge because no other knight will.

Why not? Fey, Sorceress, not unreasonable that she could have known this. Gawain being the most loyal knight to his king is the obvious taker of the challenge. IMO.

Gawain only finds Bertilak's castle by chance.

He crosses himself three times and sees LB's castle. I don't think this is by chance I think it part of his lesson, that being if he uses the faith he professes to have properly, it works. As we see with the girdle however, he is misplacing his faith. As I see it the use of faith is the major theme. It is a part of the transition from Paganism to Christianity. Gawain backslides.

Finally, I think it could be argued that the GK is not just an agent of Morgan, but has some agency of his own. I think that Morgan, even if she didn't want the GK to behead Gawain, would at least want him to humiliate him...by revealing that not only did Gawain NOT abide by the rules of the game, but that he dallied with his lord's wife. Instead, the GK forgives Gawain, allows him to keep the girdle, and eventually the girdle becomes a symbol of honor. Even if Morgan did not plan in the beginning to kill Gawain, she still (as far as I can tell) planned to humiliate him.

Agreed. And with that humiliation comes the lesson learned for the hero to return home and teach what he has learned to others. Classic hero quest format. The problem here for Morgain is that it DID become a symbol of honor to the rest of the court but not for Gawain. I doubt seriously that the GK would have spared Gawain by his own choice. Would you want to face the wrath of Morgaine for not sticking to the plan? I wouldn't.

The only way I can see anyone justifying Morgan as "not evil" is by claiming that she does have foresight of every single event (which would make her the equivalent of God), and thus enabling Gawain to prove his worth...but only after enduring a series of humiliating events. Is this what you're claiming?

I think that what it comes down to for me is in the interpretation of "evil". Again what I do claim is that Morgaine played her role with the foresight of how events would play out attempting to progress Britain's spirituality via Gawain. A pain in the *** sure, but not evil. I don't think it a stretch to think that she would be able to do this and mostly with logic. After all, if she can turn LB green and have him survive a beheading, how hard could it be to pull off the rest of the plan?