(Newbie) Dark-age Arthur
kurt63
previously answered question.
I am presently reading a minor King Arthur's court-type novel -
that is your straight, high medieval Arthurian romance. Suddenly
last night, I decided that I want to read a King Arthur story
that takes place in the Dark-Ages, in other words one that is
more realistic. What would you all recommend as the best one?
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Malcolm Martin
from kurt63 <kurt63N...@altavista.net.invalid> contains these words:
> a King Arthur story
> that takes place in the Dark-Ages, in other words one that is
> more realistic. What would you all recommend as the best one?
At the risk of upsetting Kim Headlee, in modern fiction the Bernard
Cornwall Trilogy of The Winter King, Enemy of God, and Excaliber.
An alternative might be Stephen Lawhead with his series of Taliesin,
Merlin, Arthur, Pendragon. But the last I read of his (called
'Grail') focussed less on the Dark Ages and more on the
mystical/magical. I think I read somewhere that he is bringing out
another one that moves back to his previous type. But that could be all wrong.
-
Kind Regards and with acknowledgements to Cindy Tittle Moore for the
bibliography of titles.
Malcolm Martin
London UK
malcolm...@harveywheeler.com
Robert Elliot
exactly what you mean. If you like a nice bit of tragedy, I think Rosemary
Sutcliff's "Sword at Sunset" is both the best written and the most historically
accurate to the 5th/6th centuries in terms of setting (the story is essentially
taken from the medieval romance, but none the worse for that); the only serious
anachronism being a reference or two to stirrups. If it is a bit too much in
the way of hard work (rather unrelentingly grim - my sort of thing, but not
everybody's) then try "The Lantern Bearers" by the same author; one of the most
adult works of children's fiction I've ever read.
Mary Stewart's Merlin trilogy is more haphazard historically (seems to slip
between the 5th and 15th centuries all the time, though only the extremely
critical reader would even notice it it is so well done); however, her Merlin is
so good you can't possibly miss it. Wonderful characterisation; indeed, this is
true of nearly all her characters. A real sense of wonder, too - she gets the
"magic" (for want of a better word) elements in without ever verging on the
silly. She is virtually the standard modern work, with nearly all writers since
hopelessly beholden to her - a modern Monmouth or Mallory. Personally I'd give
her last, "The Wicked Day" a miss - not nearly up to the first three.
Lawhead's Pendragon Cycle is decently readable, though like a lot of his series
it gets worse as the books go on, and I certainly never felt compelled to read
it again (and I thought "Pendragon" was appalling - so much so that I didn't
even bother with "Grail"). The Christian message will annoy some - it is a
little heavy-handed, with a rather stratified "Christian good/non-Christian bad
or about to become Christian" approach. Not really trying to be realistic - we
are firmly on the borders with fantasy here. Bernard Cornwell's trilogy leaps
over that border with an ecstatic leap - I disliked the first and didn't bother
with the rest, but others love them. Too much hopping, spitting and generally
behaving in a fundamentally absurd way for me.
Completely on the fantasy side as well is Marion Zimmer Bradley's "Mists of
Avalon", much beloved by many and by myself utterly detested - one of the very
few books I have failed to finish. Could be a personal Christian bias, but then
neither Stewart nor Sutcliff are exactly pro-Christian; I think it's the way
that anyone who doesn't fall in with the rather dogmatically
feminist/neo-paganist stance is made self-evidently a close-minded, selfish,
chauvinistic boor that got to me. No attempt to get into the heads of human
beings other than herself and understand their beliefs and motives; not a book
for liberals.
Then there's Jack Whyte's books; I seem to remember enjoying the first two, the
only ones I found. However, I didn't enjoy them enough to feel any serious
desire to follow the series through, or re-read them. They are meant to be
historical, but there's a lot of silliness in them and the first two books at
least didn't feel to me entirely at home in their period. Be warned - I gather
that by book seven (and they aren't short books) Arthur has yet to put in an
appearance and indeed the story has started to back-track. (I may be wrong on
this in the details.)
I've read others, but none I can remember enough of to review! I daresay there
are plenty here who will disagree violently with me, but I hope it has been of
some interest. There's a lot of dross out there, but some really good
literature as well - enjoy.
Rob
>
> I am presently reading a minor King Arthur's court-type novel -
> that is your straight, high medieval Arthurian romance. Suddenly
> last night, I decided that I want to read a King Arthur story
Doug Weller
says...
> At the risk of upsetting Kim Headlee, in modern fiction the Bernard
> Cornwall Trilogy of The Winter King, Enemy of God, and Excaliber.
>
Cornwall, is that his characters are not realistic, ie there are quite a few
that we can surely say didn't exist?
Doug
--
Doug Weller member of moderation panel sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to: sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
Pamela Maddison
kurt63 <kurt63N...@altavista.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:05fc77cf...@usw-ex0101-006.remarq.com...
> I am new to this newsgroup, so please forgive me if I ask a
> previously answered question.
>
> that is your straight, high medieval Arthurian romance. Suddenly
> last night, I decided that I want to read a King Arthur story
> that takes place in the Dark-Ages, in other words one that is
> more realistic. What would you all recommend as the best one?
>
*
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
>
first volume at present; guaranteed realistic, though the current action is
taking place in Gaul.
Peter
Peter
Pamela Maddison <pam...@pemmaddison.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8h17fs$g4g$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
Sarah
Doug Weller wrote:
>
> In article <200005301...@zetnet.co.uk>, malcolm...@zetnet.co.uk
> says...
> > At the risk of upsetting Kim Headlee, in modern fiction the Bernard
> > Cornwall Trilogy of The Winter King, Enemy of God, and Excaliber.
> >
> What makes these realistic? What annoys be about them, and I'm a fan of
> Cornwall, is that his characters are not realistic, ie there are quite a few
> that we can surely say didn't exist?
In realistic fiction, many of the characters may be
fictional (I don't think they actually wrote the biographies
of the local milkmaid or hostler at that period, tho they
did record a number of Lives of saints, monks, bishops, and
such).
"Realistic" describes the accuracy of the historical detail,
not the verifiable existence of individual characters.
Todd Jensen
>
>At the risk of upsetting Kim Headlee, in modern fiction the Bernard
>Cornwall Trilogy of The Winter King, Enemy of God, and Excaliber.
Um, the correct spelling is "Excalibur", not "Excaliber".
(Sorry, but I'm a bit annoyed with this recurring piece of bad spelling -
even worse is the people on the Internet who keep on spelling "Arthur" as
something like "Aurthor").
Todd Jensen
Todd Jensen
>Mary Stewart's Merlin trilogy is more haphazard historically (seems to slip
>between the 5th and 15th centuries all the time, though only the extremely
>critical reader would even notice it it is so well done); however, her
Merlin is
>so good you can't possibly miss it. Wonderful characterisation; indeed,
this is
>true of nearly all her characters. A real sense of wonder, too - she gets
the
>"magic" (for want of a better word) elements in without ever verging on the
>silly.
That's one thing that I like about Stewart. She has the knack for being
able to rationalize the magical elements of the story and still keep in the
sense of wonder and awe. (My personal favorite is how she handles the Sword
in the Stone in "The Hollow Hills" - which not only becomes the best
rationalization of the Sword in the Stone concept in modern-day Arthurian
literature to date, but even reconciles it with the "Sword in the Lake"
business).
Todd Jensen
RodneyFFC
>that is your straight, high medieval Arthurian romance.
And that novel would be????????
Rodney
Sarah
Todd Jensen wrote:
>
> >
> >At the risk of upsetting Kim Headlee, in modern fiction the Bernard
> >Cornwall Trilogy of The Winter King, Enemy of God, and Excaliber.
> Um, the correct spelling is "Excalibur", not "Excaliber".
When the name was invented there wasn't a standard way to
spell _anything_, so what we have is a 19th-century
litterateur's version. Actually, the original Irish is much
different.
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
:> >At the risk of upsetting Kim Headlee, in modern fiction the Bernard
:> >Cornwall Trilogy of The Winter King, Enemy of God, and Excaliber.
:> Um, the correct spelling is "Excalibur", not "Excaliber".
: When the name was invented there wasn't a standard way to
: spell _anything_, so what we have is a 19th-century
: litterateur's version.
<sigh> One does, eventually, get tired of excusing all manner of spellings
by saying, "In the Middle Ages they spelled things any way they wanted
to." In fact, there _were_ standard ways to spell things -- there was
just more than one standard way. (Malory, for example, uses at least four
different spellings, including both "Excalibur" and "Excaliber", although
the former is the more frequent.) What makes you think that the spelling
"Excalibur" is a 19th century invention?
: Actually, the original Irish is much
: different.
Just curious, in what sources does the "original Irish" appear?
--
*********************************************************
Heather Rose Jones hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
**********************************************************
kurt63
>>- that is your straight, high medieval Arthurian romance.
>
>And that novel would be????????
The Savage Damsel and the Dwarf by Gerald Morris. A good book,
and *very* short.
kurt63
>through my first volume at present; guaranteed realistic,
>though the current action is taking place in Gaul.
Will you have it done within the next week? :-)
kurt63
>lot of his series it gets worse as the books go on, and I
>certainly never felt compelled to read it again (and I
>thought "Pendragon" was appalling - so much so that I didn't
>even bother with "Grail"). The Christian message will annoy
>some - it is a little heavy-handed, with a rather
>stratified "Christian good/non-Christian bad or about to become
>Christian" approach.
I read Taliesin about a year ago. The message didn't bother me.
For some odd reason, the Atlanteans did.
I mean, the bull-jumping made me feel as though they were
Minoans, which then made it hard for me to accept them being off
Britain. Then, the author reported their harbor as being full of
ships from other nations. But that meant that Rome would have
known about them...yadda, yadda, yadda. It's picky, I know, but
for some reason it turned me off. Maybe I should return to them,
my library has the whole collection.
kurt63
Bernard Cornwall’s - The Winter King, Enemy of God, and
Excaliber.
Stephen Lawhead’s - Taliesin, Merlin, Arthur, Pendragon, and
(maybe) Grail.
Rosemary Sutcliff's - Sword at Sunset, and The Lantern Bearers.
Many thanks to one and all!
Robert Elliot
kurt63 wrote:
> OK.
>
> Bernard Cornwall’s - The Winter King, Enemy of God, and
> Excaliber.
> Stephen Lawhead’s - Taliesin, Merlin, Arthur, Pendragon, and
> (maybe) Grail.
> Rosemary Sutcliff's - Sword at Sunset, and The Lantern Bearers.
Is this because you have read Mary Stewart's The Crystal Cave, The Hollow Hills
and The Last Enchantment? If not, they really are far too good to bre missed!
Best,
Rob
Robert Elliot
kurt63 wrote:
>
> I read Taliesin about a year ago. The message didn't bother me.
> For some odd reason, the Atlanteans did.
>
> I mean, the bull-jumping made me feel as though they were
> Minoans, which then made it hard for me to accept them being off
> Britain. Then, the author reported their harbor as being full of
> ships from other nations. But that meant that Rome would have
> known about them...yadda, yadda, yadda. It's picky, I know, but
> for some reason it turned me off. Maybe I should return to them,
> my library has the whole collection.
Continuity and making sense certainly aren't Lawhead's strong points - one of
the weirdest bits in "Pendragon" is the way an entire episode that the
characters of "Arthur" clearly knew nothing at all about is just "inserted".
The blatant nicking of the Eldar from Middle Earth also got up my nose - he
virtually took his Atlanteans in Britain wholesale from Tolkien's "Lost Tales".
Rob
kurt63
>Tolkien's "Lost Tales".
Oh yeah, Numenor (I forgot the spelling). Well, if you are going
to steal, you might as well steal from the best!
kurt63
>The Hollow Hills and The Last Enchantment? If not, they really
>are far too good to bre missed!
No, I left her off because you said, "seems to slip between the
5th and 15th centuries all the time." I want to stick with the
5th century, at least at this point.
Malcolm Martin
from Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> contains these words:
> What makes these realistic? What annoys be about them, and I'm a fan of
> Cornwall, is that his characters are not realistic, ie there are quite a few
> that we can surely say didn't exist?
Doug
Interesting concept. On this definition there can be no such thing
as realistic historical fiction, unless one is able to write a book
in which all characters can be guaranteed to exist. Even then, the
realism disappears when the author starts to put word in their mouth
etc. In this context I would distinguish between 'realistic' and 'real'.
--
Kind Regards
Malcolm Martin
London UK
malcolm...@zetnet.co.uk
Doug Weller
> In realistic fiction, many of the characters may be
> fictional (I don't think they actually wrote the biographies
> of the local milkmaid or hostler at that period, tho they
> did record a number of Lives of saints, monks, bishops, and
> such).
>
stories would make people think that these people could really have been
compatriots of a possible Arthur.
Doug Weller
says...
Writing about him, and putting in possible fictional characters, is one thing.
Throwing in the whole panoply of later medieval characters such as Lancelot,
etc. is quite another. A story about Arthur can be realistic, as he might have
existed. But he's taking characters that only show up in the Arthur corpus
centuries later and certainly are not based on real people and throwing them in.
Readers of his Civil War series and his Sharpe series, who know there really
were people like Wellington, could be confused. Now maybe he makes this clear in
the endpapers, that's something I just thought about and haven't checked.
It still isn't what I would call realistic.
Jason Godesky
> stories would make people think that these people could really have been
> compatriots of a possible Arthur.
I'll agree, they're most likely added, but they could be. Mordred's appearance in
the Annales Cambriae would suggest he's at least as historical as Arthur, and let
us not forget Saint Dyfnauc ap Medraut. Lancelot I can't really make a case for,
I'm too convinced he's just Lugh, but Arthur probably had a wife. Granted,
Gwenhwyfar is a rather idealized portrait (or demonized portrait; from what I
understand, her name is still a dirty word in Wales), but all the same, he
probably had a queen by some name. And Merlin, well, he's almost certainly
Myrddin .... well, they're close enough, right??
Jason Godesky
John W. Kennedy
> I mean, the bull-jumping made me feel as though they were
> Minoans, which then made it hard for me to accept them being off
> Britain.
It's been a while since I read "Taliesin", but I'm fairly certain
Lawhead went to some effort to justify the cultural and ethnic nature of
his Atlantis.
> Then, the author reported their harbor as being full of
> ships from other nations. But that meant that Rome would have
> known about them...yadda, yadda, yadda.
Not necessarily all that well. The Romans had only a very vague notion
of what lay in the Atlantic, apart from the British isles. They never
even went as far as Ireland.
--
-John W. Kennedy
-jwk...@attglobal.net
Compact is becoming contract
Man only earns and pays. -- Charles Williams
John W. Kennedy
>
> Todd Jensen wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >At the risk of upsetting Kim Headlee, in modern fiction the Bernard
> > Um, the correct spelling is "Excalibur", not "Excaliber".
>
> When the name was invented there wasn't a standard way to
> spell _anything_, so what we have is a 19th-century
> different.
No, Latin had standard spelling, and "Excalibur" is almost certainly of
Latin origin.
kurt63
>>Minoans, which then made it hard for me to accept them being
>>off Britain.
>
>It's been a while since I read "Taliesin", but I'm fairly
>certain Lawhead went to some effort to justify the cultural and
>ethnic nature of his Atlantis.
Well, then I must have missed it.
>>Then, the author reported their harbor as being full of ships
>>from other nations. But that meant that Rome would have known
>>about them...yadda, yadda, yadda.
>
>Not necessarily all that well. The Romans had only a very vague
>notion of what lay in the Atlantic, apart from the British
>isles. They never even went as far as Ireland.
That's true, but as we now know, there were no advanced cultures
beyond Ireland. But, if there was one, and mariners from Europe
were in constant communication with them, then (I believe) Roman
authorities would have found out about them. Heck, Lawhead makes
the Atlantean sound as advanced as the Mediterranean cultures,
far beyond the Celts and Picts.
I just think that the ships reference was bad. If these
Atlanteans had magically kept themselves separate, then it would
have made more sense. (In my opinion, that is.)
Doug Weller
> I'll agree, they're most likely added, but they could be. Mordred's appearance in
> the Annales Cambriae would suggest he's at least as historical as Arthur, and let
> us not forget Saint Dyfnauc ap Medraut. Lancelot I can't really make a case for,
> I'm too convinced he's just Lugh, but Arthur probably had a wife. Granted,
> Gwenhwyfar is a rather idealized portrait (or demonized portrait; from what I
> understand, her name is still a dirty word in Wales), but all the same, he
> probably had a queen by some name. And Merlin, well, he's almost certainly
> Myrddin .... well, they're close enough, right??
>
about the name, thanks. But the others.... I would have been much happier if
he'd just used some real names but avoided characters that have no historical
basis. Just ignored the myths and used what we have in the early texts and from
archaeology
Jason Godesky
> about the name, thanks. But the others.... I would have been much happier if
> he'd just used some real names but avoided characters that have no historical
> basis. Just ignored the myths and used what we have in the early texts and from
> archaeology
Would've been nice, but, oh well. I just took it as him using the more popular names,
the ones people would recognize, rather than the more difficult and esoteric
"Gwalhafed," "Llenlleawc," "Gwenhwyfar," or "Myrddin." Besides, there's a good deal of
poetic liscence, too, as in any story.
Jason Godesky
Jason Godesky
> >notion of what lay in the Atlantic, apart from the British
> >isles. They never even went as far as Ireland.
Actually, there's some evidence now that the Romans had soem dealings with the
Irish, maybe even sent over a military force at some point. I'll have to dig up
the reference. Obviously, they didn't stay long, of course. But they knew
about it.
> I just think that the ships reference was bad. If these
> Atlanteans had magically kept themselves separate, then it would
> have made more sense. (In my opinion, that is.)
Well, I've never read Lawhead, so I'll ask; isn't his Atlantis long before the
Romans? It is in all the other stories about Atlantis I've read. There were
other cultures, sure ... the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Mesopotamians, etc., but
Rome was a bunch of little hovels at the time. Why would they know?
Jason Godesky
Malcolm Martin
>No question about that. But Lancelot, Guinevere, Merlin,
>Mordred etc. in the stories would make people think that
>these people could really have been compatriots of a possible Arthur.
and then in another post:
>But he's taking characters that only show up in the Arthur corpus
> centuries later and certainly are not based on real people and throwing them in.
Doug
Whilst I respect your views on historicity, I believe your logic is
flawed. For two reasons:
1) the fact that X only crops up late in the corpus may does not mean
that they were not in an earlier part of the corpus now lost to us
(whether a compatriot of an imaginary Arthur or a historical Arthur).
This is especially so when the earliest parts of the corpus were
probably oral.
2) to claim that characters in the corpus are <certainly not based on
real people> is, I suggest, going beyond the evidence available. For
with that statement you have shifted the burden of proof from those
who wish to say that a certain character was based on a real person
to yourself, who states that they *certainly* were not. And I
suggest that, with the virtually non-existent records that we have of
Dark Age Britain, that is a burden you can not discharge.
--
Kind Regards
Malcolm Martin
London UK
malcolm...@harveywheeler.com
Robert Elliot
Doug Weller wrote:
>
> That is not at all what I meant. Arthur is a possible historical figure.
> Writing about him, and putting in possible fictional characters, is one thing.
> Throwing in the whole panoply of later medieval characters such as Lancelot,
> etc. is quite another. A story about Arthur can be realistic, as he might have
> existed. But he's taking characters that only show up in the Arthur corpus
> centuries later and certainly are not based on real people and throwing them in.
>
The problem here, it seems to me, is that a genuinely historical Arthur novel
(discarding all characters and plot themes that can be demonstrated to originate at
a later date) would to all intents and purposes be unrecognisable as Arthur - you
would be left with the name and the battle of Badon, and Badon is hardly intrinsic
to the post-Monmouth story (does it even get a mention after Monmouth until the 20th
century thirst for realism and history gets hold of the legend?).
Paradoxically, a potentially "historical" Arthur would not really belong to the
Arthurian Legend at all. I have said before in this thread that to my mind "Sword at
Sunset" is the most realistic setting of the Arthurian story in the 5th/6th
centuries yet written (as well as being a thoroughly good piece of literature). Now
take away the incest/killed by son who is product of incest idea, and the notion of
a band of brothers on heavy cavalry, and the love-triangle notion of betrayal by
best friend and wife, which goes hand-in-hand with the decay of the fellowship with
new blood, and the tragedy of dying without a son and with your life's dream in
ruins (all demonstrably later additions to the story) and would it really be
Arthurian?
Curiously enough, this was one of the things I found most unhelpful about the
Cornwell books. Whilst the characters had the names from the legends (without even
an attempt at harmonising the different era and language sounds of the names -
anathema to a Tolkienite like myself!), they actually bore little or no resemblance
to them in character and behaviour. With all the weirdness and magic thrown in, I
felt like I was reading a fantasy novel with no roots in the legend - and that
frankly it would have been more enjoyable if the names and geography had been purely
fictional as well. For me this is where Mary Stewart is so fundamentally successful
- she builds on the legend, and her alterations (making Merlin the son of Ambrosius,
making Bedwyr take the Lancelot part whilst keeping his own, uniting the Sword in
the Stone with Excalibur) seem so natural that they are drawn into the legend - and
are used as material for writers who come after. That's what every great re-teller
of legend does.
The desire to "historicise" is a natural one to our culture - we can no longer cope
with a Malloryesque setting in never-never land. Our first question when told that
there was once a King called Arthur is to ask when, and to delve into the history
books looking for his regnal dates. Mallory could dress him in plate armour and
make him joust - it would be a brave modern author who put him in combat fatigues.
I'm all for it - Stewart and Sutcliff are, for me, better reads than Mallory,
because I belong to our culture, not to the 15th century's. (T. S. Eliot is a
possible exception here - I think he does get away with the never-never land
setting, even with a naturally historical thinking person like myself.)
I believe, however, that when this predilection with facual history leads us to
discard the extremely powerful themes that have built up over 1500 years of expert
story-telling, it has gone too far. The fact that the legend did build up that way
means that it is almost certainly not what actually happened; but it also means that
it is almost certainly a better story than what did actually happen, and absolutely
certainly a better story than any one person could write by themself today without
drawing on it (with the possible exception of Tolkien - I think he is the one author
who captures the spirit of the Arthurian Legend and its sense of age, fate and power
without actually using its plot. However, the perceptive may have detected a slight
bias here. ;-).
>
> Readers of his Civil War series and his Sharpe series, who know there really
> were people like Wellington, could be confused. Now maybe he makes this clear in
> the endpapers, that's something I just thought about and haven't checked.
>
> It still isn't what I would call realistic.
No - but then even the setting isn't close to realistic (unlike the Sharpe novels,
which are superb fun and pretty good presentations of their period, the nature of
the novel being taken into account). Mind you, he does in the end-papers say that
he wasn't interested in being realistic at all, just telling a good story -
unfortunately I didn't think it was a terribly good story! Plenty of others did,
though.
Rob
Czaerana
Not me! And it's Malory.
Cynthia
Czaerana
>that by book seven (and they aren't short books) Arthur has yet to put in an
>appearance and indeed the story has started to back-track. (I may be wrong
>on
>this in the details.)
>
Well, I gave up with the series at "The Fort at River's Bend" (can't recall the
# in the series). Arthur was STILL a child, and, yes, there is back-tracking &
repetition. After setting up the "Camulod" colony, Whyte decided to leave it
and start the same type place all over in another location! ZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Cynthia
the wench and her slave
whilst it wasn't fantastic, I took it as a tale and read it that way. It
wasn't so much an Arthurian story as a history lesson, although I'm sure he
took liberties with known history because it has to be the most drawn-out
series I've ever read! It got to the point where I thought Arthur was a
sideline to the story, not the main event. Anyway, I'll read anything and
take it on its own merit. I'll read the next book when it comes out in July
merely for completeness sake.
I'm enjoying this newsgroup for all the hints on other books to read about
Arthur. He's such a fascinating person even if he didn't exist. Sort of
like Santa Claus, all the myths and legends built up around him.
Cheers Jane - Downunda in freezing Melbourne !!!! Bring back Summer!
Robert Elliot
kurt63 wrote:
> >Is this because you have read Mary Stewart's The Crystal Cave,
> >The Hollow Hills and The Last Enchantment? If not, they really
> >are far too good to bre missed!
>
> No, I left her off because you said, "seems to slip between the
> 5th and 15th centuries all the time." I want to stick with the
> 5th century, at least at this point.
Hmm - I was perhaps being a little over-picky! I think you would find her at
least as "realistic" as Lawhead and Cornwell; she certainly means to set it in
the 5th century. It's just that occasionally 5th century Britain becomes a
little... grand!
Rob
Todd Jensen
>
>Well, I've never read Lawhead, so I'll ask; isn't his Atlantis long before
the
>Romans? It is in all the other stories about Atlantis I've read. There
were
>other cultures, sure ... the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Mesopotamians,
etc., but
>Rome was a bunch of little hovels at the time. Why would they know?
In Lawhead's book, Atlantis is destroyed in the latter half of the 4th
century A.D. - several centuries AFTER Plato first wrote about its
destruction in the 4th century B.C.! (And how Plato knew about the fall of
Atlantis in that case is something that the series conveniently sidesteps :)
Todd Jensen
>
kurt63
>>>vague notion of what lay in the Atlantic, apart from the
>>>British isles. They never even went as far as Ireland.
>
>Actually, there's some evidence now that the Romans had soem
>dealings with the Irish, maybe even sent over a military force
>at some point. I'll have to dig up the reference. Obviously,
>they didn't stay long, of course. But they knew about it.
Yes, that discovery of the Roman fortification really shocked a
lot of people. I read that there was some suggestion that,
during the occupation of Britain, Roman ships may have even
ventured as far as the Orkneys. So, the Romans were aware of
people beyond their borders, even in the Atlantic.
>>I just think that the ships reference was bad. If these
>>Atlanteans had magically kept themselves separate, then it
>>would have made more sense. (In my opinion, that is.)
>
>Well, I've never read Lawhead, so I'll ask; isn't his Atlantis
>long before the Romans? It is in all the other stories about
>Atlantis I've read. There were other cultures, sure ... the
>Egyptians, the Greeks, the Mesopotamians, etc., but Rome was a
>bunch of little hovels at the time. Why would they know?
As Todd Jensen replied, Atlantis sinks well after Plato. It just
pushed my ability to suspend disbelief a little too far.
Robert Elliot
Robert Elliot wrote:
> (T. S. Eliot is a
> possible exception here - I think he does get away with the never-never land
> setting, even with a naturally historical thinking person like myself.)
Needless to say, I meant T. H. White - being thick!
Rob
P.S. - Actually it's "Maleore", "Mallorie" OR "Malory", Czaerena ;-)
Czaerana
>I persevered with the series, merely to see what Whyte did to the story, and
>whilst it wasn't fantastic, I took it as a tale and read it that way. It
>wasn't so much an Arthurian story as a history lesson, although I'm sure he
>took liberties with known history because it has to be the most drawn-out
>series I've ever read! It got to the point where I thought Arthur was a
>sideline to the story, not the main event. Anyway, I'll read anything and
>take it on its own merit. I'll read the next book when it comes out in July
>merely for completeness sake.
Well, I got sick of his poorly written female characters.
Cynthia
Cherith Baldry
Robert Elliot <robert...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:3935A9C2...@dial.pipex.com...
The problem here, it seems to me, is that a genuinely historical Arthur
novel
> (discarding all characters and plot themes that can be demonstrated to
originate at
> a later date) would to all intents and purposes be unrecognisable as
Arthur - you
> would be left with the name and the battle of Badon, and Badon is hardly
intrinsic
> to the post-Monmouth story (does it even get a mention after Monmouth
until the 20th
> century thirst for realism and history gets hold of the legend?).
>
> Paradoxically, a potentially "historical" Arthur would not really belong
to the
> Arthurian Legend at all.
I fully agree. I have said before that a 'historical' novel which uses the
characters of legend thereby ceases to be historical, and is no more
'realistic' than a treatment based purely on the legend. But a fully
historical treatment would lack practically everything that has made Arthur
valued for so long and by so many different cultures.
> The desire to "historicise" is a natural one to our culture - we can no
longer cope
> with a Malloryesque setting in never-never land. Our first question when
told that
> there was once a King called Arthur is to ask when, and to delve into the
history
> books looking for his regnal dates.
This does not take into account the many excellent novels which have been
based on the legendary as opposed to the historical Arthur - Thomas Berger's
'Arthur Rex' to take what is to my mind the best example.
Mallory could dress him in plate armour and
> make him joust - it would be a brave modern author who put him in combat
fatigues.
Try reading Donald Barthelme's 'The King'!
I believe, however, that when this predilection with facual history leads us
to
> discard the extremely powerful themes that have built up over 1500 years
of expert
> story-telling, it has gone too far. The fact that the legend did build up
that way
> means that it is almost certainly not what actually happened; but it also
means that
> it is almost certainly a better story than what did actually happen, and
absolutely
> certainly a better story than any one person could write by themself today
without
> drawing on it (with the possible exception of Tolkien - I think he is the
one author
> who captures the spirit of the Arthurian Legend and its sense of age, fate
and power
> without actually using its plot. However, the perceptive may have
detected a slight
> bias here. ;-).
Biased maybe, but true to my mind, too.
Best regards,
Cherith
Doug Weller
says...
> Mind you, he does in the end-papers say that
> he wasn't interested in being realistic at all, just telling a good story -
> unfortunately I didn't think it was a terribly good story!
>
being realistic! :)
Doug Weller
kurt63N...@altavista.net.invalid says...
>
> From Archaeology Magazine I got, "As for a Roman military
> occupation of Ireland, historian Michael Meckler of Yale
> University says, 'the case remains to be proved...'" So, it's
> apparently not entirely ruled out yet.
>
>
True. But the claims of finding a fort do seem incorrect.
kurt63
>>occupation of Ireland, historian Michael Meckler of Yale
>>University says, 'the case remains to be proved...'" So, it's
>>apparently not entirely ruled out yet.
>
>True. But the claims of finding a fort do seem incorrect.
Is it? I didn't see that.
Doug Weller
kurt63N...@altavista.net.invalid says...
Unattributed:
> >Actually, there's some evidence now that the Romans had soem
> >dealings with the Irish, maybe even sent over a military force
> >at some point. I'll have to dig up the reference. Obviously,
> >they didn't stay long, of course. But they knew about it.
>
> Yes, that discovery of the Roman fortification really shocked a
> lot of people. I read that there was some suggestion that,
> during the occupation of Britain, Roman ships may have even
> ventured as far as the Orkneys. So, the Romans were aware of
> people beyond their borders, even in the Atlantic.
>
No Roman fortifications found so far in Ireland. I rememember the story, but it
was an Irish trading settlement, not a Roman fortification.
Media hype as usual (a bit like the recent story of a 2500 BC Iron Age village
1500 years older than Stonehenge that the Sunday Times reported). Although this
was complicated by some iffy stuff about artefact removal, I think.
Doug Weller
Cherith...@btinternet.com says...
[SNIP]
> This does not take into account the many excellent novels which have been
> based on the legendary as opposed to the historical Arthur - Thomas Berger's
> 'Arthur Rex' to take what is to my mind the best example.
>
>
I actually don't mind that, don't get me wrong. It's just not what I read this
particular author for.
[SNIP]
kurt63
>the story, but it was an Irish trading settlement, not a Roman
>fortification.
>
>Media hype as usual (a bit like the recent story of a 2500 BC
>Iron Age village 1500 years older than Stonehenge that the
>Sunday Times reported). Although this was complicated by some
>iffy stuff about artefact removal, I think.
Yes, I read about the Drumanagh story in the Sunday Times.
<Sigh> You can't trust anyone any more.
From Archaeology Magazine I got, "As for a Roman military
occupation of Ireland, historian Michael Meckler of Yale
University says, 'the case remains to be proved...'" So, it's
apparently not entirely ruled out yet.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
Kim Headlee
Gee, go off chaperoning 250 teenagers at an amusement park and you never
know what you're going to miss around here! Am I supposed to be upset about
something?? :)
I'm going to plug a couple of books that no one has mentioned yet. The first
is Parke Godwin's FIRELORD, which ranks 2nd to Stewart's "Merlin Trilogy"
(not counting The Wicked Day) on my list of favorite "historical Arthur"
Arthurian novel-length fiction. Sutcliff's Sword at Sunset is good, too, but
for me the characters in Firelord, especially Arthur, struck more of an
emotional chord. Unfortunately, Firelord doesn't seem to be in print at
present, but I'm sure you can turn up a copy on Advanced Book Exchange
(www.abe.com) or other used-book search mechanisms.
Currently I'm reading the 2-in-1 edition of the first two installments of
Diana Paxson's "The Hallowed Isle" tetrology. The first volume (Book of the
Sword) seems to be a cross between the feminist neo-pagan elements of
Bradley's Mists of Avalon and the lush geographical descriptions and
portrayal of Merlin presented by Mary Stewart. The second volume (Book of
the Spear) is written mostly from the viewpoint of one of the Saxon kings
Arthur has to deal with, which is unique in Arthuriana and fairly
interesting, although the author's pacing is choppy and sometimes confusing,
especially since there's a good bit of chronological overlap between the
last quarter of book one and the first quarter of book 2.
I won't bore everyone with a lengthy description of my own "historical"
Arthurian novel, Dawnflight, which came out last fall to numerous rave
reviews and is now racking up awards and award nominations, even at the
national (US) level. More than enough information, including synopsis,
excerpt, review blurbs, contest information, etc., is posted at
http://www.monumental.com/headlee/dawnflt.htm. I will say that Dawnflight is
set in AD 490-491. Mary Stewart was my inspiration in the early going, and
Bradley's Mists served as a sort of anti-inspiration later on. ;-)
kdh
--
Kim D. Headlee http://www.monumental.com/headlee
DAWNFLIGHT: The Legend of Guinevere ISBN 0-671-02041-2
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0671020412/systemsupportser
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0671020412/systesupposervii
Winner, 1999 Blue Boa Award for Excellence in Romantic Fiction
Nominee, 1999 Romantic Times Reviewers' Choice, Best Innovative Historical
Romance
Jason Godesky
searching for the historical Arthur. But before that, I was a fan of the legends.
It wasn't any sort of scientific fetish that pulled me from one to the other,
though; it was that, to me, the history was a better story.
> I think our dependence on something being "real" is shown dramatically by the
> stunning success of a whole string of amateur historians purporting, with great
> sincerity, to give the "true" story of Arthur. This is despite the fact that
> the one consensus that the professional historians have managed to reach on the
> 5th and 6th centuries is that their political narrative history is essentially
> unknowable beyond some very broad brush strokes. I can fully understand this -
Now, I just a few days ago read part of John Davies' "A History of Wales," where he
congratulated the scholars who concentrate on this era of history for their ability
to do so much on so little evidence ... yes, only broad brush strokes can be known,
but much can be read between the lines. I think that's the most exciting part of
it; so little is known, and there's so much to discover. Where would we be if we
shied away from everything we don't know much about?
> I still want there to have been a historical Arthur ruling over Britain at the
> end of the 5th century. Yet when I think about what it is that makes the idea
> so moving, it is the legend I am thinking about, and I know that even if that
> Arthur did exist, he was not the Arthur of legend who moves me.
Well, he does me, and many others. The King Arthur of legend is a decripit old
croney, a cuckolded, impotent ruler whose greatest feat is pulling out a sword.
He's completely dependent on his knights, who scheme and plot and lie and kill.
He's surrounded by traitors that he's foolish enough to trust, and in the end, his
dream is destroyed by the corruption of his court from its very beginning. It's the
story of a fool and his fall.
The King Arthur of history, however, is a Restitutor Orbis, an almost messianic
figure who struggles against the falling of the night, clinging furitively to his
dream of keeping the world intact against the onslaught of the barbarian hordes.
With everything falling apart around him, it is he who stands strong against the
crashing tide. It's also the story of a dream that turns into a greater nightmare,
like the legend, as those who were once united by the grandeur of his vision fall to
squabbling amongst themselves, and civil wars that claim even his own life.
For me, that's a much better story. Of course, I'm exaggerating both sides, but you
do see what I mean?
> The lengths this increasingly desperate desire that Arthur be historically true
> takes us to are extraordinary. The true Arthur some of the books conclude with
> was not called Arthur, ruled over a very small area of Britain, knew no other
> character from the stories and not infrequently didn't fight most of Arthur's
> famous battles. We are left with a character that, looked at coldly and
> objectively, has no right to tug at our heart-strings as part of the legend - he
> bears no resemblance to the story that first moved us. Yet equally he has no
> real historical claim to be the seed of the legend - it was only our desire that
> the legend be true that led us to conclude he was that seed.
Isn't he? It was his struggle that got the whole ball rolling. I'm a student of
Jungian psychology, so, by my thinking, the motifs of the legend are the outcryings
of the collective soul of all humanity. But they get tagged on to Arthur because
there's a little bit of Arthur in each of us. He embodies in the purest form
something we recognize in ourselves. That battle against the Saxons at Badon is so
easily recognized, striving in vain against an overwhelming tide of evil, it's
something we can truly relate to. All the rest of the legends issue forth from
that.
> That's why I think that in a deep sense a novel like Sword at Sunset is actually
> thoroughly akin to Malory. Its setting in a very real history is essentially
> cosmetic - it fits with my tastes satisfactorily, just as the setting of Le
> Morte d'Arthur fitted with the tastes of an earlier era; yet the story itself is
> essentially the ahistorical legend it always was and always will be. I find the
> realism, the way Sutcliff drenches the book in the feel of the period, deeply
> aesthetically satisfying - but the parts of the book which really touch me are
> the themes which existed before the 5th century and will doubtless continue to
> be the basis of versions of the legend when realism has ceased to be the setting
> of preference. I'm back to Tolkien again - these are not "lies, though woven in
> silver" merely because they did not happen, and consequently our thirst that
> they should actually have happened, and sense of dread that perhaps they did not
> and there was no historical Arthur, are both unfounded.
(An aside here; wasn't the Middle Ages even worse when it came to the demands of
realism? I mean, after all, the authors of these works had to insist on their
veracity, or face serious charges for lying and such ... but back to my
philosophical defense of the historical Arthur)
You're right, the legends have incredible value. But that doesn't mean the history
doesn't. I know of no dread that there was no historical Arthur; I certainly feel
none. What I do know is that there was somebody who led the charge down Badon hill
against the Saxons. Somebody who, in that charge, carried with him the hopes and
dreams of everyone who has ever faced a foe he or she could never defeat, but faced
anyway, and went down in a blaze of glory. Is it any wonder, then, that so many
legends came forth from him? If there was a person named Arthur or not, it doesn't
really matter. This was a time of crisis, when people strove against the falling of
eternal night, with all the bravery and honor (yes, and cowardice and deceit, too)
that the human soul can muster.
Whether he was called Arthur, Owain Ddantgwyn, Riothamus, Ambrosius, or Joe, does it
matter? That bravery, that honor, that chivalry ..... that's what the legend is all
about.
> Another burst of keyboard diarrhoea - I seem to be afflicted with the disease
> every year or so, and this newsgroup always gets the results. A pity I can't
> seem to transfer it to my catastrophically belated personal correspondence
> (sorry Tom, if you are reading this). Apologies for the rather sententious, not
> to say patronising, ending!
Posh, no matter. Whatever pathogen causes your malady, it seems contagious. :^)
You and I both may need to be quarantined to prevent any further infection.
Jason Godesky
Scott McMahan
wrote:
: Robert Elliot wrote:
: > The blatant nicking of the Eldar from Middle Earth also got up my nose - he
: > virtually took his Atlanteans in Britain wholesale from Tolkien's "Lost
Tales".
:
: If this keeps up, pretty soon people are going to accuse Poul Anderson
: (and the author of "Huon de Bordeaux", for that matter) of swiping from
: Tolkien....
Who, of course, stole from the Eddas...
--
Scott McMahan
smcm...@facstaff.wisc.edu
Robert Elliot
Cherith Baldry wrote:
> Robert Elliot <robert...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
>
> > The desire to "historicise" is a natural one to our culture - we can no
> longer cope
> > with a Malloryesque setting in never-never land. Our first question when
> told that
> > there was once a King called Arthur is to ask when, and to delve into the
> history
> > books looking for his regnal dates.
>
> This does not take into account the many excellent novels which have been
> based on the legendary as opposed to the historical Arthur - Thomas Berger's
> 'Arthur Rex' to take what is to my mind the best example.
>
> Mallory could dress him in plate armour and
> > make him joust - it would be a brave modern author who put him in combat
> fatigues.
>
> Try reading Donald Barthelme's 'The King'!
I have to confess I haven't encountered either of those books - I'll have to
look them out. Obviously my generalisations (as usual!) have pushed my argument
too far; however, I do think there has been a culture shift towards stories set
in a "realistic" world - most people today prefer airy nothing to have a local
habitation and a name.
Malory (lesson learnt!) could set his story in an England that never was,
flitting between genuine geography and an eerie twilight world of strange
forests and moving islands, having kings and knights not to be found in any
history books doing things which no historical date could be calculated for -
yet kitted out in the equipment of the second half of the 15th century.
In general a modern writer who wants to have fictional characters of "national"
(for want of a better word) importance who do things that would certainly make
it into history books, has to create his own "real" world with its own history,
politics, geography and so on for the character to inhabit, and get stuck in the
fantasy section with all the Xena-esque rubbish. Otherwise the character has to
be "small" enough (like Sharpe, or Billy Prior, or George Smiley) to be fitted
into a genuine representation of a time and place in this world's history
without breaking the reader's suspension of disbelief.
I think our dependence on something being "real" is shown dramatically by the
stunning success of a whole string of amateur historians purporting, with great
sincerity, to give the "true" story of Arthur. This is despite the fact that
the one consensus that the professional historians have managed to reach on the
5th and 6th centuries is that their political narrative history is essentially
unknowable beyond some very broad brush strokes. I can fully understand this -
I still want there to have been a historical Arthur ruling over Britain at the
end of the 5th century. Yet when I think about what it is that makes the idea
so moving, it is the legend I am thinking about, and I know that even if that
Arthur did exist, he was not the Arthur of legend who moves me.
The lengths this increasingly desperate desire that Arthur be historically true
takes us to are extraordinary. The true Arthur some of the books conclude with
was not called Arthur, ruled over a very small area of Britain, knew no other
character from the stories and not infrequently didn't fight most of Arthur's
famous battles. We are left with a character that, looked at coldly and
objectively, has no right to tug at our heart-strings as part of the legend - he
bears no resemblance to the story that first moved us. Yet equally he has no
real historical claim to be the seed of the legend - it was only our desire that
the legend be true that led us to conclude he was that seed.
That's why I think that in a deep sense a novel like Sword at Sunset is actually
thoroughly akin to Malory. Its setting in a very real history is essentially
cosmetic - it fits with my tastes satisfactorily, just as the setting of Le
Morte d'Arthur fitted with the tastes of an earlier era; yet the story itself is
essentially the ahistorical legend it always was and always will be. I find the
realism, the way Sutcliff drenches the book in the feel of the period, deeply
aesthetically satisfying - but the parts of the book which really touch me are
the themes which existed before the 5th century and will doubtless continue to
be the basis of versions of the legend when realism has ceased to be the setting
of preference. I'm back to Tolkien again - these are not "lies, though woven in
silver" merely because they did not happen, and consequently our thirst that
they should actually have happened, and sense of dread that perhaps they did not
and there was no historical Arthur, are both unfounded.
Another burst of keyboard diarrhoea - I seem to be afflicted with the disease
every year or so, and this newsgroup always gets the results. A pity I can't
seem to transfer it to my catastrophically belated personal correspondence
(sorry Tom, if you are reading this). Apologies for the rather sententious, not
to say patronising, ending!
Rob
robert...@dial.pipex.com
Oh, I'm not being *that* silly - in all seriousness, his Atlanteans
steadily dying out and "waning" in Britain are remarkably like the
original conception of the Eldar in Kortirion in the Book of Lost
tales - the island that became Eressea in the Silmarillion was
originally meant to be Britain. Of course Tolkien was derivative from
earlier legends, particularly the Finnish, but Lawhead is rather more
than derivative - his Atlanteans virtually *are* Tolkien's
Ngoldo/Gnomes.
Rob
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jason Godesky
> courage. The above is an extremely gross generalization of a few aspects of the
> legend. Have you read Malory all the way through? Have you read any of the
> other medieval stories?
Yes, I have. Malory, Geoffrey, Wolfram, Chretien, Gottfried, you name it. White
and Tennyson, too. Some years ago, I read most of the medieval stories. I liked
the stories, not as much as I liked the story the history has to tell, but I did
like them, even though I found nearly every one of the characters to be either
weak, foolish, or reprehensible. The only one I ever really liked was Galahad,
actually. He took the purity thing a little too far, but it was refreshing after
all the other characters, written with such an obsession for "human frailty" so as
to become gross caricatures of every vice humanity is capable of.
I'm sorry if I offended anyone with my post, but all this talk of how misguided an
inquiry into the historical origins of the legend is was becoming quite offending
to me, and felt the need to respond to it.
Jason Godesky
Christopher B Siren
<robert...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>Oh, I'm not being *that* silly - in all seriousness, his Atlanteans
>steadily dying out and "waning" in Britain are remarkably like the
>original conception of the Eldar in Kortirion in the Book of Lost
>tales - the island that became Eressea in the Silmarillion was
>originally meant to be Britain. Of course Tolkien was derivative from
>earlier legends, particularly the Finnish, but Lawhead is rather more
>than derivative - his Atlanteans virtually *are* Tolkien's
>Ngoldo/Gnomes.
If I remember correctly, Tolkien's main use of Finnish legends (and poetic
structure) surrounded the Tom Bombadil section of The Lord of the
Rings. I think his main sources were Norse and Celtic myth and
legend. The idea of the Eldar/elves waning and retiring from Middle Earth
parallels the Irish stories about the Tuatha De Danaan and sidhe being
reduced in influence and retiring to Tir Na Nog. I haven't read Lawhead,
but on this idea, from what I've read here, he and Tolkien appear to be
equally derivative.
Chris Siren ICQ# 17091740
cbs...@cisunix.unh.edu http://pubpages.unh.edu/~cbsiren
Myths and Legends: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~cbsiren/myth.html
Czaerana
>actually. He took the purity thing a little too far, but it was refreshing
>after
>all the other characters, written with such an obsession for "human frailty"
>so as
>to become gross caricatures of every vice humanity is capable of.
>
Galahad is my least favorite character because he is a "plaster of paris
saint." He is too perfect, not someone I could identify with (unlike Parzival).
>I'm sorry if I offended anyone with my post, but all this talk of how
>misguided an
>inquiry into the historical origins of the legend is was becoming quite
>offending
>to me, and felt the need to respond to it.
>
>Jason Godesky
No need to mischaracterize Arthur and the legends.
Cynthia
Cherith Baldry
I would not argue with that.
>
> Malory (lesson learnt!) could set his story in an England that never was,
> flitting between genuine geography and an eerie twilight world of strange
> forests and moving islands, having kings and knights not to be found in
any
> history books doing things which no historical date could be calculated
for -
> yet kitted out in the equipment of the second half of the 15th century.
>
> In general a modern writer who wants to have fictional characters of
"national"
> (for want of a better word) importance who do things that would certainly
make
> it into history books, has to create his own "real" world with its own
history,
> politics, geography and so on for the character to inhabit, and get stuck
in the
> fantasy section with all the Xena-esque rubbish.
As a writer of fantasy, I take umbrage! :-) Because there is so much bad
fantasy, please don't tar it all with the same brush. Good fantasy can dig
deeply into what makes us human. Try, for example, the books of Guy Gavriel
Kay, who has never written an 'Arthurian' novel, but has used Arthurian
themes and characters.
Best regards,
Cherith
Cherith Baldry
Jason Godesky <jm...@trib.infi.net> wrote in message
news:3936FEEE...@trib.infi.net...
I do see what you mean, though I'm not sure I agree. You're right that the
legendary Arthur and his knights were not the perfect and noble beings that
popular culture makes them. That, for me, is their fascination - that they
were fallible human beings whose faults and failings destroyed them in the
end. And yet the society that they built - all that we mean when we say
'Camelot' - has lasted as an imaginative construction for hundreds of years.
This to me is a much better story than one of pure heroism.
Your 'historical Arthur', as you will probably admit, is just as much a
fictional construct as the legendary character. We just don't know what he
was like, or even if he existed at all. Personally I find the historical
arguments interesting, but I have no overwhelming urge to prove that Arthur
existed. *My* Arthur exists in the literature, and I consider the study of
literature to be just as worthwhile as that of history.
Best regards,
Cherith
Jason Godesky
> saint." He is too perfect, not someone I could identify with (unlike Parzival).
Now, see, to me, Parzival seems too much of a "mama's boy." He strikes me as the
type who still sucks on his thumb.
Although, I'd forgotten about Merlin. I still like Merlin, I always have liked
Merlin.
> No need to mischaracterize Arthur and the legends.
I wasn't mischaracterizing; that's my honest, personal interpretation of the
stories. Exaggerated slightly to make my point that the history can have meaning
just as well as the legend, and, depending on your interpretation, possibly even
more. But, nonetheless, that is my interpretation of the legend. The stories are
incredible ..... but I see them essentially as stories about fools, cowards, and
reprobates in strange circumstances. Lancelot, Guinevere, Tristan, Isolde,
Perceval, Gawain, Elaine, they all seem like gross charicatures to me. Actually,
in most of the legends, my sympathies lie more with the "bad guys," like Mordred,
Mark, or Morgan le Fay.
I can understand people having different interpretations of the stories from my
own, but please, understand that there really are many different interpretations.
For one, Malory may hold incredible meaning. For another, it's Geoffrey. For yet
another, it's Gildas. All have equal merit; none are meaningless or misguided, for
though it may be the Arthur of legend that tugs on your heart strings, it's the
Arthur of history that tugs on mine. There's nothing wrong with that, so long as
we all acknowledge that, each for our own reasons, we've found meaning in some part
of Arthuriana. Isn't it big enough for all of us?
Jason Godesky
Robert Elliot
Cherith Baldry wrote:
>
> > In general a modern writer who wants to have fictional characters of
> "national"
> > (for want of a better word) importance who do things that would certainly
> make
> > it into history books, has to create his own "real" world with its own
> history,
> > politics, geography and so on for the character to inhabit, and get stuck
> in the
> > fantasy section with all the Xena-esque rubbish.
>
> As a writer of fantasy, I take umbrage! :-) Because there is so much bad
> fantasy, please don't tar it all with the same brush. Good fantasy can dig
> deeply into what makes us human. Try, for example, the books of Guy Gavriel
> Kay, who has never written an 'Arthurian' novel, but has used Arthurian
> themes and characters.
>
I wasn't for a minute suggesting anything of the sort - Tolkien gets stuck in
there too! I was saying that it is a pity that good literature which happens
to be set in a fantasy world always does seem to get tarred with that brush
(and I'm sure you'd agree some of it is pretty awful!) because the modern world
cannot cope with a story not set in our real world without sticking that label
on - which is a pity. I'm all for putting the good stuff on the same fiction
shelves as Austen and Orwell and reserving the fantasy section for Xena, the
Star Wars novels and those endless
Tolkien-wannabe-I-don't-have-an-imagination-of-my-own trilogies with "iad" on
the end. No slur to your writing intended at all. ;-)
Rob
Cherith Baldry
The only one I ever really liked was Galahad,
> actually. He took the purity thing a little too far, but it was
refreshing after
> all the other characters, written with such an obsession for "human
frailty" so as
> to become gross caricatures of every vice humanity is capable of.
Of course you're entitled to like any character who takes your fancy, but I
find it strange that you choose Galahad, who is probably the closest to a
failure in characterisation of the whole Arthurian legend. He is too
perfect, too far away from normal humanity, to succeed as a fully rounded
personality.
'...gross caricatures of every vice humanity is capable of' is surely an
exaggeration. I can think off-hand of several vices which are not
represented in Arthurian legend at all, and I have led a particularly
sheltered life <g>. I feel that you are asking a degree of perfection in
fictional characters which we don't often see in ordinary real life.
Best regards,
Cherith
Jason Godesky
> legendary Arthur and his knights were not the perfect and noble beings that
> popular culture makes them. That, for me, is their fascination - that they
> were fallible human beings whose faults and failings destroyed them in the
> end. And yet the society that they built - all that we mean when we say
> 'Camelot' - has lasted as an imaginative construction for hundreds of years.
> This to me is a much better story than one of pure heroism.
Well, I do like the legends. I just like the history more. To each his own.
:^)
> Your 'historical Arthur', as you will probably admit, is just as much a
> fictional construct as the legendary character. We just don't know what he
> was like, or even if he existed at all. Personally I find the historical
> arguments interesting, but I have no overwhelming urge to prove that Arthur
> existed. *My* Arthur exists in the literature, and I consider the study of
> literature to be just as worthwhile as that of history.
And on this, we are on complete agreement.
Jason Godesky
Jason Godesky
> find it strange that you choose Galahad, who is probably the closest to a
> failure in characterisation of the whole Arthurian legend. He is too
> perfect, too far away from normal humanity, to succeed as a fully rounded
> personality.
As I said, I don't like how perfect he is .... but he's admirable, something
the other characters, for the most part, lack.
> '...gross caricatures of every vice humanity is capable of' is surely an
> exaggeration. I can think off-hand of several vices which are not
> represented in Arthurian legend at all, and I have led a particularly
> sheltered life <g>. I feel that you are asking a degree of perfection in
> fictional characters which we don't often see in ordinary real life.
Perhaps; I prefer to think of it as wanting to have protaganists I can
sympathize with. Most of the ones in later legend, I abhor, not because of
their failure to achieve perfection, but their failure to achieve simple
decency. I mean, Lancelot and Guinevere destroyed an entire nation for a
temptation most of us face, without succumbing, quite often. Most of us can
keep from cheating on our significant others under our own ordinary
circumstances; how much more so when Camelot and all of Britain (all of Europe,
if you add on the Empire from Geoffrey!) is hanging in the balance?? I just
can't sympathize with characters like that, they seem even more one-dimensional
than Galahad in their vileness to me.
Jason Godesky
Pamela Maddison
kurt63 <kurt63N...@altavista.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:0b6b6a81...@usw-ex0101-006.remarq.com...
> >Depends on how much patience you've got. I'm about half way
> >through my first volume at present; guaranteed realistic,
> >though the current action is taking place in Gaul.
>
> Will you have it done within the next week? :-)
>
I WISH! I'll be lucky to get the next chapter done by then...<sigh> Of
course, if I didn't spend so long every day checking out the NGs...
Czaerana
>the
>type who still sucks on his thumb.
>
Huh? You did say you read Wolfram's "Parzival," didn't you? His Parzival is one
of the most complex characters in literature, IMO. He grows from an "innocent
fool" into a mature & noble person.
>Although, I'd forgotten about Merlin. I still like Merlin, I always have
>liked
>Merlin.
I've never liked Merlin.
>The stories are
>incredible ..... but I see them essentially as stories about fools, cowards,
>and
>reprobates in strange circumstances.
Then I'm sorry for you. I don't see Kay, Gawain, Balin, Lamorak, and the others
as "fools, cowards, & reprobates." They all seem like human beings to be.
Cynthia
Sarah
"John W. Kennedy" wrote:
>
> Sarah wrote:
> >
> > Todd Jensen wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >At the risk of upsetting Kim Headlee, in modern fiction the Bernard
> > > >Cornwall Trilogy of The Winter King, Enemy of God, and Excaliber.
> > > Um, the correct spelling is "Excalibur", not "Excaliber".
> >
> > When the name was invented there wasn't a standard way to
> > spell _anything_, so what we have is a 19th-century
> > litterateur's version. Actually, the original Irish is much
> > different.
>
> No, Latin had standard spelling, and "Excalibur" is almost certainly of
> Latin origin.
Being of _latin origin_ and being _latin_ are two different
things. Very often words of Latin origin are not spelled in
the standard Latin manner.
Sarah
"John W. Kennedy" wrote:
>
> Sarah wrote:
> >
> > Todd Jensen wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >At the risk of upsetting Kim Headlee, in modern fiction the Bernard
> > > >Cornwall Trilogy of The Winter King, Enemy of God, and Excaliber.
> > > Um, the correct spelling is "Excalibur", not "Excaliber".
> >
> > When the name was invented there wasn't a standard way to
> > spell _anything_, so what we have is a 19th-century
> > litterateur's version. Actually, the original Irish is much
> > different.
>
> No, Latin had standard spelling, and "Excalibur" is almost certainly of
> Latin origin.
Actually, now I think of it, it is very likely _not_ of
Latin origin: in Welsh, the article takes the form _y_ or
_ys_, which followed by a name of Irish origin like
Caledbolg, would elide to YsCaledbolg. Swallow that last
syllable, and you'd think you just said an _r_, which would
result in _yscaliber_.
Todd Jensen
>
>Actually, now I think of it, it is very likely _not_ of
>Latin origin: in Welsh, the article takes the form _y_ or
>_ys_, which followed by a name of Irish origin like
>Caledbolg, would elide to YsCaledbolg. Swallow that last
>syllable, and you'd think you just said an _r_, which would
>result in _yscaliber_.
I think that this is nothing more than a complicated justification/excuse
for sloppy spelling.
Yes, there was no standardized spelling in the Middle Ages, but this isn't
the Middle Ages any more, so that's no excuse.
Todd Jensen
WebSlave
> Huh? You did say you read Wolfram's "Parzival," didn't you? His
Parzival is one
> of the most complex characters in literature, IMO. He grows from an
"innocent
> fool" into a mature & noble person.
It's a while since I read Parzival, but I too was left with the
impression that he really didn't grow but rather learned the 'code'
through making errors (out of ignorance). I admit that my impression may
be wrong.
Jason:
>>The stories are
>>incredible ..... but I see them essentially as stories about fools,
cowards,
>>and
>>reprobates in strange circumstances.
> Then I'm sorry for you. I don't see Kay, Gawain, Balin, Lamorak, and
the others
> as "fools, cowards, & reprobates." They all seem like human beings to
be.
I recognize both interpretations. Jason seems to see the human qualities
as weaknesses in the characters while Cynthia sees the very same
qualities as strengths in the story. I agree with both.
If I ever wrote an Arthurian story myself I _would_ emphasize the
foolish, cowardly or even perverted qualities of the characters. They
make them individuals and thus more interesting. It helps the reader to
project oneself in (?) the characters, and to process his/her own
attitudes towards those qualities when confronted in a real person.
We all have our favourite characters in the Arthurian legend and
individual reasons for them. It's really not a fruitful subject for a
debate.
WebS
WebSlave
> If I remember correctly, Tolkien's main use of Finnish legends (and
poetic
> structure) surrounded the Tom Bombadil section of The Lord of the
> Rings.
Yet they weren't distinctive enough for me (a Finn) to notice while I
read the LOR. Even when I _knew_ Tolkien had an interest in Finnish
legends. The influence is more clear in the linguistics. The early forms
of Tolkiens names (in the Lost Tales) look quite Finnish to me (at least
some). Towards Silmarillion they had developed further away and become
less Finnish-like.
WebSlave
-----
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
:>Actually, now I think of it, it is very likely _not_ of
:>Latin origin: in Welsh, the article takes the form _y_ or
:>_ys_, which followed by a name of Irish origin like
:>Caledbolg, would elide to YsCaledbolg. Swallow that last
:>syllable, and you'd think you just said an _r_, which would
:>result in _yscaliber_.
: I think that this is nothing more than a complicated justification/excuse
: for sloppy spelling.
And linguistically incorrect, to boot. (The Welsh definite article is
"y(r)" not "y(s)", and the full form only occurs before vowels, so even if
it _were_ "y(s)" it wouldn't be "ys" before "c", and there's no
phonologic process I'm aware of in the development of Welsh that would
turn final "-lg" into "-r"!)
--
*********************************************************
Heather Rose Jones hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
**********************************************************
Sarah
Todd Jensen wrote:
>
> >
> >Actually, now I think of it, it is very likely _not_ of
> >Latin origin: in Welsh, the article takes the form _y_ or
> >_ys_, which followed by a name of Irish origin like
> >Caledbolg, would elide to YsCaledbolg. Swallow that last
> >syllable, and you'd think you just said an _r_, which would
> >result in _yscaliber_.
>
> I think that this is nothing more than a complicated justification/excuse
> for sloppy spelling.
>
> Yes, there was no standardized spelling in the Middle Ages, but this isn't
> the Middle Ages any more, so that's no excuse.
>
> Todd Jensen
That's not an _excuse_, jackass, that's _linguisics_.
Jennifer Kingry
"kurt63" wrote :
> OK.
>
> Bernard Cornwall's - The Winter King, Enemy of God, and
> Excaliber.
> Stephen Lawhead's - Taliesin, Merlin, Arthur, Pendragon, and
> (maybe) Grail.
> Rosemary Sutcliff's - Sword at Sunset, and The Lantern Bearers.
>
> Many thanks to one and all!
>
Adding my own two cents for Parke Godwin's "Firelord" and the sequel
"Beloved Exile" (Guinevere kept as a slave by Saxons after Arthur's death
and the breakup of combrogi); I think he does an excellent job at making his
characters psychologically plausible.
Also, you might eventually look at Gillian Bradshaw's Gawain series, "Hawk
of May", "Kingdom of Summer", and "In Winter's Shadow". Her books are high
fantasy with the magical/mystical element worked in, but definitely set in a
Dark Age period. Her portrayal of the Guinevere/Bedwyr relationship seems
particularly real and human, not the least bit glamorous (especially when
they are in exile from Arthur's court).
JK
Peter
, an almost messianic
> figure who struggles against the falling of the night, clinging furitively
to his
> dream of keeping the world intact against the onslaught of the barbarian
hordes.
> With everything falling apart around him, it is he who stands strong
against the
> crashing tide
Mmmmm and don't we need someone like him now!
> What I do know is that there was somebody who led the charge down Badon
hill
> against the Saxons
or "up" of course :-)
Peter
Peter
. I don't see Kay, Gawain, Balin, Lamorak, and the others
> as "fools, cowards, & reprobates." They all seem like human beings to be.
I assume that should be "to me" at the end?
You mean you don't think there are any human being who are fools, cowards
and reprobates? I meet them every day, I think I've been them at one time
or another.
Peter
Peter
. I mean, Lancelot and Guinevere destroyed an entire nation for a
> temptation most of us face, without succumbing, quite often. Most of us
can
> keep from cheating on our significant others under our own ordinary
> circumstances; how much more so when Camelot and all of Britain (all of
Europe,
> if you add on the Empire from Geoffrey!) is hanging in the balance
but "stories" for want of a better catch all are full of people who did the
same, Anthony & Cleopatra, Paris & Helen, David & Bathsheba...........
Peter
Peter
Peter
Sarah <soli...@earthling.net> wrote in message
news:3939B6E1...@earthling.net...
Jason Godesky
can have as much meaning as the later legends. Those legends didn't spring from
completely infertile ground, of course, so it only makes sense, doesn't it? I
wouldn't call it brilliance .... seems more just common sense to me. Something
historical that triggered such a marvelous cascade of legend must've had
something to it, after all, correct (not in the "smoke->fire" argument, but
rather, that whatever historical event sparked the beginning of the legend, even
if it was just the battle of Badon and nothing else, must have had some deeper
meaning that could be assigned to it)? I don't see many legends springing up
about the Dow .... there has to be something to inspire people, to "tug at their
heart strings" as Mr. Eliot put it so well, before they'll tell a story about
it, and another story, and another story, and another....
Jason Godesky
Joe Jefferson
>
> Sarah <soli...@earthling.net> wrote:
>
> : Actually, the original Irish is much
> : different.
>
> Just curious, in what sources does the "original Irish" appear?
Is that anything like reading Shakespeare in the original Klingon?
--
Joe of Castle Jefferson
http://www.primenet.com/~jjstrshp/
Site updated October 1st, 1999.
"Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the
poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the
hand of the wicked." - Psalm 82:3-4.
Joe Jefferson
>
> >he virtually took his Atlanteans in Britain wholesale from
> >Tolkien's "Lost Tales".
>
> Oh yeah, Numenor (I forgot the spelling). Well, if you are going
> to steal, you might as well steal from the best!
C.S. Lewis also included a reference to Numenor in _That Hideous
Strength_, which was itself an Arthurian novel. (Although an often
overlooked one since it's set in the present day.)
Scott Needham
"kurt63" <kurt63N...@altavista.net.invalid> wrote in message
| I am new to this newsgroup, so please forgive me if I ask a
| previously answered question.
|
| I am presently reading a minor King Arthur's court-type novel -
| that is your straight, high medieval Arthurian romance. Suddenly
| last night, I decided that I want to read a King Arthur story
| that takes place in the Dark-Ages, in other words one that is
| more realistic. What would you all recommend as the best one?
|
| * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion
Network *
| The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet -
Free!
|
Czaerana
>You mean you don't think there are any human being who are fools, cowards
>and reprobates?
Where did I say that?
Cynthia
kurt63
>>>Tolkien's "Lost Tales".
>>
>>Oh yeah, Numenor (I forgot the spelling). Well, if you are
>>going to steal, you might as well steal from the best!
>
>C.S. Lewis also included a reference to Numenor in _That
>Hideous Strength_, which was itself an Arthurian novel.
>(Although an often overlooked one since it's set in the present
>day.)
That's right, I remember hearing about that. Lewis and Tolkien
were both part of the Inklings. In the original concept, their
books should have gone together, but later Tolkien changed his
story. At least, that's how I heard it.
George A. Williams
told him about the LOTR so often that Lewis said something like -- "Just
WRITE it!" (Sure glad he did!)
Regards,
Old Father William
Anachronistix, the Bard
KSK
kurt63 wrote in message <01959d99...@usw-ex0101-006.remarq.com>...
Peter
Peter
Czaerana <czae...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000605130711...@ng-cc1.aol.com...
Robert Elliot
I think Kurt63 wrote this - orig. message hasn't made it to my server yet.
>
> >That's right, I remember hearing about that. Lewis and Tolkien
> >were both part of the Inklings. In the original concept, their
> >books should have gone together, but later Tolkien changed his
> >story. At least, that's how I heard it.
> >
Not quite - as a matter of fact when they were discussing how much they both
disliked modern fiction, they decided that rather than merely criticising it
they should produce something they did like. They consequently divided up two
"modern" genres, Lewis getting Science Fiction and Tolkien Time-travel. The
books weren't meant to be linked beyond this arrangement. Lewis' effort was of
course "Out of the Silent Planet", the first of the Ransom series (Ransom
himself was partly based on Tolkien). Tolkien started to write a book called
"The Lost Road" in which there is a time-link with Númenor (ancient Atlantis);
like most of Tolkien's work, it was (a) never finished, and (b) rapidly became
inextricably interlinked with his existing mythology, the Silmarillion and
accompanying tales. It can be found in "The Lost Road", History of Middle
Earth Volume V, edited by Christopher Tolkien (but it is *very* hard work). (I
may be getting mixed up with the Notion Club Papers here, but I don't think
so.)
Lewis reference to Númenor (he spells it Numinor, as he had only heard it
spoken, not seen it written) is rather an example of his tendency to be much
more influencable than Tolkien. Tolkien disliked "That Hideous Strength" (in
contrast to the first two, which he thoroughly approved of) in large part
because he felt that between being influenced by Charles William's Arthuriana
and his own mythology, Lewis had lost his own voice. Frankly, I doubt the
reference went down very well due to pride, as well - Tolkien's mythology was a
very private one. As Lewis said, he had only two responses to criticism (in
the sene of input) - to ignore it, or to tear the whole thing up and write it
again. Certainly Lewis' use of it, though I am sure meant as a sign of
admiration, would have seemed to Tolkien more than a little impudent.
They were great influences on each other for good, though; but for Tolkien's
encouragement "Out of the Silent Planet" might well never have seen the light
of day, and Lewis might never have tried his hand at fiction again. And there
can be no doubt at all that we owe "The Lord of the Rings" in great part to the
encouragement Lewis gave Tolkien over a very long period - more than a decade.
Rob
John W. Kennedy
> Well, he does me, and many others. The King Arthur of legend is a decripit old
> croney, a cuckolded, impotent ruler whose greatest feat is pulling out a sword.
> He's completely dependent on his knights, who scheme and plot and lie and kill.
> He's surrounded by traitors that he's foolish enough to trust, and in the end, his
> dream is destroyed by the corruption of his court from its very beginning. It's the
> story of a fool and his fall.
Errr.... Have you actually _read_ these "legends" (which are, of
course, no such thing, but rather literature by professional writers)?
--
-John W. Kennedy
-jwk...@attglobal.net
Compact is becoming contract
Man only earns and pays. -- Charles Williams
Jason Godesky
> course, no such thing, but rather literature by professional writers)?
Yes, I have. A great deal of them. Simply because I have a different interpretation
doesn't mean I haven't read them. But yes, I've read _quite_ a few.
Jason Godesky
FerchArthur
>>Cornwall Trilogy of The Winter King, Enemy of God, and Excaliber.
>Um, the correct spelling is "Excalibur", not "Excaliber".
>
>even worse is the people on the Internet who keep on spelling "Arthur" as
>something like "Aurthor").
>
>Todd Jensen
>
My personal peeve is Boadicea for Boudica.
Debra Kemp