The Tragedy of Sir Gareth and the End of the Morte Darthur

Malory certainly knew how to shock the wary as well as the savvy reader. I was startled out of my wits when I read the passage where Lancelot kills the two brothers, especially Sir Gareth. I am not sure why I was so saddened. Maybe Sir Gareth seems so good and pure riding in and out of the pages of the text or it could be that after a semester of reading about the knights of the Round Table, they have become a part of us.

I love the new character given to Sir Gawain that brings him on a par with our previous versions of Gawain and then there is an understandable volte face when Gawain swears to kill Lancelot. For some strange reason I did not want him to attack Lancelot.

The character of Lancelot really puzzles me. We are told that Tristan and Isode could not help their adultery but what about Lancelot? What drink has he had? It is a bit unnerving how he xalls the queen 'cleane' and how he swears he is not a recreant knight that that he loved Guinevere as Arthur's wife. He claims never to have committed treason against Arthur. What is Lancelot or Malory thinking? How are we supposed to analyze this? Is it a little white lie? Does it mean that lying to save a situation is acceptable and godly?

As for Sir Galahad the pure knight, why was he so keen on killing or attacking knights as he made his way so secretly in the forest? That whole Sankgreal story gets to be too mystic. Sir Galahad is really full of himself and his goodness. He does not form a fellowship with the other knights, yet his seat is there at the Round Table.

It does not make sense that he refuses to ride with Percival and Bors.

I like Malory's saving of Guinevere in the end. She hides in the Tower and then takes the veil. I think she is shown every inch the queen, holding her head up. She is never the schemer accept that she calls Lancelot to her. I read recently that many readers are surprised that Guinevere did not claim a nose bleed, and why when there were other knigts, was Sir Kay the suspect?

Another intersting point is when Gaherys dies for the queen, he who decapitated his own mother!

Finally, I cannot believe that our long journey through the realm of Logres is over!

BBC's Merlin & Revision

There are a lot of things I like about the new BBC show Merlin. There are also a lot of things I am embarrassed to admit I like (the special effects, for example. Or the blatant use of teenage sexual tension)… but whatever my feelings on the subject I thought I’d take my last blog post (*tear*) to talk about what they’re doing and why you should watch it.

Essentially, Merlin is a winking, self-aware revisal of the King Arthur legend. It knows very much so that it is a television show. It is not attempting to be the next great Arthurian legend, and so it has the freedom to take risks with character, rearrange the timelines, and show its own preferences. Ironically, however, I could have just described Le Morte D’Arthur or the Once and Future King… I think the difference is (aside from format, which as I am sure all of you know revises a story by itself) that Merlin isn’t being written in a time of crisis; there’s no fire burning beneath Merlin’s message other than “Isn’t this awesome?!”

Perhaps I am wrong, but there you are.

Remember, Merlin is not made to win the Oscar; it’s the ridiculousness that is a BBC dramedy. There have been two filler-ish episodes this season, but by in large each one is devoted to moving the recreated Arthurian legend forward into it’s glorious united kingdom of Logres conclusion. It uses the television show to address feminist critics & rewrites of Arthur (Morgana & Morgause can fight, Gwen is Arthur’s advisor, the “old religion” is magic known to priestesses or sorceresses), issues of class struggles and censorship which the BBC so loves to delve into, and everlasting question of what is it that makes Arthur so interesting. Why care? Why by in to the legend of this great destiny? By shifting the entire focus to the formation of Arthur and Merlin as leaders, and subsequently to the formation of the court around them (against all conservative, parental odds!) the show attempt to answer these questions and explore the world as its own. At the same time, it’s just a TV show. By being content with itself it provides good entertainment and a fascinating take on the story. I, personally, am excited to find out what they do next.

I wrote a lengthy spoiler on my own blog. I tired to convey the sense of the show and what it does above, but if you’re more curious to see exactly what the revisions and barrowings are, read the lengthy blog entry and enjoy! I didn’t want to take up too much space here. If you watch the show after reading it I do not think you will be disappointed. Half of the fun is seeing how they change things from Tennyson and Malory, but it’s also in the way they do it. I laugh out loud at the dialog and though the show has a somewhat rocky start, the actors and directors have very much so grown to understand the characters and present them delightfully. My summary of the plot/ characters is rather long, hence the need for 2 posts when it was originally meant to be 1! You’ve been warned.

Kid Galahad

The other night, I was flipping through movie channels instead of working on my papers,and I came across the movie Kid Galahad on TCM, which I had to stop and watch. This movie, from 1937 (it was remade in the 60s with Elvis in the title role), is the story of a young bellhop named Ward Guisenberry who doesn't drink, smoke, go out, or, um, let's say associate with women. He works as a bellhop in a big city, but he is saving up money to buy a farm. Basically, he's a slightly annoying but very good-looking goody-goody. One night, Ward gets sent up to the penthouse to mix drinks at a party being held by a boxing manager, Nick Donati, and his girlfriend, Fluff (played by Bette Davis!). All the girls think he's cute, which upsets Donati, and a brawl breaks out. Ward comes to Fluff's rescue when she is threatened by one of the men, and it turns out he packs a mean punch. So Donati makes him a boxing star, and along the way, Fluff dubs him "Kid Galahad." Fluff and Donati's sister both fall for him, and things get messy. I'll confess, I didn't watch the whole thing, but I thought it was worth a mention! Here's a trailer, the part that's most worth watching starts at 1:57. Happy writing, everyone!

Arthur… Christ?

Marilyn Braxton mentioned something in class this past week about the similarity between Arthur and Christ, and how that affects our reading of the legend. If I recall correctly, the general thrust of Marilyn's comment was that Arthur could in some ways replace Christ as a returning king, because Arthur's deeds are "more realistic"; it was something like that (Marilyn, if you read this please chime in—I could use a reminder of exactly what you said). In any case, Geoffrey Ashe says something similar:

"Arthur is not only a magnificent prince: he is occasionally symbolic of Christ. Spenser writes during the war with Spain, and pushes the Tudors' messianic pretensions farther than ever. Elizabeth, he implies, presides over a realm which is God's instrument for overthrowing the powers of evil and achieving the Apocalypse. The Arthurian Monarchy has a tincture of the divine."[1]

What's interesting about Ashe's point here is that it makes an observation similar to Marilyn's, but arrives at almost the opposite conclusion. Whereas Arthur-as-humanized-Christ may seem to some more relatable, Arthur-as-Christified-(human-)king is more politically justifiable, especially for those who could claim their descent from him. The paradox is simply that the identification cuts both ways. On the one hand, Arthur is a political analogue to a religious trend that occurred in Britain during the same millennium, and on the other he is a political figure turned national myth.[2] It is no wonder this legend has been used and reused to justify whatever monarchy is in power, or as the rationale for some incumbent or another when the succession was in doubt. Nor is it a surprise that people continue to return to the legend for hope, or for a reminiscence on a time when things were the way they should be.

 I am unabashedly interested in fantasy literature and its medieval roots for this very reason. On the one hand, fairy stories such as the ones we've read this semester can be manipulated into propaganda. On the other, they evoke from the reader significant responses based on his/her desires to see specific outcomes in society. As such, fantasy and fairy stories are similar to knives: they are either tools used to teach, or weapons used to slash society to pieces.

1. Ashe, Geoffrey, et. al. The Quest for Arthur's Britain (New York: Frederick A. Praeger Publishers, 1968.
   
2. This seems like a good place to note that religion is inherently tied to myth. While myth need not grow into religion, when and where religion develops behind it there is myth. See the Mythopoeic Society's Statement of Editorial Purpose, which states: "Religion and myth are intertwined expressions of the same impulse in humankind; therefore, it is inevitable that the religious views of an essayist may at times be discernible in a paper. However, keep in mind that our audience is very broadly ecumenical, and that any denigration, explicit or implied, of another's religion or lack of it is against our editorial policies."
   

Final Malory Thoughts: Bromance, Character notes, & Strains on the Fellowship

“Turk and I met over a Bloomin’ Onion. I like to think of it as a metaphor for our Bromance, ‘cause it’s delicious, but not so healthy.” -JD from Scrubs season 9, episode 2.

Fellowship of the Table Round is damned by conflicting family values… As I noted in the margins of Le Morte D’Arthur (somewhere in the middle of yet another slaying during the book of Sir Trystams de Lyones): eventually, someone will have to pay for all this slaying!

And pay they have. It’s fascinating that the very strength that built the fellowship is the strength that brings it down completely. These knight’s formed bonds out in the wilderness having adventures and their fame built the Round Table from an idea to the whole world’s aspiration. Yet these friendships, family factions and above all Bromances are what tear apart the table. Arthur expected everyone to hold the fellowship of the Rount Table first and personal issues second… he could have made them swear to this, but that wouldn’t have mattered (if lady’s heads can go out the window, so can a fellowship). They needed to believe in it (to use T.H. White’s phrase), but in the end how can so many strained alliances not come to a head?

We had several lovely bromances blooming (Trystam and Lancelot being the centrifugal force of Bromance to which all other bros aspired- Sir Palomydis, Percyval, Lamorac, and Gareth all have a go at broing it out with T & L, but though others may aspire to their Bromance no one may join in it… until Trystam disappears and Lancelot decides to keep his broings on in the family for the remainder of the book) and then it all falls apart. Well, like JD’s metaphorical Onion, the relationships forming within the round table are lovely on their own, but for the fellowship they are deeply unhealthy. You cannot have a love greater than the Table Round, and everybody does.

Let’s explore our key players loves that extend beyond the fellowship:

-Lancelot: Gwenevere, Saintliness, disguise.

-Arthur: Nothing… except maybe an instinct to protect his family even if he doesn’t like them as much as his pal Lance… whom he can always recognize even in disguise (whatever happened to L & A Bromance? By ignoring Lancelot’s formative year, Malory makes their relationship confusing and I don’t like it. I don’t like it one bit.

-Gwenever: Lancelot. Arthur (she seems to enjoy being around him, just not sleeping with him) and freaking out all the time in ways that confuse her character because Malory made a choppy Queen at best.

-Gawain: Orkney. Orkney. Orkney. Lady’s heads. Orkney…. wait, now I love Arthur! I did all along really, I just couldn’t show it… I get jealous of Lancelot…

-Aggravain: Chopping off his mother’s head and killing people in general.

-Mordred: Power. The occasional murder. Orkney (because it will = power)

-Gareth: Getting Lancelot’s love over his creepy brothers.

-Bors: Staying alive and keeping Lance out of trouble. Fat chance.

-Galahad: Jesus. I mean me. I mean Jesus.

-Kay: Getting people to notice he’s in the book since Malory gave all of his lines to Gawain.

-Sir Bedevere: Ditto, replace Gawain with Lancelot. The Welsh liked me. Stupid Frenchies.

-Everyone else: If they’ve stayed alive this long, they deserve a meddle. They won’t be alive much longer after the final battle.

You’ll notice I’ve listed some character conflicts as well as conflicts within Malory’s text. There’s really no point whining about it though, because even with flaunts listed and not listed Malory is the foundational text for all Arthuriana written after it (often subconsciously). It’s the first time everything had been assimilated into one text and even though I have raging fights with it on occasion, having completed it just now I can’t help but think.

Well damn, that’s a really good story.

&, feel free to argue this, but isn’t that the point?

Fairy-Stories?

So, in my short paper I argued that the value of the Arthur legend lies in its repeated use as fodder for various stories since the tradition's inception; not all of the stories it has inspired could be considered Arthurian, however.  I decided to pursue this line of thought because of two writers in particular.  First, there is a passing comment by the eminent J.R.R. Tolkien in his essay, "On Fairy-Stories":  "Oberon, Mab, and Pigwiggen may be diminutive elves or fairies, as Arthur, Guinevere, and Lancelot are not; but the good and evil story of Arthur's court is a 'fairy-story' rather than this tale of Oberon."[1]  Tolkien's reasoning here lies in that "fairy-stories are not in normal English usage stories about fairies or elves, but stories about Fairy, that is Faërie, the realm or state in which fairies have their being."[2] After reading the first part of Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain it is hard to consider historical Britain all that Faërie-esque. But it takes only a perusal of Merlin's role in Geoffrey's history to realize that Britain as we know it, 'magical' though it may be, differs widely from the realities that Geoffrey is willing to countenance. The tradition continues in this way. I think the other reason the stories in the Arthur legend are fairy-stories is a matter of their strangeness. If there is a recurring theme in our in-class discussion this semester, it is the strangeness of what we have found in these texts. Whether it is Gawain's propensity to cut heads off, the oddness of trusting hermits, or beheaded green men who ride off carrying their severed gourds, we are constantly confronted by the odd and the uncanny (which, come to think of it, probably gives Dr. Wenthe the fodder he needs to discuss Arthur's relationship to 'the other').

 

Some other noteworthy characteristics of fairy-stories:

 

1. If satire is present, one thing mustn't be ridiculed: magic.
   
2. The following are not (or are not necessarily) fairy-stories: beast fables, travellers' tales, and stories that merely occur in someone's dreams (sorry, Alice).
   
3. They are presented as true.
   
4. They are often the products of older stories, the matter of which may not be readily available to us.
   
5. They make fantasies seem real, and in so doing, manipulate the desires of the hearer/reader.
   
6. Fairy-stories have a moral dimension that prohibits, and they preserve this dimension as they are handed down through history, possibly because the moral code encoded therein is of a mythic timbre.
   

 

What do you all think? Based on these criteria, what would be the benefit of studying the Arthur legend as a collection of fairy tales? One more thing: what did you all decide is the value of the Arthurian tradition?

 
 

 
 

1.  J.R.R. Tolkien, "On Fairy-Stories," in The Tolkien Reader: Stories, Poems and Commentaries by the Author of 5 The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings (New York: Ballantine Books, 1966), 36. 

2. Ibid.

now ys warre comyn to us all

.

[SPOILERS FOR THE END OF MORTE DARTHUR]

As I've mentioned in class a few times, this was my first time reading Le Morte Darthur, and as I've intimated, I've run a little lukewarm on it--- until The Dethe of Arthur. There was no part of this book that didn't make me do this:

D:

and yet there was no one in the book I didn't love, and what felt irritatingly unfocused and obfuscated in the book heretofore now seems really masterful. I don't know if I just haven't been paying attention or what, but the characters seemed more nuanced and polychromatic than they had-- did anybody else feel like that?

Gawain, for instance, who went from being the embodiment of thuggish, petty knightly privilege to being a real dude, loyal to Guinevere and Lancelot, loyal to Arthur, begrieved by the loss of his whole family, and then at the last putting all his hope in Lancelot again.

...

D:

I think the reason why the last book of Le Morte Darthur resonates with me in a way that the rest of the work didn't is that the running theme of fracture/disconnect/contradiction that had been nagging me finally coalesced into a legible tragedy. All of the "What? But you just said--!" and the "What the crap are you doing?" became illustrations of the inevitable and realistic unraveling of the Fellowship of the Round Table. Nowhere was this more apparent to me than after the initial split of Arthur and Lancelot, when Malory notes:

"Whan they harde that Kynge Arthure and Sir Launcelot were at debate, many knyghtes were glad, and many were sory of their debate." (657)

Really? Many knyghtes were glad, while many were sory? This suggests a much deeper rift than "I'm siding with Lancelot" vs. "I'm siding with Arthur." It begs the question of how long dissolution has been percolating in the minds of the Fellows of the Round Table-- how many instances of contradiction, disguise and/or general bad behavior that we've seen from our villains and heroes were the result of that percolation.