The Tale of King Arthur

 I picked a passage from King Arthur and the Legends of the Round Table. I found it quite visual. "The fighting was grim and furious. King Arthur, Ban and Bors galloped into the thick of it, and soon their horses were up to their fetlocks in blood, and trampling the wounded. But the eleven kings were not to be overthrown, and Arthur was forced to retire once more to the little stream" (16). 

                                                                

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&id=A5104AB3D6A9F9B71D27BC369D5A421984EF15E5&thid=OIP.V-U2w2a00XISZWYmpU773gHaGW&mediaurl=https%3A%2F%2Fs-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F736x%2F4d%2Fbf%2F70%2F4dbf70e4d2ca4d1314b9de2e1f881d50.jpg&exph=615&expw=717&q=fetlock+on+horse&selectedindex=1&ajaxhist=0&vt=0

the memes are the best part of this post (couldn't think of a title)

I have two quotes Id like to point out, one from the beginning of “General and the Script/Print Continuum: Caxton’s More Darthur” and one from the very end. 

“Who made the changes that cause Caxton’s Morte to diverge from the Winchester manuscript is less important than the fact that the changes are made.” Page 134, Dorsey Armstrong

This got me thinking about the idea of plagiarism and original work that we had touched on earlier in this semester. Armstrong states that the person who made the changes does not matter nearly as much as the changes themselves. This is an interesting take on the idea that it is not important how or where we get the information, but rather that we get it at all. 

Later in the reading it says:

“At the same time, one could also read these changes as being made with the understanding that a large portion of his audience might consist of women: he deletes material offensive to them, such as the rape clause, and also seeks to limit suggestion of their power and influence, echoing the model of feminine virtue…” 145, Dorsey Armstrong 

This stood out to me as well as an interesting explanation behind the decisions to change things. 

insert cool title here

While reading this text, I mainly found myself focusing on how it compares to its predecessors, it being one of the first mass-printed texts in England. Something I noticed right off the bat is that it reads far more like a novel we would see today than anything that came before it, in a sense that there appeared to be far more emphasis on dialogue than before. As we discussed last class, Geoffrey of Monmouth's Arthur chose to focus heavily on descriptions of battles and often omitted many details in favor of these descriptions. In Le Morte d'Arthur, we saw a much more even spread.

My question now is, why the sudden focus on dialogue? I don't know exactly how the new technology could have promoted this, but clearly there was a shift. I'm curious to know just why that shift occurred.

not really related in any way except for the words new technology, but I liked it

Assigning Value in Le Morte d'Arthur

In the third excerpt of Le Morte d’Arthur, I noticed a difference between what the Knights of the Round Table valued and what we may value today.  King Arthur and company tend to focus on the big picture while I’m stuck losing the forest for the trees.  Most of the characters involved easily overlook Lancelot and Gwynevere’s transgressions, only to focus their attention on maintaining their group dynamic.  Arthur even goes on to say, “I regret less the loss of my queen … than of our fellowship, which was surely without equal in all Christendom” (502). From a modern perspective, this points to a lack of humanity on the part of all those involved, but perhaps Malory’s contemporary readers were more interested the ideas that Arthur’s Round Table represented than any person-to-person dealings within the story.  This is echoed in the Armstrong article, which includes the argument that women in literature can gain power by being portrayed as helpless victims.  Gwynevere, in this excerpt, is constantly at risk of execution and hardly gets any dialogue, but ultimately, through almost every other character’s indifference, sets into motion the downfall of Arthur’s boys club.

Who is He Really?

After reading Malory's text, I believe it's fair to say that the picture we may have painted of King Arthur's character is now a little blurred. We were led to believe he was a just and noble king, however, some of his decisions are a bit contradictory to that claim.

My concern primarily lies in the fact that Arthur would not be the same person had Merlin never taken hold of his life. In the beginning, it seemed as though Arthur relied on Merlin for advice and guidance, but as the story progressed, it becomes clear that Merlin really needs to be around so that Arthur doesn't lash out and do anything insane.

Merlin is also around because, well, Arthur may not be as strong and powerful as we originally thought either. After all, Merlin saves Arthur's skin on multiple occasions, including the battle against the kings and the confrontation with Pellinore. Merlin also prevents Arthur from exacting his revenge on Pellinore after obtaining Excalibur, saying, "to win would bring you no honor, to lose would be to increase your shame. And lose you might, because he is still stronger than you." This also made me realize - Arthur isn't really a merciful king either. He's perfectly human, but maybe not necessarily perfect for the throne.

There are some instances that display Merlin's rashness as well, including the very obvious example of advising Arthur to send a ton of babies out to die. Taking all of this into consideration, I couldn't help but wonder: who is Arthur really - could he exist without Merlin? More importantly, I just can't trust Merlin as far as I can throw him; something about this puppeteer doesn't sit right with me.

GIF from giphy.com

The Plight of the Tragic Hero Lancelot

As we have done a close study of literary archetypes and how the relate to the Hero's Journey, and in turn to pop culture, I find myself examining the role of the perceived supporting character, or "side kick." Frequently the supporting characters of a story line are written in a way to force them into the background, and yet their story is often more intriguing than the "hero."

I personally enjoy Malory's portrayal of the supporting character in Le Morte d'Arthur, as the plot provides space to Lancelot. One of the Round Table's most famous nights, Lancelot is a frustrating character; however, he has more redeeming qualities than Arthur. Lancelot, though, is damned from the begin to fail, despite his best efforts to do what he deems as right.

Support for this claim is provided through Arthur and Lancelot's choices in battle and love. Arthur is consistently guided by Merlin when on the battlefield. Merlin councils Arthur to end the battle with the eleven kings (Malory 1, pg. 16) and again when he fights King Pellinore (Malory 1, pg. 23-24). Lancelot, on-the-other-hand, must make these determinations in battle himself: when challenged by Gawain, he cannot betray his former ally and instructs his men to spare the knight (Malory 3, pg. 505).

Arthur has two romantic relationships outside of Gwyenevere: Sanam and Margawse. In both situations Arthur gives into his temptation and as a result born two sons. Lancelot, is pursued by Elaine, but cannot force himself to marry or allow her to commit adulterous acts. Lancelot's "nobility" is entirely a waste, though: both Elaine and Gawain die as a result of his actions. Nevertheless, I personally find Lancelot's struggles more redeeming. Lancelot acts in the interests of others, despite disastrous outcomes. Arthur continually thinks of himself (murdering all children born on May Day). Yet, Lancelot's greatest flaw is his love of Gwyenevere, while Arthur's most redemptive moment is his reveal of awareness of the love and desire to not punish the lovers. These two character's arches parallel one another and distinctively highlight the theme of destiny. Arthur is fated to succeed and die a hero; Lancelot is slated for tragedy.   

Image sourced: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancelot 

Beyond the Script: Gender and Media

Dorsey Armstrong's "Gender and the Script/Print Continuum: Caxton's Morte Darthur" made me think a lot about content in terms of accessibility, and how things are written for certain audiences, and why. The printing press obviously offered much more accessibility and readership amongst a larger audience, and it was interesting for Armstrong to point out the differences between Malory and Caxton's versions of Morte Darthur. Accessibility began to go beyond the typical structures of class levels, into a concentration of gender, as shown by multiple examples in this essay. But something that stood out to me was in these examples, the emphasis on the feminine, the damsel in distress, and the stereotypical focus on what interests female readers might have (for example, only having an interest in romance stories). Which caused me to wonder:

Did Caxton's depiction of feminine interests and/or stories form the stereotypes for media framed for women for the following few hundred years? Have these binary and focused stereotypes really existed since the invention of the printing press?

     A key feature of popular culture is. of course, popularity. By definition, this requires that it is widey distributed and engaged with by many people. A.S.G. Edwards states
"He [Caxton] made extensive changes to the manuscript of Malory’s Le Morte Darthur, dividing it into books and chapters and modifying some parts of the text where he felt the language could pose difficulties for his readers."
to what extent does this affect the popular perception of Arthur, as opposed to previous versions? How did the printing press enable the spread of popular culture?

Fantasy and Magic

Malory's piece on King Arthurs allows the reader to explore some key differences between the tale and Geoffrey of Monmouth's piece. Malory's story reads more like a novel. There was a wider range of characters, deeper narratives, and an emphasis on magic and trickery. Geoffrey's piece reminds of a  modern propaganda with a disproportionate emphasis on warfare and religious fervor. The major difference that stood out was the major role that Merlin played in Malory's work in comparison to the minor role that he played in Geoffrey's work. Merlin's character represented a split from a focus on the crusading and religious fervor to a focus on the internal conflict and fantasy. Both narratives posit that War of the Roses and rising problems with the Catholic Church made the common folk look for something that would give them a reprieve from the harsh world they inhibited.

                                   Image source-BBC.UK.com

That's one way to make him less perfect

"On Merlin's advice, in order to destroy his bastard son Mordred, Arthur commanded that, on the pain of death, all babies of the nobility born on May Day were to be brought to the court. Arthur then sent them adrift in an unmanned vessel, which eventually foundered. However, the plan failed, for the wreck was discovered by a yeoman who clambered aboard and found a lone survivor, whom he took into his care; and this was the baby Mordred" (25).

Arthur's not so perfect anymore! Not only is he not strong enough in this version to defeat every opponent he ever encounters, he also listens to his looney prophet/ wizard/ advisor and decides TO HAVE A BUNCH OF INNOCENT BABIES KILLED? And, of course, it's only mentioned briefly in this one paragraph, and then we move on.
Also. What does it say about England's view of fate that both Arthur's birth and Mordred's survival occurred under very specific and unusual circumstances?

Protest: https://www.desicomments.com/user-submitted/stop-killing-babies/

Contrast and Confusion

As I read about the tales of King Arthur, his knights, his Queen and so on I was left with a bit of confusion. First what is with the contrast between Arthur and the Queen? This is leaving out the strange love triangle between her and Launcelot for now. Arthur was supposed to be this incredibly virtuous King. He makes all the just and fair decisions. He has his noble round table. He earned loyalty from so many knights, yet his Queen is quite nasty and vindictive at times. I am genuinely confused by the sharp contrast in their characters. She repeatedly banished Launcelot and was quick to react to other knight. Yet Arthur is supposed to be the character that is the exact opposite of these traits. In general I am just left confused by how these two characters have come in to these personalities. The text lets us know that Arthur fell in love with her at first sight, but I am just curious as to why Malory would cast her in such a light. Additionally I was somewhat shocked by Arthur's reliance on Merlin in the beginning of the text. In the previous reading of the text, Merlin did not have near the role that he does in this version. Here it appears that Arthur is dependent on him for judgment and that he is really the catalyst for his success. From previous readings I don't remember that dependency and honestly that reading of the characters has changed my viewpoint on Arthur. From his indecisiveness about what to do between his Queen and best knight to his dependency on Merlin its like come on dude step up and be a King.

Finally what the heck does fighting have to do with proving the truthfulness of anything? Oh I may have slept with your wife, but if one of your knights can't out fight me that means I didn't do it? Rationalism people, it goes a long way.

It's not the "who," it's the "why"!

"Who made the changes that cause Caxton’s Morte to diverge from the Winchester manuscript is less important than the fact that the changes are made. Such alterations are more important for what they say about late medieval English literary culture than for what they might tell us about Caxton’s taste in literature, or Malory’s second thoughts on his massive opus."   

This statement really gets to the heart and soul of the study of popular culture.  If we are to believe that art is a mirror of the society that creates and consumes the art, the study must be on the why, not necessarily on the who.  As an example, I do not find the differences in King Arthur as striking from the original text nor as interesting in the Malory version, however, I do find the changes in the cast of supporting characters as the more interesting "why" question.  I am certainly not saying King Arthur is not changed, I just find the changing status of woman and their relationships with men as really striking in the version we studied this week!  Again, it begs the question of "why"?  Although I am just now learning and researching this time period, many of the changes can be contributed to the War of the Roses, changing societal beliefs about the role of woman and men, and (perhaps?) an editor thinking he can make the story a bit better if he "just made these little changes" to circulate even more copies of his printed text.  Wouldn't this last example be a wonderful example of popular culture and myths bending to the will of the people and the consuming society?   

So put me down, punk

Difranco, Ani. "Not A Pretty Girl Live in Cleveland OH," YouTube, uploaded by Righteous Babe Records, 

2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqEFR6dpq_A

I'm fascinated by the conversation about gender and power in both Armstrong's article and Le Morte D'arthur. Armstrong contends that by "constructing the feminine as always helpless, needy, and vulnerable, the oath ironically renders women powerful, in that knights are compelled to obey when a lady requests assistance" (141). In this framing, the damsel in distress has power over the knight by virtue of his oath to protect her, an argument that seems akin to ideas about how women, in their sexual objectification by men, hold a kind of sexual power over them. In the sense that the feminine provides the "marginal, yet critical" (142) counterpoint to the "dominant, active, masculine knightly agent" (141), the argument holds in a sort of Taoist, abstract way. But it's also (obviously) deeply problematic to assign "power" to a group that is systemically oppressed and powerless because the group that put them in that position decides to take an oath to protect them. (Note, also, the irony that the knights are usually saving the women from...you guessed it...other knights.) I mean, would we say that babies have power over their parents by virtue of their parents deciding to feed them? Where would they be if we didn't?

What do you get when you combine a biblical story with King Arthur?

Though the first passage was familiar to the previous one we read, it did strike me at the end Arthur's plan to kill his own son was...well...way to friggin' familiar. Though I guess that does help with the propaganda. My question is: Does replacing the tell tale story of Moses from the bible (and various Greek tragedies that the plot bases killing their own son so they won't usurp him) add positively to the propaganda of King Arthur's story of success?