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

Manuscripts

I found it interesting how manuscripts are made from animal skins. The steps to creating a manuscript is elegant and time consuming, from the quill pen to the book itself. When I watched the video, I was slightly amazed at all the effort involved. I thought the manuscript would have been made from paper. Everything used is organic. Some skill is also required. Steady hands are a necessity in creating a manuscript. I imagine that they were very expensive to obtain. Geoffrey wrote a manuscript that does not have credible sources. Was the book written for history purposes or entertainment? Geoffrey seems to idolize kings and even dramatize events that occurred during various time periods. When I read excerpts of the manuscript it seemed historical, but I am not super knowledgeable on kings of ancient times. He was merely a storyteller. The book could be classified as historical fiction.  

                                                        An Example of a Manuscript

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&id=1A2D5F84209AA0E74505283EB

39D12EE29B2FAE7&thid=OIP.MpaIzYJbDl0CUKVA4XPSkQHaFj&mediaurl

=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.christies.com%2Fimg%2FLotImages%2F2014%2FCKS%2F2014_

CKS_01568_0005_004.jpg&exph=2400&expw=3200&q=geoffrey+manuscript+

book&selectedindex=66&ajaxhist=0&vt=0

Hardly Believable

         I find this chapter to be quite amusing but at the same time frustrating. This is an iconic piece of history pertaining to our knowledge of the 'magnificent' King Arthur, but with that being said, was anyone actually believing anything Geoffrey said? So many aspects of this tale are so painfully unrealistic and some downright impossible to believe to the point where it cannot be ignored.  For example, the constant supply of thousands of men for Arthur's battles seems endless. The mention of fantastical beast and events like giants and shapeshifting is also unreal. And, of course, the great detail with which Geoffrey describes each event also make me suspicious: “Arthur unsheathed his sword, too, and was hurrying to kill him, when Frollo stood up quickly and, with his lance straight before him, ran at Arthur” (Geoffrey 70).
         Also, Arthur seems way too good to be true; he is great at battle, compassionate, forgiving, competent, and every other great quality under the sun. Maybe I'm being cynical, but I doubt anyone like this existed.
         I think that it is clear that most of this probably didn't happen like Geoffrey said it did, or maybe didn't even happen at all. If this is is the case, why did it stick? Why are these stereotypes still used to depict Arthur, and why are we even still depicting him at all?

They really loved blood

"Blood and guts": from Rochefoucauld Grail manuscript

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1328819/The-Rochefoucauld-Grail-Sothebys-auction-14th-century-King-Arthur-text.html

After reading about the process of making a manuscript, I couldn’t stop thinking about the sheer amount of effort put into making this version of King Arthur exist in physical form. It makes sense that monks would have created manuscripts of their religious text and doctrine because they had devoted their entire lives to those teachings. Geoffrey of Monmouth, on the other hand, put a lot of time and energy into producing a standardized version of historical folklore. And people liked it enough to make hundreds of copies! That process surely took more hours than Star Wars: Uncut. The fact that this was a story that people were willing to put so much work into tells us a lot about the culture at that time in terms of what they wanted to read about (those that could read and would have access to the manuscript, of course). More than anything, it highlights that they rewarded military accomplishments, other-ed their enemies (“those half-men, mere weaklings compared to you” [84]), and, overall, were fond of outfitting themselves as conquerors.

Enduring, for Better or Worse

Jaleel White as a talking mutant chicken with an axe for a beak? Some elements are better to forget.

I can think of few stories as persistent as King Arthur and his knights. In a way, it is the perfect example of how popular culture engages with and alters a story a over time. One need only look at how many different adaptations and interpretations there have been between the work of Geoffrey of Monmouth and the modern day. There are so many adaptations of the basic stories that it's impossible to name them all, and then there are all the twists: sequels where Arthur awakens from his death-sleep in the modern world, Avalon High in which the characters are all teenage reincarnations of Arthur and his court, prequels about the life and adventures of Merlin, anime/manga that include on... uniquely altered versions of Arthur and Merlin, numerous films ranging from the hilarious Monty Python and the Holy Grail and the quasi-historical 2004 film based on the "Arthur as Roman commander" element to the 1998 animated film Quest for Camelot which gave us the abomination shown above.

For better or for worse, some stories loom large in popular culture long after their initial impact. They endure because people keep finding new ways to make that story hold meaning they can identify with and make it their own.

King Arthur - Religious and Mythical Parallels

Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britannie draws several parallels between King Arthur and Jesus Christ, from his "natural goodness" (64) to his downfall being set into action by someone close to him (86).  An important difference, however comes though Arthur's origin.  In stark contrast to Christ's immaculate conception, Arthur is conceived through through deception, disguise, and a serious lack of consent (63). Is this "dark spot" on Arthur's history necessary for him to be seen as a powerful ruler instead of a peaceful savior? Is this a parallel to Hercules' conception, which involves Zeus disguising himself as Alcmene's husband?

Differences in Interpretations of the King Arthur Myth

As I was reading Geoffrey of Monmouth's portrayal of Arthur, I could not help but wonder how and why the legend of King Arthur was spread and how is this different from the myth that we know today?  According to the introduction given before the excerpts from Geoffrey of Monmouth's work, this was the first point in Medieval History that King Arthur was mentioned.  In books I have read and in movies, I have always seen King Arthur as this great and noble king that is guided my Merlin the Sorcerer and the knights of the round table.  Geoffrey's account of Arthur shows him to be somewhat self centered and war hungry; he is always going into battle to conquer distant lands motivated by his own interests and religious fervor.

Image Source-https://arthurian.home.blog/tag/quest-for-camelot/

Image Source-https://boingboing.net/2020/01/18/brawny-disneyland-guest-remove.html