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 

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/

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?   

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?

Damn Lancelot :/

"Father, I pray that my sorrow is not displeasing to God. But when I recalled the peerless grace and beauty of the Queen, and the great joy with which we all beheld her and the King at the court, my heart began to fail me. Then, seeing them together in the tomb, I fully understood for the first time how I had betrayed them and brought each ot his death through my selfish love and pride; and so it is I feel that my spirit can no longer sustain my body" (Malory)

I am so frustrated with Lancelot. This moment is the FIRST TIME he noticed that he fucked everything up?? Also, they paint his death like this beautiful thing because he ultimately went to Heaven (?)

, pssht, BS. He literally lied so much about what he and the Queen were doing, and despite the fact that he tried to be honorable throughout this whole story, he and the Queen are still the reasons for all of the death and demise. Arthur died for such a stupid reason. I am so annoyed. 

God and Arthur

One of the quotes I found most interesting in Arthur in Geoffrey of Monmouth was on page 61 where Merlin is asked to explain the meaning of a star that had just appeared. He proclaimed "The glorious king of the Britons is dead, Aurelius Ambrosius, by whose death we shall all die, unless God brings help."

This really made me wonder what role God and religion played in Arthurian times, and how it weaved its way into Geoffrey of Monmouth's literature. Perhaps he thought that there must be theology, or no one would believe him. After all, aren't we all still asking whether or not King Arthur was "real?"

Merlin from giphy.com

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

Truth only matters when it fits our schema!

I came across this quote from Norris J. Lacy, author of The New Arthurian Encyclopedia. He states, "The popular notion of Arthur appears to be limited, not surprisingly, to a few motifs and names, but there can be no doubt of the extent to which a legend born many centuries ago is profoundly embedded in modern culture at every level."  As I begin to approach this legend for the first time in my life, it does make me wonder, why?  What do we still find approachable and relevant in the name King Arthur to our culture?  Why do we allow this relatively made-up story still affect our culture and beliefs?  Why does flour have to be blessed by King Arthur to make really good cookies?