Arthuriana -- all things King Arthur ! discussion

I'm not so much into books that focus on the military side of the story, though if the characters and story is lively enough I don't mind that approach.

I don't mind a romantic slant as long as it's not purely and solely a romance.

What I do like are retellings that flesh out the characters and make them more complex, more realistic, or that let you see a different side of the characters. I once wrote a paper on different interpretations of Guinevere -- was she schemer, an innocent, a slut, a witch? Did she have fling with Lancelot out of desire to give Arthur a son, or out of lust, or out of loneliness? Etc. It's fascinating to me that so many people can take essentially the exact same story and see such different things in it.

I also like to find books where the Arthur cycle makes a sort of cameo appearance. For example, in Stephen King's The Dark Tower fantasy series, the main character is a descendant of "Arthur Eld" and Mordred makes an appearance as some kind of weird spider-monster thing.

More than a cameo, but also not so much a retelling as a sequel, is the Arthur facet of The Fionavar Tapestry -- you *really* get a sense of how tormented the three main characters were by the tangled web of love and betrayal and fear.

I just wondered if you Arthurian lovers tend to favor modern stories that follow Malory's tales closely, or do you like modern versions that take their own directions? Or influenced by the legends earlier than Malory or those strictly from the French, etc.

Well met folks.
New to the group.
Grew up with Arthur in the landscape and old stories about hills etc relating to him. Always thought of him as a local boy made good. Love Boorman's Excalibur, but book wise my main joy is the old stuff written in what would now be called Welsh:
The Gododdin
The Mabinogion
Also love:
Le Morte d'Arthur: Volume 1
Le Morte d'Arthur: Volume 2
Haven't read much modern stuff, have a few on my to read list though.

Well, he was a local boy made good, wasn't he! I like that. Nice to hear from you. I have just started reading The Mabinogion.

OMG!! HOw could I have missed this group? Why did I not think of starting it? (Well, because whenever I start up a group it instantly dies.)

Favorite slants? Well, I am partial to mine--thanks for the plug for House of Pendragon in another thread. LOL

I'm heavily influenced by Malory for my own fiction and really love reading the Morte d'Arthur. And all the medieval literature, even the massive Vulgate Cycle. I can't say a have a favorite--easier to list those I did not care for, but I won't here.

I was really drawn to the darker side of Camelot and was fascinated by Morgause--she doesn't get treated enough, imo. And Modred is always interesting.

Looking forward to the dsicussions here.
Debra

Debra, great to have you posting! I would love to read House of Pendragon - probably after the holiday season and discuss, if you want to hang around for a while? Like many people I am slaving at meeting deadlines before everyone scoots out for the holidays. I have read very little lately.

Debra, I have read Arthur stories for years, and I too am now interested in the individual characters whose stories havent been told as much. I havent checked into Morgause as much though. I have loved when I have found a differing take on Mordred (Idylls of the Queen I mentioned earlier). And another was Winter Prince I think -- Nancy S?

That's what is so beautiful about the legends, they keep unfolding -- like great literature ought to, right?

So anything good on your side table right now, Arthurian or otherwise?

I am new to your group...I hope no one minds if I jump into this discussion.

I enjoy Arthurian retellings that are character driven, with a healthy amount of historical fact...stories that let the reader in on the back story. I want to know why a specific character did what he or she did. There is always a reason for bad (or good) behavior.

What I can't stand in so many of the current Arthurian tales...is the inclusion of graphic sexual encounters. Arthurian Romances are one thing, but Arthurian smut is just a poor excuse to try to sell romance novels in the guise of an Arthurian Legend adventure.

Dee Marie
Sons of Avalon: Merlin's Prophecy

Hi all,

I've recently gotten really interested in Arthurian literature. I've always been an avid fantasy fan and my recent reading about a year back brought me to 'The Book of Joby', which based its storyline on Arthur albeit with a slight spin. This got me really interested and i soon took to reading Bernard Cornwell and Mary Stewart. Needless to say, i was captivated by these books and quickly ploughed through the readings.

That said, i realised that while i've read these different slants to the Arthurian stories, i have close to no knowledge about the 'original' storyline. In my journey to know more, i have recently purchased 'the once and future king' by T.H. White, have also bought all 5 books of Stephen Lawhead's Pendragon cycle (had a 50% borders voucher). Am wondering whether i have missed out on any seminal pieces of Arthurian literature which i should read to get a feel for the original aruthrian storyline. Was hoping that the folks here could help.

Oh and... happy new yr everyone!

Hi Ben,

If you "really" want to get "into" the Arthurian Legends, you must, must, must read Le Morte D'Arthur: King Arthur and the Legends of the Round Table by Sir Thomas Malory. It is the Holy Grail (sorry, Merlin made me) of all things Arthurian.

Word of warning, Sir Malory is not an easy read. There are several different versions/translations (I think I own at least 3) of "Le Morte D'Arthur." I would suggest checking out the different versions, but it is an essensial read to understanding the legends.

Happy New Year to you as well :]
Dee Marie

Hello, I'm new to the group. My name's Deborah. I'm an avid reader of Arthurian lit and I'm always looking for new takes on the legends. My favorites are Mary Stewart's Merlin Trilogy and The Once and Future King. I love Stewart for the vivid characters and historical take, and White for his whimsy and the satiric jabs at modern British society. Oh, and I love Monty Python and the Holy Grail. "Brave Sir Robin ran away ..."

Hi Deborah,

Love your dog :]

What's great about Arthur is how different the many good books are.

For me, the best Arthurian tales retain a sense of deep mystery. Mary Stewart and Susan Cooper did this quite well, and White and Lawhead also brought on that foggy feeling.

Loved The Mists of Avalon

What I like in my Arthurian literature is a rich and complex moral dilemma. That's what I think has kept the legend alive for 800 years--since Chretien de Troyes, that is. Why do good people do rotten things? Gawain, Lancelot, Guenevere, Tristan, even minor characters like Bors do things that seem rotten. And I like complex emotional responses too--when characters do something tremendously difficult, like Arthur turning a blind eye to the Lancelot-Guenevere affair. Malory is able to do this, but few modern authors can.

Of course I like complex characters too, but this so often just means a character portrayal that has dark elements in it. Let's not say "complex" when we really mean "***hole."

Cheers,
Mark Adderley,
Author, The Hawk and the Wolf

Mark, so, by "dark elements" you mean evil, cruel, manipulative? I just ask because the review of a work is often as interesting as the work itself because of the terminology or descriptions of the reviewer.

Words do get thrown around in descriptions of novels (like on the covers), don't they?

That's pretty much what I meant. The first Arthurian novel I noticed to have such a negative slant was Henry Treece's The Great Captains. It's become more and more popular of late--think of "The Dark Knight," "Superman Returns" and the recent James Bond movies. Writers seem to think that they're introducing complexity into a character by giving him bouts of depression or unreasonable behaviour, or a bad childhood or a tendency to sadism that he struggles to overcome or whatever. It's just a preference, though. And sometimes I even like the "dark" portrayal of a character (I love Starbuck in the new "Battlestar Galactica," for example). But not in Arthur. My preference is for "once and future kings," even if T. H. White has worn a bit thin for me.

Incidentally, some of the earliest portrayals of Arthur were "dark" by my definition. The saints' lives often denigrate Arthur's reputation as a way of enhancing the reputation of the saint who is the protagonist of the story.

Cheers,
Mark Adderley
The Hawk and the Wolf

Arthur seems to have believed that the church should bear the cost of his protection, too, and appropriated (stole?) provisions from them. Dangerous thing to do when those monks are the only ones who can write.

Saint Gildas, who may have written the only contemporary account of an Arthurian event, records the Briton victory at Mount Baden but refuses to name the victorious general, assumedly "Arthur," even though he (Gildas)freely named other British leaders for both brickbats and bouquets.

Ron wrote: "Arthur seems to have believed that the church should bear the cost of his protection, too, and appropriated (stole?) provisions from them. Dangerous thing to do when those monks are the only ones w..."

Aye, Gildas was only 40 odd years after the event but still names no names, either Saxon or Brit. I wonder why?
I think it was Nennius (about 300 years after) that was first to link Arthur with Badon. Did he link a folk memory with the event? Or copy from another source no longer known?

Maybe forty years after or maybe Gildas was born the year of the battle and writing forty years later, or . . .

One theory (for the non-mentioning of "Arthur's" names) is that Gildas had it in for "Arthur" for either the reason I mentioned or because "Arthur" had killed his brother (or ordered him killed). Most sources that old are pretty suspect.

Since Gildas' letter was fussing about the lack of virtue by the Britons and their leaders, most scholars take him as reliable but opaque. In other words, we can believe him if we could just figure out what he's saying. ;-)

Ron wrote: "Maybe forty years after or maybe Gildas was born the year of the battle and writing forty years later, or . . .

One theory (for the non-mentioning of "Arthur's" names) is that Gildas had it in for..."

I'm reading a bunch of Hx just now before re-reading some of the older sources. Anyone know the oldest ref to Arthur and where it is?
I know some things have been re-written so many times that we can't tell if the ref to him is a later addition or in the original, The Gododdin for instance.
I think it might be in Culhwch And Olwen in The Mabinogion, but don't know the oldest text for this.
Anyone any ideas?

I think it is Culhwch and Olwen, too Barbarossa. The White Book of Rhydderch in the National Library of Wales has the oldest version, I think.

http://www.llgc.org.uk/index.php?id=w...

Duntay wrote: "I think it is Culhwch and Olwen, too Barbarossa. The White Book of Rhydderch in the National Library of Wales has the oldest version, I think.

http://www.llgc.org.uk/index.php?id=w......"

The link says that The White Book of Rhydderch was copied mid 14th cent. Ah, but copied from what? I feel I have the scent for a hunt now...
As Arthur isn't just mentioned in passing in C+O it is more difficult to dismiss him as a later addition, if I can find the source story, or an earlier ref then I assume that will trump Nennius. I'll keep looking.
I have to dismiss The Gododdin though as the earliest ref to Arthur...even though I am a fanboy of Aneirin. The events are circa 600, but the text (The Book of Aneirin) dates from the 1260s, and the ref to Arthur could be a scribal addition.
Any other hints folks?

Ron wrote: "Maybe forty years after or maybe Gildas was born the year of the battle and writing forty years later, or . . .

One theory (for the non-mentioning of "Arthur's" names) is that Gildas had it in for..."

I've heard that theory too, but there's something else to think about. Gildas wasn't really writing history, he was writing a sermon. He uses history to illustrate his points (and does it badly--look at his explanation about how Hadrian's Wall was built), but his main point is a spiritual one. In this genre, all you have to do is hint at a person, and the audience, whom you assume to have roughly the same background as yourself, fills in the blanks. It's part of the fun of the genre. (Yes, sermons were fun back then. Hard to believe now.) If you want to see a more modern voice doing this, check out G. K. Chesterton's
The Everlasting Man or Hilaire Belloc's Europe and the Faith. I read or re-read both of these recently, and was struck by the similarity in tone with Gildas.

Another possible theory, of course, is that Arthur simply wasn't an historical character. The fact that Bede couldn't find any evidence for his existence tells seriously against his historicity. Bede was a very careful historian, and consulted both written and oral tales. If there had been anything about Arthur, he would have known.

Cheers,
Mark Adderley,
Author, The Hawk and the Wolf.

Mark wrote: "Writers seem to think that they're introducing complexity into a character by giving him bouts of depression or unreasonable behaviour, or a bad childhood or a tendency to sadism..."

I agree -- IMHO it's just lazy writing, those are the easiest so-called "moral dilemmas" to inject. Problem is, they're not really moral dilemmas at all. Overcoming personal adversity is admirable, don't get me wrong, but to me a moral dilemma has to be something more than self-improvement LOL!

We may be committing what C. S. Lewis called the Chronological Fallacy: assuming that whatever is current is best. In this case, we project our morale dilemmas and ambiguities on our fictional characters. That may be appropriate for modern novels, but for historical novels we'd need to research the worldview and standards of each age...and read the story in the light of the standards of that day. (Not that we'd necessarily agree. For example, it helps to understand Medieval literature if we knew they though the earth was the center of the universe.)

Of course, a tale such as Arthur's lends itself to considerable modification, morphing into something new and appropriate for each new generation.

Anyone read: A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court?

I read it, a very long time ago, but didn't like it very much. It struck me as a bit cynical. Although some comments are hilarious in the book: "You're a page? You ain't much more than a paragraph."

Cheers,
Mark Adderley,
The Hawk and the Wolf

I read Yankee and enjoyed it, but it's not really for lovers of chivalry.

I enjoyed Yankee, too, but for its satire, not for anything resembling historical accuracy.

Anna,

You haven't deterred me from Connecticut Yankee or Twain or discussion! Twain was a favorite of mine in college, so now I will see how he holds up in the test of time.

I pulled it out this morning to add to my to-read stack. I have the beautiful edition with the Trina Schart Hyman illustrations, reason enough to give it a try! It may be a while before I read it, but you have influenced me to try it.

We read Conn. Yankee in my f2f group last spring and most of us disliked it. I found it much more mean spirited that I had recalled from reading it many, many moons ago. I'm sure the happier movie version influenced my memories.

Hello Everyone,

I'm new to this group. My name's Malcolm and I'm an Australian YA author. Michelle suggested that I join the group. I'm probably not as broadly read in the Arthurian field as many of you but I have some favourites, quite a few of which are young adult takes on the legend.

I tend to be more interested in books that look at the legend via contemporary characters, while still including Arthur. I'm also much more inclined towards the Dark Ages Arthur rather than the Romance version, which is not to say that I haven't read and enjoyed many such books.

While not directly related to Arthur but stepping out of the Mabinogion is Alan Garner's brilliant novel The Owl Service, which I rate as one of my all-time best reads irrespective of it being YA or adult literature. Earthfasts by William Mayne, which deals with the sleeping Arthur myth, is also good but probably a little dated these days. Rosemary Sutcliffe's novels stand out, as does Cooper's 'The Dark Is Rising' sequence. Zimmer-Bradley's Mists of Avalon I thoroughly enjoyed, specifically because of it's female perspective, which I think at the time was pretty new.

Mmm, coincidentally I picked up Rosemary Sutcliff's Arthurian novels just a couple of days ago!

Nikki wrote: "Mmm, coincidentally I picked up Rosemary Sutcliff's Arthurian novels just a couple of days ago!"

Like many writers of her generation, Garner, Cooper, Mayne, et al - all pre-WWII, she had a handle on language that many post-war writers seem to have lost. Plus she could tell a hell of a story. She didn't learn to read until she was nine.

Hi, I'm also new to this group but having always loved myths and legends and having studied Arthurian Romance at Uni, I think its time I dusted off some of my old text books in the attic!
To answer the question of slant, at Uni we read both the Stanzaic and the Alliterative Mortes as they were written roughly about the same time. The Stanzaic took a newer line in the story (more in line with Malory's story) with new, more romantic chivalric characters like Lancelot. The Alliterative followed the older tradition and is quite critical of knights and their less than chivalric behaviour. I've always prefered that older tradition; in some respects it is darker but also seems more real and earthy. Perhaps this is what modern stories tap into. I've never liked the chivalric loving somebody else's wife thing (too French?!) so Lancelot and Tristram have never appealed to me. I'm much more interested in someone like Gawain, Mordred or Arthur himself who are characterised in so many different ways throughout all the existing stories.