A Ramble About Arthurian Legends

[grodog]

I took a course in Arthurian Myth and Legends as part of my Mythology minor @ Penn State, and read a lot of the original materials (in modern English, I'm not a medieval linguist). I found several of the original takes to be much more interesting than Mallory, as well as the original historical accounts. If anyone's interested, I'd be happy to dig up my course syllabus/details?

Semi-topical, Greg Stafford released the Great Pendragon Campaign at GenCon, and I've heard through the grapveine that it's pretty good; anyone know first hand? Details @ http://www.white-wolf.com/arthaus/index ... icleid=513

[TRP]

Not offscreen at all. He in full plate armor and her naked as the moment she was born. Only bigger. ;-Þ

Yeah, but the - ah - details are off camera. Um. If you follow me.

Oooohhh.. the deeetails. I think you can find those in the Sexcaliber version.

[PapersAndPaychecks]

I took a course in Arthurian Myth and Legends as part of my Mythology minor @ Penn State, and read a lot of the original materials (in modern English, I'm not a medieval linguist). I found several of the original takes to be much more interesting than Mallory, as well as the original historical accounts. If anyone's interested, I'd be happy to dig up my course syllabus/details?

<----- interested.

[Dwayanu]

James: The "side" stories may have been neglected in works you've found palatable in terms of prose style. IIRC, Steinbeck did a fine job as far as he went. As a kid, I had a number of (sometimes very) old books that told the tales fairly briskly with the added pleasure of illustrations.

Arthur's legend touches a cornucopia of works, from "The Mabinogion" to "Tom Thumb." You may have missed the parts that would appeal to you. Then again, Arthurian stuff may simply not be your cup of tea.

Note: T.H. White wrote two versions of The Sword in the Stone, and the stand-alone version may be better — if one can appreciate White's creative use of anachronisms. Avoid "The Book of Merlin" unless you're in the mood for a philosophical essay.

[Falconer]

Arthur is one of my greatest interests, right up there with Tolkien.

I would consider the must-reads to include:

• The Mabinogion (Welsh) - "Pwyll," "Branwen," "Manawydan," and "Math" (and "Lludd") don't contain Arthur (unless Gwydion=Arthur), but they are awesome tales and give you a basis for Welsh Mythology. "Culhwch and Olwen" and "The Dream of Rhonabwy," however, contain raw, savage Arthur in all his glory. "Culhwch" is probably the single greatest Arthurian tale of all time.
• Layamon (English) - Derived from Geoffrey of Monmouth (Latin) and Wace (French), this work (called the Brut) is the first English version of the Arthurian legend, as well as the first major work in English after the Norman Conquest. A fun alliterative poem.
• Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (English) - This is the other piece of natively English Arthuriana that we have. If you haven't read this, what have you read?
• Chretien de Troyes (French) - The origin of the Arthurian Romance. This will tell you a lot about the French. A lot of time is spent languishing for love, but there's also a lot of good old-fashioned adventure at its best.
• Sir Thomas Malory (English) - I disagree that this is boring. I first read it when I was 11 and have re-read it probably about 5 or 6 times since. Le Morte d'Arthur is rightfully considered THE Arthur story, in my opinion. Its beauty lies in its rambling nature as adventure follows upon adventure. Arthur's early adventures, the Balin material, and Gawain's early adventures are so savage! Tristram is my favorite, though.

That should get anyone started. Wolfram von Eschenbach's Parzifal is probably one of the worlds greatest pieces of literature and should be checked out. I've been trying for 15 years to get my hands on an unabridged translation of the French Vulgate, Prose Tristan, and Post-Vulgate, as these may finally be able to slake my thirst for Arthuriana! Regards.

[JRMapes]

John Steinbeck (of The Grapes of Wrath fame) did a wonderful treatment of the story in his The Acts of King Arthur and His Noble Knights. Unfortunately Steingbeck died before the book was finished but most of the stories are there. It ends with the beginning of the romance between Guenivere and Lancelot. Also included in the book is about 100 pages of letter excerpts he wrote to his literary agent and editor about his thoughts on the mss, his writing style, how he did what he did, and his study into the legends. These alone make for some very interesting reading especially if you also write.

ISBN: 0517368366
Library of Congress 76-28210

His work is primarily based on Malory but he used many of the other sources as well. He said in the introduction that he wanted to set down the story in modern language, easy to understand, for his young sons. Also making sure (or doing his best) that the full meanings of words are maintained-- leaving out nothing and adding nothing to the stories, but simply making them easier to read and understand without the usage of the archaic language and spellings.

I was given a hardbound copy of this in 1977 and immediately fell in love with it. I have read Malory and most of the original sources, also modern versions like TH White-- but when I want to just have a fun read and get into the stories I pull out Steinbeck. It is just a shame he never got the chance to complete it. It seems he was experiencing writers block and was trying to work through it when he died.

Even though it's not 100% complete, I would highly recommend it as a must have/must read.

Jerry

[Matthew]

The Alliterative Morte Arthure is also another important text belonging to the Middle English Corpus. There are numerous other minor Middle English texts that deal with the Arthurian myth, but it is important to remember when reading any of these medieval texts that they are fundamentally about Christianity, worldly power and sin. They must be read in their context to be fully appreciated, otherwise they can be very confusing in terms of motivations and consequences, and very unappealing as well.

[T. Foster]

Semi-topical, Greg Stafford released the Great Pendragon Campaign at GenCon, and I've heard through the grapveine that it's pretty good; anyone know first hand? Details @ http://www.white-wolf.com/arthaus/index ... icleid=513

Still looking for info about this? I took a look through it at the FLGS last time I was there (a couple-three weeks ago). It's a pretty impressive book in scope (I don't remember the exact page-count, but it's something like 700+) and scholarship, but, honestly, it felt like too much, like Stafford is defining the entire campaign from start to finish and leaving very little wiggle room for the individual GM. Boy King (from Pendragon 3E) did the same thing, but only for the first 2 Phases, which is more acceptable -- GPC, from what I could tell, defines the entire Campaign in the same level of specific detail as BK did for the early years.

This is undoubtedly a great resource for Pendragon fans (and fans of Arthuriana in general), but I can't imagine actually playing it. For that purpose I think the original Pendragon Campaign book for Pendragon 1E is probably a better bet -- it defines the shape of the campaign, and gives a brief year by year chronology, and gives detailed sample adventures for the 1st Phase, but after that leaves it to the individual GM to do his own further research and make the Campaign his own. This is undoubtedly more work, but also seems more rewarding, especially over the medium-long term (a Pendragon Campaign is supposed to take 5+ years of real time to play through, a major investment by any definition -- I'd think that surely over that time frame GMs would want to make it their own, conduct their own research, and immerse themselves in the genre rather than have the entire thing spoonfed to them).

[Falconer]

Regarding the movies, I just saw Excalibur for the first time last week. It was... well, a cheesy 80s flick, without a doubt, with some really terrible acting and script. The music was Götterdämmerung and Tristan over and over again, plus the now cliche (but then original) use of Carmina Burana, but it was pretty effective. Also, the movie is loooong.

But, it does many things really well. It's pretty firmly based in Malory, which I approve of. There's a lot of condensation, as you'd expect. Morgause, Morgan le Fay, and Nimue are condensed into "Morgana." Gareth, Percivale, and Bedivere are condensed into "Percival," the Fisher King with Arthur, Agravaine with Gawaine, the Sword in the Stone with Excalibur, Pellinore with Launcelot, etc., but that's expected in a movie. Mainly when it departs from Malory it does so consciously in an effort to tie loose threads together.

More than anything else, it's great for its epic scope and for being an unsentimental fantasy. The other major Arthur movies since haven't dared to its vision and breadth. First Knight is an annoyingly half-hearted attempt. It's stripped of all fantasy and there are only four characters in the whole thing. The bad guys use hand crossbows?! It seems to be vaguely based on Chretien's "Lancelot" but it's boiled down to a domestic drama. The biggest joke is that Lancelot and Guinivere never even consummate their love (let alone repeatedly for a few decades), but rather are caught and tried for treason for being caught French-kissing. How pathetic.

King Arthur is total BS as an Arthur story. If you want to tell a historical reconstruction of the Arthur legend, then you pick Geoffrey of Monmouth or the Mabinogion and start with that. But it looks like whoever wrote this movie completely made it up from scratch. Guenivere as a Pictish warrior maiden in a bikini-top? Avalanches from great snowy crags onto a frozen lake, in Scotland? Esoteric, "in-tune" Celtic spirituality vs Evil Roman Catholics? At the very least they could have used the names of some of Arthur's original knights, such as Kay, Bedivere, and Gawaine, rather than Launcelot and Bors (the latter treated entirely uncharacteristically). Apparently someone thought that having Saxons, Celts, Romans, Hadrian's Wall, and calling something The Battle of Badon Hill would make it a historical movie. Please.

[Matthew]

Heh, heh; I would go along with that analysis. How about the classic 1953 King Arthur adaption King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table? Not as good as Excalibur, but miles ahead of any other contender.

[Stik]

Someone on the first page of this thread mentioned "the newish King Arthur film" as being "realistic."

I would like to state my opinion on this film, in the hopes of perhaps sparing whoever reads this from having to sit through it.

To put it simply, if I ever meet Antoine Fuqua, who directed this film, I am going to kick him in the crotch, push him to the ground, take his wallet, and take my ten bucks back. This may just be the worst medieval film ever made, and is even more horrendous because it claims to be the true story behind the legend of Arthur, while being about as far from the actual history as is possible.

I might be willing to watch the movie again, but only only only if it was being projected on Keira Knightly's bare chest while she was giving me a lap dance.

I am a bit of a King Arthur buff, and seeing both the legend and the real history (because Arthur did exist, or at least a man, or a few men, who came into legend as Arthur did exist) destroyed like that was painful to me.

Case in point: the most famous of Arthur's legendary knights, Launcelot, was certainly not based upon a real person. He is a late addition to the legends, having been inserted into the stories fully five hundred years after the legends were spawned; the perfect French knight, added in order to make the stories more popular with the French gentry.
And King Arthur opens with a shot of a yurt in the wilds of Eastern Europe, and a little girl calling out: "Launcelot!"

How about the the dreaded Saxon invasion featured in the film? Sorry, it didn't happen. At least not that way.
Central to both the legend and the history of Arthur is the fact that the Saxons had already been in Britain for years, having been invited by a Briton king called Vortigern, to live in coastal areas to serve there as a buffer against norse raiders. Having gained a foothold in Britain, the Saxons began to expand their holdings and displace the native Britons. Arthur rallied the Britons and pushed the Saxons back for a generation, making Britain safe for Britons.

But let's say for a moment that you were the vicious Saxon army depicted in the film. You are planning an sea-borne invasion of Britain. Why do you land NORTH of Hadrian's wall?!? Hang a left for a mile or ten and land south of the wall, thereby avoiding the need to get past it.

I could go on, but it's late and I do not have the energy to give this film the smackdown it deserves. Just don't go thinking that this movie has ANYTHING to do with the true Arthur.


Oh, I was so busy ranting about the film that I forgot to recommend a good Arthurian book: Firelord by Parke Godwin.
Oh, and it's been a long time but, if memory serves, Mary Stewart's books weren't too bad, either.

[Falconer]

I would like to publicly endorse the preceding message. Thank you.