Arthurian Legends

[Nurvingiel]

In the thread in the Entertainment Forum about the new Arthurian movie, talk naturally fell to great books about King Arthur.

Discuss all these great books here!

My favourite Arthurian book (and second favourite book of all time) is The Skystone, by Jack Whyte.

Here is a post I was going to put in the movie thread (but it has only to do with Arthurian books):

It has been a while, but I think Steinbeck get's right up to the part where Lancelot and Guinevere betray Arthur, and Lancelot leaves. This is about 3/4 through the book I think. As I recall, he then spends the last 1/4 of the book explaining why he didn't finish. That really pissed me off, because the book appeared complete, and he could have written the end.

Gerald Morris, a great children's author of Arthurian legends, also expanded on the three questing ladies tale. I forget which one it's in, but I think it's in "The Ballad of Sir Dinadan". Here's all his books.
1) The Squire's Tale
2) A Squire, His Knight, and His Lady
3) The Savage Damself and the Dwarf
4) Parsifal's Page
5) The Ballad of Sir Dinadan

I think that's in order.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

Hmm. How would T.H. White's The Once and Future King
be rated (great?). When I was in college it was required reading for freshmen in Literature class. Also, I've gotten, but not yet read The Book of Merlyn, which is "The Unpublished Conclusion to The Once and Future King." The jacket blurb is interesting. Part of it says

White, a pacifist, considered the theme of The Morte d'Arthur to be a quest for an antidote to war. The Book of Merlyn was written during his personal struggle with the question of whether to go to war against Nazi Germany.

And the musical "Camelot" was, I believe, inspired by The Once and Future King.

"Milady we shall put an end to
that Gallic bag of noise and nerve.
When we do all that we intend to
he'll be a plate of French orderves."

[Elfhelm]

Cool! You are right. This thread belongs in Literature.

I like T.H. White and the musical Camelot.

I think Steinbeck follows Mallory mostly. Now, where in Mallory is the Lancelot / Guinivere romance? Both my copies must be incomplete because I am not finding that. In fact, I think they are both selections from Mallory. I've been bopping about in the Arthurian stuff all week.

I'll re-state my opinion from the Entertainment thread. I think the diverse versions of the Arthurian myths are an essential aspect of medievalism and seeking an ur-text, a definitive version, or an historical Arthur are all modernist ideas. I'd rather put myself into the frame of mind of the authors. I think the people of the 12th to 14th centuries EXPECTED their poets to give the story their own spin, based on the values of their own cultures. Along those lines, the feminism of Mysts of Avalon is actually a traditional thing to do because MZB is rewriting the legends with the 20th century values.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
I think Steinbeck follows Mallory mostly. Now, where in Mallory is the Lancelot / Guinivere romance? Both my copies must be incomplete because I am not finding that. In fact, I think they are both selections from Mallory. I've been bopping about in the Arthurian stuff all week.

It's possible that I remembered Steinbeck wrong, or he changed that aspect of the story. I don't know if it is actually in Mallory, that's just where Steinbeck left off.

Also, it is entirely possible that Mists of Avalon (and the two prequels) is fairly historically accurate. The Celts were much more egalitarian than the Romans.

[Forkbeard]

Originally posted by Elfhelm
Cool! You are right. This thread belongs in Literature.

I like T.H. White and the musical Camelot.

I think Steinbeck follows Mallory mostly. Now, where in Mallory is the Lancelot / Guinivere romance? Both my copies must be incomplete because I am not finding that.

Books 7 and 8 chiefly.

Forkbeard

[sun-star]

I freely confess to knowing very little about Arthurian legends, and actually to not being very interested in the various permutations – to me, sometimes people seem to take it too seriously, as if it were the only myth in the world! However, I did very much enjoy Malory. It was much easier to read than I expected and it was so absorbing – I loved it. No one seems to share my passion though

Anyway, I'm willing to learn more...

[Valandil]

I've read Mallory (a translation into modern English by a 'Keith Baines" I think) and really not too much else.

I was REALLY interested in a statement Elfhelm made in the 'King Arthur - The Movie' thread, where he said that whatever the historical reality was doesn't matter as much as what we have in literature. I find it so interesting because my view is so opposite to that! Just different viewpoints!

sun-star, I think what some people like so much about Arthurian legends is that there IS so little we can actually KNOW about him historically. That makes him oh-so-malleable for anyone who wants to use him to make their point about something. That's why we have so many different versions of his story - because 'he' is used to transmit so many ideas. And, I take it (correct me if I'm wrong Elfhelm) that the thrust of what Elfhelm is saying is that BECAUSE Arthurian literature has varied so much over the course of time, it gives us that much greater insight into those who wrote it - and their times. Is that a fair statement Elfhelm? Or was there more to your comment than that?

[Grey_Wolf]

My favourite KA-book is most definitely Roger Lancely Green's
King Arthur and his knights of the Round Table.

On another point NO ATTEMPT at a new movie about KA can ever beat John Boorman's Excalibur, which is the number one King Arthur movie.

[sun-star]

Originally posted by Valandil
I've read Mallory (a translation into modern English by a 'Keith Baines" I think) and really not too much else.

sun-star, I think what some people like so much about Arthurian legends is that there IS so little we can actually KNOW about him historically. That makes him oh-so-malleable for anyone who wants to use him to make their point about something.

Yes, that would be my main complaint with the industry that's grown up around King Arthur. It's not that I don't find the stories themselves fascinating, I'm just not particuarly interested in all the interpretations of them. To me, they are just stories (Philistine that I am! ), not Causabon's key to all mythologies

Anyway, how does a translation of Malory work exactly? Is it a word-for-word translation of obsolete words, or does the author shape the story in their own way? It's an interesting idea, I think, in terms of what "authorship" really is I must get one and try and compare.

Grey Wolf, I grew up loving Roger Lancelyn Green's version. My copy has excellent illustrations, as well.

[Grey_Wolf]

Originally posted by sun-star
Yes, that would be my main complaint with the industry that's grown up around King Arthur. It's not that I don't find the stories themselves fascinating, I'm just not particuarly interested in all the interpretations of them. To me, they are just stories (Philistine that I am! ), not Causabon's key to all mythologies

Anyway, how does a translation of Malory work exactly? Is it a word-for-word translation of obsolete words, or does the author shape the story in their own way? It's an interesting idea, I think, in terms of what "authorship" really is I must get one and try and compare.

Grey Wolf, I grew up loving Roger Lancelyn Green's version. My copy has excellent illustrations, as well.

I've read Green's version several times and I agree with you that the illustrations are excellent indeed and is by far the best version.

I've also read Anastasio's quartet. It was good (but a bit wordy).
Then I'm waiting for parts 4 and 5 of Mary Stewart's quintet and I have Stephen R Lawhead's quintet as well (haven't read either author's version yet).

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Grey_Wolf
My favourite KA-book is most definitely Roger Lancely Green's
King Arthur and his knights of the Round Table.

Hm. I'm going to have to go read that! Exciting.

On another point NO ATTEMPT at a new movie about KA can ever beat John Boorman's Excalibur, which is the number one King Arthur movie.

I agree with that, though I have to say the adaptation of Marion Zimmer-Bradley's "The Mists of Avalon" was equally good. It is different in many ways, but they are still both number one.

Stephen Lawhead is a genius, you're in for a treat. His Arthurian series is excellent, and so are his other books that I've read. (Such as "The Song of Albion", which b.banner has a thread about.)

[GrayMouser]

Other than Malory, I thought Mary Stewart's first two were great: "The Crystal Cave" and "The Hollow Hills" ; "The Lasrt Enchantment" and "The Wicked Day" were disappointing.

And for movies, the definitive treatment is, of course, Monty Python and the Holy Grail

[Nurvingiel]

I've seen Monty Python and the Holy Grail about 10 times.

But this is the liturature side of Arthurian legends.

Which is the difinitive book for you guys?

[Grey_Wolf]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
I've seen Monty Python and the Holy Grail about 10 times.

But this is the liturature side of Arthurian legends.

Which is the difinitive book for you guys?

I simply have to say RLG's version.

[Nurvingiel]

What are all the knights like in RLGs version? My absolute favourite knights of all time are King Arthur, Sir Kay, and Sir Gawaine. (In order! Not to say that Gawaine is my least favourite, just that Arthur is the best, and I really identify with Kay.)

[Grey_Wolf]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
What are all the knights like in RLGs version? My absolute favourite knights of all time are King Arthur, Sir Kay, and Sir Gawaine. (In order! Not to say that Gawaine is my least favourite, just that Arthur is the best, and I really identify with Kay.)

Of course KA is my favourite knight, too. Then comes Sir Lancelot and Sir Gawaine.

[Grey_Wolf]

I've actually rereread RGL's version now (this thread inspired me).

[Nurvingiel]

I'm glad this thread has led to more Arthurian legend reading!

I don't dislike Lancelot, I just never really identify with him. In fact, the only knight (if you could call him one) that I don't like is Sir Mordred. (But nobody likes him anyway!)

[Aldhelm]

I read a rather good Arthurian book called "Forgotten Camelot" or something like that. It included stories that are mostly untold in other versions.

Sir Gawain is my favourite.

[Goldberry1]

Arthurian legends are something i was always interested in, but never pursued. this year, however, i've read a translation of "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight" (which was pretty good), Mary Stewart's "The Hollow Hills" (which i liked), and an excerpt - i guess - from Mallory's Le Morte d' Arthur. That i didn't really like, but i think it was mostly the language that was used.

it's interesting though, to see where all the different authors' versions stray from one another, and what they have in common that is believed to be "fact" concerning King Arthur.