In Class Film

The mini series we watched last Thursday was very interesting to compare to the many versions of the stories we have now read. I agree with Taylor's comment that it was different to see the way that Merlin was portrayed in this version, because he was such a large part of the story. Merlin's telling made it seem as though things at Arthur's court were much more dire than in other renditions of the story. Like in T.H. White, there seemed to be a great deal of fighting and turmoil throughout the court. Merlin also seemed to be the "brains" of Arthur's entire plan for the future--which allowed for him to also be more at fault. I also thought that the evil characters held some significance. The created witch who was basically Merlin's opposite made for an interesting plot line, but she also seemed to control things more than other evil characters. If she was meant to be Morgan Le Fay-esque, she certainly was this and more--and Modred was even worse. The fact that the mini series went to such extremes to show the evil at court suggests a few things. Perhaps the directors wanted to add more drama to the plot or wanted to provide a more tangible problem for the knights and other characters to face; or, perhaps this was simply the interpretation of all of the trickery that goes on at court in general, just more concentrated into one or two characters. Either way, this rendition was very interesting to watch.

In Class Film

The movie in class portrayed the story of Arthur much like that in the mallory version of the text. It was strange however to see Merlin as such a prominent character in this telling of the legend. The T.H. White novel gives Merlin quite an impactful role in the story, but while he is a key character we see him portrayed almost as a old man riddled with alzheimers, constantly forgetting things and talking over himself. The movie(short tv series) we viewed in class showed Merlin as a strong and powerful magician who was constantly manipulating or guiding Arthur in the correct direction. The comparisons between the film and novel we have read just don't seem to add up in this case. If viewing the film and comparing it to the character of Arthur however we see much more correlation between the two characters and more overlap on personalities portrayed on and off screen. Arthur in both seem to have an innocence and less domineering position in society, he's more of a figurehead like the Mallory novel. To me this means that the film we saw in class was combining elements from both authors and letting a new spin come to it by allowing the vision to be seen through merlins eyes.

T.H. White: Lancelot's Character

T.H. White's interpretation of Lancelot reminded me somewhat of Tennyson's interpretation of Queen Guinevere--not because the two characters are similar, but because of the spectrum of emotions that both White and Tennyson introduce that did not exist in Malory, or even really in De Troyes. White's version of Lancelot is extremely interesting. He seems to resemble both an arrogant "man's man" and a weepy, emotional teenager at the same time. However, White consistently makes Lancelot's character seem somewhat ludicrous throughout this section, aptly titled "The Ill-Made Knight."
 White clearly diverges from Malory's perfect Lancelot. In Malory, Lancelot is dedicated to King Arthur, dedicated to the Queen, and despite his stained sexual history that is revealed on the search for the grail, he is honorable and kind. In De Troyes, Lancelot is much more introspective--possibly even depressed--over the Queen, but his love for her seems so true and pure that his character is redeemed. White diverges from these traditional Lancelots, as he does with many of his other characters. Lancelot is extremely flawed, in White's version. First, White opens the section on the Ill-Made Knight with Lancelot in his room "holding dumb-bells as if they were posies." This image of Lancelot is very critical of his masculinity, something that is essential of his success as a knight (at least, Malory's version of success). White takes the question of Lancelot's masculinity even further, outright stating Lancelot's love for Arthur, rather than disguising it in the language of "bromance" as Malory does. He writes, "Lancelot, swinging his dumb-bells fiercely and making his wordless noise, had been thinking of King Arthur with all his might. He was in love with him." (White 311). Again, this outright acknowledgement of the "love" between Lancelot and King Arthur seems to be somewhat mocking Malory's version of the text. While Malory navigated the subtleties of the relationships between the knights, White makes statements such as these that counteract any possible coyness.
 Lancelot's treatment of women is also vastly different from what we have seen. His treatment of them reveals his internal state of turmoil over whether he wants to be "good" or "bad." For example, White has Lancelot say to the weeping woman: "'Go away,' said Lancelot to the gentlewoman. 'Stop howling. Your husband was a fool and you are a bore. I am not sorry I killed him.' But he was sorry." (White 354). This is certainly not how Malory's--or even De Troyes'--Lancelot would talk to a woman. But White has Lancelot say things like this almost as a coverup to his true feelings. As White explains later on: "He felt in his heart cruelty and cowardice, the things which made him brave and kind." (White 356). This statement gives real insight to readers who are questioning Lancelot's actions and psyche. It shows that Lancelot's emotions are inconsistent, and that he is fighting to be on the outside something which he is not on the inside. This is extremely different from Malory's version, in which Lancelot was thought to be honestly dedicated to all women, as well as to his fellow knights.

T.H White

           Well with a new author and a new story you never really know much except for the back cover would say. I knew it would be another story about king Arthur and the usual characters but I didn't really know what else to expect. I thought it was cool how this story was told in the younger version and you got to see the "before scenes" as T.H White thought it would happen. You got to hear them talk about war in a less mature viewpoint and just over all you got to see the back bone of the characters. You get to see how different relationships begin such as Lancelot and Guinevere  or Arthur and Lancelot.
            You get to see just how much Lancelot likes Guinevere and at first how jealous he is of Arthur for having the Girl of his dreams but that quickly switches when he meets arthur. I think its interesting how you can see that friendship forming between them and you can see the jealousy pretty much boil away.  Overall I like how this book is written due to it being not only in a different stand point but opening your eyes to not just the story they are in at the moment but a more back based story which in a way allows you to put yourself in their position and story better allowing you to like or hate characters more.

T.H. White The Queen of Air and Darkness

Arthur is king of the realm, but it seems once again that the King shall be made out to be a young fool. Within the Malory text we saw very little emotion for King Arthur. He was sorely dependent on his advisers and stood as more of a figurehead for the kingdom than an actual competent ruler.  Merlyn makes a point to say that those advancing on Arthur do it not solely for the purpose of usurping the crown, but because they believe him to be a weak ruler. "Pulling swords out of the stones is not a legal proof of paternity, i admit, but the kings of the Old Ones are not fighting you about that. They have rebelled, although you are their feudal sovereign, simply because the throne is insecure." (White 219) However credit should be given more to Arthur in the White novel because he seems very young and incompetent in the way that young people often are. You can get a feeling that as the story progresses we may see some improvements and maturity within his character. At this point in the story i would say he’s no more than a mere teen boy (if that), who is just beginning his rule of the land. The claim I making however, could be easily disputed because Arthur's age has not been referenced. For all we know he could be well on his way to being a grown man whom simply cannot run his kingdom without a helping hand. If this were true Arthur becomes even more pathetic than he was in Malory's text.

Merlyn in the White novel seems to have a prominent role as a mentor to the great King. Never before in a novel was Merlyn more than an advisor in the background. White has brought him to the forefront and given him a personality and purpose unlike that in any other readings thus far. Not only is merlin important to the King in this book, but he is also mentioned by the young Gawaine Gareth and company. "There along came the wicked magician Merlyn "a nigromancer" said Gareth"(White 210). I choose this particular passage because we have never heard of Merlyn described as evil or done so with such venom, but here we see both and it is done by mere children. The scene we come into gives us the relative age of our knight’s young Gawaine, Agravaine, Gaheris, and Gareth range from 10-14 years old, which could also make a case for King Arthur's age being right around the same ballpark. Sir Gawaine and his brothers are later to be a key part of the Knights of the Round Table under Arthur's command. As we look back on Malory or Tennyson it doesn’t seem that king Arthur is aged that far ahead of his knights, and if he is it can only be a couple years difference so at most King Arthur could only be a teen in the beginning of T.H. White's story.

I focus so much on Arthurs’s age so that as a reader I may analyze his behavior and predict where the story might lead. At this point I believe T.H. White will focus a good portion of his novel on Arthur and his life verses Lancelot and Guinevere(and their point of views) and their destruction of the kingdom. Of course we will get a taste of that but for the first time i think we will get it from the Kings perspective.

After reading Guinevere by Alfred Lord Tennyson, I cant help but feel moved. Unlike in the other depictions of this story, there is a lot of thought and emotion tied into the reading. At first it seems very simple, Queen Guinevere and Lancelot are frequently "MEETING" with one another and then they are found out but unlike in Mallory's version this is where the similarities end. Instead of making Lancelot out to be this great hero and single handily take out a dozen knights. He is depicted as a beast "aroused Lancelot, who rushing outward lionlike leapt on him, and hurl'd him headlong" pg.271 line 103. For once Lancelot is shown to be the bad guy he really is. Also unlike in the previous version Queen Guinevere does not stay and wait her judgment rather she flees knowing full well the atrocities she has committed. She finds her self hiding out in a nunnery where she blatantly tells the nuns that she basically wants nothing to do with them. She tells them not to ask her what her names is or her purpose for coming. As she begins to wallow in her sorrows she takes please with a young maid living in the nunnery. However even this young girl offers her no comfort. Unwittingly this little girl tells Guinevere the story of her father, a once great knight of the round table, as well as how glorious everything was until the unfaithful Queen came and ruined everything. The Queen being the scornful women she is usually depicted to be lashes out at this young girl for telling her the truth which she was clearly unable accept. But it wasn't long before the queen began to show true signs of remorse and sorrow for the horrible things she has done. As she should. Then King Arthur comes in and basically gives her a verbal beat down. Which I honestly found amazing, because King Arthur finally shows some backbone. Within this tongue lashing we discover that Mordred is not King Arthur's son but instead he is the son of his sister. We also discover that King Arthur is not just fighting one war but TWO. One against Mordred and the Heathens, and the other against Lancelot and all his kin. This information makes Arthur seem all that more compelling to me. It showed me that even in the midst of total chaos King Arthur still goes out to find Guinevere, so he can basically say to her how horrible she is and how this is all her fault. But then he says to her "I forgive thee, as Eternal God Forgives: do thou for thine own soul the rest." After reading this I couldn't believe after all that talk of her wicked deeds he still forgives her, but then I realized of course he forgave her. He is King Arthur the most merciful man in all the land. Or so I though until I continued reading and King Arthur follows it up with "I loathe thee.", which show us the complexity of his emotional state. That in and of itself is a beautiful change of pace from the oblivious and simple man King Arthur usually is. After he leaves Guinevere after soaking in everything that was said to her loses it. She is hit with a big reality check, she finally stops pitting her self and instead directs it towards Arthur. After coming to terms with the fact that nothing she can do will ever make up for what she has done she decides to live out the rest of her life in this nunnery doing all the lowly tasks that need to be done, praying, and sharing in the sisters sorrow but not their joy. This to me is the first time I didn't hate Guinevere. She finally takes responsibility for what she has done and punishes her self for it.

Tennyson: Arthur's Speech to Guinevere

 Tennyson's interpretation of Guinevere was in some ways very similar to what we have read previously concerning the Queen. In some ways, however, it was entirely different. One of these differences which I found to be very interesting was the way that Tennyson portrays Arthur and Guinevere's last conversation.
 As we had discussed in class, Tennyson's version of Arthur seems to be much more in love with the Queen from the start. Arthur in this rendition falls in love with the Queen "at first sight," and thinks of marrying her before she is even fully aware of him. In this way, the relationship between Arthur and Guinevere seems much more important in Tennyson's rendition than it did in Malory's, because of Tennyson's focus on the romantic, and ideally supportive love between them--and, from what we have read so far, there seems to be much less of a focus on the brotherhood of the knights. In Malory, the brotherhood between King Arthur and all of his knights was of utmost importance. The readers can clearly see this when Arthur "brushes off" the Queen's relationship with Launcelot, instead focusing on the turmoil that it is bound to cause between his knights and the kingdom as a whole. Tennyson, meanwhile, devotes an entire scene to the King's reaction and confrontation of the Queen. This scene displays Arthur's love for the Queen, even after her betrayal, and that he does not remain loyal to Launcelot in the same way that he does in Malory's text. In fact, Tennyson makes Arthur's character in this scene very sympathetic, which contrasts strongly against Malory's "ignorance is bliss" version of Arthur. He even tells Guinevere that he still loves her, but must leave her in shame, explaining that if he does not leave her, the memory of her sins will haunt him. He says, "And I should evermore be vext with thee/In hanging robe or vacant ornament,/Or ghostly footfall echoing on the stair./For think not, tho' thou wouldst not love thy lord,/Thy lord has wholly lost his love for thee. I am not made of so slight elements./Yet must I leave thee, woman, to thy shame." (282). This makes the reader feel as though Arthur is truly a complex character who simultaneously cares for and despises his cheating wife--a conception which is much closer to modern-day examples of character emotions.
 Similar to Malory, however, we do get the feeling that Arthur blames Guinevere for the dismantling of the knights of the Round Table. He even takes it a step farther, and blames her for all romantic turmoil at court, saying: "And all this throve before I wedded thee,/Believing, 'lo mine helpmate, one to feel/My purpose and rejoicing in my joy.'/Then came they shameful sin with Lancelot;/Then came the sin of Tistram and Isolt;/Then others, following these my mightiest knights,/And drawing foul examples from fair names,/Sinn'd also"(281-282).
 Overall, King Arthur's speech to Guinevere and her delayed (and solitary) response to him are both extremely interesting passages which reveal a great deal about Tennyson's interpretation of the characters. But do we as readers feel more or less sympathy for the Queen after this in-depth look?