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?

Idylls of the King-Tennyson, The Coming of Arthur

          Of the readings we were assigned by Tennyson I chose to focus on The Coming of Arthur. The beginning quite resemble that of stories we have become very familiar with. Arthur is described as uniting the kingdom under his rule, and a brief mention of Guinevere's beauty foretold. As we have grown accustom to in mallory and D' Troyes beginnings often start like this. Then we reach the second page and a mention of werwolves is thrown into the text. It is interesting that the story starts with such a mythical creature never have to be mentioned in any readings before this era. Which lead me to believe that this reading my have more magical/mythical happens than those we are used to. They story then however veers back toward familiar territory when arthur is described as riding among his knights into battle, here is where the first mention of money is encountered. As we have previously discussed in class it seems like money shows your social standing so it was interesting that within the opening scene King Arthur is seen riding as "a simple knight, among his knights, and many of these richer in arms than he". Its almost demoralizing to describe him in this way which we are not used to seeing especially concerning King Arthur. However this does show that some of our old narrative motifs are going to come into play within the Tennyson take of this story. the story continues on with the claim that Arthur is not rightfully king and then the desire for Guinevere blooms..(sound familiar?) Also the vision dream on page 32 makes an apperence once more, but there is the difference in that it seems it wont predict the suture but maybe foretell bad or good fortune to come. What then throws the story off is that no one seems to know of Arthur's heritage which is true in pervious stories but the undertaking of finding his true lineage is dragged out for a couple pages and is much more of a scene within this book. It was in fact a factor in Guinevere's decision to mary Arthur. Which is strange because before this story everyone knew of Arthur's lineage before he wished to marry Guinevere. In this take however Guinevere does not know of his Kingsmanship and is doubtful of that to marry him because of this. Going Back to Uther's reign a new light is shed on the Igraine situation. " enforced she was to wed him in her tears and with a shameful swiftness". In mallory she was tricked by merlin but seemed not to mind, in Tennyson she is utterly against the union. While were on the topic of describing differences Mallory also had a different father figure for Arthur than Tennyson. The irregularity in this is strange because in no other story has Arthurs "father" not been Sir Ector where in this story his name is Anton.

            Moving away from differences there was a very peculiar part of this story that caught my attention. Guinevere talks of knowing the King long before this marriage proposal (no mention of Lancelot). Page thirty gives a short story told from Guinevere's point of view about how as a child she had been beaten and arthur ha come to her aid to cheer her up ad then she knew she loved him. Never before do we see the mention of intermingling childhoods before this, so this type of background information is fascinating. And sets up the premise that these two have a much stronger relationship than seen before in any novel.

I chose only one of the two stories to discuss because as you see if i were to analyze both this would become ridiculously long. =)

       

The Saga of the Mantle

I found this story to be peculiar in its context. The messenger is described as ornately handsome, which is something we are not used to from the other texts, and he comes into Arthur's court bearing this beautiful crafted robe on which he offers as a gift to the one women whom it fits best. The context behind the cloak's magical powers is then given and the women of the court each must try their hand at wearing the garment. Where this man came from and why he is making all the court's women try on this deceptive cloak is not clear. Which seems to be a reoccurring story telling tool during this era. The authors seem to keep things ambiguous almost on purpose for reasons the reader may or may not later discover. When moving from the strange context of the story to the actual oddities within the narrative i believe a good place to begin is when the queen tries on the cloak. It is strange that the king was not angered by the fact that he learns that his queen has not been exactly faithful in every way. The queen skillfully plays off her shame by making all her ladies of the court put on the cloak next so as to show that her infidelity is much less than many of the unfaithful women there. The whole concept of this garment is well devised and yet strange that its almost a test of your virginal and courtly behavior. It shows that these ideals in women were extremely important and highly regarded in society during this time. I found it slightly unfair though that after all of the women are put through this shame, why is it that the men get away without so much as a test of their fidelity? This also shows that being bound to just one woman perhaps wasn't something expected of men during that time. Men obviously followed much different moral codes than their women and were expected to uphold different values.

The saga of the Mantle

I would like to start of by saying  why are only the women being chastised here? The idea that all of these so called "noble" nights is completely faithful is not possible as we have learned from previous readings. Also I found it rather confusing that there wasn't more outrage amongst the men, specifically the king. Seeing as his wife was the very first to be seen as unfaithful yet no one other then Valven says even a word to her about her infidelity. And even then his response seemed almost like a joke "is seems to me that you are somewhat more faithful than she is, and yet you are quite alike, but there is less falsehood in you than in her." said Valven to the Queen. Now this response took me buy surprise, I would have thought at least someone in the court would have been more concerned with the QUEEN being the first person to be seen as unfaithful!

Lanval: De France

In this story I find it interesting how the main focus on the beginning is less on the characters and more on the money and the gold. They talk about how now he is rich and how he will give money to everyone strangers or friends and how he was giving rich gifts and how he was being generous. The second thing that intrigued me was how he denied the queen and she knew the king would believe the lie so she lied to make it seem like he wanted her and she refused and he spoke badly to her making the king make him fight to prove himself. Again in this story the queen is lethal and puts him in a position where it is very easy for him to be killed.

De France: Wealth and Money

The story of Lanval was a totally new addition on our readings in some ways, and very similar in others. One pattern that I noticed in this text that did not appear nearly as much in Malory or De Troyes was the idea of money and wealth. Although Malory and De Troyes probably both reference money in some way, it does not come up very often at all. In fact, the only scene in which money is truly memorable is in Malory's take on Launcelot's relationship with Elaine, when he essentially bribes her to leave him alone. He offers a great quantity of money in this scene, but Elaine does not take it and no further mention is made of Launcelot's riches. In the Marie De France piece, however, many references are made to signify how rich the knights are, and a much greater emphasis is placed on wealth. In just a few short pages, money, wealth, riches, or land are mentioned 6 times explicitly. This pattern begins on 35, when De France introduces Lanval by saying, "He belonged to King Arthur's household, but he had spent all his wealth, for the king gave him nothing, and Lanval asked him for nothing." (35). Although other texts may have mentioned that a particular knight had come from a poor or wealthy household, De France focuses much more on the idea of Lanval's relationship with the king involving (and revolving around?) money. Such a focus did not seem to exist in the other pieces. De France also emphasizes the monetary values of the objects in this story, whereas in the past, the object's magical tendencies might be more important. For example: "They led him to the tent, which was beautiful and luxurious: neither Queen Semiramis, however much wealth, power and knowledge she had, nor Emperor Octavian could have afforded even the flap of the tent." (36). Why this shift from money as simply existing to money being "a big deal"? The most obvious shift seems to come on page 37, after Lanval has found his love, De France tells us: "Lanval gave rich gifts; Lanval pardoned prisoners; Lanval outfitted jongleurs; Lanval performed noble acts. There was neither stranger nor friend to whom Lanval would not give money." (37). Here, the implication is that Lanval has become a true and noble knight. But the qualities of "what a good knight should be" seem to have changed slightly. Lanval is not just noble and strong...but he is also a good money lender? What is the importance of such a trait to a knight? This seems to be a very interesting pattern that sets De France apart from Malory and De Troyes.

De Troyes: Reoccurring Events

While reading I have noticed many objects coming back into the story or that have been a constant throughout the story. One thing that I noticed was that everyone is so open and welcoming whenever they come to the door, the lady had him in and created a rape scene, then the family took the nights in and groomed his horse. Each and every time there is not a question about letting them in. The second pattern that keeps occurring is the whole cart dilemma, someone tries to put him to shame for riding in the cart over and over again.  However he stands up to it. but I thought those two things reoccuring made for a nice pattern to find within the story.

De Troyes: Personified Emotions

One point that I noticed from the De Troyes writing was the personification of emotions. I vaguely remember discussing this idea in British Literature, although I can’t remember fully the significance of it. I do feel that De Troyes’s use of the capitalized and personified emotions speaks to his writing taking place earlier than Malory’s. It becomes extremely common in the section we read for today (more so than the earlier chapter). For example, on 242, he writes Launcelot’s internal struggle by using Generosity and Compassion as battling emotions. He says, “He wishes to content them both: Generosity and Compassion demand that he satisfy them both, for he is both generous and merciful.” (242). He continues to say "One wants him to give the head to the girl who asked for it; the other urges pity and kindness." (242). This literally gives the reader an image of two characters, Generosity and Compassion, fighting with/over Launcelot. Similar instances of such personification appear throughout De Troyes's story. He also uses Love, Cowardice, Nobility, Hatred, etc to better explain his story. Although I cannot remember the exact analysis from British Literature, I feel as though De Troyes makes these emotions seem much more prominent by making them into characters and giving them actions. Instead of saying "Launcelot was jealous," he creates an overwhelming feeling of Jealousy by devoting a character to the emotion.

Knight of the Cart Part 2

The style of Chretien De Troyes differs from that of Malory in many ways first being that there are significantly less characters within this particular work versus the character overload of Malory. The female characters as Kori mentioned seem to have more knowledge in this section for example Gwynevere in the very beginning of this story on page 206 shows some considerable amount of previous knowledge about her impending fate. The writing style with the quips of the author in Chretien's writing also stands apart from Malory's story because never before do we see the author inputting insight and opinion so frequently within the store. The characters in Chretien's story particularly Launcelot seem to have more inner thought than what was portrayed by Malory. In Malory's take of the story of Arthur it seems as though the battles are rushed into for no other reason than spotting another knight in the woods where as in Chretien's story we see Launcelot debating some morals of shame and such before leaping into battle for example see page 221. Also the significance of characters like sir Kay and Sir Melegant are much more stressed in the Chretien version of this story than in the Malory version. Malory had Sir Kay and Sir Melegant as minor characters with really no higher importance that made them stand above any other character to make themselves memorable where as in the latter story they blow play huge significant roles.

Malory vs.

I feel like there are many differences between the Malory story and what we are reading now. One major difference is the fact that the girls seem to have more knowledge now then they did in Malory's. However the part of this story so far that really has me going like Oh that's different is the rape scene that was a set up. Its weird in general to read a scene like that but yet alone in an old book and a version where a knight is so strongly contemplating to help or not is weird to read. Over all I like this reading better, it is easier to read, it is easier to follow and I like how they don't give us a bunch of names to remember if the person isn't that big of a deal.

De Troyes: Launcelot's Madness

In the Malory text, the reader learns that Launcelot has a period of time where he "goes mad." This section of the book is confined to a single story, just as most of Malory's writings seem to be sections of anecdotes that may or may not connect to a larger plot. In the De Troyes writing, however, it seems that he more subtly weaves in details like Launcelot's madness. For example, on 216, De Troyes writes, "His thoughts were so deep that he forgot who he was; he was uncertain whether or not he truly existed; he was unable to reveal his own name; he did not know if he were armed or not, nor where he was going nor whence he came."(De Troyes 216). In Malory's text, Launcelot goes mad seemingly with the flip of a switch. Malory does not elaborate, as De Troyes does, on how Launcelot is feeling during his many separations from the Queen. In Malory's version, Launcelot seems much more unaffected by the Queen, save for his brief stint of insanity. He goes on adventures throughout the kingdom often, and although the pair seem to be happy to be reunited every once in a while, Malory does not provide the internal dialogue of Launcelot while he apart from the Queen, as De Troyes does. The De Troyes version of The Knight of the Cart insinuates that Launcelot is mad with grief over his separation from the Queen, and Launcelot almost makes a fatal mistake because of it when he is trying to cross the ford. The Launcelot portrayed by De Troyes is more contemplative and flawed than the one portrayed by Malory, because he has more human feelings (it seems) for the Queen, as he laments her being in danger and feels so unlike himself that he puts himself in mortal danger because of it.

Arthurian Romances: Knight of the Cart

I found this particular passage to be somewhat confusing in nature. All of the characters are basically nameless and are only referred to as "Kinghts" "maidens, or girl" all in all it makes for a very confusing plot set up and made me as the reader struggle to determine who was who when the dialogue was taking place. Aside from the awkward structure of this story the narrative style is also much different. In some sections the point of view seems to be first person where as in others there seems to be a narrator. Furthermore the fact that this entire story centers around a knight whom was not shammed but is thought to be because he was without horse and needed a ride is baffling. Why the cart holds so much shame back in this era is strange but whats even more obscure is why, when the knight had this knowledge, he decided to take a ride from the cart driver anyway. When you start to analyze other characters behavior you see that some knights of Arthur's court are depicted rather differently than they have been in previous stories. Sir kay for instance is a manipulating trickster in a way. Being able to get the queen to follow the knight who presented a challenge to the king on page 207-208 was quite a feat, yet he accomplished it with deceit quite nimbly. Sir Kay was also not held with the utmost importance in the stories we read before this one so to see him as the spark that kicks off this story is also very odd.

Malory:Le Morte D'Arthur.

This chapter really stuck me on the rash idea and the way they react to things. There was a ton of talk about how they fainted for previous chapters but I think we can turn that theme into a whole "over reacting" thing. Queen Gwynevere reacts hashly to the death and joins a nunnery yet she never really showed that she was so in love with king arthur. 

Malory: King Arthur, the Queen, and Launcelot

The beginning of the section "Le Morte D'Arthur" is extremely interesting in light of what we talked about in class on Thursday. We had discussed the possibilities of whether Arthur knew about Sir Launcelot and the Queen's affair, and if so, what actions he was likely to take. The section seems to match up well with what we had discussed. First off, the reader finds out that Arthur did in fact recognize what was happening between Launcelot and the Queen, but basically kept these facts to himself in order to prevent scandal and the queen's death. He knew that if he acknowledged the affair, he would have to lose both the Queen and Launcelot, something he did not wish to do. He says when he is first confronted with the affair: "'I suppose that to uphold my own dignity as king I must now suffer my queen to be burnt at the stake.'" (478). Clearly, he is reluctant to do so, and realizes that if no one else had discovered the relationship and it hadn't been brought to his attention, the court may have been able to go on being successful for much longer. But, similarly to what we discussed in class, Arthur also places the separation of the knights that will result from the discovery much higher than the loss of the Queen. He says,"'I regret the less the loss of my queen, for of queens I had my choice, than of our fellowship, which was surely without equal in all Christendom. Alas! that Sir Aggravayne and Sir Modred, led by the evil in their hearts, should have brought us to this.'" (480). Meanwhile, Sir Launcelot's character is also experiencing a wide range of emotions in this last section. Launcelot  had been consistently un-guilty (or so he seemed) about his affair with the Queen throughout many of the sections. In fact, he often seemed to be himself convinced that "nothing happened" when he went to her chamber at knight. But towards the end, Launcelot's guilt catches up to him. He says before he decides to die: "'I fully understood for the first time how I had betrayed them and brought each to his death through my selfish love and pride'" Launcelot (506).

Malory: Le Morte d'Arthur

While reading Le Morte d' Arthur's "chapter" of the siege of Benwick, i found the battle between Sir Launcelot and Sir Gawain most interesting. Sir Gawain is proved to have a spell that was cast on him as a child that helped him win battles. His strength would increase until noon where it would wan and this is when Sir Launcelot took his carefully awaited moment to strike. This to me seems like an unfair advantage to a knight and also made me wonder why Sir Gawain wasn't a better knight. Most of all the battle between the two knights was interesting because of how persistent Sir Gawain was. He refused to accept defeat from Sir Launcelot and unless one of them was dead he was not going to stop challenging him. To me it seems that would be embarrassing for a knight to lose repeatedly to another knight, and shameful to continually challenge said knight again and again. I also found the effect of king Arthurs on Queen Gwynevere quite interesting. She never showed over whelming love for the king so for her to join a a nunnery after he dies seemed rash. Also when she completely blows off Sir Launcelot after lusting after him throughout her husbands life completely blew my mind. On page 504 she says "my lord, we shall not kiss now, or ever; and i pray you to depart". After all the trouble she caused when she and Sir Launcelot can finally be together she chooses to revert back to her faith? seems like a poor excuse for a woman who just likes to cause trouble.

Malory: Sir Launcelot Du Lake

During this section as in others i noticed hat Malory often gives small hints of religion within his stories. Some of these are outright others however are more subtle. While reading this particular passage i began to notice that during the tale there are points where the author decided to be extremely descriptive about a journey or occurrence. I noticed briefly that the number 12 happened to be referred to a lot, which got me thinking that it was more of a symbol than a fluke thereupon the novel. On pages 121 and 122 the number twelve is given in somewhat strange context that made it jump out to me more than usual. "When she had led him through the twelve doors of the abby, she gave him his horse and armor, and directions for finding the abby." The mentioning of 12 to me does not exactly fit so the question arises is Malory trying to convey something about that number and if so what? My conclusion rests with religion, 12 referring to the 12 apostles. The number continuously shows up right after in fact on page 122 "King Bagdemagus castle was twelve miles away, and his daughter sent for him as soon as she settled Sir Launcelot." So the reader is left with the question is twelve significant? and how so.

Malory: Narrative Style

In the section "The Knight of the Cart," Malory's narrative voice seems to come through slightly more so than in the other sections we have read. Malory takes the first three paragraphs of this tale to provide some exposition to set the scene for the story, which he has not done in previous writings. For example, in "The Poisoned Apple," Malory begins with a quick statement to catch the reader up: "When all the knights who had survived the quest of the Holy Grail had returned, there was much rejoicing at Camelot." (Malory 432). This a quick, summative sentence that informs the reader of where his story is beginning. "The Knight of the Cart" is very unique in that Malory has a much longer preamble, dedicating more time and energy into "setting up" the story for the reader. He gives readers an absolute time frame, starting with "It was the month of May" (Malory 458), which is uncommon for most of the stories, which typically begin with statements like "Some time later," or "After the return of the knights." Malory also takes this time to make some generalizations or observations about human nature. He writes, "Today, we know, love is commonly as the summer or winter: brief and lewd, or cold and brittle--men cannot love seven nights but they must have their desires." (Malory 458). Malory is, for what appears to be the first time, mentioning his current place in time and the habits of men in his generation, as opposed to King Arthur's. He makes a direct comparison between the two time periods, himself saying, "In King Arthur's time..." (Malory 458). This makes this section of Malory's writing invaluable to readers who are hoping to decipher what Malory's own motives and perspectives may be, and how the lenses through which he sees the world may affect the way he retells the stories of King Arthur.

Malory: When Is Chastity Important?

The question of chastity was one that kept popping into my mind as I was reading these sections. Malory has introduced us to a number of the knight's adventures in which chastity is supremely important or a central theme to the tale. In the section "Launcelot and Elaine," the reader gains even more insight into the complex idea of chastity. As we have read in other sections, chastity in King Arthur's time was not necessarily the same as we would think of it today. While it does apply to women and largely involve them, men are not exempt from being scrutinized for their lack of virtue, as we see in the section when the knights are searching for the Holy Grail--only the most chaste knights, who have not committed a "sin of the flesh" can be successful on the quest. The plot with Elaine is extremely interesting in regards to chastity because she is very open about her wish to trick Launcelot into sleeping with her. She even reveals the plot to her father, who doesn't seem to be bothered by it. This makes clear the fact that adultery is not often perceived as a sin; more often, it is seen as serving a larger, more important purpose, such as the conception of Galahad. For example, on 338, when Launcelot discovers Elaine's trick, Elaine says, "'Sir, as you are of royal blood, I pray you have mercy upon me! Also upon your own child who is now nourished in my womb, and who, it is prophesied, will become a knight without peer in any country or age.'" Just two lines down, Sir Launcelot forgives Elaine, and Malory writes, "Sir Launcelot took her in his arms and kissed her. Elaine was not only of royal blood, but young, beautiful, and clever." (Malory 338). Clearly, the conception of Galahad overshadows Elaine's trickery, if only for the time being, as we know that it will soon cause greater problems with Queen Qwenevere. Still, Launcelot's ties to Qwenvere are unchaste as well, which creates even more questions upon the roles chastity in Malory's text.

Malory: Launcelot and Elaine

I found that through out this whole section emotions turning to love or lust or just being showed by incredibly strong gestures even if it is a little deal is a big thing throughout it, that all the caring turns into lust and all of that and even more so it seems to be a theme carried throughout the book in general. That they love someone so much that they must fight / die if they do not pick the girl they are "supposed" to choose to marry or love. As well as every time that someone seems to go off alone trouble is always around the corner and they never seem to be expecting it and just walk straight into it every time which always leaves the story open to new twists and turns or different scenarios in the same problem.

Malory: Launcelot and Elaine

I found that while reading through this particular section that everyone seems to have a slight fainting issue. It began to get somewhat ridiculous when after any small event a character was to "fall faint" for hardly any reason at all. For example on page 342 Sir Launcelot falls to the ground faint when Queen Gwynevere rebukes him for sleeping once more with Lady Elaine. It makes me wonder if the fainting is some sort of message or motif. Perhaps however it is just an overused dramatic gesture employed to show the significance of the event or hardship that the character seems to be experiencing. Also during this section Queen Gwynevere behavior seems to shift dramatically from subtly caring for sir lancelot in a revered queen-like manor to outright despair and jealousy when she finds he has lain with someone else. It seemed strange to me that Malory would take Queen Gwynevere from being a mostly decent character to becoming this outwardly defiant wannabe lover of this knight. Queen Gwynevere during these sections has hardly been lustful of Sir Launcelot so to see this behavior i felt that it was a bit shocking and out of place for the reader. For most of us however we had the preconceived notion about the queen from previous readings outside of class, which made her declaration of love for Sir Launcelot less abnormal. I feel as though first time readers without having any previous knowledge of any Arthurian tales may have been a bit blindsided by the Gwynevere-Launcelot connection in Le Morte d'Arthur.

Malory: The Tale of Sangreal

In this chapter it seems that Gods presence really takes hold. the devil manifests in many different forms. Whether it be as a beautiful temptress, elderly woman riding a serpent or a black horse with magnificent power. All of these forms seem to test the knights particularly Sir Percivale the most. No other knight has had so much trouble with the devil on their journey as sir Percivale has. so it made me question why this knight is facing so many challenges and whether or not it this is perhaps his redeeming moment in the book for past sins. It is almost as if he is trying to purify his soul by defeating the devil in so many forms and proving his worthiness to god and his fellow knights. I was also intrigued by the fact that most of the hermits within these stories are actually holy men, or give holy advice to the knights who cross paths with them. It seems strange that these knights put so much faith and trust in these people how hide themselves away in the woods. Within this section you also see the author Malory using the knights code of chivalry against them which i found superbly interesting. Sir Percivale is approached by a beautiful seemingly scorned woman and promises to be at her service. What he doesn't know is that she is actually the fallen angel Lucifer who has come to collect him and try to get him to denounce his religion. It seems as though the quest for the holy grail will not have as much external battling, as the other chapter had, but more internal struggles of good and evil; also of god versus the devil.

Malory: King Arthur's Sadness

Throughout Malory's writing, there have been many instances in which he emphasizes the brotherly love of the knights, their close connections to each other, and the honor codes to which they abide as a group. However, one of the most interesting insights into the relationships the knights have with each other comes on page 365, when the knights decide to go on their search for the Holy Grail, and King Arthur speaks up about his fear of losing his knights. He says, "Shall not our fellowship of the Round Table be irremediably broken? A fellowship I have loved better than my own life, and one which is surely unique for its peerless knights, many of whom will now ride away in search of the Holy Grail, never to return! How can I be reconciled to the dissolution of so close a fellowship, and of the ancient customs by which we have been held?" (Malory 365). This is one of the first times (in the passages we have read) that the brotherhood is mentioned by the characters themselves, rather than by Malory in a commentary way. Arthur speaks very openly about his emotions in this passage, and Malory writes that "The king wept as he spoke" (365), indicating that he is truly being open with his emotions. The knights seem to have a closeness that is unmatched by others, except possibly direct relations and biological connections. This scene seems to be an important one for analyzing the types of relationships that occurred between the males around this time period, as well as Malory's idea of what being a part of the Round Table was like.

Malory: King Arthur's Power

The question of King Arthur's power and personality is one that kept jumping into my mind as I was reading Malory's text. Assuming that the stories he writes take place in mostly chronological order (as they appear to), chapter 5 or Arthur and Accolon takes place not very long after Arthur has become king. Even if he did rule for many years previous to this occurrence, Arthur's authority over those around him--both his own knights and absolute strangers--is remarkable. At least for the time being, Arthur seems to continually have the upper hand on all situations, regardless of his loss of Merlin or even his magical sword (although he does struggle without it). His power and strength are so tremendous that he is able to overcome Accolon in battle with a broken sword, and although he does not kill him, he certainly proves his worthiness. Where did Arthur's power originate from, and how is he able to maintain it for so long? Similarly, Arthur's power in battle and throughout his kingdom leads to his authoritative nature. Many times throughout the novel he makes demands of other kings, knights, or seemingly important figures that he does not know or that do not know him. Although this is something that all of the knights do, Arthur does it best, and most often. For example, in chapter 5 after he has battled Accolon, he instructs those around him. He begins with Accolon, granting him forgiveness but swearing off Morgan Le Fay. Then he moves on to Sir Damas, saying he must "yield to your brother not only his rightful estates, together with all their appurenances, but all of your own estates as well."(77). After throughly covering Sir Damas he addresses Sir Outlake, offering him a place in his kingdom. Arthur consistently not only wins battles within these first few chapters of Malory's text, he also becomes such a strong, authoritative figure that he can command a room full of strangers to his will. It is unclear whether this quality of Arthur's is a device used by Malory, similar to other instances of exaggeration (such as the knight's horses falling dead beneath them from riding), or intended to be more sincere and legitimate.