Right….
Okay, to start off first, if you are going to write about the Middle Ages please do NOT say that everyone today views that time as primitive! You are not only going to make a Middle Ages enthusiast angry but also not read the book! It isn’t right to make a general statement like that without knowing your audience better. And the “…Middle Ages….as the degenerate remnants of a far greater past..”?! Knighthood still ran strong well into the Victorian era! The knights, if anything, never faded away but rather traded in their armor for a different costume. And Galahad…as a “characterless” knight? The Victorians admired Galahad for his selflessness, faithfulness and gentleness -very much like Raman Lull. And Morte D’Arthur was not just written as an entertainment but also as a warning. Galahad was not his father whose selfish action destroyed a king and a great kingdom – another reason why the Victorians liked him. He was also as selfless as Joan of Arc who was a real life and blood heroine. I am surprised she was not spoken off in this tome. She represented the pious and gentle side of knighthood as well. Like Galahad, she died a martyr’s death (depending on which version you read). To be honest, I am shocked that she wasn’t mentioned. Even though she wasn’t a knight, she has just as much right to be spoken along with mythical figures such as St. George of England.
I did enjoy the analysis on Chretien de Troyes. He wrote Knight of the Cart with a “tongue in cheek” humor. The blueprints on the various kinds of armor was very helpful. The book was well organized but author should be aware of general statements and should be considerate of all characters throughout history.