Arthuriana -- all things King Arthur ! discussion

Is anyone reading any other good Arthuriana right now?

Simon Armitage's translation of "Gawain and the Green Knight". It goes at a good pace, but sometimes you can tell he has the Thesaurus out to keep the alliteration going!

Armitage's SGGK is a good read, but not very accurate. It's very fashionable right now to get poets to translate medieval poems (Seamus Heaney's Beowulf, for example), but we lose some of the historical knowledge when we gain the poetic expression. Check out my review of Armitage for more:
Cheers,
Mark Adderley

Excalibur by Bernard Cornwell. Also the first of the Silurian series - The Silurian Book One: The Fox and The Bear by L.A. Wilson (a group member). The Cornwell is predictably dour and gritty. I've only just started the Silurian series, so no comments as yet.

Hi, L A. I'll post a review in my blog when I've finished Book One.

I just read T.A Barrons "Lost years of Merlin" and it was bloody predictable and typical and awful.

Been a while, everyone! I've been reading quite a bit of Arthuriana...

Arthurian Romances: review here.
Merlin and the Grail: Joseph of Arimathea, Merlin, Perceval: The Trilogy of Arthurian Prose Romances attributed to Robert de Boron: review here.
The Death of King Arthur: review here.
Lancelot and the Lord of the Distant Isles: Or, the Tale of Galehaut Retold: review here.

I found the last one most interesting -- not sure how far to believe the authors' assertions that Galehaut's love for Lancelot, in the original text, is romantic, but it's a compelling story and something I want to follow up for myself when I have access to my university's library again...

Nikki wrote: "when I have access to my university's library again..."

Luxury...you must be like a kid in a sweety shop.
Reading Lancelot of the Lake myself at the minute, half way into it and folk are only just discovering his name. No homoeroticism in it, and Lance is (as usual) lotally in lurve with Gwen...though so far no action on that front.

It has a whole selection of Arthurian texts. I'm in my third (last) year from September. Since I'm not doing a dissertation, I pretty much plan to live in that section, while I can.

I am reading The Return of Merlin by Depak Chopra,
and it is suprisingly good. story travel from past to present and back and forth a few times, It is written as a mystery and am enjoying it.

I also have a question. I was wondering if anyone here could give my any advise, I am contemplating
reading Sir Thomas Mallory's Le Morte d'Arthur I went to my local library and was a little overwhelmed, there are at least 6 different versions all edited by
different people, does any one have any suggestions
on an easy to understand but complete version?

I found the Oxford World Classics version quite readable, but I am a lit student. It's a little bit abridged, but not so that anything important is missing. It isn't translated into idiomatic modern English.

Johnny wrote: "Sir Thomas Mallory's Le Morte d'Arthur I went to my local library and was a little overwhelmed, there are at least 6 different versions all edited by
different people, does any one have any suggestions
on an easy to understand but complete version?"

I agree with Nikki.
I'd go for the Le Morte Darthur, the Winchester Manuscript, Oxford World Classics edition.
Other editions tend to either be based on the Caxton printed edtion and as such have all his "changes" (which to be fair aren't that big a deal), or pretty much facsimile copies of the manuscript, which can be difficult to read.
The edition I mention takes the manuscript found in Winchester (hence the name) and modernises the spelling. It is thought to be more in line with what Malory intended, but Helen Cooper (editor) also patches any important missing bits by copying from the Caxton.
And as Nikki says although it is abridged it does this in a way that doesn't cause narrative problems. Mainly cutting down on some repetitive detail and also seriously editing the huge book of Tristan (who's tale is much better told, with humour and warmth and without the joust overload, in Tristan: With the Surviving Fragments of the 'Tristan of Thomas').

Thank-you so much for your imput, I will look for that version. There were just so many different editors all saying theirs was the best, I needed help and knew I could count on this fine group of people!
thanks again

For an easy way to check the reviews from the group select a book on the group bookshelf and click view. This will bring up ratings and reviews only from group members, so they will be from fellow Grail Questers and not from folk that usually just read romcoms etc. Not that we all agree here, but we tend to be critical of the books for relevant reasons...not dismissing things as rubbish just because it isn't like Twilight.

Recently been getting funny looks for reading medieval Arthurian "romances" from colleagues (it usually says "romance" somewhere on the cover, eg: Arthurian Romances). To be fair to anyone who listened to an explanation though, once they sussed they aren't chick-lit but mainly fan fiction for joust geeks, they tended to chill. One comment: "So it's like really old Tom Clancy type stuff?" I liked that...

I'm new, so I'll try to say something "smart" for my first comment...when you mean "Arthuriana" do you mean any books about King Arthur? If so I'm reading "Here Lies Arthur" by Philip Reeve right now. It's okay so far. I'm almost done, yet through the whole book so far, I can't seem to get past the writing style. It seems odd, like it's unproper english. It has a ton of short choppy sentences and my eyes want to move fast downa long sentences so I seem to be tripping over the shortness of it all. Does any of this make sense? Anyone else ever read anything like that?

You are funny, Alyss -- that was a smart question. I just think it means all that pertains to the Arthurian legend, so that includes a lot, doesnt it?

I have not read the Philip Reeve book. Maybe we'll get some comments from those who have. When was it written, do you remember?

Alright, I understand. Anything Arthur whatsoever makes it alot easier.

The Philip Reeve book was written in 2007.

I havent read some of the recently published novels -- I'm calling 2007 recent, but others might not. I am almost finished reading Mercedes Lackey's Gwenhwyfar. I will be sure and write a review when I am done reading. I have read several novels centered on Gwenhwyfar. In general, she isnt my favorite Arthurian topic, but some of those novels have been good.

Gwenhwyfar

I'm planning to read Gwenhwyfar sometime soon.

By the way, I've been reading a lot of medieval Arthuriana, from various different countries and centuries. If we read something like that as a group, I'd probably be able to share background and contextual information, if anyone wanted it. (I can also uuuuusually trace people's sources, e.g. the modern author Tony Hays confines himself to very early material, particularly the hagiographies. He confirmed that in a conversation with me, so I felt quite smug.)

On the issue of Arthur with a withered leg: Was it Arthur? Sounds like the Fisher King, but the author could have merged the 2 into one character. Boorman seems to have done in the movie Excalibur. It's a common archetype, Percival's da in Chretien de Troyes has the wounded thighs that don't heal (from a lance injury).
Isn't there something in The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion about lame kings in general though? Will have to go scan through it now.
Good start to the day...now coffee and porridge I think.

OK, back to the thread subject:
I've started the Mary Stewart books if anyone wants to join me? Start a thread?
So far I'm enjoying The Crystal Cave: little hints at items in the Brit Museum; post Roman in setting; focused on Merlin.
After a bunch of medieval stuff the pace is refreshingly different. And the last thing I read with Merlin in was Morte.

SarahC wrote: "I'm calling 2007 recent, but others might not..."

The Crystal Cave is 1970. Also recent in my book.

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "I've started the Mary Stewart books if anyone wants to join me? Start a thread?
So far I'm enjoying The Crystal Cave: little hints at i..."

I'd love to -- I haven't got room in my reading list just now, but I will by February. If you started a thread now, I'd join it ASAP. (Assuming I can still find my copy of the book... *glances at Mount To Be Read*)

OK.
Could a mod start a folder for Mary Stewart's books and I'll throw the discussion topics in there for all and sundry to join in? Thanks.
Also, what about a folder for themes/characters to discuss different portrayals of everything from the grail to the above mentioned Fisher King?

I certainly have stuff to say about grail stories, if we started a conversation like that!

(Glancing at my January to read queue, I think I might be able to fit the Mary Stewart book in even before February. I'm reading pretty fast lately...)

Nikki wrote: "I'm reading pretty fast lately..."

Aye, same here. Back on track after a pause.
Look forward to grail related ranting.

If anyone is looking for a more unusual grail text, I certainly have a suggestion, too. *grin* I just wrote an essay on The Crown: A Tale of Sir Gawein and King Arthur's Court: it features an almost secular grail story in which Gawain achieves the grail. Very, very interesting, if you're used to the dominant narrative of Perceval and Galahad...

I should look through the stuff I've been reading lately and see what I'd recommend. Lanzelet was more fun than I'd expected, given my aversion to Lancelot -- it's a version where he and Guinevere do not have a love affair, possibly based on a pre-Chrétien source.

You guys might also be interested in all the material available here, The Camelot Project. It has the medieval Gawain ballads, which I've also been working on.

I've only got one medieval text left in my line-up unread, for now: Dutch Romances: I. Roman van Walewein. Expensive to get hold of, though.

James, I have deleted your post. Our group does not support attitudes like that. You are welcome to participate -- and this is not a friendly suggestion but a policy of the group -- only if you can be respectful of others. This is not a one-man show, it is for everyone to discuss, be comfortable within, and enjoy.

If that is not the type of group you are looking for, you may be in the wrong group.

Old Barbarossa, "The Crystal Cave is 1970. Also recent in my book." I like that comment!

I am going into the folders to create those you requested right now.

I agree on that point, too -- I keep thinking of Shakespeare as recent compared to some of the stuff I'm reading! *laughs*

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "On the issue of Arthur with a withered leg: Was it Arthur? Sounds like the Fisher King, but the author could have merged the 2 into one character. Boorman seems to have done in the movie Excalibur...."

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "On the issue of Arthur with a withered leg: Was it Arthur? Sounds like the Fisher King, but the author could have merged the 2 into one character. Boorman seems to have done in the movie Excalibur...."

Since you have been the only one to respond without having a sarcastic comment about how I placed my first post looking for this book and I thank you very much. My posts weren't meant to be offensive just descriptive and I was corrected and chastised by a 21 year old child. So my comment to her response was off hand and I apologize to everyone else. I do enjoy reading I was just stumped on that book. Thank you again Old Barbarosa.

SarahC wrote: "James, I have deleted your post. Our group does not support attitudes like that. You are welcome to participate -- and this is not a friendly suggestion but a policy of the group -- only if you c..."

I don't appreciate you deleting my post, but I refuse to be talked down to by a child when giving the description of a character in a book that I am looking for. I like the book club but I am very opinionated and I will take that even from my own child. Yes, my other comment was off hand and I apologize but I was upset.

At twenty-one, I am hardly a child, and I asked politely for you not to use offensive language. "Gimp" is not simply descriptive, it is a derogatory term for a person with a physical disability.

I was respectful, please consider being the same in response. I was not sarcastic: I simply haven't heard of or read the book you refer to.

I'm a little confused. On the Arthuriana home page it says currently reading "The Cyrstal Cave". Are we reading that as a group right now? Sorry if this sounds silly to ask.

James, you have got to be kidding if you believe your last couple of responses are in any way respectful to any of us. These are clear requests, not sarcasm, for you to show respect to all members of this group-- and I cant believe I am having to say this-- regardless of age of any member.

The definition of "gimp" in Merriam Webster: Gimp (noun)cripple or to walk with a limp. "Gimpy" adjective. It was not used in a derogatory manner but descriptive of the character. Therefore, I was not picking on anyone with a physical disability. Also, if you had not read or heard of the book, then you should not have said anything and I would not have called you a child. But as the old saying goes, "Children should be seen and not heard". I am respectful in my posts and questions and expect the same. Are the games done now?

Alyss, see message #24 and 27 where the idea began. Old-Barbarossa is starting an informal discussion of the Mary Stewart books that members can join in if interested.

We posted a folder to begin this just this morning, so you may not have seen it yet. Let me know if you have more questions.

James wrote: "The definition of "gimp" in Merriam Webster: Gimp (noun)cripple or to walk with a limp. "Gimpy" adjective. It was not used in a derogatory manner but descriptive of the character. Therefore, I w..."

Since you probably do not have access to the online Oxford English Dictionary, this will have to suffice.

"gimp2 (ɡɪmp)

—n
1. offensive, slang (US), (Canadian) a physically disabled person, esp one who is lame"

It has long had offensive connotations. If you were unaware of those, that's fine: different contexts produce different understandings. Now you know.

You are also being offensive by repeatedly calling me a child, a fact I am sure you are aware of. In my view, it is more childish to meet a polite request with hostility than to make such a polite request.

Alyss in Wonderland wrote: "I'm a little confused. On the Arthuriana home page it says currently reading "The Cyrstal Cave". Are we reading that as a group right now? Sorry if this sounds silly to ask."

Never silly to ask...Unless you ask this: What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?
In which case it is gloriously silly and to be applauded.
Anyway, I tend to read things in a fairly unstructured way so I haven't set a timeframe for the reading of the Mary Stewart books. I'll happily discuss with anyone who wants to join me or has already read them though.

SarahC wrote: "James, I have deleted your post. Our group does not support attitudes like that. You are welcome to participate -- and this is not a friendly suggestion but a policy of the group -- only if you c..."

You deleted my post too, and after re-writing it to tone it down...sob, sob...
I am suitably chastised. I will play nice now.
Ahhh, for the days things could be settled by a brief joust at the ford and a horn of mead.

No Old-Barbarossa, please don't think that. I should have explained personally -- I deleted the first round of the posts involving the comment about the inappropriate word, hoping there would be no more mention of it, but that meant deleting the other comments relating to it.

I didn't believe anything in your response a problem at all, I was just trying to start clean. So I am sorry that you felt you were being called out too -- nothing of the sort -- I apologize. I appreciate you giving the time to try to help with the dispute, I truly do. Thanks for that and I certainly don't delete comments unless they go overboard -- yours did not at all -- it was just by association really. You probably realize I have never deleted a comment at all until yesterday on this site.

Please continue on with your endeavors.

SarahC wrote: "No Old-Barbarossa, please don't think that. I should have explained personally -- I deleted the first round of the posts involving the comment about the inappropriate word, hoping there would be n..."

I'm only messing, I didn't really cry.

Back to the thread subject:
Having gone from medieval texts to more recent versions (of basically the same story in some cases) I am struck again and again by the the whole Joseph Campbellness of it all.
Even within the one era there are themes lifted and re-worked occuring constantly.
I know it's obvious but I had a "scales falling from my eyes" moment there.
Will be looking at The Seven Basic Plots: Why We Tell Stories next.

Old-Barbarossa wrote: "SarahC wrote: "No Old-Barbarossa, please don't think that. I should have explained personally -- I deleted the first round of the posts involving the comment about the inappropriate word, hoping t..."

Well, the whole situation really punctured me. Glad you are ok about it, still it was wrong of me not to say something to you.

SarahC wrote: "Old-Barbarossa wrote: "SarahC wrote: "No Old-Barbarossa, please don't think that. I should have explained personally -- I deleted the first round of the posts involving the comment about the inapp..."

Nae bother.

Thanks for the link. We really become a part of this continuation concept in becoming fans of Arthurian literature, but it does seem like there are reworkings of so many modern classic stories too, like those from the 19th century - Dracula, the Bronte stories, Jane Austen etc. So maybe it is that we want to keep a story with us and relive it in different ways -- do our imaginations need that? or our roots or something? And of course that was what early oral stories did entirely -- they didn't end, but reinvented and reinvented. Are we simply still doing that tradition? I would certainly like to look at that Seven Basic book.

Yes, I meant to say Joseph Campbell too sorry. I have never read all of his popular books, but part. I should.

I know we briefly touched on the Fisher King above but, relating to the continuity of myth I mention, I remember reading something a while back about lame Kings I must break out the books when I get home. I know that Oedipus was lame (I think his name actually means "swollen foot/feet").

Let us know what you find.