The Waswo article is now linked through our course reserve site at the library. We will not get to this in class until Friday.
Our readings for this week will likely spill over to next week. For Wednesday, try to get through the “Arthur and Lucius” section. You will note, by the way, that the language and tone of this section is quite different from what we have been reading. On Wednesday we will discuss some reasons for this and the effects on the reader (i. e. you).
Consider this post your open thread for discussion topics this week.
Happy MLK Day!
January 16, 2007 at 4:23 pm
I found Sir Gawain’s behavior in “The Wedding of King Arthur” to be very condratictory to the chilvaric code of knights. Gawain shows no mercy for a knight slaying his hounds even though the knight begged for mercy. The situation becomes worse because not only does Gawain not exhibit mercy, but his lack of mercy results in the death of an innocent maiden. This seems to follow with our earlier class discussions that the morale high ground seems to be hard to find in the book. As a knight, shouldn’t Gawain have known to give mercy?
January 17, 2007 at 12:08 am
I can’t believe we finally got a physical description of somebody (besides Merlin and the dwarf) that went further than “passing fair.” Arthur has grey eyes and he looks fierce when he’s mad (82).
For a “narrative” so concerned with (a certain sort of) physicality, there’s remarkably little physical description of anything except blood, brains, and shields until we get to the Lucius segment. I didn’t realize until I started thinking about that how hard it’s been to form a mental picture of any of these people that isn’t dependent on *another* text or, unfortunately, a film or two.
January 17, 2007 at 11:38 am
In this section King Arthur seems to be showing the traits of a good knight. He grants Accolon mercy(68). He is able to demostrate his power when he passes judgment on Sir Damas, a knight who gives us a picture of an “orgulous” and villianous knight(69). Damas is a contrast to what a good, chivarlic, knight should be. Arthur even requests the advice of his Knights before deciding to conquer Rome. This behavior contrasts with his questionable moral behavior we saw in the beginning. At the same time King Arthur is proving his worthiness, Sir Gawain is proving his lack of worthiness to be a Knight. The willingness to grant Mercy to those who ask it appears to be vital. Trust and loyalty are very important in a knight; which places betrayal high on the list of things not to do. It seems to me that to grant mercy for a betrayal would be a true test of a knight’s goodness; and also allows for more conflict later in the narrative.
January 17, 2007 at 4:58 pm
I am so going to be labeled a witch for this. Anyway, I did further research on necromancy (see my original comment on the first Malory discussion)
Anyway, I found out that in the middle ages, a lot of practionars of necromancy were actually members of the clergy. Since some of the names conjured were Bibilcal, the spells were actually mistaken as prayers.
It was only accessable to the scholarly, due to the language used and the accesibility of it.
The combination of these two ‘facts’ make it easier for me to reconsile the fact Morgan le Fay learned necromancy in a nunnery.
Oh, and please forgive the attrocious spelling in this post.
January 19, 2007 at 12:45 am
I finished reading the section on Lancelot today and I have to say its the first section that made me happy. Lancelot seems to completely embody a chivalric knight and the adventures involved in it. The whole section seems to be very cyclic too – its just one adventure right after another. Lancelot gets no rest! I really liked Lancelot’s character though because he seemed to prove himself very honorable in everything he did. All of his acts were noble and he never went back on his word. But I wonder, is Lancelot supposed to be portrayed as a greater knight than King Arthur? It kinda comes across that way to me. I mean all of his adventures are more chivalric and all that jazz. He just seems to do greater things than Arthur. One thing that I found a little disturbing was on page 115 when the lady that loved Lancelot wanted to kill him so she could have his dead body and kiss him whenever she wanted! Gross! I guess she really loved him! And by the way…I tried and tried to access Waswo on reserve and the website would never work! I don’t know what else to do. I’m going to give it another try in the morning I guess and cross my fingers. Sorry!
January 19, 2007 at 10:53 am
A good topic for discussion is the sudden heroism of King Arthur in the chapter of Arthur and Lucius. The king travels all over to save other countries but leaves his England to “rule as themselves deemed best.”(page 86) Although he is making an attempt to save the world he is only setting up himself and England for a fall.
January 22, 2007 at 10:56 am
I finished reading the section on Sir Gareth last night. And, the most interesting aspect of this text, for me, thus far, has been the different types of irony present. First off, there was a sort of cosmic irony. We were left questioning the purpose or futility of Arthur’s actions, since Merlin so aptly predicts the future. This future seems to be unavoidable. Are the actions of all characters meaningless in regards to a predestined fate? Also, while reading the section on Sir Gareth I took note of the presence of romantic irony, which has been present for some time in the text; I just overlooked it. But, what was Malore’s objective in utilizing this literary technique? Why did he want us, the readers, to remain somewhat detached? Or, did he?