Vacation

[elaby]

MAN, I love vacation. I did NO HOMEWORK this weekend. Which means that I have to buckle down today and tomorrow, but still... a whole weekend with caitirin with no homework hanging over my head. It was glorious. We even got, like, dishes and laundry done o.o

[edit for brief interlude in which elaby ascertains that her answering machine isn't coming on, doctors call asking for bloodwork, various scheduling has to be done around vacations/classes, caitirin is summarily called and telephones and answering machines are unplugged, now to resume working correctly]

That was weird O.o

Anyway, I should get back to reading Malory. I took a break to try to find some drawings I'd been looking for, one for Caitirin and one from this book hak42 lent me last year in which King Arthur awoke in the present day and Merlin was 11 years old. I also found my notebooks from my first year of college, which I'd been looking for - it turns out I pulled all the pages out and stuck them into a binder, and had forgotten I did that. Heh.

Back to Malory ^^;;

Comments

[sir-dave.livejournal.com]

miss_next advises that you're reading Malory. Since I have managed to be appalled by his depiction of women, you have my condolences ;)

- Tristram is a magnificent demonstration of 'how not to write'.
- The section regarding Rome is mostly aimed at self-gratification.
- The parts on opposition to Arthur becoming King are fanciful beyond words in their numerical descriptions of the size of the various forces.
- No matter where you go, you will find a forest.
- Hermits are practically in need of a cull.
- Mass is just the thing after a hard days slaughter!
- Lancelot could urgently do with some counselling.
- Palomides could do with it even more.
- Gawain and his brothers are certifiable (aside from Beaumains).
- Lamorak has a problem with older women; one wonders why.
- The location of Pellinore's kingdom is clearly open to conjecture.
- The Questing Beast had better be rounded up quick before Malory has to work out what it is.

But above all, Malory is drowning in unprecedented quantities of French literature, including the progenitors of the Brown heresy (which is nothing more than the French dreaming about being personally related to Jesus, in attempt to justify being able to look down their noses at everyone else, being without any grounds in anything other than wishful thinking). Stretched beyond his capabilities, he resorts to putting down snippets as and when he can; lacking a word processor, he fails to revise the text into a form that makes any sense; and he has evidently written the lot on post it notes in an attempt to solve that problem, only to find that sorting them is worse than not being able to do so, that draughts are the ultimate enemy, and that unaccountably some sections of the plot have been attached to someone else's desk while he was busy, um, doing what knights do when they're in jail for rape (allegedly).

That's Malory. It appears he invented Gawain and his family, has commissions for product placement from vendors of gold leaf and unusual swords, whilst serving as commentator to Camelot TV at the major jousts.

I'm near the end of the quest of the grail, which he is making made as tedious as possible. Why do I bother? I want an early version that I can still just about recognise as English to enable background research before writing more Arthurian poetry. This is almost as tedious as researching Tolkien's 5 volumes by ploughing through the 12 volumes that his son Chris takes to explain their origins.


Meanwhile ---

Bubbles the fish fitness video! (http://www.NEXTARILLION.COM/personal/Bubbles.wmv)

Six fins and a tail,
through the water you sail;
and it's backwards you go
where the air bubbles flow!
You swim whizzing around
with the air of a clown -
and my daughter's one wish
was for Bubbles the fish.

Bubbles is now an albino. He was doing fine as a genuinely gold goldfish until I went to America and left him with miss_next for a fortnight, and something seems to have scared the colour out of him. He didn't get to see her three cats, so may be it was just being in a different room?

Now I am bothered about his tail. In the course of dangling it in the stream of bubbles from the filter, it appears to be getting horizontal tears in it. Now he is clearly enjoying this, but does he realise that he is harming himself in the process? I don't think so. I am concerned that he will one day soon find himself without a functioning tail, and I just don't know what to do. [Bad username or site: @ livejournal.com] advised you might have some idea, and then advised me of the Malory. Which is a long way round of introducing myself ---

[elaby.livejournal.com]

Wow, this was incredibly helpful ^_^ I'm glad that it's not just my lack of understanding making Malory confusing. I've only gotten about 120 pages into the abridged by Helen Cooper from the Winchester Manuscript version, but so far I agree with you completely. And laughing fit to fall off my chair is always good when reading medieval romances ^_^

As for your fish, I'm afraid I'm not sure what's wrong with him. The white coloring might be some kind of fungus, but unless you can actually see any white fuzz, perhaps it was just the shock of being somewhere else for a while. Room temperature differences, maybe? And I've had fish before that had their tails torn (I'm not sure if by the bubbling filter) but they seemed to be all right... however, the best idea is probably to ask the people at a pet store. They're sure to know lots :) Nice to meet you!

[sir-dave.livejournal.com]

Malory makes my head spin; it is only sheer determination that gets me through. I force myself to take notes, which concentrates the mind and gives one an objective. I've regretfully concluded that even my notes are unlikely to be readable, as I have formed the view that Malory's text is fractal; the short scale chaos is just the same as the large scale chaos, and thus trying to discern patterns in it on a larger scale will only result in the same conclusions as nibbling at it.

It may be the case that in his time that was how one was expected to write a novel. However when one considers the narrative structure of the much more ancient New Testament, no such problems are present in a modern translation of the Greek; from which one can infer that if that was how people wrote in the 15th century, that it was not because no one had ever done better previously. From that I infer that Malory basically was just not at all good stylistically. If anything he gives me the impression of just writing it down as he translated the French, and then finding neither time nor reason to go back and consider what damage he has done to the story by failing to revise his work. Against that, I find Chaucer indecipherable for quite different reasons.

That being so, why read Malory in his day? The major reasons seem to be

1) That a good deal of his material was translated from original French.
2) That he also expanded on the material he had in places, and thus had original content.
3) That he was kind enough to leave out large swathes of detail that made individual Arthurian stories too long to be incorporated into a complete narrative of the whole set of legends; which is slightly at odds with the above.

There is a case in presenting a unified whole for both compression and expansion of previous works; my judgment is that Malory handles the expansion a lot better than the compression. In compression he simply fails to inform the reader what he is talking about in an adequate manner; he makes what we would think of as schoolboy errors. His compression is basically leaving things out without reviewing to see that the whole still makes sense. His expansion makes much more sense; to identify expanded parts, consider anything to do with Gawain and the Orkney faction, and his odious book (five) on the war with Rome, which I infer as a man was written with his left hand by reason of necessity ;) and which Caxton ruthlessly compressed. If Malory invented post-it notes, I think he has a claim to have invented Kleenex as well.

The version I've borrowed from miss_next is edited by Janet Cowen, and runs to over 1000 pages over two volumes. Ms Cowen has my sympathy; even the redoubtable miss_next has never finished this, even though she reads at least three times faster than I, and translates from any amount of languages. I think her failure was in not being sufficiently familiar with gibberish.

But Malory is a useful source nonetheless, half acknowledged I think by T H White, from whom I have a dim memory of the idea of keeping score during tournaments; those with personality disorders might spend considerable time constructing a ranking system for the various jousts and their results.

It may well be that Malory's inability to make it clear who or what he is talking about most of the time is just his own inability to do any better; or, more charitably, that he was overcome by the scale of the task or the lack of practical means to do better whilst huddled up in prison wishing women didn't tell when you raped them (this does seem to be the most persistent account of his little known identity, though alternatives are also offered).

The best reason for reading Malory seems to be to form a judgment on where later authors got their ideas, or to avoid reading things that are even more indecipherable and less commonly translated from murkier and less well understood dead and fragmentarily preserved languages than 15th century English. Malory is a sort of a crossroads between the impractical to research, which precedes him, and the endless variety of derivatives that follow him. He is thus the least worst option for getting to grips with an appreciation of how the legends have developed.

[elaby.livejournal.com]

I read T. H. White's Once and Future King last summer, or sometime around then, and drawing comparisons between the two is really all that's allowing me to keep track of what's going on. I'm reading this for my Medieval Epic and Romance class, and I must say that I like the epics a great deal better. Your explanations are really helpful, though; I don't think I would have any idea what to do with this otherwise, since our readings are for next week and we haven't discussed any of this in class yet.

[sir-dave.livejournal.com]

I entirely relate to your comments about referring back to T H White, who appears to have had much the same view of Malory as you and I. That being so, is rather remarkable, because it ought to be the other way round. But a good modern Arthur gives us more reason to fight to understand Malory, than Malory has given anyone for a century. He has to be given credit; he's been in print for over 500 years, and I'd love the same results, even if I'd hate to reproduce his so-called style.

What Malory does is make us wish we knew the people he writes of - not by design, but mostly by telling us practically nothing about their inner motivations and struggles. Thus he creates a whole industry of fan-fiction, but since he is out of copyright, we can get to call it our own idea ;)

I am glad this is being helpful; now that it is clear this is in an academic setting, the thought of having to read Malory to a timetable fills me with dread. I am no longer sure when it was that I started reading him, but I make myself do some on almost every Sunday, with occasional reads in the week as and when I can stand the effort.

I think of Malory as a middle aged, out of touch, boorish, knightly villain, with a desire to see himself as part of an ongoing tradition of knighthood going back a thousand years. In this he attempts to put some virtue into chivalry, when as it was constituted in his age, it probably had very little of what we would call virtue at all; it had a code, and a very strange one. Above all it probably made knights feel better about themselves, and others better about fantasizing about the life of a knight.

miss_next has a colleague who we think would be interested in becoming Malory's 'leman' given half a chance. She may recount the story herself.

I have written an epic poem in the tradition of 'Sir Gawain and the Green Knight', but in much more accessible English, which was inspired by my love for fairy_empyreal, and is thus about Arthurian Fairies (or Fay), and naturally stars one called Empyreal :) The Tolkien translation of 'Gawain' is a dire calumny that I may have to force myself to read after Malory. The film dates to the seventies I think, and I enjoyed it; I cannot find a copy anywhere, but as I intend following up with my own version of that story, that is a real regret. There comes a point where one gets a clear enough idea in one's head that further research represses one's own ideas rather than clarifies them; I'd far rather watch the film than read the poem, whose style (as translated by Tolkien and E V Gordon) is no better than that of Malory in many regards.

[elaby.livejournal.com]

It's very helpful to think of Malory in that way, the way you've described - as the source for so many other enjoyable versions and extensions of the story. I'm going to be reading Sir Gawain and the Green Knight for the same class later in the year, but the translation we've got is by Brian Stone.

[sir-dave.livejournal.com]

The best argument for reading Malory and treating him as a source, is probably the difficulty of doing so with anyone from an earlier time - unless one understands medieval French, or can put up with Geoffrey of Monmouth; I might yet steel myself to do the latter.

Do let me know what you think of the Stone translation; that would be interesting to me. I have found out some stuff by Googling 'Gawain Green Knight Brian Stone', but they are not kind enough to include text. Mind you the Amazon link might have a sample --- :: goes to look ::

My own 'Gawain' would begin with Pellinore as a Prince, and involve Orkney legend. The more I read the details of other approaches to the Green Knight / Green Man, the more it drives me to want to get my own written. I am seething with possibilities.

[sir-dave.livejournal.com]

Since your readings are for next week, there is still time to advise you of the best of Malory. I have now completed book 18, and I am in sight of the finish. Either by this time Malory had, through practice, become a better writer, or he had some change in his life, such as love, which transformed his abilities.

Book 18 contains everything that Malory does well, and has less of his failings than any other part to date. At the end (chapter 25), he writes as well as anyone on love. If you need by next week to find the heart of Malory, skip the rest and read book 18.

Suddenly I see the might-have-been of Malory; and no matter what you do in literature, if you can finish well, your readers remember you with greater affection than if you start well and then disappoint.

[elaby.livejournal.com]

Luckily for me, the part that's due next week is just the first 120 pages or so of the version I've got, so I was able to read all of it. We've got a bunch more assigned; hopefully, chapter 18 will be among them! Thanks for giving me something to look forward to ^_^

Nowadays everybody wanna talk like Sir Thomas Malory

[sir-dave.livejournal.com]

(From my journal)

After a time so long that I cannot remember how long it is, I have finally completed the 1000 plus pages of Malory's "Morte d'Arthur", which has in the most part been a very great struggle. But towards the end, Malory shows what might have been, by writing something that is akin to being recognisable as a book, and almost recognisable as prose. After 1000 pages, I suspect he had to have some chance of getting it right ---.

The purpose, for me, was to research the subject of Arthur deeply enough that I could comprehend how to expand 'Empyreal' into a complete Arthurian cycle. I believe I now know what I need to know; and I hope that the first to tell will be a publisher. My conception of things Arthurian is now so revolutionary that I won't be sharing the shock with anyone except my formidable editor and critic :)


Just a buncha gibberish
Sir Thomas Malory, Morte d'Arthur, from book 18 chapter 25: 'How love is likened to summer'.

For like as winter rasure doth always erase and deface green summer, so fareth it by unstable love in man and woman. For in many persons there is no stability; for we may see all day, for a little blast of winter’s rasure, anon we shall deface and lay apart true love for little or nought, that cost much thing; this is no wisdom nor stability, but it is feebleness of nature and great disworship, whomsoever useth this.

Therefore, like as May month flowereth and flourisheth in many gardens, so in likewise let every man of worship flourish his heart in this world, first unto God, and next unto the joy of them that he promised his faith unto; for there was never worshipful man nor worshipful woman, but they loved one better than another; and worship in arms may never be foiled, but first reserve the honour to God, and secondly the quarrel must come of thy lady: and such love I call virtuous love.

But nowadays men cannot love seven night but they must have all their desires: that love may not endure by reason; for where they be soon accorded and hasty, heat soon it cooleth. Right so fareth love nowadays, soon hot soon cold: this is no stability. But the old love was not so; men and women could love together seven years, and no licours lusts were between them, and then was love, truth, and faithfulness: and lo, in likewise was used love in King Arthur’s days.

Wherefore I liken love nowadays unto summer and winter; for like as the one is hot and the other cold, so fareth love nowadays; therefore all ye that be lovers call unto your remembrance the month of May, like as did Queen Guenever, for whom I make here a little mention, that while she lived she was a true lover, and therefore she had a good end.



I feel as though Malory takes 1000 pages to gain the confidence to become a writer himself, and not merely a collator or translator. Either that, or late in life, he suddenly knew real love for the first time. Who knows? Due to Caxton, that may be because of the first generation of fangirls!! :)

[sir-dave.livejournal.com]

The very little definite history we have records Arthur as a Briton who battled the Saxons twelve times, victorious on each occasion, finally at Mount Badon, where he is recorded as having borne the cross of Christ. What that means in physical terms is open to debate; the most practical method would be as a heraldic device on shields or banners - it seems the meaning is that he bore it personally, so a shield seems the most likely meaning. However others suggest that it may have been a relic; a fragment from the 'true cross'. In which case, the number of people who would have known about it would be considerably reduced, and the reporting much less likely. The idea of him marching around the battlefield carrying a literal cross behind him is somewhat difficult to envision - but not impossible for a zealot fighting a war of national survival centered on an overtly religious conflict of identity.

After Badon, the Saxons ceased raiding for thirty years; either Arthur must have so badly depleted their manpower that they were unable to mount raids; or he so seriously discouraged them that they felt that it was inappropriate to try again; or both. There is some reason to suppose that Arthur was the only leader anywhere in Europe to halt the advance of the Saxons and their related groupings; and that they were so discouraged by his victory at Badon that they retreated, in part, to the continent, seeking easier conquests. To bring that about, the battle has to have changed minds. I suspect that at Badon the Saxons threw everything they had at Arthur, and that his bearing of the cross made it easier for the Saxons to see this as a victory (in war) of his religion over theirs; thus encouraging them the more to desist.

Either Malory saw the exploits of Arthur through the lens of his own culture, a thousand years after the event; or he deliberately wrote it to suit his audience. I strongly suspect that he didn't know the difference. An example of this is the reference to plate armour and fighting styles that did not exist in 5th or 6th century Britain. Now one might wonder if Malory had a definite date in mind, but in the Grail stories, Malory writes details that indicate specific timescales making the date of the narrative as being no later than the 6th century by my rough calculation, and Malory therefore must have known that he was referring to the 5th or 6th century. This being so, the Dark Ages are dark to us, and quite possibly even darker to Malory, because though the details would be fresher, they might well be less readily available than today, whereas the fables and songs of his age and the intervening period were much more readily available to him; straight history was probably not popular at the time. And thus we have knights jousting when there were almost certainly no stirrups in Britain; plate armour when there was only chain mail; and the whole concept of chivalry probably dates from long after the 6th century.

[sir-dave.livejournal.com]

Another fascinating aspect, having just finished the Grail story, is to look at what is considered 'religious experience' in the 15th century. It appears to have some relationship to the kind of tripe that must have been popular with the Knights Templar. This being so, what sort of belief was common in Arthur's time? It seems that the spread of Christianity to the Britons was not marked by the type of religious organisation later seen in the remains of the Roman Empire; rather by self governing (probably Irish) religious orders that had a belief of a flavour that was specifically Celtic rather than Roman; more in common with that of St Patrick than that of the Catholics who later took over the Irish population whose Christian faith was not originally Catholic in nature.

Since in 1517 seven people were burned by the Catholic church for speaking the Lord's prayer in English as opposed to Latin, it must be presumed that the common person's knowledge of the Bible was limited by what the church of the day chose to pass on, unless they could read Latin where it was to be found; one should also remember that Luther and probably most other priests were actively discouraged from reading the bible, and that the Vulgate translation is basically not very good at all.

This being so the idea of questing for a relic probably made sense in an era where such (alleged) things were readily on sale. It is, on the other hand, considerably less likely that it made sense to anyone in the 5th or 6th century IMHO.

The gold leaf concession, the relevance of relics, the innumerable voices from the sky, and the visitations from the dead, might remain within what suited the continuance of the religious protection racket of the age, but have nothing to do with what is perceived as religious experience either by those who wrote the bible, or by those who are serious about it today; they are practically anathema to them both. This is the result of wrapping the bible up and making it inaccessible to the public by keeping it from being available in the common language of the day, and by making religion accessible only through the priesthood, whose power was dependent on ritual. I am convinced that the entire Grail saga is without historical basis, and is a French derived saga which was seen as a fitting extension to the legendary figure of Arthur. Its chief actors are particular knights associated with the family of Lancelot, in whom French legends are mostly interested rather than Arthur, and contains the myth of descent from Christ through the proto-French aristocracy. Had anyone advanced that theory in the time of Arthur, I think they would have been very badly received; it is the kind of myth that is raised about kings by their sycophants to support their exaltation; just as the Norse chieftains claimed descent from Odin, which is scarcely credible, it would be fashionable at a certain point in European history to exalt a king by spurious claims about ancestry from Christ; and this has nothing to do with hushing up the 'truth'; this has to do with leaving the public deprived of the Bible, by insisting on it being confined to Latin. The bible does not support claims of Jesus having human descendants at all. It is the vacuum of biblical information that allows the growth of legend in the manner of the preceding pagan kingdoms; it is the old story of sycophancy to kings, dressed in new clothes.

As for the prevailing attitudes to sexual mores in the 6th as opposed to the 15th century, let's just say that everything I know annoys me, and further information is unlikely to improve my opinion! That we are living in another world is apparent from the moment that Malory is concerned to establish the comparative nobility of the breasts Arthur was supposed to suck at. Unknown baby given to family; woman gives own baby to other woman to suckle, and suckles adopted child instead; I think this would indicate the early death of Ector, and possibly also Merlin, had it even been suggested! :) Mrs Ector is either completely repressed by her husband, or is the victim of the assumptions of her own culture. Whether this was considered odd in Malory's time, or odd in the Dark Ages, I don't know. It is very strange to the modern eye.