View Single Post
Old May 8th 2018, 11:00 PM
Abishai100 Abishai100 is offline
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 186
Lightbulb Stories: Dilution vs. Diction

Originally Posted by Michael View Post
I find the old 'folk history' on this issue far more interesting than the commercial product that was constructed on top of it (and the commerical products that have been constructed on top of that). Commerical products are boring - they exist only to make money. If they fail to make money, they disappear. Non-commerical things are inherently more interesting because they survive without big profits to drive them.
I agree. This is a real concern in this modern age of 'interpretive history' which has almost become a 'formal subject' in our environment of dialogue-driven culture-analysis. Is this a contribution by liberals? Many think so.

I wonder however if this actually adds to intrigue and intellectualism or if it merely, as you and I have both intimated, simply adds 'color and longevity.'

In Boorman's film Excalibur, for example, we see Mordred in an iconic shiny gold armor and Lancelot in a shiny bright-silver armor, almost as if the two Arthurian folkloric-characters are somehow foils.

Is this kosher or a kind of apologetics? I agree that Lancelot adds 'romance' to the Camelot-lore, but since Mordred is attributed by many historians as adding 'political intrigue' to Camelot-lore, should revisionist-historians cast these two knights as foils?

One thing is for certain --- Lancelot is portrayed as unusual and controversial and also a very skilled swordsman, while Mordred is portrayed as incendiary and combative and also a shrewd 'revolutionary' (or upstart).

Which knight therefore 'threatens' Arthurian-historianship 'objectivity' more (in terms of romanticized Christianity)?

Many history-fans (including myself!) enjoy pairing Lancelot and Mordred as battlefield-counterparts. Check out this fan-fic (for example!) I wrote on Comic-Vine about these two knights engaging with each other:

Mordred versus Lancelot

Also, what if this Lancelot-Mordred pairing complements our historical evaluation of the general 'violence' of Camelot (not necessarily explored) by all historians? Camelot and Arthur are in many cases cast as 'magical' or even 'heavenly' but when you add the stories of Lancelot's adultery and unusual swordsmanship or Mordred's challenge to Arthur and his warlord-oriented 'stance,' Arthur's reign can be cast as rather 'multi-dimensional'...

But since all of that might not actually be true, is that good or bad? I mean, do historians feel an obligation to be storytellers in some sense?

What do you think? Is this all cinema or can some of it be cast as...appealing to youngers/children? Many educators might find such appeal beneficial to 'marketing.'

Thanks for your responses, Michael. I've continued to find them very challenging!

I'm retiring from Internet-blogging very soon now, so I wanted to wish you continued stimulation and good luck!


Reply With Quote