I haven't actually studied the Middle Ages and I know next to nothing of medieval literature (- I know the stories, but not the theory), so I really couldn't say what Malory is supposedly doing form a cultural point of view. I only know that on the brink of the Renaissance he is harking back to the Middle Ages, and that he uses French sources while ignoring the English ones. As a consequence, Gawain is depicted as a false knight (though not consistently) and Arthur doesn't come off all that well either (see his Herod-like episode with the babies). Those Malory does favour (i.e. they are the strongest and best everyone else) are clearly those who pledge themselves to one lady - Tristan, Gareth, Yvain/Owain and of course Lancelot. Mind you, Galahad is better still, because he is entirely pure. Gawain, being a ladies' man, is little short from villainous.
Of course Lancelot is the great example. To quote Shakespeare's Othello, he loves 'not wisely, but too well', which makes him really tragic. Like Mary says, Lancelot's affair with his King's wife is duly considered sinful (it is the reason why he cannot achieve the Grail), but at the same time his absolute devotion to the Queen and his brave deeds in her service make him the pinnacle of the knightly ideal.
I am quite, quite aware of the difference in culture between Malory and myself, and I have no intention whatsoever to be somehow faithful to his vision or to attempt to adopt it. Like my other sources, I read his writings with modern eyes. I'm not complaining about Malory; he is what he is and he likes what he likes. It just strikes me that he makes the 'noble' Lancelot a man who blindly kills squires and unarmed knights, whereas the 'false' knight is a bereft father. Malory's Gawain does other things and makes other judgements that in my opinion show him as being more sensitive (he balks at cruelty against animals, of all things) and more human than Lancelot, who, again in my opinion, has the emotional range of a teaspoon, to quote a bushy-haired Gryffindor. I suppose that the fact that for Lancelot, there is Nothing In The World But Guinevere makes him a very special knight, but it certainly doesn't help me to sympathise with him, or to understand him. He comes out on top, to be sure, but whether that's a good thing is another question. Kaamelott plays with that theme, actually: Lancelot is the only competent knight of the lot, but his singleminded valour turns him into an intolerant extremist. He's not a lovable character at all.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
winterfish
no subject
Date: Tuesday, 29 May 2012 05:41 pm (UTC)Of course Lancelot is the great example. To quote Shakespeare's Othello, he loves 'not wisely, but too well', which makes him really tragic. Like Mary says, Lancelot's affair with his King's wife is duly considered sinful (it is the reason why he cannot achieve the Grail), but at the same time his absolute devotion to the Queen and his brave deeds in her service make him the pinnacle of the knightly ideal.
I am quite, quite aware of the difference in culture between Malory and myself, and I have no intention whatsoever to be somehow faithful to his vision or to attempt to adopt it. Like my other sources, I read his writings with modern eyes. I'm not complaining about Malory; he is what he is and he likes what he likes. It just strikes me that he makes the 'noble' Lancelot a man who blindly kills squires and unarmed knights, whereas the 'false' knight is a bereft father. Malory's Gawain does other things and makes other judgements that in my opinion show him as being more sensitive (he balks at cruelty against animals, of all things) and more human than Lancelot, who, again in my opinion, has the emotional range of a teaspoon, to quote a bushy-haired Gryffindor. I suppose that the fact that for Lancelot, there is Nothing In The World But Guinevere makes him a very special knight, but it certainly doesn't help me to sympathise with him, or to understand him. He comes out on top, to be sure, but whether that's a good thing is another question. Kaamelott plays with that theme, actually: Lancelot is the only competent knight of the lot, but his singleminded valour turns him into an intolerant extremist. He's not a lovable character at all.