#arthur: and how many knights have you killed gawain?

[adhd-merlin]

56% of the knights who left for the grail quest were killed by gawain alone. fucking hell gawain

[queer-ragnelle]

can you tell us more about gingalain? he seems intriguing but i don't know much about him

I sure can! Here are the texts that center his story.

Le Bel Inconnu (French)

Gilglois (French)

Wigalois: Knight of Fortune’s Wheel by Wirnt von Grafenberg (German)

Carduino (Italian)

Sir Libeaus Desconus (Middle English)

Vidvilt (Yiddish)

His name differs depending on the text (as shown with the titles) but in Le Bel Iconnu [The Fair Unknown] his baptismal name is revealed to be Guinglain; varied spellings of that name appear in other texts so, I'll adjust my spelling accordingly.

Anyway the gist of his origin [most of the time] is that Gawain meets and falls in love with a mysterious woman but has to leave her to return to his duties at King Arthur’s court, only to discover he can no longer return to his lady/wife who lives in an impenetrable Otherworldy bubble. Years go by and their child grows up. The child eventually leaves home in search of his father. He ends up at King Arthur’s court but remains anonymous, so Arthur dubs him “The Fair Unknown,” for he’s handsome and skilled at arms. He goes on adventures with ladies, fighting giants and dragons, eventually revealing to Gawain that he's his son by the fairy/Otherworld lady.

"Guinglain’s" coat of arms in French Le Bel Iconnu is a lion...

In German Wigalois it’s a golden wheel of fortune...

In Middle English Sir Libeaus Desconus it's a griffin...

But when you google the character by name, Guingalain or Gingalain, it's this shield which pops up:

Now it's a pretty badass shield, but where does it come from? It doesn't appear in The Manuscripts and Patronage of Jacques d’Armagnac, where Gawain and his brothers first got their coats of arms. Evidentially this image comes from Le Blason des Armoiries by Jérôme de Bara, published in 1604, from which many knights received their coats of arms including Sagramore, Kay, and Bedivere.

Gawain's son appears in the supporting cast of many other texts. He's called "Gyngolyn" at the end of The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle.

And "Gangalayne" shows up again in Le Morte d’Arthur alongside his father, Gawayne, half brothers, Florence and Louel, and uncles, Agrauayne, Gaherys, Mordred, and Gareth.

Sometimes he keeps the title "The Fair Unknown" even after his relation to Gawain is known, as in the 2nd Perceval Continuation.

Some texts develop him into a fully fledged character beyond his origins, such as in the Prose Tristan, where "Giglain" fights Tristan and then reports back to a grieving Isolde that Tristan still lives.

And in the Post-Vulgate, "Guinglain" guards a bridge and challenges any who try to pass, including Galahad, Arthur the Less, and Palamedes.

He also appears in some retellings.

The best example is Gillian Bradshaw's trilogy. He's called "Gwyn" and his parents are Gwalchmai and Elidan. Their romance covers book 1, Hawk of May, then Gwyn is discovered in book 2, Kingdom of Summer, and his paternity revealed to Gwalchmai on Elidan's deathbed in book 3, In Winter's Shadow. These books are fine, but so slow, and started the trend of replacing Lancelot with Bedwyr to keep it more "historical/Welsh," meanwhile Agravain is still a character and Medraut is a bastard of incest and all the Orkney bros are actually Irish. So what was the point of that? I'd rather Lancelot had been there, particularly because Gwyn's death occurs when Bedwyr comes to rescue Gwenhwyfar from her fate and Bedwyr kills him, unarmed, to get her. So it follows the French storyline anyway. I do adore how much everyone loves Gwyn. Afterwards, Cei is acting as lawyer to work out Bedwyr's story against Medraut's, and they have this exchange:

Gwyn was everybody's baby boy. Then Cei describes the extent of Gwalchmai's grief, including having the horse he gifted Gwyn slain and burning all his belongings.

Cei likens it to the grief felt at Agravain's passing. So this is good food for Gawain and family enjoyers, but as I said, not a huge fan of Bedwyr/Lancelot hybrid as Gwyn's murderer.

In Persia Woolley's third book, Guinevere The Legend in Autumn, introduces the character. But she's so unpleasant about her characters of color...

Yeahhhhh. Long story short, Ragnelle is a fey nomad that lives among the animals she herds. She was unable to be made "civilized" and left court, evidentially sending her son "Gingalin" to be fostered by Bertilack, then given to Gawain after his Green Knight quest. There's so much unnecessary emphasis on their skin-tone coupled with the way their culture's framed it's just. Ick. I hate it.

In Howard Pyle's fourth book The Story of the Grail and the Passing of Arthur, "Gingaline" is mentioned in the line up of knights who join Agravaine and Mordred in the ambush of Launcelot and Guinevere. Ironically, he isn't mentioned as Gawaine's son, but his half brothers, Florence and Lovel, are.

Since Ragnelle and Gromer Somer Joure are both present in Pyle's series, I'm going to assume "Gingaline" is Gawaine's son. I know it, in my heart.

Lastly, in The Green Knight (2021) movie, Gawain has an unnamed son who dies in battle. He's Guinglain. To me. If I squint.

So what do I recommend reading? Of the Medieval stuff, the French story Le Bel Iconnu is the origin, so it's a great place to start. The English Sir Libeaus Desconus is short and sweet, with a really great scene of his kinsmen, Gawain, Agravaine, and Ywain, plus friends Lancelot and Perceval, arming him. Yiddish Vidvilt is also fun, it resembles the German Wigalois the most, which is my favorite.

And that's everything I got. As you can see there's a lot of Gawain's son in Medieval stories and not very many in modern ones. I love him! Let's includes him in more stories, shall we? :^)

[saintsonnet]

please expand on the lancelot x gawain i keep seeing on your blog 🙏

okay sorry i took so long i decided to shower after you sent me this because i knew that if i started then i would never end up showering today. and then it was an unfinished routine so i had to lotion and brush my teeth and floss and do hair stuff too.

so, obviously, it's lancelot du lac and gawaine of orkney. both knights of the round table, etc etc. you know who they are. i hope. they're not exactly similar to their bbc merlin counterparts---lancelot is of noble birth in classic arthuriana, gawaine is arthur's nephew (though bbc merlin doesn't exactly...keep the familial relations that canon does), things like that---but i'd honestly say that their character personalities are similar enough that it's verging on acceptable! just as a reference point for you, i suppose.

gawaine has lost a fair fight only to six knights in his time, launcelot being one of them (Le Morte d'Arthur, Sir Thomas Mallory. book IV, chapter XVIII) (the other five being sir tristram, sir bors, sir percevel, sir pelleas, and sir marhaus). he is mentioned to throw fights against lancelot because he loves losing to him (cannot remember the source for the life of me) and, of course, lancelot always notices when he does.

then there's this famous quote:

(vulgate II, p140) where launcelot tells galehaut (another man that he arguably has...something...going on with) that he would share with gawaine everything he loves, save guinevere, in order to have gawaine forever. gawaine then goes on to say that, essentially, he would wish to be the most beautiful woman so that lancelot would love him as a wife.

also, in Morte, which i don't have photos of because my copy is a physical book rather than a pdf like how i'm reading vulgate and i don't want to take photos with my laptop camera. there is this quote "and Launcelot with this sword shall slay the man that in the world he loves best, that shall be Sir Gawaine." which is engraved in the hilt of the red hilted sword, balin's sword that merlin encases in stone and which galahad, lancelot's son, eventually wields.

^this, also. from vulgate IV, p140. after launcelot accidentally kills gawaine's brother gareth (named here as gaheriet; all the orkneys have...many ways of spelling their names. look up a list of all of gawaine's names over history, i dare you) who was guarding guinevere's cell...he begs gawaine to forgive him and even promises to swear himself and all his men into subservience to gawaine if gawaine would only forgive him. "I want to be your companion just as I used to be." mhm...

and "I'll swear to you on 'relics that I didn't kill your brother Gaheriet intentionally" is a huge promise. swearing on a holy relic in such a deeply, fundamentally christian society was the vow that you could make. the reason why honour was so important in that time was because the grand majority of people were illiterate, so one's word was the most one could give, in the majority of situations! and here is lancelot, saying that he'll swear on a holy relic that he did not mean to kill gareth if it means gawaine will forgive him and love him again.

there is also, right before gawaine eventually dies (from a sword wound to the head from lancelot) he writes a letter to launcelot begging forgiveness for having been so horrible to lancelot before his death, and wishing he could see him before he dies, for he knows he won't live long.

And then when paper and ink was brought, then Gawaine was set up weakly by King Arthur, for he was shriven a little to-fore; and then he wrote thus, as the French book maketh mention: Unto Sir Launcelot, flower of all noble knights that ever I heard of or saw by my days, I, Sir Gawaine, King Lot's son of Orkney, sister's son unto the noble King Arthur, send thee greeting, and let thee have knowledge that the tenth day of May I was smitten upon the old wound that thou gavest me afore the city of Benwick, and through the same wound that thou gavest me I am come to my death-day. And I will that all the world wit, that I, Sir Gawaine, knight of the Table Round, sought my death, and not through thy deserving, but it was mine own seeking; wherefore I beseech thee, Sir Launcelot, to return again unto this realm, and see my tomb, and pray some prayer more or less for my soul. And this same day that I wrote this cedle, I was hurt to the death in the same wound, the which I had of thy hand, Sir Launcelot; for of a more nobler man might I not be slain. Also Sir Launcelot, for all the love that ever was betwixt us, make no tarrying, but come over the sea in all haste, that thou mayst with thy noble knights rescue that noble king that made thee knight, that is my lord Arthur; for he is full straitly bestead with a false traitor, that is my half-brother, Sir Mordred; and he hath let crown him king, and would have wedded my lady Queen Guenever, and so had he done had she not put herself in the Tower of London. And so the tenth day of May last past, my lord Arthur and we all landed upon them at Dover; and there we put that false traitor, Sir Mordred, to flight, and there it misfortuned me to be stricken upon thy stroke. And at the date of this letter was written, but two hours and a half afore my death, written with mine own hand, and so subscribed with part of my heart's blood. And I require thee, most famous knight of the world, that thou wilt see my tomb. And then Sir Gawaine wept, and King Arthur wept; and then they swooned both. And when they awaked both, the king made Sir Gawaine to receive his Saviour. And then Sir Gawaine prayed the king for to send for Sir Launcelot, and to cherish him above all other knights. (Le Morte D'Arthur, Sir Thomas Mallory. book XXI, chapter II)

(vulgate IV, p139). honestly? no comment here. it speaks for itself. this bit is where the ship name remarkable comes from.

of course, this is by no means a comprehensive post, just moments i can remember off the top of my head. and a lot of this can be attributed to today's view of male homosociality and how it's changed since the middle ages, skewing our view of what could have been, by all means, a platonic relationship. however it is my personal belief and interpretation that they were in love <3 muah the end i hope you enjoyed. i tried my best to explain both story and cultural context the best i could without going into irrelevant detail...i hope this is enough!

[gawrkin]

Following up on what I said about how Post-Vulgate Gawain should utterly despise Arthur - having absolutely no reason to like him - there is an additional context from the Post-Vulgate itself that I forgot to mention in the last post and should be considered:

Gawain will kill you even if you're his kin

(Also, Agravain, as his usual self, will gleefully join in the crimes if he can)

So yes, Blood Relation will not matter to a murderous Gawain, especially if the slight was done when he was a young impressionable kid (King Lot's death was when Gawain was eleven, if you recall). By Post-Vulgate's own logic, Gawain should itching for an opportunity to kill Arthur himself.

Coincidently, this cements another reason why T. H. White's The Once and Future King's Villainization of Morgause (and Morgause being evil in general) is a very BAD idea: it removes the last vestiges of any reasonable justification as to why Gawain is even a Knight of the Round Table - or even a hero! - in the first place.

In the Medieval Narratives, the reason why Gawain and his brothers are part of Arthur's Court in the first place is because of Morgause' insistence, in defiance of her husband. Morgause is a supporter of her brother, not another one of his enemies.

Without Morgause putting in a good word for her brother and actually scheming to destroy him, Gawain and his brothers will be right there working with their mother all the way.

Ironic, as one reason why many modern writers love to villainize Morgause is so that they can reframe Mordred's incestuous birth as some sort of evil scheme to usurp the throne. In reality, that's a really, really impractical, nonsensical and completely redundant rationale - Gawain, Agravaine, Gaheris and Gareth ARE Arthur's closest male relatives and therefore, legally in the best position to take the crown. And all without the taint of incest, an abominable act that would disqualify Mordred from inheritence if made known.

[lefresne]

So let me get this straight: the reason why the Affair between Lancelot and Guinevere causes the fall of Camelot, is because almost half the knights were loyal to Lancelot than to Arthur, and that Lancelot was, in some ways, the shadow leader of the Round Table? When Lancelot kills Gawain's sibling, People took sides?

I’d start by saying that there is no one ‘Fall of Camelot tm’. To say that there is would be as disingenuous as attempting to stabilise a broad, complex, heterogenous body of work that evolved and grew over 500+ years. Each text will have its own interpretation of the circumstances surrounding the political collapse of the Arthurian realm. It’s complicated, and sometimes seems to run counter to our modern understanding of canonicity, but that’s alright! The interpretation below is based on Malory, as Malory, perhaps influenced by the English political landscape of the time, particularly stresses the importance of political factions all vying for influence over the king and queen, as well as the tensions that can arise between affective and political communities.

Reading Malory, it becomes apparent that Logres is dominated by four major factions: Gawain (Orkney and Lothian), Lancelot (Benoic / France), Tristan (Cornwall), Lamorak (Wales). I understand ‘faction’ as meaning a community bound by both kinship and feudal ties. As is consistent with 15th century politics, the individuals at court are the ‘heads’ of often much larger political networks that stretch across Britain.

What is so interesting about Malory is that the text shifts the blame for the collapse of Camelot away from the adulterous affair between Lancelot and Guinevere and rather towards the political ramifications thereof, which themselves then become symptomatic of problems inherent to late medieval feudalism. And this is not to say that this is the sole cause for the end of Camelot, either. Reading (and re-reading) Malory sometimes feels like plucking at a huge ball of yarn for different narrative threads: depending on how you might pick it up, you might blame Uther, who instigates a pattern of criminal sexual behaviour which then becomes compounded with each successive generation (going from adultery (Uther) to adultery and incest (Arthur) to adultery and incest and patricide (Mordred)), or Morgan, for stealing that damn scabbard (not going to lie, I’m a lot less convinced by this one lol), or the Grail for like, existing and revealing the chivalric system’s inherent weaknesses I guess.

 The Welsh and Scottish factions are at odds already following the death of Lot, and these tensions continue to mount throughout the narrative, until the Welsh faction has been largely annihilated by Gawain and his followers. The Scottish faction feels ‘entitled’ to a certain standing at court due to their close kinship with Arthur, and resents anything or anyone that might jeopardise this privileged position( see, for example, the brothers complaining that ‘whom that we hate kynge Arthure lovyth, and whom that we love he hatyth’). Gawain’s friendship with Lancelot keeps the wider faction in check for a long while, however. The Queen, meanwhile, has established her own political network, which overlaps with Lancelot’s. Although Lancelot’s faction has an ambivalent attitude towards Guinevere, it is established that this relationship is mutually beneficial. The Queen ensures Lancelot and his kin’s high standing at court, and Lancelot and his kin will defend her if needed.

After the Grail Quest, the Arthurian political landscape is in shambles. The knights have dispersed, Gawain has murdered God knows how many of his co-workers, and an entire kin group has been decimated. The situation in Cornwall is not too good either, Tristan has been killed, along with a bunch of his allies, and Marc hates Arthur. This exacerbates pre-existing tensions, and remaining allies of Tristan are ‘absorbed’ into Lancelot’s faction, because Lancelot and Tristan had been friends. We quickly learn that Agravaine is jealous of Lancelot’s proximity to the queen and of his political influence. The problem is not the adultery per se, rather the queen’s public displays of favouritism. Lancelot and Guinevere are described as taking walks together and conversing privately – this reference to the walking is important because this was at the time an important part of the queenly schedule, during which courtiers would be allowed to approach and petition her. Agravaine resents Lancelot for ‘monopolising’ the queen’s attention, which he perceives as a slight on his kin group. The Scottish faction now understand that if Lancelot falls, then their group will, by default, rise. Guinevere senses this threat and multiplies public displays of favour towards Gawain and his kin, but this goes disastrously - an ally of Lamorak uses a dinner held in Gawain’s honour to attempt to poison him.  Although Gawain vehemently defends Guinevere, his faction are willing to believe that she would go as far as to poison Gawain for, presumably, Lancelot’s sake. Mador, who is related to Gawain, turning against the queen also serves to prefigure the text’s final conflict, in which Lancelot’s and Gawain’s factions turn against each other. Once again, Lancelot’s faction must intervene to restore order, Nenyve reveals the true poisoner and Lancelot, who had been missing, miraculously returns to save the queen from the pyre. This confirms the extent to which Guinevere and Arthur (who has to beg Bors to fight for his wife) are politically reliant on Lancelot. Agravaine, understanding that his earlier complaint about the queen’s political favouritism has had approximately zero impact, now begins to additionally charge her with adultery (note that Agravaine was with Guinevere throughout the knight of the cart episode).

Gawain, who is friends with both Lancelot and Guinevere, continues to defend them. As he says: not only has Lancelot come to their aid numerous times, ‘if there aryse warre and wrake betwyxte sir Launcelot as us, wyte you well, brothir, there woll many kynges and grete lordis holde with sir Launcelot’. When they ambush the queen, Malory specifies that all the knights present are ‘of Scotlonde, other ellis of sir Gawaynes kynne, other well-wyllers to his brothir’. 

The deaths of Gaheris and Gareth as they guard the queen’s pyre cause a heartbroken Gawain to turn against Lancelot. Now that the affective bonds have broken, all out war breaks out, and Lancelot is forced into exile, taking with him a significant number of knights who are still loyal to him. Arthur, goaded by Gawain, chases after him, leaving the country unattended so that Mordred can seize power. New factions form - those loyal to Mordred and those loyal to Arthur. Civil war breaks out.

The deaths of Gareth and Gaheris do not force knights to take sides, the sides have always existed, but they had been previously kept ‘in check’ by Gawain’s affection for Lancelot, Guinevere, and Arthur. Arthur’s status is never really challenged in Malory, neither Lancelot nor Gawain ever think of overthrowing him, the question is always one of influence. It doesn't matter that the king is largely effaced and at times ineffectual because he is the king. Mordred seizing power in Arthur’s absence is seen as the ultimate betrayal and signals, within the political world Malory has outlined, absolute moral corruption. TLDR: the deaths of Gareth and Gaheris cause affective bonds to break and to therefore reveal the fragmented structure of the king’s court and the tenuous nature of peace. I wouldn’t call Lancelot a ‘shadow leader’ (although I do think that’s a very interesting idea!) because Malory never questions Arthur’s kingship. The text is largely about influence over the king rather than an outright overthrowing of the king. Malory condemns Mordred for seizing power, and condemns the barons for siding with him. But I also think that Malory’s approach to politics and community is a lot more nuanced than just Lancelot = good Gawain = bad. The text reflects a community in crisis and under intense pressure that is trying its best to survive.

[theroseandthebeast]

Yuletide Recs, Batch Three

16 recs for The Eagle, Earthsea, Emma., The Expanse, The Faculty, The Fall of the House of Usher, Fallen London, The Green Knight, The Handmaiden, Jane Eyre, King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, and The Matrix

Between Two Rivers, Marcus Flavius Aquila & Esca Mac Cunoval

Two rivers. Two near kisses.

The White Ladies of the Ring, Penthe/Tenar

There was a sorcerer imprisoned in the Labyrinth, and Arha had told Kossil that she would kill him—but she did not want to. Perhaps she needed to ask someone for help...

My Queen Bee, George Knightley/Emma Woodhouse

Emma went on, brightly, “I have spoken with Harriet about it.” George blinked. He was fast losing his grip on this conversation. 

We aren't righteous (or: five times Amos did as Naomi asked, and one time he didn't.), Gen, Amos Burton & Naomi Nagata

For EdosianOrchids901 for Yuletide, who asked for Amos and Naomi and suggested something pre-canon, something about that dynamic where he sees her as an external moral compass, and how their friendship developed. This is mostly pre-canon, overlapping with canon in the last two parts. (Also it's been a while since I've seen this so apologies in advance if I've missed something in research and inadvertently contradicted canon on their immediate pre-canon backstories!)

Pyriscence, Gen, Amos Burton & Praxidike Meng

After the war with the Free Navy, Amos comes to see Prax.

What do you do when you survive a shape-shifting mind-controlling alien as a teen?, Stokely Mitchell/Stan Rosado

Twenty years later, Stokely and Stan arrive back in each other's lives.

the miraculous lustre of her eye, Madeline Usher/Verna

"If she wants Madeline fucking Usher, she's going to have to look me straight in the eyes."

a wild weird clime that lieth, sublime, Gen, Verna + Arthur Pym

Arthur Pym's first meeting with Verna.

The Margin, Gen, Verna + Arthur Pym

“We have to go back,” Arthur Pym said, teeth rattling in the wind. He clutched the ragged edges of his coat closer. “Ship can’t break through that ice. We’ll founder.” -- The first time Verna and Arthur met, on the Transglobe Expedition.

by such dreaming high, Gen, The Duchess + The Roseate Queen

It is summer, in a fallen city; and someone, somewhere, is doing something unwise...

The Half-Seen Door, Gen, Piranesi | Matthew Rose Sorensen + Sixteen | Sarah Raphael + Gawain

It’s a hard job, coming home.

leverage and its utility, Fujiwara + Original Female Character(s)

The three he smoked in the carriage ride here was nothing but a gamble. A roll of the die, a flip of a coin, a dealing of cards. Lucky for him, luck is in his favor.

lilacs out of the dead land, Jane Eyre/Edward Rochester

I had, within me, that rich world of imagination that I could always retreat to, and so I transformed myself.

All Earthly Happiness, Jane Eyre/Edward Rochester

Reader, I lied. Or, rather, I omitted. As the mother of daughters, who had openly declared their intentions of reading my autobiography, I was hesitant to paint a full picture of the course of my first engagement to my dear Edward. Although in many ways it did progress much as I described, discretion prevented absolute disclosure

When It's Worth It, Gen, Arthur + The Mage

The chilly air tasted of dust and lightning strikes and the faint iron tang of blood, and there were still all too many questions lingering unanswered.

dissolved girl, Neo/Trinity

What if Trinity came back wrong? A post-Matrix Resurrections fic about what happens if the body was rebuilt again, and again, and again, and in the remaking, became something new.

[winterlogysblog]

FOUR KNIGHTS OF THE APOCALYPSE THOUGHTS

I've been relatively silent for far too long and as compensation, let me share the things that have been occupying my head for the longest time.

"Knights" of the Apocalypse

I've posted my wishful thinking of the four knights possibly having their own squads before. It's cool to think that each of the four knights would be the Captains of their own title. Like, Knights of War, Knights of Death (sounds the coolest tbh), Knights of Pestilence, Knights of Famine. I still think that this is extremely unlikely because if this were to happen Nakaba would have to focus on so many people but it still sounds really cool.

Narrative-wise, we already have the Percival Platoon and the Tristan Platoon, and in my good honest opinion. The Percival Platoon has a higher chance to be relevant later on. Each Platoon has four members, including Percival and Tristan (we are not counting Lance in this) but Jade died, and we already got Chion's backstory (Nakaba can kill him off by making him save someone that is not Tristan) Isolde being the potential love interest for Tristan (and Gawain hihihi) is the only thing that is keeping her around. With the Percival Platoon, however, Anne is the potential love interest of Percival and her mom has a history with Arthur since she was once a Knight of Camelot, Nasiens is still a mystery and Donny still needs some hours on the oven for character development. My point is Percival and his Knights of Death (in my head) are complete and packed.

What about Tristan then? Tristan's platoon could possibly stay with him and the narrative. However, Thetis can be put into play here. Thetis is Derieri's reincarnation and she remembers everything, Thetis was once a demon and her story with Monspiet ended tragically and the girl needs a happy ending, so... Who is to say that Monspiet didn't also reincarnate (that would be a cool plot for Thetis). Then, we have Zeldris and Gelda, and I know them having a kid isn't mentioned in any way shape or form but I want them to have one (this is slowly turning into an AU). So, with that in mind, Tristan's new squad should consist of Isolde, Chion, Thetis, Monspiet reincarnation and Zel and Gelda's kid. Did you spot a theme here, most of the characters listed are or was a demon. Tristan struggles with his identity and he doesn't have any control over his demon side so it should be neat for him to have someone who can help him through it. Granted, I believe Mael is his perfect teacher since he once wielded both powers.

Now, let's get into Lancelot. I only have three candidates. Rou's reincarnation, King and Diane's eldest and/or possibly Tioreh. Rou and Derieri are currently in the same position. They have both reincarnated with their memories still intact, but Rou has already been reincarnated to Oslo then he died and got reincarnated again. I've said that it would be cool and fun and happy if he got reincarnated as a fairy so he could be with Gerhade, but he could very well be reincarnated as a human and his story would revolve around reuniting with Gerhade either way that's how his story will go. King and Diane's kids are pretty self explanatory since they are Lance's cousins. King and Diane's eldest is intriguing for me especially because of Disaster. Disaster isn't something we've seen at its pure and raw form, when King uses Disaster it's always with the Spirit Spear and King and Diane's eldest could be the character that can showcase just what Disaster can do on its own, and being the eldest and heir to be the next Fairy King The Sacred Tree can give him the power of Disaster. So what I'm saying is Lance's squad is literrally Fairy supremacy.

Lastly, Gawain. This one is easy. Gawain has Sunshine. Her team is the perfect way to revive the Four Archangels... well the graces of the four Archangels.

That's all for my rambling. Next time, I'll talk about the Demon Realm Arc. I have a few things to saw about the Demon Realm Arc.

[alicent-vi-britannia]

The parallels between Lelouch and Suzaku with Sir Gawain and Sir Lancelot

Did you know that the names of the Knightmares of the Knights of the Round and the first decent Knightmare of Lelouch are taken from Arthurian legends? Did you also know that Gawain and Lancelot were two knights from said legends who went from being friends to enemies in the same way as their namesake Knightmares pilots? And did you also know that Gawain and Lancelot have certain things in common with Lelouch and Suzaku?

Let me tell you!

Both Lelouch and Gawain are older brothers, they are popular with women, they have a sinful and relentless nature (at least, that's how Gawain is in one of the many traditions), they are both on a path of revenge and were wronged by their best friends, Suzaku and Lancelot respectively (specifically, Gawain is referred to as Lancelot's most trusted friend).

On the other hand, Suzaku and Lancelot are pacifists and virtuous. I will add that both of them, in a certain way, are traitors to their homeland, since Suzaku, being a Knight in the service of Britannia, joins Lelouch helping him to usurp the throne and giving him support and Lancelot is in love with Queen Guinevere, the wife King Arthur no more no less. Gawain and Lancelot are recognized as the greatest knights of the Round Table and likewise Lelouch and Suzaku excel in their respective fields (Lelouch is a genius and master tactician, while Suzaku is a star pilot).

At what point does Gawain and Lancelot's friendship end and they become sworn enemies?

Well, when Lancelot kills Gawain's younger brothers, Gaharis and Gareth, while they are unarmed when they go to rescue (this was all a terrible accident; a word that isn’t foreign to the universe and fans of Code Geass). From then on, Gawain swore revenge on Lancelot and challenged him at every opportunity, though he refused to kill his dear friend. 

Although Suzaku doesn’t kill Nunnally, Lelouch believed so and it wasn’t until he felt betrayed that he gave up his attempts to recruit him and finally decided to kill him. Of course, I'm referring to R2 episode 17 when Schneizel and his unit follow Suzaku to the Kururugi Temple; Lelouch thought that Suzaku betrayed him by handing him over to his brother and, therefore, in the following episode he gives Kallen the express order to destroy "the pilot of the Lancelot", so this betrayal is the product of a horrible misunderstanding (their enmity, on the other hand, was an irremediable thing since Lelouch turned Suzaku into his worst enemy and vice versa, but we will discuss that perhaps in another post).

What happened to Gawain and Lancelot? In the end, Lancelot slew Gawain using a sword known as "The Red-Hilted Sword", which in appearance is similar to the sword Suzaku wielded to impale Lelouch in the Zero Requiem. Gawain spared Lancelot at his dying breath. In this sense, it is similar in what terms Suzaku and Lelouch's relationship was left since both managed to resolve their differences and the first ended up executing the second.

Keep in mind that there are as many legends of Gawain and Lancelot as there are superhero comics today. What do I want to tell you with that? That the characterizations of the characters, even the relationship between the two, vary depending on the cycle we are referring to. Gawain and Lancelot are characters that are part of the Arthurian lore and, in case you didn't know, chivalric literature was passed down orally. These characters don’t have an author (or not just one), but several minstrels who told these stories.

Hence, it seems to me that the comparison with superhero comics is the best way to illustrate them. The Batman from The Dark Knight Return is nothing like the Batman from Ego and is the same character. Just like the Gawain of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is totally different from the Gawain that appears in "Le Morte d'Arthur", which, as I have reviewed on Wikipedia, is the work I was telling you about and it coincides with that dark stage of the character. I read Sir Gawain and the Green Knight some time ago and I seem to remember that Gawain was an example of courtesy and nobility and was firmly adherent to his vow of chastity and was thus represented for a long time, which is in stark contrast to Lancelot's lust that he was courting the king's wife (well, Suzaku did get to have an official relationship with Euphemia while Lelouch had multiple love interests, but never formalized a relationship, because he was committed to his rebellion and had no head for girls). Even so, I think I heard that the Green Knight movie, starring Dev Patel, and based on this story, Gawain has vicious attitudes and it would already correspond to that dark and bellicose version of the character (anyway, the director and the scriptwriter will have taken their creative licenses).

[roundtabletea]

Round Table Newbies

Don’t worry if you don’t know a lot about King Arthur or if you haven’t read any of the stories/poems! Here are some great middle English stories to get into if you loved The Hunger Games series!

If you liked the clever survival aspects of The Hunger Games, you might also like:

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight

This story’s hero is surprisingly quite similar to Katniss Everdeen; there’s some great scenes of his survival and battles in the countryside –and of course, this is all leading up to his big final battle with his foe at the end of the story!

Sidenote: I highly recommend you read the modern English translation of this story, especially if you are new to Middle English!

If you liked the violence and rebellious nature of Catching Fire, you’ll definitely like:

The Alliterative Morte Arthure

Battles, battles, battles–there is soooo much carnage and violence in this poem that you’ll always be on the edge of your seat. While it sucks that there’s no badass female characters like Katniss or Johanna in this one, you’ll have a fun time comparing the differences in how fight scenes were written back in the late 14th century

Sidenote: try digging into some of the mysterious nature behind the poem’s unknown author! 

Did you know that the Harry Potter series draws some inspiration from Arthurian Legend? Not only are Arthur and Ginny Weasley named after the king and queen of Camelot respectively, but one of the most famous wizards in history, Merlin, is name dropped a few times including the Order of Merlin status given to some witches and wizards throughout the series. However, the Wizarding World draws from King Arthur with certain story beats as well. Let’s explore a few…

Are you a fan of the battle with the troll in Sorcerer’s Stone? How about the Basilisk in Chamber of Secrets?

Consider reading the Alliterative Morte Arthure! One of the many events to occur during that story is King Arthur himself challenging a giant (which, while not the same, is quite similar to a troll). It is pretty exciting to see an actual battle between the two combatants over one well-placed levitation spell! There is also quite a bit of sword fighting within the Alliterative Morte, reflecting Harry’s fight with the Basilisk using the Sword of Gryffindor, which was likely inspired by Arthur’s own sword, Excalibur!

Enjoy the Triwizard Tournament’s Challenges within Goblet of Fire?

Look into Sir Gawain and the Green Knight! Not only does Sir Gawain face many challenges within his quest to find the Green Chapel, he must show courage and bravery, among other positive traits, to solve them. From the game he plays with the Green Knight to the trading of rewards with Lord Bertilak, Gawain is a very different character than Harry himself when it comes to solving these challenges. You can even compare and contrast the two heroes and their strengths and weaknesses!

Looking for a one-on-one fight that keeps you on your toes, similar to Harry and Voldemort in Deathly Hallows?

Try reading The Awntyrs off Arthur! The beginning might seem a bit out of place for being related to a battle-centric story such as Deathly Hallows, but the second half makes up for it with its battle between Gawain and Galeron to the near-death! While Voldemort is more pure evil than Galeron, it is still great to watch Gawain prove his value as a knight through this fight against a foe that wishes to kill him. You could even compare the women stopping the fight to save the men to Lily Potter and her saving of Harry from Voldemort’s curse!

If you liked the Maze Runner series here are some Arthurian stories that you might enjoy!

If you enjoyed the mysterious identities of the Grovers’ in Maze Runner then you’d like:

The Stanzaic Morte Arthur

The characters often liked to hide their identities throughout this poem to add a dramatic flair to thier quests much like the unknown identities of the Maze Runners. This story will keep you on your toes from start to finish with the random changing of identities that Launcelot likes to undertake.

If you enjoyed the adventures of the Grovers’ in The Scorched Trials then you’d like:

The Avowyng of Arthur

The tasks that Arthur, Kay, Gawain and Baldwin vow to perform are similar to the trials that the Grovers’ must endure. The tasks that the knights agree to undertake are meant to be life threatening and prove their knighthood is rightly deserved much like the WICKED’s goal for the kids. 

Note: a dictionary of medieval words may be helpful in the reading of this poem. 

[gellavonhamster]

reading the post-vulgate, part 3 (the death of arthur)

"for [the king] loved the queen without measure, so that he could not love more" - is there such thing as "respectfully disbelieve" similar to "respectfully disagree", because sorry, but I respectfully don't believe this

Guinevere wearing a red dress to her execution... slay

I'm still extremely curious as to at which point Gareth replaced Gaheris as Gawain's favourite brother whose death at Lancelot's hands becomes the last straw for Gawain and is deeply regretted by Lancelot himself. Was it because Gaheris as the favourite brother was at odds with him killing Morgause? Did Malory introduce this?

"Gaheriet’s place was taken by a young and good knight named Gaheris of North Wales" and it's just Gaheriet/Gaheris of Orkney in a wig and with a fake moustache

"Kay, who saw clearly that he could not go with the army, had himself taken to Normandy to the house of a maiden who had been his fiancée" this is the first time in the entire cycle his fiancée is mentioned. The man knew how to keep his life private

"There was much good in Mordred" so now, after shitting at him for so many chapters, you're admitting it

they tied Mordred's dead body to a horse and are dragging it so that it gets torn to pieces. God.

also curious as to at which point Bedivere replaced Griflet as the one to throw Excalibur into the lake. Wikipedia just says he assumes this role in the English texts in contrast to Griflet in the French ones, but... why? Because the English audience is more familiar with him than with Griflet?

my understanding is that Morgan's ladies cast some enchantment to make it seem like they're burying the body, because in truth there was just Arthur's helmet in the grave

“Oh, cursed sea, full of bitterness and sorrow, evil, unknowing, and unknown, cruelly have you afflicted me who have taken from me the most loyal lover in the world and his love.” oh this is beautiful

the dying Guinevere asks her friend to cut out her heart when she dies and put it in Lancelot's helmet and send it to Lancelot and dear god what is wrong with everyone in the Post-Vulgate

I am fascinated by Mark destroying Arthur's legacy because Mark's role as a character is very similar to Arthur's (a king whose wife cheats on him with a younger man that is close to him), but where Arthur is tragic and noble and sinful and monstrous at the same time, Mark is just despicable. I'm sure there are texts in which he's portrayed in a more favourable light - there's a retelling of Tristania by Joseph Bédier in my TBR pile which, I believe, does that - but as far as I remember, in all texts I've read so far he's pretty unlikeable even before his marriage to Isolde, as he believes the prophecy that Tristan will destroy him and secretly hates him because of that, and later he just keeps being portrayed as so pathetic and mean that one cannot help but feel Tristan and Isolde are right to betray him because he fucking sucks. Everything you've built will be destroyed by the guy who is like you but worse, a wannabe-you of sorts, and he won't even manage to build anything in its place because he'll also get killed. Now that is the punishment for your sins.

[mask131]

Magical summer: Excalibur

EXCALIBUR

Category: Arthurian literature and myth

Excalibur. The magical and mythical sword of King Arthur. Everybody knows the legend. Everybody knows the story.

The sword from the stone… Or the sword from the lake? Good question. Did king Arthur took the sword out of a rock? Or was the sword given to him by the Lady of the Lake? Which version do you know? Maybe one, maybe both… but know that both are technically correct. As I said before: the Arthurian myth is a mess.

 Excalibur’s name is not even Excalibur. The sword began its career in Welsh literature, in a time the Arthurian myth was still deeply ingrained in the Celtic mythology (Welsh and Irish) : it was then called “Caldfwlch” or “Klaedvwlch” (it notably appears in “Culhwch and Olwen”, a Welsh text of the 11th or 12th century. At this point the sword is described as king Arthur’s most precious possession, but it isn’t his exclusive possession – in the poem describes above he lets one of his warriors, Llenlleawg (the Irish prototype of Lancelot) borrow it to kill an Irish king named Diwrnach and steal his magical cauldron (it is… a long story). Another Welsh text called “The Dream of Rhonabwy” does not name Artur’s sword but it describes it quite precisely as having two chimeras on the golden hilt: when the sword is unsheathed, the blade looks like fire poured out of the chimera’s mouth, making the sword so dreadful everybody tries to look away from it.

Arthurian literature and myth only really started to become popular with Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Latin work “Historia Regum Britanniaea” (The History of the King of Britain, published in the 12th century). It was a big hit in Europe, and by this time the sword of Arthur was renamed. It got the Latin named “Caliburnus”, which was later simplified as “Caliburn”. In this version of the tale, Caliburn was said to have been forged in the mythical land of Avalon, but so far we don’t know exactly how king Arthur got it.

 To have some origin story, we will have to wait for the Arthurian craze to hit France. As the romance and tales of Arthur, Lancelot and the Knights of the Round Table swept old France, the sword went by many names, such as Caliborc or Escalibor, before finally finding its last name, “Excalibur” (for example in Chrétien de Troyes famous Arthurian tales, at the end of the 12th century, Excalibur didn’t exist as the sword – at one point borrowed by Gawain – is called “Escalibor” and said to be the finest sword ever made, able to slice through iron as if it was wood).

The story of the legendary “sword in the stone” comes actually from a French text called “Merlin”, written by Robert de Boron. Now, the story goes as such: Arthur obtained the British stone by going in a churchyard on Christmas Eve and pulling a sword from an anvil sitting on top of a stone – as Merlin himself explains, only a true heir of Uther Pendragon (the previous king) or someone appointed by God as the next ruler of England could have performed such a feat. The “Merlin” of Boron became part of a larger cycle of Old French Arthurian tales, gathered together in an ensemble called the “Vulgate cycle”, which as a whole heavily expanded the myth of the sword from the stone – who is left unnamed in Boron’s works, but becomes in other tales of the Vulgate Excalibur. We notably see the context of the “sword in the stone” explained: young Arthur had been adopted by Sir Ector and believed himself to be Ector’s son, ignoring his true father was Uther Pendragon. He acted as the squire of Sir Kay, and the challenge of the sword in the stone was set up to know the next ruler of the throne after Uther’s death. Many nobles tried to pull the sword, including Sir Kay, but all failed – yet teenage Arthur managed to do it without any effort, at first by accident, and then was asked to do it again publicly: thus Arthur was revealed as Uther’s true heir. The Vulgate cycle also adds what happened to Excalibur at the end of Arthur’s reign, in a text called “Mort Artu”: on the brink of death, King Arthur asks Griflet (a knight of the round table) to throw Excalibur into the enchanted lake where the Lady of the Lake dwells. Griflet tries and fail two times, because he deems the sword to be such a great artifact he can’t resolve himself to throw it away – but finally he agrees to his king’s final wish, and a hand comes out of the lake (supposed to be the Lady’s hand), catching the sword and taking it deep in the waters.  As mentioned before, in Chrétien de Troyes’s works, Arthur allows one member of the Round Table to borrow his sword: Gawain, who is actually not only Arthur’s best knight but also the king’s nephew. Gawain using Excalibur as his own is also attested by the “Lancelot” text of the Vulgate.

Now, following the Vulgate cycle, a second “series” or “ensemble” of French text was formed : it was called the Post-Vulgate cycle, due to being made after the Vulgate was done, but unlike what the name implies, it is not a sequel of the first cycle. Rather it is a series of text that either offer to “expand” on the previous told story, or that completely rewrite the Vulgate. For example the Post-Vulgate includes Boron’s “Merlin” in its chronology and logic, but it reinterprets it completely, and as a result we have a Post-Vulgate Excalibur slightly different from the Vulgate Excalibur. In the Post-Vulgate texts, the Sword in the Stone and Excalibur are not the same sword. The Sword in the Stone, left unnamed, was broken by Arthur during a battle with the king named Pellinore. It happened quite early in Arthur’s reign, and on the advice of Merlin himself, Arthur went to the Lady of the Lake to obtain a new sword: she offered him Excalibur in exchange for a later boon (which she later invokes in a different story by asking for the head of a knight named Balin).

 Now that the French part of the Arthurian myth is done, we can jump to Malory’s famous “Le Morte d’Arthur”, the iconic work which became a classical piece of literature in England and brought the Arthurian world back into the British isles in the 15th century (aka, as the Middle-Ages came to a close). Malory’s version of Excalibur became the most well-known and famous in England. In this version, Malory sticks with the idea that Excalibur was given to King Arthur by the Lady of the Lake, while the sword of the stone is much different. Malory also took back the whole “thrown in the lake after Arthur’s death” story, though he replaces Griflet with another knight of the Round Table, Bedivere. Malory also popularized more details that were present in a form of another beforehand, such as the idea that the blade of Excalibur has sentences engraved on each of its side (“Take me up” on one side, “Cast me away” on another), or that when Arthur first used it in battle, during a conflict against those that claimed he had no right to the throne, the blade shined so bright it blinded the king’s enemies. Malory’s text also heavily popularized another detail concerning Excalibur: the importance of its scabbard. For you see, in later Arthurian texts (including Malory’s works but also the Post-Vulgate), the scabbard of Excalibur possesses magical powers: when someone wears it, their wound never bleeds (which prevents hemorrhagic death). The scabbard notably plays a heavy role in Malory’s story. Basically at one point Morgan le Fay managed to make a copy of Excalibur, a fake sword she equipped her lover Accolon with in hope of dethroning Arthur – but in the duel that ensued, Arthur killed Accolon with the real Excalibur. Morgan, in revenge for her lover’s death, steals the magical scabbard, before throwing it into a lake. This breaks Arthur’s magical protection, and it condemns him to death during his final battle. (Merlin had already warned earlier Arthur that him favoring the sword over the sheath was a very bad idea, as in truth the sheath was much more important).

- - -

A fun fact about Malory's text - at one point in the story, before Arthur obtains Excalibur from the Lady of the Lake, Merlin calls the sword Arthur has "Excalibur" and describes it as obtained through a "miracle". It does lead to several interpretations: is it a mistake by Malory who got confused in his chronology? Does it mean the sword from the stone (aka the "miracle") was also named Excalibur, which means there would be two of them? It is quite interesting to note that an Arthurian poem that predates Malory's text (but was retroactively named "The Alliterative Morte Arthur") describes King Arthur as owning two different swords. Excalibur is his "war sword", that he uses for battle : he notably used it to kill his own treacherous son, Mordred. But Arthur also owns a "peace sword", called Clarent, which is a ceremonial sword used for things such as knighting - but it is also this sword that would be Arthur's doom, as Mordred stole it to battle his father, and it is the sword he uses to mortally wound him. Many modern interpretations used the named "Clarent" to designate the Sword in the Stone (when it is differentiated from the Excalibur-sword in the Lake), even though in the original text nothing says that Clarent is either the sword of the stone or the one of the lake.

[juiceastronaut]

No but once again I shall be saying things about Lancelot because I've been having thoughts and that post just made them worse

It really seems that Lancelot characterization begins and ends with his affair with Guinivere. And even that is only explored at a superficial depth. Oh, Lancelot feels guilty okay. But this doesn't really seem to effect how he acts despite a dialogue here and there.

And plus! He got other personality traits! Like God, he had so many instances of him running around impersonating people. He has an entire son he didn't know about before with a woman (in the normal legend) that tricked him into sleeping with her. What was that like, emotionally? Finding out about this son he didn't know about? It's stated that he was around for a bit when Galahad was younger but then left. Why did he stay at first? Why'd he eventually leave? He was a mentor to Gareth and Gaeris in life, then he ends up killing him. What was *that* like for him emotionally?

HE WAS RAISED BY THE LADY IN THE LAKE. LIKE *IN* A LAKE. Where's the fairy content guys!? Where's the weird shit that Lancelot does cause sure he's human but he's also just slightly off because he was RAISED BY THE FAE. Where's his reluctance to eat food He's not prepared? An incline to sweets? Him being so partial to the truth that it's inconvenient at times?

He's literally written as some dude. I think the way his sword works is really cool, and I wanted stuff like that mentioned in his actual character. But he literally could've just been anyone. There's nothing that he says or does that (unless you knew already) would've suggested he had nothing but a normal upbringing.

We're given just the barest glimpses of his relationships with other people, and even then it's usually a line casually mentioned by either him or the other person. Certainly we don't get them talking about the other knights in depth besides the occasional line. They don't even talk to *each other* about it, they only mention it to the Master!

Like sure, we have the Camelot singularity. But I want to know how it went down in the Actual Camelot!

A lot of these things are mentioned by the characters as if they were passively relaying things from the past. They're emotional impact, how it effects what they do now? Not really explored! It's just, stated. And then never brought up again. Even though these events were core events for their characters. Certainty Lancelot's.

For Christ's sake, we're *how* far into this franchise where the main girl was King Arthur, and we *still* don't have a full canon design for Guinivere!? And that's the one character trait we do have for Lancelot. Do we even get to see the woman he was willing to risk it all for, the woman who eventually leads him to insanity? This core facet in Lancelots personality, the core part of why we have the Berserker form and we don't even get to *see* the person he had this connection with.

How the hell are we supposed to care about it if we didn't see the relationship? How were they together, what did they do how did they bond? Where was the turning point where they realized that they loved each other? That they couldn't ever be with each other publicly but they would support each other from the shadows? You make the affair Lancelot's one personality trait but then you don't even show the affair (but still make plenty of jokes at his expense about it.

This is argubly not a FGO problem because how the current story is set up, there's really no way to explore these concepts without some AU of the actual events. But youd still want the full emotional impact of that character in his lines, ya know?

FGO set up a lot of ways that most of the characters magically moved on from the emotional impact of what happened in Camelot. Oh, actually, Gawain isn't mad at Lancelot for killing his siblings anymore, because he realized he did things wrong too. Oh, Gareth doesn't hold a grudge for Lancelot killing her because she *u n d e r s t a n d s* why he did what he did. The characters get summoned and FGO wanted to get them to the point where they'd be fine and interacting with each other again that they just skipped over the emotional work to do so.

It boggles my mind that, one of your three starting girls is the Legendary King Arthur of Camelot. And the *second* biggest character in that story you're *not* going to develop him to the fullest potential? And it's not like you don't have the material it's all right there. You couldn't have more material to work with. There's so many things to add to his personality that would make him much more interesting to the audiende. It's just not emotionally connected to the character in any real capacity.

Make it make sense.

[queer-ragnelle]

could you please elaborate on how anachronisms are a feature not a bug? It's probably an issue of "kill the cop in your head" but despite knowing others have done it I find it difficult to accept *I* can mix elements from 1200s france and 600s england (for example).

The Arthurian literary tradition has never been Historical Fiction. Ever. And for many, it's not a detriment, but part of the appeal!

Sure, there are some Arthurian books that set out to be Historical Fiction, that is, pinpoint the era during which their story takes place and sticking to it. They may include historical figures to help immerse the story in that era. That's all well and good. But those stories contain anachronisms. Arthurian Legend has always "mixed elements" of the author's current era with their limited understanding of the past, it has always contained magic, it has always contained characters firmly cemented in mythos that were never considered to have really existed. It's a literary tradition built upon the stories which came before, not a transcription of factual events because we frankly don't even know squat about who Arthur "really was," if he existed at all.

I understand your perspective, I really do. I briefly had an editor who suggested female knights weren't Historically accurate so I should write them out. Gromer and Merlin both perform magic in the prologue, the events pertaining to the Green Knight are mentioned, but gender-neutral language when referring to knights (who this editor insisted should all be cis men) was a step too far. Around the same time, I had a sensitivity reader suggest that Gawain wasn't racist enough to Ragnelle (a Persian woman) and he should call her, his future wife, in my queer romance book, "a savage." Hand to my heart Anon that's a quote I had to read on my manuscript with my own two eyes. And I say to these people, "Are you lost?" Because even though I disclosed the nature of my books before letting these people read it, clearly it wasn't a good match. Literally kill the cop in your head and protect yourself from anyone who makes it more difficult by insinuating the Historical accuracies should be upheld, especially as it pertains to misogyny or racism. Excuse my French, fuck them and fuck that.

This hesitation to write "mixed elements" can come from the false idea a "true" or "objective" way to write within a Historical Era exists. There simply isn't. Unless you have a time machine, you will inevitably rely on anachronisms to bridge gaps both narratively and because the information simply doesn't exist.

Let's use your example to talk about narrative anachronisms first. Say you're writing in 600s Britain (since England didn't exist yet) but you want your character to stand in the stirrups. Ah nuts, they didn't have stirrups yet! That's okay. We're gonna borrow the stirrups from 1200s French version of the stories so your character can do what they need to do. Persia Woolley did this exact thing in her first book Child of the Northern Spring; she wrote Palomides into the story as a means for the Round Table to receive stirrups from the East and this upgrade is something which gave Arthur's knights an edge over others. Another instance could be women riding sidesaddle. Generally speaking, it was meant to keep women's knees together for the sake of modesty, but it also made sense from a practical standpoint as riding astride with ankle-length skirts was cumbersome and simply never done... or was it?

My good friend Alisoun from The Wife of Bath rides astride! Geoffrey Chaucer you madlad!! So while the general Historical fact, that women rode sidesaddle, still stands, they did so except when they didn't! Is this used to mark Alisoun, a fictional woman, as unconventional? Yeah, duh. So it would still be Historically accurate to have the majority of women riding sidesaddle. Alisoun can do things real women of this era weren't allowed to. But the point is this illumination casts doubt on the idea such a thing was unheard of. A woman riding astride wasn't automatically descended upon by a mob that stoned her to death. You can write her riding astride and no misogyny happens. The same could be said for female or transmasc knights, as I explained here. So you can write in a reason why this specific anachronism is present in your story, (Palomides brought the stirrups, Alisoun is a bad bitch who does what she wants, Marine and Silence are proof of GNC knights, etc). It might put you at ease about including it.

But you simply cannot do it for everything. You would spend more time reassuring the reader you're aware of the inaccuracies than you would be telling your story. Every Historical Fiction author in the world can corroborate this.

Even the most serious and intensely research heavy Historical Fiction will contain anachronisms. It's literally impossible to be 100% accurate. Let's say you scour contemporary sources like letters or writings, you're still forced to interpret those either through the inevitably biased author and/or whoever translated it (their word choice, what passages they omitted, etc). (I had to navigate this myself while researching Iranian Zoroastrians through Arabic-written sources, ie, the conquerors' interpretation of the people they sought to eradicate. On top of that, the text is then translated into English for me to read it. The document I end up researching from becomes many steps removed from authenticity, and yet it's all there is; the Avestan or Persian language texts with first hand accounts are scant to none, and also translated into English.)

Best case scenario: you have an artifact, in hand. You can still only glean so much from something that's degraded over many years, something that may be an outlier in and of itself, the authenticity of which could only be corroborated through the help of an expert, someone who is, just like you, living in the present and must make educated guesses with the resources available (carbon dating, context clues, chemical testing of materials, etc).

So sure, you could read in the documentation that this Historical figure had a mustache. A comb alleged to be used for facial grooming was found, which may lend weight to the supposed accuracy of the writings. But unless the documentation also says what color the mustache was, and the length, and the style, and during what point in this person's life they wore the mustache, and whether they also had side burns and beard, your interpretation is based on an inference and likely anachronistic. Even if you have a really detailed text, that's one source. That Medieval author could be a big liar! Maybe they got carried away embellishing their favorite king! Or they cut out the parts which made their favorite king look bad! Or they slanderously depicted their enemy king as depraved to make their favorite look even better by comparison! Every writer has their own agendas. We have no way of knowing the extent of it!

Now I want to circle back to anachronisms that aren't tied to a story element but perhaps something as simple as bridging cultural gaps or practical means in the story itself. By that I mean you cannot know every detail of their lives. What exactly did their Church services look like? How exactly did the nobles' spirituality differ from the lower class? We cannot know for certain and will inevitably fill in the blanks with what we understand of Christianity today. You will more than likely include foods they didn't eat out of necessity because the resources are so scarce or limited or for your own sanity. In book 2, I wrote Agravaine describing something to Ragnelle as "the color of a carrot." Well. They didn't have carrots back in 6th century Britain. They were imported through trade with the East which was a long time coming yet when Agravaine said this. Early Medieval people had other root vegetables, but what were they called? What color were they? Certainly not neon orange carrots thick as the hilt of a sword like we have today. But I left this in anyway because it's a single line. It's so brief as to be insignificant, it's meant to quickly call to mind a color the reader can identify easily. It works on a subtextual level as well since Ragnelle, a Persian woman, would know what a carrot is in the 6th century. So it's only half anachronistic. To me.

On the other hand, in book 1, Gawain and co are in Persia. There Owain and Gaheris eat peaches for the first time. They call them "stone fruit," as they've encountered other fruits with pits, but not these. Gromer, a native, explains they're called "peaches" and they come from China (a place he has personally visited, so he knows). None of these words would've been in Medieval dialogue, but the History of that fruit, which we now call a "peach," is sound. Because it's a moment of cultural connection, and Owain is shown carving peach pits for the rest of the book, and still doing so in book 2, grounding this in as close to Historically sound facts as I could was important.

Now if Owain wanted to bring that peach pit back to Britain and grow a peach tree for his wife Laudine, could that happen? Well, Britain's weather conditions are not at all appropriate for it and the soil probably isn't right and he's not exactly known to have a green thumb. But anachronisms are a feature, not a bug. It's not an "inaccuracy" to write this successful endeavor because I did it on purpose! It is "accurate" to my story! Not an oversight, but a creative choice made with intention. Now I've extended the use of the "prop" and maintained that cultural connection I went out of my way to include. Perhaps later, once Ragnelle has settled at Camelot, she would enjoy a piece of fruit from her homeland as a gift from Laudine. Now the whole thing has come full circle and become enmeshed with the story in such a way the readers won't say "Hey! How does Laudine have a functioning green house in 6th century Britain? That's absurd!" Yeah, well, not any more absurd than Owain's pet lion or his battle with a dragon.

I think this is perfectly okay to do even if you don't have the magical elements. Nothing in the exchange about carrots relies on fantasy. The peaches don't either, not until there's suddenly a functioning greenhouse made of perfect panes of glass. People did travel great distances even in that era. You're not obligated to point to a specific instance of this thing happening Historically for it to be valid in your story. Arthurian authors have literally never been concerned with that. More importantly, neither have the readers! But there are exceptions to many of the "rules" or preconceived notions Historically which can help support your narrative choices if you desire to seek them some of the time. You have a few Modern Arthurian authors writing Historical Fiction, but Bernard Cornwell also included magic and a ton of characters from the Mabinogion, Edward Frankland did the same with Gwalchmai and Olwen, and Henry Treece wrote Cuneglas so strong he could T-pose with two grown men standing on each arm as a display of his strength. Push those boundaries, everyone is! It's fun!

Reading more will help. You'll be able to see what your boundary of anachronisms are. What irks you while reading? What did you notice as inaccurate and not care about? What anachronisms did you enjoy best? Researching a lot will also help. Get a very thorough understanding of the era and location you intend to write in. Then you'll better understand where the gaps in knowledge lies and what you'll have to add anachronistically to fill them. I assure you no one is going to be angry if you write Gringolet as a big beautiful stallion instead of a more Historically accurate little fluffy pony. You'll drive yourself crazy if you get hung up on every detail.

That's all I got. Arthurian Legend frees you from this "Historically accurate" headache. If you're still having trouble, perhaps ask yourself if you what you actually want to be writing is Historical Fiction instead. That's totally cool too! But nobody who enjoys Arthurian Legend is concerned whatsoever with Historical accuracy and you shouldn't be either. So write whatever pleases you! Take care, I hope that helps clear things up a little. :^)

[saintsonnet]

@gwalch-mei okay here we go. iii have so many thoughts. okay. i just think they're so. it's a weird pair bonded relationship. codependant but in an opposes-my-freak way where they balance one another out in the worst possible manner. they get worse around each other but it feels like they should balance out. they have equal levels of intensity in opposite directions.

-

launcelot doesn't know what to do with himself. autistic icon. he knows how to play the role of arthur's knight, knows the rules of how to act as host and as guest, and he can play by those rules well. but as soon as there's a change in script, he falters. he flouders. if he doesn't know what to say he freezes up and shuts down a bit. he has this infectious sort of anxious energy when he doesn't have a role to play. he's very thoughtful in what he says, i think; often taking a while to think of what he wants to say, and he comes across as rather airheaded because of it.

he comes across as incredibly intense because he's very, very emotional, and when he tends to keep his words to himself— so when he does speak, it's a lot of feeling condensed into few words. his devotion, anger, love, loyalty, dole, panic, joy, grief...everything. is all-consuming. it's a lot, even for him, and his emotions often come out through his actions rather than words.

he knows what to do when he's fighting. it's like a puzzle, almost. watch your enemy for this and move like that and so on. even in the heat of battle, he's almost calculated in the way he moves. he's not hesitant or. aware of who he's killing. exactly. it's a very objective thing for him, with as little moral consequence as plucking a flower from the forest. you tell him 'kill those people like this' and he can do that. i don't know if i'm getting across exactly what i mean. but it's like. whoever he's fighting might as well be a practice dummy in armour. ugh i know i'm not saying this right but whatever i might be close enough.

-

on...not exactly the flip side (maybe the sort-of-adjacent-side) gawaine is a good warrior— but those he fights are all too human to him. it's a rather dissociative experience for him; often he doesn't remember the actual killing part, just a vague cloud of 'yes this happened'. he hates it. he hates how good he is at it. it's one of the reasons he likes fighting lancelot, i think. a reminder that he can be beaten...that he's human. also he just likes being pinned down by lancelot and forced to yield, but.

it's also why he spends so much energy and care in healing and medicine, despite it not really...being his job. maybe he can make up for the killing...balance it out somehow, in the grand moral scheme of things. something like that.

in near-opposition to lancelot, gawain is excellent at social improv. he knows all the rules and social customs and bends them in such an intimate way...he knows exactly how to speak to someone to make them feel cherished, whether he feels so or not. he's not fake or spineless, he's just. well. courteous.

gawaine is rarely as comfortable as he presents himself. he's not unfeeling or repressed, exactly, but there's a staunch refusal to let his emotions overtake him. he has a thing about crying. his feelings dictate his decisions more than he'd like to admit.

-

if launcelot takes life as a puzzle, gawain takes it as a game. solving versus winning, if that makes sense.

gawain is pretty much the only person that launcelot truly is himself around...even guinevere, as much as he loves her and she him, is his queen and then his lover before she is his friend. their relationship is feeding on and based in the secrecy and drama of it all. it's alluring because it's forbidden. with guinevere, he's lancelot the lover. with arthur, he's lancelot the knight. in court he's lancelot du lac, the great knight, the best warrior, et cetera. whether he is beloved or not, he is known by his reputation only. but with gawaine, launcelot is just that. he is himself. it's almost like being alone, because he knows gawain will not scrutinize him.

gawaine is similarly comfortable with lancelot. he's sort of built himself into this person who is kind and courteous because he has to be, and it comes somewhat naturally now...like a plant that has taken root but in loose soil. because he knows that if he hadn't then he would not have turned out anything like he did. does that make sense. and with lancelot he can relax because he doesn't need to worry about playing a part, even if he plays it anyways because it's who he's taught himself to be. he is constantly aware of having to know his place, and even if he rarely strays from it, having the lack of necessity around lancelot is a grand relief. he doesn't want to be anything different, but having the chance, even if he doesn't know how to take it, is refreshing.

together they seem to breathe easier. it's noticeable. you know when you have a simple circuit with one battery and two lightbulbs? and they both glow bright, but then you take one away, and the second is faintly but recognizably brighter? sort of like that. they glow brighter with one another. um yeah 👍

the end. muah.

JAY YOURE COOKINGGGGG ABT REMARKABLE NEVER STOP‼️‼️

i’d love to hear more abt your interpretation of them👁️👁️👁️ <33

oml i'm sorry i took so long i was in class. i had a history test 😓 okay i'll reblog this with explanations after. i hate the text box that comes with long answers to asks.

[theonceandfutureking6481]

Merlin Season 1 Episode 11: The Labyrinth of Gedref Analysis

First off, I love this episode. It’s quite good, and very fairytalesque and like all my favourite episodes, its about Arthur (also Merlin & Arthur).

This episode is, like many others, a test Arthur has to undergo to prove that he is worthy of being king. It’s a test of his decency and whether he is fundamentally a good person (pure of heart)- and also perhaps his rightness for kingship. It’s one in that grand tradition of stories where the hero has to undergo some test or other to prove their worthiness. The classic example is of course Gawain and the Green Knight, which is a test of Gawain’s knightly virtue, but its really a type of story found everywhere. I really don’t know much about these types of stories (theory wise) but I do enjoy them, and really the whole of Merlin is basically one of these tests, some of the episodes are just more obvious than others. It would be interesting I think to know how much tests of honour exist in medieval romances or later medievalism, and how much their use in the modern day is related to that, but I’m getting off topic.

Also I just thought, it would be interesting to think about the symbolism of labyrinths, perhaps representing a difficult journey, like that of Arthur learning how to be a good king.

So, lets head on to The Labyrinth of Gedref

SPOILERS FOR THE WHOLE SHOW

Arthur

This episode is basically Arthur proving his fundamental difference to Uther.

First off, we need to remember that two episodes ago we first find out about why Uther started persecuting those with magic. These two episodes are very close together and I think that’s worth mentioning because this episode is proving the most significant way that Arthur is different to Uther, he can admit his mistakes and take responsibility for his actions even when the mistake was unintentional. Uther obviously did not mean to kill his wife, but his refusal to take responsibility for the fact that he did mess with forces beyond his control (and did make the decision to risk someone’s life) is what really causes his hatred for magic. Uther doesn’t want to be guilty of his wife’s death so he finds someone else to take the blame, he scapegoats magic because he simply cannot seem to take responsibility for his own actions.

Arthur acted with even less knowledge and less intention than Uther, Uther knew someone would die, there was no reason that Arthur should have thought his actions would have any consequences. If Arthur had completely refused to blame himself, he would certainly have been more justified in that stance than Uther was, but he didn’t because Arthur is better than Uther. It takes Arthur a while but he does realise that this is his fault, that it is his sole responsibility, that it doesn’t matter if he meant to curse Camelot or not, he did, so he has to be the one to fix it.

Arthur: My people are starving. Camelot is on the verge of collapse, and its all my doing.

Arthur does fail one of the tests, when he kills (or would have killed if the dude wasn’t the Unicorn guy) an unarmed guy for taunting him about his father and how he’s a disappointment. He kills him for slighting his honour and pride. This is a double issue in that this man is going after Arthur’s deepest insecurities about being enough and whether or not his father loves him, as well as that Uther has taught him that his honour/pride is very important, in a way perhaps that his pride is more important than other people.

Anhora (unicorn guy): “You have shown that you would kill a man to defend your pride.”

There is a moment in his next scene with Uther that you see how Arthur realises how wrong he was. Uther refuses to ask the other kingdoms for help because it would be shameful, and they’d take advantage of the weakness to attack. This is Uther all over, assuming that people are always out to get you and a selfish protection of his pride. Uther is a relatively decent king when it comes to governing, but in situations like these where he would have to sacrifice anything beyond his time he proves that he does care about his position and pride more than he should. Uther uses the word ‘pride’ which is exactly what Anhora said to Arthur before, and Arthur now does the opposite of what he did before, realising that personal pride doesn’t ultimately matter when protecting that means hurting others.

Uther: Have you no pride?

Arthur: I cannot think of my pride when my people go hungry. They are all I can think of.

Arthur then refuses to give the command to let the people go hungry and give the food the army, consciously rebelling against his father. Arthur consciously acts differently to Uther here, realising how wrong both he and Uther were to put their pride first, to value being seen as strong above all else. It’s important that Arthur learns from his failure but I also think its important that he did fail. That test was a test of his deepest insecurities, and he failed because being someone his father is proud of is one of the most important things in the world to him. The fact is Arthur is not at a stage where he can consciously define himself as separate to his father, not at a stage where he can critique him and his way of ruling. That’s literally what Arthur’s character arc is about, so of course he failed here we are still in season 1, Arthur is still so young, and its not until season 5 that Arthur really manages to step out from Uther’s shadow, though he spends the whole show trying.

Then my favourite scene is of course the goblet test. Arthur proves everything that makes him a good king in this scene, he takes full responsibility and is willing to do anything to fix his mistakes. He also puts other peoples lives ahead of his own, puts Merlin’s life ahead of his own. He proves that however rude he can be and even unkind, especially to Merlin, he never ever sees other people as less than himself, and really if there’s anyone he sees as less important it’s himself. That ties into the pride thing as well because that pride comes from thinking that you are somehow above another person, that’s part of Uther’s problem, and part of what does make Arthur so great.

Merlin to Gaius (much earlier in the episode): But he cares about his people more than he cares about himself. He will not forgive himself for making them suffer.

Also, just a wonderful line I want to mention. Merlin says something about how he should drink the poison and Arthur just goes “as if I’d let you”. He makes it sound so obvious, like its incomprehensible that he would ever let Merlin die for him. Uther would, he’d expect it (to some extent), so the fact that Arthur makes it sound so obvious that he wouldn’t proves that fundamental difference again. To Uther its obvious that people should die for their sovereign, to Arthur it’s the least obvious thing in the world, more obvious is that Arthur would die for his friends (and his people). It’s also clear from that line that Arthur does care about Merlin, its an admission that Merlin is important to Arthur, important enough that he wouldn’t let him die if he could prevent it.

The way Anhora phrases Arthur’s proving of his purity of heart is also telling. I know I’ve talked a lot about Arthur sacrificing himself for his people, and kept it (sort of) away from his relationship to Merlin but Arthur’s success is very tied up in his relationship with Merlin.

Anhora: He was willing to sacrifice his life to save yours. He has proven what is truly in his heart.

I sometimes forget when I think about Merlin what the main theme really is. It’s (to my mind at least) about love vs. hate as worldviews, but sometimes I separate it too much from their personal relationships, I make it too abstract, love for humanity, for his people and then I forget that what enables Arthur to love his people and to act with love is his love for his friends, Merlin especially. Ultimately it is not that Arthur sacrificed his life for his people that makes him prove his purity of heart (though obviously he was doing that too), it was that he sacrificed his life for Merlin. Arthur’s pure of heart because he loves his friends more than he loves himself and is willing to protect them at all costs. That’s Merlin’s message that loving your friends is important, that friendship and love are the most important things in the world and that they can make you better people. I think its telling that Arthur is too trusting, and Uther sees enemies everywhere, Uther can’t love people (beyond his kids) the way Arthur can.

Then at the end Arthur does something he really didn’t have to. He buried the unicorn’s horn. He didn’t have to, he had already saved Camelot, but this is part of his acknowledgement that he did do wrong. He didn’t just undergo the trials because he wanted to protect Camelot, but because he knew he had to take responsibility for his own mistakes. This burying of the horn is him continuing to take responsibility, even when he doesn’t have to.

Merlin

This is quite a quick note about Merlin, sorry I know I analyse Arthur way more than him, the issue is that Merlin as a character is so tied up with Arthur (which is interesting in itself but means most of his analysis gets done when I analyse Arthur). Merlin does in this episode what he does throughout the show, he gives Arthur the chance to be a better person by both criticising him and believing in him. Merlin basically tells Arthur to take responsibility for his actions, and eventually Arthur does. He’s the good influence in Arthur’s ear, the influence that lets Arthur be a good person, a better person than his father, lets him be different to Uther and actually praises him for it.

It is also, ultimately Merlin’s faith in Arthur that lets him prove himself. Anhora gives Arthur another chance after he fails because of Merlin’s faith in him. Merlin tells Anhora that he would trust Arthur with his life and then Anhora makes a test where Merlin’s life is quite literally in Arthur’s hands. Anhora sees the faith Merlin has in Arthur and gives him another chance, because if that faith is justified then Arthur is pure of heart.

The love Merlin has for Arthur is important, it helps makes Arthur a better person, and also kind of proves he is a good person. Merlin cares about Arthur because he admires him and thinks he’s a good person, and it’s true but it also helps make it so. People having faith in you is important, and Merlin always has faith in Arthur. Merlin always expects that Arthur will do the right thing, and I do think that that probably makes doing the right thing easier. It’s kind of hard to articulate my point exactly, but my point is that their relationship saves them, caring about each other and other people makes them good people and makes it possible for Arthur to be a better person and to be pure of heart.

This underlies the whole show, and I don't really know how to explain it. They love each other, they love their friends and they love the people of Camelot. And all those things enable each other, and motivate them and help them to be good people. Merlin (and other characters) always believe in Arthur, always gives him the chance to prove himself better than his father.

It is kind of nice that the message of this episode. What makes you pure of heart, according to this episode, is loving the people you care about and putting them first. I kind of love that about kids shows, this sort of thing is so often their message, and I love it and really I think they are right.

[gringolet]

compilation of guinevere and gawain being friends!!

because their friendship is important to me!!

--le morte d’arthur book xviii chapter 3: Guinevere goes out of her way to get fruit for Gawain because she knows he likes it :)

“the queen for to please Sir Gawaine; she let purvey for him all manner of fruit”

--the byelorussian tristan: isolde and guinevere have a beauty contest which guinevere loses, so she immeiately goes to gawain and asks him to fight tristan. he swiftly gets his ass kicked but he tries <3

Queen Zhenibra (Guinevere) was very angry with the judges because of this,  but could do nothing about it, and so she was thinking how she could disgrace Tristan. She asked Gavaon (Gawain), the nephew of king Artiush (Arthur): “Knight, compete with Tristan;”

--die wrake van ragisel. gawain finds some dogs and steals one for guinevere.

Then he came upon little white dogs, that seemed exceedingly small (cut some lines of descrip) Sir Walewein thought immediately that he would like to catch one of them to give to the queen. He caught one right away

--lancelot and the hart with the white foot: they hang out together without arthur

--wigalois: some dude gives guinevere a belt and shes like stressed so she goes to ask gawain to help and advise her

“The queen sent word that Gawain be brought to the hall, left the arbor, and went down to sit at her palace. She asked all of the ladies to be seated. Sir Gawain came as soon as she commanded. He was a man who feared nothing and had been the death of many.

The lady asked him to sit down beside her. She knew well that he always did as she wanted, and liked him the more for it.“

--le chevalier de deus espees: gawain gets seriously injured and decides to hide in his room sending everyone away and telling them to tell guinevere and arthur that hes fine. they dont believe him and guinevere is very upset :((

“it is impossible to describe The sorrow that the queen showed, Who tore and pulled out her hair. She almost killed herself out of grief.”

--gliglois: i dont have a quote for this one bc its only in french and been summarized to me in great detail by rey but gawain gets rejected and immediately runs to guinevere to ask her to help snd to complain and cry and she just makes fun of him lovingly

--this is in a lot, like sir gawain and the green knight, but at feasts gawain is almost always sitting next to guinevere, i cant think of a single time he isnt actually. like they just hang out too like in the hart with the white foot or walewein and keye or the vulgate they just hang out all the time. i like them.

--the vulgate morte d’arthur (this also occurs in le morte d’arthur book xx chapters vii and viii) arthur sentences guinevere to burn at the stake despite gawains argument in her defense. unable to sway arthur, he renounces all loyalty and kinship with him and leaves the round table and camelot

his grief would never allow him to see the death of the lady who had paid him the greatest honour of any in the world. Then Sir Gawain went up to the king and said:

“My lord, I return to you whatever fiefs I hold from you, and I shall never again serve you in all my life if you tolerate this treachery.”

The king did not say a word in reply... and Sir Gawain straight away left the court... lamenting as much as if he saw everyone dead before him.