#gawain not being a king is a complex problem

[gawrkin]

Why did gawain not become king of orkney after Lot died?

That's a simple question with a very complicated answer.

To be really, really, really short and concise**, it boils down to two things:

One: Lot originally didn't die fighting Arthur.

In the earlies stories of Arthuriana, like Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae, Lot never warred with Arthur. The Sword in the Stone and the Mayday Massacre never happened in these older stories, so Lot has no reason to fight Arthur.

In fact, King Lot lives all the way to the end of Arthur's reign. Here's one example:

Didot Percival

So really, Gawain doesn't succeed Lot because originally, Lot was alive the whole time and Gawain dies at Mordred's rebellion before he can succeed Lot, who dies shortly after.

Lot's early death is actually a relatively recent Plot Point that was introduced in Vulgate/Post-Vulgate.

Its a retcon that only exists as a plot device to give Gawain a motive to be evil for revenge against Pellinore and his family.

There's also a bit Stations of the Canon at play here - Traditionally, Gawain is supposed to be one of Arthur's Greatest Warriors, so inevitably, he must join the Round Table... even when later stories change things so it doesn't make sense anymore.

By Post-Vulgate, Arthur is not only responsible for the death of his father but also seemingly the death of his newborn baby brother, Mordred. Gawain, logically, has no reason to like Arthur, much less join him.

So basically, its later retcons that don't jive with Gawain's positioning as member of Arthur's household. With Lot's early death, Gawain shouldn't be running around adventuring and questing when his homeland needs him to run things.

The medieval writers took for granted that Gawain is able to be present in Arthur's court for particular reasons.

Which leads us to the second reason

Two: Because then Gawain would be unable to adventure anymore

Basically, Gawain is a traditional hero of Arthuriana, and him not being in Camelot anymore would drastically change the cast dynamics and the story. It's like if Superman and Batman retired from the Justice League and didn't show up anymore.

Gawain can't meet Lancelot and join the Grail Quest if he's stuck up in the North, doing boring Kingly duties.

Ultimately, the Medieval writers just simply didn't care about Gawain's realistic feudal duties and obligations. To them, Gawain and the other knights are adventurer-protagonists: they're heroes first, feudal lords second.

That's why you don't see Lancelot managing Joyous Gard - that's boring real life crap the Medieval audiences wouldn't be interested in seeing. So, Lancelot goes around joining tournaments and beating up knights in random directions instead.

Arthurian Literature is essentially Chivalric escapist fantasy. It's about quests and fights, action and excitement.

And YES, it doesn't make any sense that Gawain isn't called "King Gawain"

**(I wrote an entire essay as an answer, only to stop I when realized its too long and overly wordy LOL)

[jurakan]

What adaptations of King Arthur legends would you recommend?

Uh... okay. Coolcoolcool. I can totes answer this.

I’m including stories/books that are Arthurian retellings, rather than books that are good and contain elements of Arthuriana but aren’t really retellings of the stories (so The Dark is Rising, The Lost Years of Merlin and The Fionavar Tapestry, while good, won’t make this cut).

1. The Arthur Trilogy by Kevin Crossley-Holland

Okay this is a bit of a weird one because it’s sort of King Arthur and sort of not. The story is that Arthur is the son of a knight living on the Middle March, the border between England and Wales, during the 12th century. He’s given a Seeing Stone by the family’s old friend Merlin, and in it he sees the whole life story of Arthur. And as Arthur’s life goes on, he sees parallels to his own life and it helps him understand growing up, especially as he becomes a squire, learns more about his heritage, and eventually rides off to Crusade. Through his Seeing Stone, you see basically all the big name Arthurian stories, and a few that aren’t as common or popular.

I have some issues with Crossley-Holland’s depiction of medieval Christianity--he does, after all, have a cardinal declare that women are all evil, and he takes the shooing women out of the Crusaders’ camp as proof of this--never mind that all these women are the mistresses of the Crusaders, so, uh, yeah. And continuity between books is a little fuzzy; the second and third books have some gaps between them that made me scratch my head. But other than that? Crossley-Holland knows his shiz, man. There are so many random details about medieval life that made it into these books it’s astonishing.

It also has the benefit of being told through a filter. We’re seeing King Arthur’s story as something that already happened, as being watched by our protagonist. He’s sympathetic to a lot of these characters, but he does sort of judge them. Heck, the way Crossley-Holland tells it, it’s pretty judgmental of Lancelot in general, as a man who has deluded himself into thinking he’s done nothing wrong, even if he has the best of intentions. And this series, while it gets grim, does end on a somewhat happier note than a lot of Arthurian literature.

2. The Warlord Chronicles by Bernard Cornwell

Cornwell attempted to write a “realistic” take on King Arthur and came up with this grim story set in post-Roman Britain. If I had problems with Crossley-Holland’s take on Christianity, I have loads with Cornwell’s. He does not like religion. Like, any religion. It gets to the point of having a scene where Merlin declares that all of Christianity is just a rehash of Mithraic cults, which is a common myth but definitively false if you’ve even dipped your toe into the subject. And there’s a lot of violence and sex and I wasn’t really into that. About a third of the way into the first book I almost gave up on it.

“This trilogy sounds terrible Jurakan, why is on this list?”

And then Lancelot is introduced.

If Cornwell hates religion, he seems to hate Lancelot just as much, if not more. And this is when the story become AMAZING because Cornwell’s Lancelot is THE biggest douchebag of all time, but he’s got a great PR crew (made up of poets and bards from his father’s kingdom) selling him as the greatest thing since Roman roads. And the protagonist, Derfel haaaaaaaaaaates him. Everyone does. Even Galahad (who in Cornwell’s telling is Lancelot’s brother rather than his son) hates him. And his affair with Guinevere is treated as just one more thing in a long line of betrayals that he plays off as him being the Good Guy.

Ultimately, Guinevere is played… well not necessarily sympathetically, but as a complex and interesting character who regrets her actions and tries to make up for them. But Lancelot? THE WORST. And once he and Galahad enter the story, is when it gets good, deconstructing that whole thing and it’s wonderful.

Maybe it won’t work for everyone, but I really hate that love triangle. So it worked for me. I also like that Cornwell uses a lot of lesser-known Arthurian characters? The main character is Saint Derfel, and Arthur’s retinue consists of his cousin Culhoch, Lanval, and Sagrimore.

3. The Pendragon Cycle by Stephen Lawhead

What if we tie a bunch of Atlantis stuff to a King Arthur story, use all the old Welsh names, and make it an explicitly Christian story? That’s Lawhead’s schtick. The love triangle is removed entirely; Lancelot only maybe had an analogue in the old Celtic stories anyway, and here he’s made Guinevere’s bodyguard and never a love interest. 

These books aren’t slow, precisely, but if you read the synopses you might get that impression because it takes a while to get to the parts mentioned there. And to be clear, Arthur himself doesn’t appear until the third book (which was the final book, but then Lawhead wrote two in-between-quels about Arthur’s adventures as king). This isn’t Lawhead at his best (that’s King Raven, which is his take on Robin Hood), but it’s pretty darn good, making the epic tale of Arthur even more epic as a battle for the soul of Britain.

Just be ready for hard to spell/pronounce Welsh names. 

4. The Squire’s Tales by Gerald Morris

I just started this series, and though it’s aimed at children and young adults, Morris goes hard into the details of little-known Arthurian stories and masterfully retells them. They’re sort of satire--they mercilessly mock a lot of the courtly love tropes that appear in the Arthurian stories. Tristan is, for instance, a completely unsympathetic moron and a bit of a meathead, who cannot understand why his love affair with Igraine won’t work (or how a vow of silence works).

Morris knows that Lancelot wasn’t always the Greatest of Knights, that Gawain was once The Man, and that any jackhole who tells you the Deepest Love is with another man’s wife is full of it. Lancelot and Guinevere are portrayed as shallow and silly when they start their affair, but when the affair ends they get a whole of character development that makes them much better and interesting characters.

Also these books are very funny. Gawain, for instance, is utterly baffled every time a knight makes him joust to just go down a road. “What are you guarding this creek from? Someone spitting in it?”

5. Sword of the Rightful King by Jane Yolen

Alright I haven’t read this one in ages but I remember it being good? It’s a cool little story about the beginning of Arthur’s reign, and how since people are questioning his reign, he asks Merlin to come up with a plan to legitimize everything. The result is… the Sword in the Stone. It’s a bit of a con, but if it works, it works, right?

Of course, not everything goes according to plan, and Morgan le Fay is planning something. Just what that something is, isn’t clear. And the new kid at court is a lot cleverer than he’s letting on.

It’s a fun little YA book. Like I said, it’s been forever since I read it, so I don’t know for sure how well it still stacks up, but I remember liking it.

Thanks for asking, friendo!

[alinaastarkov]

castielxelijah replied to your post “As I said before I can’t stand 98% of the changes...” 

I mean as a fan of the Arthurian legend I didn’t really feel like they just slapped the names onto random character. Like Percival (squirrel) was perfect I think. He’s brave (too brave for his own good) like Percival is in a lot of the stories. Also Morgana is going through a dark phase, just like Morgana in the original. Maybe not turning evil but it’s a good concept they’re going with. Arthur doesn’t start off perfect but that’s kinda the point, since he’s not royal he’s had to EARN the right to be king, so there’s plenty of room for development. Plus nimue in the original stories isn’t really known for much more than being the lady of the lake… which is where this journey will take her to anyway. I hope that didn’t sound rude, I just don’t think it felt like Arthurian names being slapped onto random characters when you really pay attention to them/ what they’re characters are usually portrayed as

*SPOILERS* 

(I don’t really know if anyone still cares but just in case)

@castielxelijah It’s not rude at all dw! I get what you’re saying. I’m obviously a bit of a Matter of Britain nerd too lol and I guess I’m having trouble seeing it myself. Arthur and Merlin are similar to what I expected honestly, whilst still having different stories (though my problem with Arthur was not to do with the og legend and more that his character is just super boring). Morgana did confuse me tho. I see the darker arc she might be going through, but I didn’t get why she was human when Fey is literally in her name. Gawain being a Fey also made no sense to me or him being the Green Knight. It’s just too weird for me seeing as the story is called “Sir Gawain and the Green Knight”. Plus, Gawain and the Green Knight both are much more complex than I got from the show. And all the role changes, this included were kind of jarring. Arthur and Morgana not being royalty, Merlin being Nimue’s father not her lover, Guinevere being a pirate, etc. And I totally understand retellings, I do it all the time and some of my favourite shows do this, so I get making Nimue younger and not so in control and I liked the changes they made to Lancelot as I said. But I think if you couple the personality changes with the role changes and the entirely new story, I struggle to see it as a retelling and it just feels completely new. 

Still gonna make gifs of it tho 🤷‍♀️

[gentlelarkspur]

Thoughts on Medieval Text Adaptations and Sir Gawain & the Green Knight

(Originally posted this on twitter, after hearing the news about this adaptation)

I am having some thoughts about the Sir Gawain and the Green Knight adaptation I posted about earlier. Not bad thoughts, I should mention! Just some contemplations. So here's a super nerdy thread of me doing some medieval musing.

So Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is my absolute favorite medieval text. Like, I did an entire self-directed study in my grad program dedicated to outlining my OWN proposal for a modern-setting adaptation to SGGK, including some art:

So obviously I don’t think adaptations are a bad thing. I am actually super excited because I hope that this one can make more people interested in the text and bring more people into the fandom (if that’s what you want to call it, lol).

Gawain in general is my favorite knight, for many reasons (ask me if you want more nerdy gushing about Gawain). One of the reasons I love SGGK is because it's such a rich text. But plot-wise, SGGK really isn't that dense. 

For those who don’t know what SGGK is about, a short summary: 

An entity comes to challenge Arthur at Christmas to a beheading game that is rigged in the entity's favor through magic. Gawain, being a good knight, takes his King's place in danger, and must suffer the trials put to him after.He gets one year to put his affairs in order and then has to go face the Green Knight at New Years. He gets lost, meets a lord, stays for Christmas, and engages in a competition to exchange their "winnings" at the end of each day. The lord goes out hunting while Gawain gets smooched.Gawain smooches the lord when he gets back in exchange for whatever the lord has caught. He's usually honest, but on the day he needs to go see the Green Knight and face being beheaded, the lady gives him a magical belt. Gawain does not share this "winning" with the lord.When he goes to face the Green Knight, he's spared from death because he was honest, except for a cut on the neck because he lied about the belt. (also ta-da! the Green Knight is the lord, who would have guessed). Gawain goes home alive, the end.

(this is super reductive, btw)

What makes SGGK such an amazing poem is how rich it is. I'm not being metaphorical when I say that reading SGGK is an experience. It was meant to be read and re-read. It's dense, and packed with an insane amount of small moments and visuals that are distinct and beautiful.For example, Gawain putting on his armor before heading out to find the Green Knight is a visually rich moment. We see him suited up in fine detail. His armor, the design on the inside and outside of his shield, the colors, his features, ect. 

Same with the first appearance of the Green Knight, who is described in what can only be explained as t h i c c medieval beefcake. Also, the poem oscillates between earthly sensuality and spirituality, which aren't mutually exclusive when performed according to chivalric values. 

Also also, if you want to do some deep dives into medieval texts through the lens of queer theory, there is just. So Much. in this text. Seriously, just read the part with Gawain & Bertilak snogging, it is NOT some quick peck on the lips. The subtext is strong with Gawain & Sir Beefcake! 

Gawain's internal struggle with his draw toward earthly life (Christmas parties, kissing men & women, feasts, games) and his spiritual & chivalric duties coupled with intense visual imagery are at the very core of what makes this poem compelling & evergreen.

This is why adaptations of medieval texts are often so hard. They are absolutely meant to be read and contemplated over and over again. They are the literary equivalent of lambas bread-- there's enough in one bite to keep you going for ages. 

Literally. It's been like 600 years.

So this is what makes adaptations really tricky. Because if you stick too closely to the original text, you'll often find that it's shallow and pale feeling in comparison. There just isn't that much, plot-wise. But stray too far and it loses the heart of what makes it special.

This isn't to say that its impossible to adapt while maintaining the heart of what makes SGGK important, mind you. But it will require a devotion to building complex characters that a lot of medieval movies lack, or replace with sword fights.

I can see this adaptation veering from the text in a few ways: 

1, they make it about a love triangle between Gawain and the Bertilaks,

2. they make the relationship between the Green Knight & Gawain adversarial,

& 3, they replace character building with sword fights and make-out sessions, i.e. turning it into most Arthuriana-based movie before it. 

Doing these things won't mean its not a success financially or even as a narrative, but I personally feel it wouldn't share the same spirit as the poem. Which is in general a problem with most Arthurian adaptations, tbh.

Anyway, I'm still looking forward to seeing David Lowery's version. I don't think it's blasphemy to be different than a text during adaptations. But there's a lot of difficulties in doing it, and the reasons for them aren't simple. It's gonna be interesting to see the results!

TL;DR because most won't read this thread (I don't blame you), some highlights: t h i c c medieval beefcake bertilak Gawain is a bi icon sword fights can't replace a lack of personality Arthur is a dick That last one wasn't really in the thread but is worth saying anyway. :p

[tillman]

hey hey hey okay so i saw you mentioning how mad fates interpretation of gawain makes you and im eyes emoji... would u be willing to rant for us or nah fjenfjf i know it's a weird question but honestly i love seeing you so passionate about this stuff it's really interesting and fun to explore from a complete noobs perspective

YES of course…. to be upfront im completely going off of fgo and the garden of avalon bits of fate lore because i havent gotten around to the other games yet and also i have no money to do that so i cant say if hes better in the other things hes in or if his characterization works way better in those situations so sowwy ! i have limited free time !  anyways

this is coming from someone who loves the arthurian knight sir gawain enough to do an essay on his character and actions for class just for shits and giggles. I genuinely think hes the most interesting knight of the round and even if hes not my top fave for stupid biased reasons, i really luv this man. know this. hes passionate and caring, sympathetic and flawed, stupid and horny but driven and motivated by complex emotions. the knight gawain is a deeply flawed human being, but he knows this and wears this fact with pride (literally! the girdle bertilaks wife gives him is completely symbolic and its wonderful) hes not stupid, though hes a bit dense. 

the most interesting thing about gawain from the legends to me is he tends to see morality in a VERY black and white way. (person) has wronged (my family/me/those i care about) thus (person) must die. he doesnt need to go deeper than this! pellinore, lamorak, and lancelot all hurt him in some way and so he stops at nothing to get their heads. hes not a very complicated man in that regard, which is neat! hes basically a vigilante knight in some sense which is fucking interesting! but back on topic oops

my problem w fates version of the knight comes from the fact the major change they made is making him less devoted to his family and more just towards whoever hes serving. 

this completely twists his entire character from a flawed man with too much love and passion for those close to him, willing to manipulate his own uncle and king into a war he will either die or kill his best friend in just to avenge his brothers, to simply a cop who doesnt give a single fucking shit about if the orders are just or not. sir gawain functions on his own sense of morality and honor. he doesnt care if the murder of pellinore was unchivalrous or wrong. that man killed his father and he will pay. fates gawain is just following orders from someone he is loyal too. he doesnt really care if they are right or even just to him, he just cares theyre from his lord. 

i think the most egregious thing fate includes in this characterization is gawains willingness to kill his brothers. hell when hes listing the knights he personally slayed he just throws gaheris’s name in there with no empathy. like  This bit truly hurts to read i think about it a lot.

half the list and half the justification of why they were killed it just hurts! i wont talk on kay literally being his uncle or percival and gawain being close friends or fucking how funny it is pellinore is in there too but thinking for three seconds how gawain, the man willing to bring down camelot just to avenge his brothers deaths, would just lightly throw gaheris in with the dead who tried to “protect the kings honor” really just . wow ! thats so completely off ! 

anyways fate gawain is a fucking cop and i want to bash his stupid little head in. at least hes nice to gareth in her little my room line about him. thats it. thats the only thing i can give him. 

[mediaeval-muse]

Book Review... Gwen Rowley, “Knights of the Round Table: Gawain”

Rating: 2/5 stars

Genre: fantasy romance

Part of a Series? Yes, Knights of the Round Table #3 (of 3)

Summary: Loyal Sir Gawain pledges to marry a hideous crone in exchange for the answer to a riddle that will save King Arthur's life. But the loathly lady is actually the lovely Aislyn, former sorceress, in disguise, who is out to make Gawain pay for rejecting her in the past. Then Aislyn finds herself enchanted by the gallant knight.

***Full review under the cut.***

Overview: I’m currently reading a bunch of romance novels with a friend of mine as a way of getting more familiar with the genre, and I remember seeing this book recommended by another medieval enthusiast, so the two of us decided to give it a whirl. While the idea of retelling the story of Gawain and Ragnelle isn’t inherently a bad one, I felt like this book missed the mark in so many ways. There were some saving graces; the relationship between Arthur and Gawain was very well done, in my opinion. It just wasn’t enough to make up for the things that bothered me.

Trigger Warnings: violence, misogyny, rape

Writing: Rowley writes with a fairly straightforward prose style, but one that tells a lot rather than shows. It wasn’t the most irritating style I’ve encountered; it just made the book more skimmable, which I guess could be a good thing if you’re a reader who likes to get through books quickly. Some of the dialogue was humorous (by design), which made for a more light-hearted reading experience; it did feel very modern than what I would expect of medieval characters, aside from a few stray “yons” and “lemans” thrown in to make it feel more archaic. Honestly, I preferred the more modern style rather than the fake medieval-speak, since the medievalisms made the dialogue feel more wooden than natural. But overall, the I didn’t find the style unbearable - it just wasn’t interesting. The major flaw in the writing, for me, was the random insertion of characters’ memories and flashbacks. They occurred at random moments that interrupted the flow of the story - they sometimes interrupted a sentence that continued on after the memory was over! I would have preferred flashbacks be handled more deliberately, not thrown in whenever something in the plot vaguely reminded a character of something from their past.

Plot: As I mentioned above, the idea of retelling the story of Gawain and Ragnelle isn’t a bad one. I love authors who try to rework medieval tales to give women more agency and character. Unfortunately, Rowley decided to do so in a way that cut out a lot of the most interesting stuff from the original tale. We start with the end of the story, when Aislyn, disguised as a crone named Ragnelle, agrees to give Arthur the answer to his quest in exchange for Gawain’s hand in marriage. Rather than the curse being inflicted on her before the marriage, as it is in the medieval tale, the curse is inflicted after, when a character is trying to punish Aislyn for messing with Gawain (in the form of her using her crone form to torture him for a past slight). For me, this killed all the excitement and shifted the focus away from the original message of the tale (about female agency and sexual dynamics) to one about how love can overcome barriers. It would have been a good shift, but I didn’t get the sense that love was overcoming barriers by the end of the book - Gawain doesn’t seem to actually learn the lesson from the original tale, and Aislyn mostly struggles with whether or not to be obedient to Gawain. While I can understand wanting to make female characters more agentive from the beginning, I found this book’s reworking of the plot less interesting than the original medieval tale. The change in focus also made the plot drag a little bit. In the first 80 pages, all of the focus was on Gawain’s disgust at Ragnelle’s form or Aislyn’s/Ragnelle’s desire for revenge. We follow Gawain and Ragnelle as they explore married life, which isn’t as exciting as it sounds since Gawain is forever struggling with Ragnelle’s ugliness and Ragnelle/Aisling is always looking for ways to torment him. After Aislyn is formally cursed on pages 85-86, the plot has a goal, but nothing in the structure of the narrative seems to work towards that goal in a very efficient way. Events don’t seem to build on one another, so the plot didn’t feel like it had shape. There are also a few events that seem to be inserted to show conflict between Gawain and Lancelot, and some that showcase Gawain’s anguish over his past. While some of these things bring Ragnelle and Gawain closer together, the conflict with Lancelot and Gawain’s emotional pain definitely overshadowed the moments of tenderness between the characters. What I disliked the most, however, was that everyone - main characters and side characters alike - seemed to be in petty conflict with one another. There’s obvious tension between Gawain and Lancelot, and Aislyn’s inner thoughts about Guinevere and the other ladies of the court disappointed me (why can’t we have more medievaly stories in which women band together, I ask). Aside from these conflicts, everyone got on my nerves for treating Ragnelle as subhuman. While their treatment of her could have been the moral lesson of the book, it didn’t come through consistently; I did get the sense that the book was supposed to showcase how Camelot isn’t the paradise it is made out to be, but a lot of the mistreatment felt like drama or humor rather than a teaching tool. I did like, however, that Ragnelle’s purpose seemed to change so that she was at the center of a lot of conflicts between men - in this way, I think she exposed a lot of the underlying problems in a male homosocial society. However, as much as she pointed to a lot of the problems, she also perpetuated them.

Characters: I had an extremely hard time liking either Aislyn or Gawain for a large portion of this book. Aislyn, our heroine, is constantly thinking ill of other women or thinking herself better than them, except in incidents. She’s out for revenge, and while I get that being left by a man you loved is devastating, I personally find seeking revenge for that a little petty, especially when you can just use your words and clear up any misconceptions. She got better as the book progressed, standing up for other women and calling out injustice, but I still had a hard time with her, since she seemed to waver between being a strong-willed character and being a bully. Gawain, despite being one of the best knights in Arthurian lore, starts out as kind of a sexist jerk with a lot of emotional turmoil from his past. His sense of honor was admirable, and I want to make clear that I do think that aspect of him was well done, but he was so angsty that his main purpose was to be a wet blanket for most of the book. I also wasn’t wholly convinced he had changed in his ways by the end of the book. The villains of the piece weren’t even that interesting. Morgause is completely one-dimensional: a power-hungry seductress whose motives aren’t exactly clear and, based on her actions, poses next to no real threat to anyone. Somer Gromer Jour (or Launfal), Aislyn’s brother, could have been interesting if Morgause herself wasn’t so over-the-top and Launfal had more of a purpose other than to be Morgause’s victim. Lancelot and Guinevere are also turned into antagonists by the way they blatantly disrespect not only Ragnelle, but other knights of the Round Table. It was kind of a mess. But despite all that, I did like the relationship between Arthur and Gawain. They had some nice exchanges that showed how complex their dynamic was, with Arthur being both Gawain’s king and uncle. Gawain and Ragnelle also had some nice moments where they were honest with one another, and those bits were well done.

Other Romance: I honestly didn’t see much romantic chemistry between Aislyn and Gawain, perhaps because Aislyn was so antagonistic towards him for so long. Don’t get me wrong - I’m a fan of enemies-to-lovers tropes, but this novel didn’t really feel like it was really getting to the heart of the angst and pain between the characters and working on unraveling it. Instead, the conflict was easily cleared up by just talking (even if the characters didn’t act on it for a long time). Instead, their relationship felt more platonic, which wouldn’t be a problem if this book was marketed as a genre other than romance. Misogyny: I understand that a lot of authors writing about the Middle Ages will embed some sexism in their books, but I am still irritated when I see it. Rowley has Gawain start out as holding very misogynistic views, despite his medieval counterpart being one of the most courteous knights to women (and even in the book, Gawain wavers back and forth). The book also makes use of various tropes which  I dislike: Morgause is a seductress who (I think) rapes Launfal regularly, characters use words like “bitch” and “slut,” a male character views his wife as worthless for not bearing a son, etc. Poor Guinevere couldn’t catch a break since she was being portrayed as a cheating harlot the whole time, and Morgana popped in for all of 10 seconds to serve her part in the plot before moving on. Rowley also writes an episode where the Saxons blame the women for the peaceweaver system failing, which was utterly baffling to me. And Gawain still seems to hold his view that a wife should be obedient to her husband until the very last second - around page 307 of the book.

Moving on to Other Books in the Series? No.

Recommendations: I would recommend this book if you’re a romance reader or interested in Arthurian retellings.

[first-and-last-neocount]

Bearing An Hourglass, Part 1

Guess who’s home with Covid? 

I feel like death warmed over but I’m double vaccinated, so I’m unlikely to actually die, thankfully. I’m pretty much bedbound thanks to fatigue, dizziness, and vicious coughing fits, though, so I’m making some more inroads on my pile of books to read. 

Second book of the Incarnations of Immortality underway, thoughts so far under the cut. 

I was correct that Norton makes a much, much better protagonist than Zane, but dear god this book is dragging. I’m a little over halfway through, and it’s been a grind to get this far. Piers Anthony has a tendency to go off on tangents, many of which ultimately don’t have anything to do with the overarching plot of the book. This isn’t always a bad thing; it works in favour of his Xanth books, which are arguably less about the overarching plot than the entertaining side antics, and there are other authors who tend to digress in a similar fashion - Stephen King actually comes to mind - and whose digressions are always vastly entertaining to me. There’s just something about Piers Anthony’s sidetracks that feels... actively alienating. Some part of my brain is constantly thinking, we both know this isn’t going to matter, so why the hell are you making me sit through it? 

That being said, Norton is a sweetheart and the overall tone of the book is much less off-putting than On A Pale Horse - I even managed to genuinely care about his relationship with his love interest, Orlene, and was sad for his sake as well as hers when she died. They intially get together because of a very strange premise; Orlene is married to the ghost of an idiot who got himself killed hunting dragons, an arrogant buffoon by the name of Gawain, and needs to produce his heir to fulfil the marriage terms. Obviously, he can’t sire the child himself, so she needs a living man to take up the task. Gawain selects Norton as a likely prospect, and Norton and Orlene end up falling in love for real, and it’s all very sweet and actually quite emotional. 

After Orlene’s tragic demise and Norton’s ascension to the role of Chronos, the plot starts to flag horrifically. Satan’s back to his usual tricks, trying to sabotage the other Incarnations, and here we get to see the birth of one of his schemes to stop Zane from becoming Thanatos - attempting to get Norton to help him divert Zane’s past, preventing Zane from trying to kill himself and thereby becoming Thanatos. The intrigue is good, but its execution is painful. To convince Chronos to help him, Satan keeps whisking him off in complicated illusions, tempting Norton’s love of exploration and discovery with complex worlds and elaborate adventures. The idea is sound. The problem is that the ‘adventures’ themselves are horrifically boring, at least for me. 

It got so bad that I skipped a big chunk of the last one, something to do with a fantasy world - there was a dragon to be slain, a beautiful maiden to be helped, an Elf involved somehow. I couldn’t take it. Even the narrative payoff from Gawain teaching Norton how to slay dragons at the beginning of the book wasn’t worth the twenty or so pages wasted on this meaningless side endeavour, and I skipped ahead. 

I’ve gotten to the part where Norton has realized he was being tricked by Satan, and the other Incarnations are bringing him up to speed on the situation, telling him about Luna’s future significance in thwarting Satan’s schemes and that Satan is trying desperately to kill her any way he can - hence his determination to eliminate Thanatos, who was instrumental in saving Luna’s life in the first book. I’m hoping that now that the plot is back on the rails, the rest of the book will be a bit better, since the cosmic intrigue really is where these books seem to shine. 

We shall see.