redbrunja | The Blood Inside Maple Trees

Entry tags:

merlin

The Blood Inside Maple Trees

zahrawithaz has a post on the arthurian legends and how they developed over the centuries that is hugely helpful.

I find it especially timely because I've been trying to remember where I got my ideas about these legends. I remember liking Guinevere prior to reading The Mists of Avalon (one of the major reasons I hated that book was Bradley's treatment of her), although Bradley's novel is first I can recall reading about the arthurian legends; it was shortly followed by Child of the Northern Spring and Queen of the Summer Stars, though I did not read the third book of that trilogy; ~~one of the thick, famous, books about Merlin~~( ETA: okay so I asked my mom about this, and I read The Crystal Cave and The Hollow Hills and I have never read ); and I Am Morgan Le Fay and I Am Mordred).

Basically, I do not recall a time when I didn't know the basis of these legends.

[ETA: From quizzing my mom, I am pretty sure that at least half but probably more of my early exposure to these legends was her telling them to me.]

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

http://www.arthurkingoftimeandspace.com/ Exactly as it says. Arthurian Legend in everything from "original" context to Star Trek/Wild West/Comic Books. It fills me with joy <3

Bahaha, I knew where mine came from, my mother. It was filled with scorn for all of them. Arthur for being such a dumb dreamer and not setting up a stable form of government that didn't rely on someone as dumb as male succession for a new ruler. Guinevere for not having a back bone and for being a simpering Christian woman, and Lancelot for betraying who he was sworn to. x_x ... That left Morgan Le Fay, who as far as my mother was concerned, was the only one with a brain. I love Mist of Avalon for Morganna's Aunt. The super awesome High Priestess. She was love <3

... yeah.... I dislike the Arthurian Legend. >.>

Really? I never would have guess! *giggle*

*facepalms at self* Yeahhhh. It's pretty sad how much I hate it though. As I got older and separated my views from my mothers, I tried reading into the Myths again with a open mind and I realized that... It's part the Gender fail but it's also the the story of Camelot itself. Somethings off. People with dreams like Arthur that act like that doesn't make sense. That Arthur could dream, work, build like that and have it all just fall apart because his wife had an affair? No. That doesn't make any sense. It bothers me.

I really liked the movie that they made a few years ago though, but for the religion discourse of the old pagan Gods vs the Young Christian God. Also! Picts! Crazy fucking bastards <3 Nyeeeh I love Celtic Legends. Any body that paints them self blue and runs half naked in to battle is okay in my books.

People with dreams like Arthur that act like that doesn't make sense. That Arthur could dream, work, build like that and have it all just fall apart because his wife had an affair? No. That doesn't make any sense. It bothers me.

That is a VERY valid point.

I really liked the movie that they made a few years ago though, but for the religion discourse of the old pagan Gods vs the Young Christian God. Also! Picts! Crazy fucking bastards

I admit, I had some problems with that movie, but I totally approved of Keira Knightly being painted blue and then kicking ass.

That is a VERY valid point.

Sadly it's the one that makes me either sit on the Camelot and Arthur never existed side of the fence. Or that Arthur was a terrible king, and I hope he never does rise again side. Mrrrf. And clinches the "Fuck what a retarded legend. Why didn't you stick to the ones about cattle stealing"

I admit, I had some problems with that movie too, but I totally approved of Keira Knightly being painted blue and then kicking ass. The reigning Queen of Corset. Hurr. Not that she wears any in that movie, but you get the idea. XD

Yeah there were a lot of things I didn't like, but I have a soft spot, a) cause of the afore mention Kiera Knightly and B) in the special features one of the "Knights" is this dorky Australian Guy that is like "It's awesome, we ride around on horses and with all this leather, fighting and being rebels and stuff. We're like Medieval Bikeys!" <3333 *dorkdorkdork*

Sadly it's the one that makes me either sit on the Camelot and Arthur never existed side of the fence. Or that Arthur was a terrible king, and I hope he never does rise again side.

Yeah, I never ever bought that. Like, I think maybe someone there is some guy who united some tribes and that's where the legend started, but I am POSITIVE that what actually happened does not reflect what we SAY happened in any meaningful way.

As for the king who will rise again? I'll believe that when Santa Claus brings me a boy-toy for under the christmas tree.

The reigning Queen of Corset. Hurr. Not that she wears any in that movie, but you get the idea. XD

I certainly do!

You hate The Mists of Avalon, too? I always thought I was the only one!

Naw, I tried like crazy to get into it when I was teenage, angry, and just starting to call myself a feminist, and I still couldn't bring myself to like it.

Ha! I read it before my feminist days (though I was a teenager) and I seriously don't know how I finished it. All of the men were evil or weak, all of the women except for Morgaine were, too. And I feel like we were being asked to ship an incest ship, and...ugh.

Was that incest ship Arthur/Morgaine?

Yup. Half-siblings, if I recall correctly. I've read enough older books that when cousins fall in love it doesn't phase me at all, but siblings? Too close for comfort, that.

I HATE THAT SO MUCH! THINKING ABOUT IT IS LIKE FLAMES ON THE SIDE OF MY FACE.

I KNOW RIGHT? SO MUCH LOATHING. I have rarely hated a book as much as I hated that one. Maybe only one other book EVER. And I have read A LOT of books.

What I really curse myself for, looking back is how MUCH of that book I read. (There were about 75 pages I skipped over towards the end but seriously.) I was younger then, I didn't realize how valuable my time was; how many other, better books there were to read in the world.

I was never into Arthurian legends when I was young (the only experience I had with them was Sword in the Stone,) and when I got older, I was leery of checking it out because knew there'd be genderfail. Just knew it.

That said, Child of the Northern Spring and Queen of the Summer Stars sound intriguing.

Not gonna lie, there is gender fail... but as that link I posted illustrated, a lot of that genderfail was added in, PLUS the arthurian legends have been a very fertile ground for feminist recaiming, so at this point, there are a lot of very positive, pro-women narratives.

I don't remember when I first heard them, but I know it must have been VERY early. The basic form, anyway. One of the earliest games I can recall playing as a little kid was "Arthur and Gwenevere" where my dad and I would run around and slay dragons and such. Also, Disney's Sword and the Stone. My parents also told me that I was named for Gwenevere (Jennifer), and if I'd been a boy I would have been Lance.

(My dad also read me The Hobbit as a bedtime story before I learned to read, so I guess my early learning was a little bit different.)

On a side note...it's interesting seeing all the different spellings for Gwen/guinevere/effere etc. I don't think I've ever seen it the same way in any of the Arthurian inspired books, or on baby names pages and such. I think I first saw it with the w, so that's the way I spell it.

(My dad also read me The Hobbit as a bedtime story before I learned to read, so I guess my early learning was a little bit different.)

Good for him!

On a side note...it's interesting seeing all the different spellings for Gwen/guinevere/effere etc

It is. Personallly, I always like the "Guinevere" way. I'm not totally sure why.

It always seemed to me like Bradley sacrificed her feminism for her religious agenda with her treatment of Guinivere. She wanted to show so badly that the Church disempowered women that she was willing to suck the life out of a character who had the potential to be complex, compelling, and plenty interesting in her own right, just to make her point. And like you, that was one of the main reasons I disliked Mists.

You're also the first person I've run across who read the Springer books growing up! I went back to visit my parents' house and found the pair of them just last week, sitting on an old bookshelf, probably untouched for a good ten years. I decided to take them home with me; I certainly know Springer's Morgan affected me for years, and probably still does even to this day.

She wanted to show so badly that the Church disempowered women that she was willing to suck the life out of a character who had the potential to be complex, compelling, and plenty interesting in her own right, just to make her point.

Agreed. And she also used a very beloved character to (try and) make that point, which was, imho, a tactical error on her part.

I decided to take them home with me; I certainly know Springer's Morgan affected me for years, and probably still does even to this day.

tbh, I can't remember what she did with Morgan. Did she have a positive or negative image or her? Or was it more complex?

Springer-Morgan was definitely the villainous version from the later stories, but she paid a lot of attention to making her psychologically complex, a selfish, strong-willed kid who also understandably balked at the roles set out before her--and just as she went with a mid-to-late medieval villainous interpretation of the character, she was very careful to give her all the same societal baggage she would have had being a woman at that time.

While I gave them a reread and the books don't hold up as well for me as they did back then, the notion that she could still be an antagonist while retaining her complexity stuck, and is something that obsesses me even today. I've noticed that generally speaking, books either go back to her original role (or at least something closer to it than, say, the romances) and make her a complex good guy, or they make her a two-dimensional antagonist. While I like her original role, I'd like to see more people tackle her in bad-guy mode while not giving her the short shrift character-development-wise.

Morgan icon just for you.

I've noticed that generally speaking, books either go back to her original role (or at least something closer to it than, say, the romances) and make her a complex good guy, or they make her a two-dimensional antagonist. While I like her original role, I'd like to see more people tackle her in bad-guy mode while not giving her the short shrift character-development-wise.

There could be some awesome, awesome stories from that angle. And I'm thinking I may need to do a reread of some of these novels. (And read some of the ones I never got a chance to.)

A friend gave me Child of the Northern Spring. I read a bit of it, and then its been sitting on my bookshelf for about six years. I think I should probably pick it up again.

I loved The Mists of Avalon, mostly because of its Old World paganism perspective. And because, while Guinevere is an awful character in it, it is the only Arthurian story that doesn't villainize Morgaine/Morgana. It's nice to not have the "witch" be evil for once.

There is another by Alice Borchardt called The Dragon Queen that focuses on Guinevere. Its much more mystical in nature, and in it Guinevere is already a queen of the Celts who marries Arthur in a political alliance to stop the Saxons. She's definitely a HBIC. Unfortunately it was supposed to be a trilogy, but the author died.

I do give her hearty amounts of credit for Morgaine, and she was also the first (non-YA) author I encountered who even tried to tell the story from a perspective wherein "pagan" wasn't synonymous with "savage," so she definitely did break new ground.

I think I've run into The Dragon Queen! It looked interesting and I may have to pick it up now.

I need to reread Child of the Northern Spring. I think I would have a different perspective on it as an adult.

in it, it is the only Arthurian story that doesn't villainize Morgaine/Morgana. It's nice to not have the "witch" be evil for once.

True. Although post-MoA, there have been a lot of stories that do that. And a lot of earlier stories too- apparently she started out as a good witch.

I've also read The Dragon Queen - i didn't realize that the author died before she could finish the series thought.

Edited 2010-10-07 04:49 (UTC)

Yeah, she died a few years ago. Anne Rice is actually her sister, and there has been a lot of pleading by Alice's fans for Anne to finish the series based on her's notes etc., like Tolkein's son did with his work. I understand one author not wanting to touch anther's legacy, but I suspect that Anne Rice is just too pretentious to bother. She would rather spend her time treating her fans like crap, denouncing the vampire genre and everything that got her where she is today, and writing a fictional account of the life of Jesus... >:|

Right, because we really need more books about fucking jesus.

...I know you were using an expletive to strengthen your comment, but all I could think about was published Bible slash XDD

Trust me, my choice of the word 'fucking' was totally deliberate.

The Once and Future King is one of my favorite books in the whole wide world, and I read that for the first time...heck, before high school, I think, although I struggled to understand it--it's definitely a book that I've grown into in its endless rereadability. But I remember looking at the pictures in the gigantic copy of Malory's Morte in our house (the script was too hard to read when I was a kid, and then when I was older I was still sheltered enough to be horrified by the lack of paragraph separation), and, and yeah, I'm with you.

I basically can't stand any retelling that remotely involves the word "Druid" unless Rosemary Sutcliffe is involved.

I've never actually read The Once and Future King but it's on my list.

And what bugs you about other writers using the phrase Druid?

Edited 2010-10-07 04:07 (UTC)

a lot of people I know only like The Sword in the Stone, but I think the whole thing is full of treasures.

If they're putting lots of emphasis on Druids then they tend to be doing the whole "neo-paganism" thing described in the article, which leads you into territory like Rosalind Miles writing about Guinevere* and basically saying that she was unfaithful to Arthur because "a queen must have her knights." Again, I'm a T.H. White kind of Arthurian fan, but it just felt too...easy? And like, reducing the entire Arthurian mythos to "waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah women were oppressed and I hate organized religion in all forms" (and your made-up "Druidism" is...?) and it tends to be badly written on top of that.

tl;dr super-picky about my Arthurian retellings

*purplest smut I have ever read: "She felt herself grow wet with joy." Wait, is she feeling joy 'cause she's growing wet? Or is she "wet with joy"? Either way, WHAT.

nd basically saying that she was unfaithful to Arthur because "a queen must have her knights."

Umm, okay, I guess? *giggle*

And like, reducing the entire Arthurian mythos to "waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah women were oppressed and I hate organized religion in all forms" (and your made-up "Druidism" is...?) and it tends to be badly written on top of that.

Definitely too easy. You read one of those books and you're set for life, and there are many, many versions of that story out there.

*purplest smut I have ever read: "She felt herself grow wet with joy." Wait, is she feeling joy 'cause she's growing wet? Or is she "wet with joy"? Either way, WHAT.

It sounds like she pissed herself. Seriously.

Edited 2010-10-07 05:22 (UTC)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

The Blood Inside Maple Trees

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject