![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ealgyldenOkay, I know everyone was all giddy yesterday about the King Arthur pics of Keira looking fierce (but cold. Poor girl, that costume looks really uncomfortable) or Ioan looking terribly butch, or both. I was too, believe me. But I want to throw a little love in the direction of Stellan Skarsgard. Come on, is that not the face of a Viking who knows he's doomed to die, and wants only to die well? I've only seen Stellan in contemporary roles, so I had no idea he had such a great look for period pieces. Nice surprise. I also have no idea who this Cedric he plays is (Cedric the Saxon, kidnapped and sent back in time from Ivanhoe?), but I'll admit freely that the Arthurian mythos is not traditionally my thing. I had one Medieval Comp. Lit. class on it as an undergrad (Gildas to Mallory, yeehaw), and that's pretty much it. Anyway, Stellan has definitely made the cast of my fantasy Beowulf and/or Viking saga movie, along with Dennis Storhoi and Vladimir Kulich from 13th Warrior (not a great pic of Dennis, but Vladimir looks fearsome), possibly Rutger Hauer (he did "nobly doomed" wonderfully in Ladyhawke, but that was a long time ago, and he's not aging well) and pretty much all of the Rohirrim. Some of the extras in King Arthur seem to fit the bill as well, and who is that long-haired cutie? Him too. I'll make him Wiglaf or something.
And speaking of King Arthur, I’m not in favor of banning books, but damn if I'm not tempted when it comes to Mists of Avalon. Not permanently, but just long enough so that there's one generation of teenies that doesn't shriek, "But Guinevere was blonde! She was a pious Christian virgin! Why isn't it all about the women? Where's Morgaine/Viviane/Morgause/whotheheckever?" whenever something Arthurian arises in pop culture. And I like MoA, or at least I did when I read it at thirteen (haven't read it since, and from what I hear it often doesn't hold up well after adolescence). But kiddies, it is not the Arthurian gospel. It's certainly not very good history, Arthurian or not. Or, you know, history at all. It's just a novel. Honestly.
And speaking of King Arthur, I’m not in favor of banning books, but damn if I'm not tempted when it comes to Mists of Avalon. Not permanently, but just long enough so that there's one generation of teenies that doesn't shriek, "But Guinevere was blonde! She was a pious Christian virgin! Why isn't it all about the women? Where's Morgaine/Viviane/Morgause/whotheheckever?" whenever something Arthurian arises in pop culture. And I like MoA, or at least I did when I read it at thirteen (haven't read it since, and from what I hear it often doesn't hold up well after adolescence). But kiddies, it is not the Arthurian gospel. It's certainly not very good history, Arthurian or not. Or, you know, history at all. It's just a novel. Honestly.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-22 03:03 am (UTC)I think the Ivanhoe Cedric is the anachronism ;) If I remember right from my Rosemary Sutcliffe (a sadly out-of-print but fabulous author about late-Roman Britain), Cerdic was one of the Saxons who came into British territory (whence the names Sussex & Essex in England) and the "historical" King Arthur, who may have been a Romanized Welshman (mmmmIoan!) fought against him at Maldon? I *highly* recommend R. Sutcliffe if you've never read her stuff.
I also really love Stellan Starsgard and adored the original "Insomnia" - would love to see him in a film version of the Henning Mankell mysteries if they ever do those.
And I COMPLETELY agree with you about Mists of Avalon - I completely loathe that book (although the miniseries was a guilty pleasure.) I really had to force myself to finish it and I will *never* recommend it to anyone!!!
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-22 06:57 am (UTC)I've read and enjoyed some Rosemary Sutcliffe (what I've been able to find anyway- I'd sell my sister for a copy of Blood and Sand), but I don't remember Cerdic. Time for a reread, maybe. Arthur at Maldon, though? Oof.
Stellan was excellent in Insomnia, I agree. He doesn't get enough recognition in this country, though I think much of that's the price of being a character actor. I'm sure he's "that mean guy from Good Will Hunting" to an awful lot of people. And I've heard of, but never read, Markell (or I've heard of Wallander, at least), so I'll have to keep an eye out.
Mists of Avalon was fun when I read it as a preteen, but even at the time I was thinking, "I'm going to outgrow this really quickly." And no surprise, I did- I've tried once or twice to read it since, and have never gotten more than a chapter in. I've only seen bits of the miniseries, but the costumes looked pretty, at least. Honestly, though, it's that Mystical Shamanism nonsense again. I just can't stand it.
Rosemary Sutcliffe
Date: 2003-10-22 08:47 am (UTC)I read as much of her stuff as I could lay my hands on in my teens.
Sword at Sunset also had the excellent effect of inoculating me against Mists of Avalon, which I managed about two chapters of before hurling it aside with some force.
Re: Rosemary Sutcliffe
Date: 2003-10-22 09:46 pm (UTC)I definitely need to re-read Sutcliffe. I read Mark of the Horselord, if I'm remembering it rightly (it's the one with Phaedrus the gladiator, right?), but I never got to read Swords at Sunset, thanks to some light-fingered library patron. I've always been fond of Dragon Slayer, because, hey, Beowulf. Quickest way to get my interest is with Beowulf. It's a shame that ninety percent of her work is out of print, though. Fingers crossed that it gets reprinted soon.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-22 01:31 pm (UTC)The historical Arthur probably fought a number of battles against the various Germanic invaders but he certainly didn't fight at Maldon. The battle of Maldon, as celebrated in a famous epic poem, took place in 990 CE between English forces under the command of Earl Brithnoth and Viking Raiders. As Maldon is on the coast of Essex it would be a highly unlikely place to find Arthur in any event.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-22 04:54 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-22 07:47 pm (UTC)I'll put a plug in for early English history as particularly interesting. The period from the first Germanic settlements to Hastings is much overlooked. This is particularly egregious when one bears in mind that in the 8th and 9th centuries CE England was one of the most advanced and culturally vibrant societies in Western Europe.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-22 03:09 am (UTC)Seriously, you want to do a Beowulf movie? Talk to me in ten years. ;)
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-22 07:09 am (UTC)I would love to do a Beowulf movie (and nothing like that low budget post-apocalyptic nonsense Christophe Lambert did. Blech). I love Beowulf truly, madly and deeply. I plan on scaring the bejeezus out of my kids with it as a bedtime story someday (hey, it'll teach them to respect their mother, right? Moms are scary). It seems like a natural for a movie to me, but the closest we've gotten was 13th Warrior, which was pretty darned close, and which I loved, but still. So yeah, Beowulf movie. Good pipe dream.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-22 03:38 am (UTC)Ioan looks very hot, but that beard looks badly done in some shots. Either it's fake or he just doesn't grow one very well.
I like your cast so far for the fantasy Beowulf movie. Mmmm, pretty.
Haven't read Mists of Avalon. Now I'm wondering if I should ever bother.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-22 07:28 am (UTC)I think he just can't grow a very good beard, poor fella. It's better than just scruffy stubble, but not a lot better. He looks like he did some working out, too- he's broader than I'm used to.
I wish I could find some better pictures of Dennis Storhoi online. That man is just the cutest fierce Viking warrior to ever behead monsters on my tv. So, so cute.
I'm not sure I'd recommend Mists of Avalon, to be honest. It's interesting because it's so influential (not always positively, but still) and because it was one of the first major reexaminations of he stories from a feminine perspective. But there are flaws in the writing and the research, and it's full of anachronistic neo-pagan stuff (like a lot of MZB's work), and there's something very... teenaged about the whole thing. I'd be more likely to rec it to someone under fifteen than someone over twenty.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-23 01:57 am (UTC)I wish I could find some better pictures of Dennis Storhoi online. That man is just the cutest fierce Viking warrior to ever behead monsters on my tv. So, so cute.
Hee! He is.
Hm, I'll probably give MoA a miss, then. Doesn't sound like quite my gig.
Btw, sorry you seem to have picked up a random wanker in this thread. For what it's worth, I thought you expressed yourself rather nicely.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-23 05:34 am (UTC)Anyway, this is nothing. I've seen lectures degenerate into shouting matches, with cruel personal remarks and punches thrown by tenured professors, highly respected people in their fields. Get smart, opinionated (slightly geeky) folks together, and soon or later there's gonna be a brawl.
But thanks for your support, truly. It's always appreciated.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-23 09:59 pm (UTC)Generalizations can bite anyone in the ass, I think. We're all guilty from time to time. I think your irritation was certainly justified, though.
Anyway, this is nothing. I've seen lectures degenerate into shouting matches, with cruel personal remarks and punches thrown by tenured professors, highly respected people in their fields. Get smart, opinionated (slightly geeky) folks together, and soon or later there's gonna be a brawl.
Whoa. I've yet to see anything that extreme, but I believe it. Intellectuals are a dangerous lot, eh?
(no subject)
I thought Mists of Avalon was all right, but I didn't connect to it. I read my T. H. White, y'see, and Arthurian mythology just doesn't work for me without the Christian angst. Any more than Star Wars would work without the Force. Mythology always taps deeply into philosophy, and the fierce futile tragedy of the Arthur cycle is wrapped tightly around the fierce futile tragedy of medieval Christianity . . . I felt a little gypped by MoA. It pulled a few too many teeth.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-22 07:41 am (UTC)I read MoA at just about the only moment when it would have resonated for me- my brief preteen foray into neo-paganism (which was fun, but just wasn't for me in the end). So the whole goddess worship/woman power thing, stuck in Renn Faire dress, was really fun. But like I said, I was thirteen. I can't get into that mindset anymore, and the flaws in the writing and the research (not to mention the whole Mystical Shamanism/womyn power thing that got me in the first place) wrecks any fun that was left. And the medieval historian in me can't take it- it's not my period, it's not my field, but even so, the mistakes and modern mentalities are glaring. And annoying.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-23 03:54 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-23 05:14 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-23 05:22 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-23 05:40 am (UTC)(and apropos of nothing, I've had "I'm Dreaming of a Dead City" stuck in my head all day. I blame you entirely. And so does Bob the Stuffed Cthulhu, who sits onto of my computer. *g*)
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-24 01:59 am (UTC)Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu Rlyeh wgah'nagl ftaghn!
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-24 02:01 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-22 03:01 pm (UTC)Congratulations on your sophistication and maturity, and MOA is going to remain the book that overhauled much of my theology and gave me a personal reason to find Arthurian mythology interesting. And I didn't read it until much later in my teens.
Oh, but wait...it's about WOMEN! Can't have that in slash-land, can we?
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-22 06:45 pm (UTC)Part of our differing reactions to MoA (or how strongly those reactions have lingered, maybe, since as I said, I thought it was great when I read it. It just didn't stick with me) could be a factor of the difference in our ages. It was the groundbreaking work in reincorporating the feminine perspective in the Arthurian mythos, but it was published in, what, 1982 or so? I was just a little kid. By the time I grew up enough to read it, Athurian fantasy and fantasy on a larger scale had already busily incorporated the need and desire to tell women's stories, so it was never revolutionary to me. MZB was already into her Sword and Sorceress anthologies, Diana Paxton, Robin Hobb, and Patricia Kennealy-Morrison were busily writing, and I had all sort of woman-oriented Arthurian fantasies to chose from. You're not a lot older than I am, but I think it may be just enough that you got to see that critical mass of strong, confident female characters' stories in fantasy, that swing-shift that made Xena possible, in the process of occurring (if I'm totally off the mark there, feel free to say so). Whereas I missed most of it, and the kids who are reading MoA have never known anything different (though they'll probably get the backlash, if they haven't already).
It's not that the book's about women that annoys me. I'm in favor of that. I consider myself a strong woman, the daughter of a strong woman and perhaps the mother of strong women myself someday. It's when I see posters denying that the men in Arthurian legend have any important or interesting stories of their own, which is what triggered my rantlet, or when I see them denying that the Christian, chivalric versions of the stories are without merit because they're Christian and chivalric (the young reader may not necessarily enjoy them as much, but he/she probably shouldn't dismiss Chretien or Mallory out-of-hand, not the least because there wouldn't have been a MoA without that body of texts to rebel against), or when people are ranting against Keira Knightley playing Guinevere because she's a brunette, and "everyone knows" that Guinevere was a blonde (never mind that she never existed).
And considering that I am a woman, I am a lover of women (and men), I went to a women's college and women's stories are very often the history I study, I rather resent the implication that my lack of love for the book is somehow misogynist. That's not my issue with the book so much as the kneejerk assumption on the part of some of its noisier readers that it's the only version of the story worth telling. I did phrase it badly in my rantlet, though, I admit, due to a combination of irritation and late-night posting, and for that I apologize.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-23 01:41 am (UTC)I object to this: "...just long enough so that there's one generation of teenies that doesn't shriek..."Why isn't it all about the women?"
And if you don't think that sounds misogynistic, you should consider yourself very fortunate you are from such an oh so clever, educated, sophisticated generation that you think it's bad if girls see the Arthurian mythos as centered on the women. Because you're right -- it wasn't always like that, and if that offends you, I have the names of several charming 80something men with whom I studied who would be happy to explain to you all the reasons women were, are and should be marginal, in the myths, in the study of the myths, and in academia in general.
But then, perhaps, it is teeny of me to think so.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-23 02:04 am (UTC)And if you don't think that sounds misogynistic, you should consider yourself very fortunate you are from such an oh so clever, educated, sophisticated generation that you think it's bad if girls see the Arthurian mythos as centered on the women.
I don't think she sounds misogynistic at all. I don't believe Joan meant it's bad if a book reworks a myth to focus on the women; rather, it's bad if such a work elevates women to the exclusion and/or denigration of the men. It doesn't have to be all or nothing, here.
That's why I'm looking forward to the new movie. It looks like we'll be getting strong male warriors and strong female warriors. I'm all for equal representation.
By the by, your arguments would sound much more reasonable if you wouldn't be quite so rude in voicing them.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-23 02:19 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-23 03:29 am (UTC)I won't comment on the way women are portrayed in the book, as I haven't read any of MZB's work. But I've yet to see a portrayal of women in any version of the Authurian legend (however you want to define that) which I've liked. I'm picky about portrayals of fictional female characters, and seldom like them, perhaps b/c I seldom can relate to them.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-23 01:05 pm (UTC)If that is so, then god(dess) help the teenys and the world they're about to inherit from the generation of women before them. It is a NEGATIVE effect that young women were given such a balanced view of women's roles that it disturbs them when they feel female characters are being marginalized, as they so often are in traditional myth? Not on my planet. If those women are planning to become Arthurian scholars, then yes, it is important for them to understand that Bradley's is a modern revision of a myth of which there are dozens if not hundreds of versions and that her characters, male and female, are by no means quintessential. But this:
I've yet to see a portrayal of women in any version of the Authurian legend (however you want to define that) which I've liked. I'm picky about portrayals of fictional female characters, and seldom like them, perhaps b/c I seldom can relate to them.
just makes me absolutely THRILLED that those younger women dismissed as "teenys" take MoA so seriously that they will fight to defend those female characters, even if they're misguided about the historical context. Your statement above is one of the saddest things I have ever read. Why, as a woman, would you be interested in a mythology in which the women are so intolerable that you don't even relate to them as such?
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-23 09:55 pm (UTC)No, that's not what I'm saying. As a female myself, I certainly feel angered when female characters are marginalized. But that doesn't mean I want them emphasized to the point of negating the males. That just reverses the problem, IMO.
just makes me absolutely THRILLED that those younger women dismissed as "teenys" take MoA so seriously that they will fight to defend those female characters, even if they're misguided about the historical context. Your statement above is one of the saddest things I have ever read. Why, as a woman, would you be interested in a mythology in which the women are so intolerable that you don't even relate to them as such?
I don't think you read what I said in the way I meant it. I'll try to explain myself more clearly. It's not that I'm so interested the mythology made up of intolerable women. Honestly, I rarely relate to female characters in *any* fictional setting. That's not because I don't like other females, but because the female characters I come across in literature don't seem to share many, if any, characteristics I myself possess. For good or bad, I relate better to men, and always have. It seems that every time I come across a strong female character in a book or other media venue, either the story ends up focusing on some sort of romance; or her strength and lack of frills is explained by making her a lesbian (not that that's bad, but I'm not, so I can't really relate). One might call that sad, but from my pov I'm just frustrated at not being represented.
To sum up, I suppose if I can't read about women to whom I can relate, I'd rather read about the men to whom I can.
There are a few exceptions. To name one, I very much like the character of Rebecca Fogg (seen in this icon) from The Secret Adventures of Jules Verne. She's a strong character who isn't defined by the men around her. The fact that she's a redhead just cements my esteem for her :)
This really has been an interesting discussion. You have made me think, and reflect, and for that I thank you.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-23 02:30 am (UTC)Not bad so much as radically unbalanced. The female characters are interesting and I wouldn't want their stories to be excluded, but as part of the entire Arthurian mythos, not the whole. Arthur should at least get to be important, and he failed to be so in the post which triggered my rantlet. I feel the same way about Lancelot, Galahad and the subordinate male characters. They are subordinate. Galahad gets his own stories, Morgan Le Fay gets hers, and that's fine. But this movie is titled King Arthur, so presumably, it's Arthur-centric. Complaining that Morgan has been left out in favor of Arthur's screentime (which we know nothing about and cannot judge based on a handful of unauthorized photos, but that's a separate rant) seems to be missing the point. In this version, it doesn't appear that the women are central characters, and if it's telling the story of Arthur as warrior king like it sounds like it is, that's not a surprise. That would necessarily be a masculine-focused version, and a legitimate one. If the filmmakers had taken a different approach, perhaps a feminine-oriented stance like MoA's would be the requisite, but since they seem to be making a war/action movie, I won't be terribly surprised if the women characters are marginalized. Indeed, I'm pleased to see that Guinevere might be as proactive as she seems to be. And I'm not sure why anyone would want to make her meek and pious and fairly conniving again, like MoA Gwen, to diminish her in favor of a character who isn't even in this movie (I saw many complaints over the loss of Morgaine, which is fine except that she's absent from many, many versions of the legend and almost never is she as important as she is in MoA. And when she is, it's as a negative force). Yeah, she doesn't look like the mild, ladylike Gwen some of these girls were expecting (and considering that mild, ladylike Gwen is traditionally one of the most villainized or ineffectual women in legend, I don't see why that's bad). But we've only seen two out-of-context snips, and in one she's being a warrior! I just don't see how they can justify saying that "Guinevere is ruined" when we don't know yet. So far, to me, she looks like she might be able hold her own, even in a movie where women are marginalized because Arthur is the main character.
I was being ageist, I admit. And I did it without thinking, not unlike snarking about the squealing Legolas fangirls who post reams of giddiness in netspeak that I can't even translate. So I feel bad about that. And I'm glad that the women characters have been given a voice in the corpus of Arthurian and fantasy texts, thanks in no small part to MoA. But when anything that varies from that single revisionist text is decried as "wrong" and "a betrayal," I reserve the right to be annoyed.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-23 01:15 pm (UTC)And I am now giggling at the idea that poor Arthur, Gawain, Galahad, etc. have been so "marginalized" by Bradley that they must be resurrected and given their due. I did not grow up with MoA; I grew up with T.H. White and 'Camelot' and Vixen Morgan le Fay and Bimbo Guinevere, who show up in various forms in hundreds and hundreds of other stories. If the price for Bradley's Morgaine and Viviane is that a teenage girl somewhere might not wish to see a movie focused on Arthur...all I can say is wow, five thousand years of women's stories appropriated into patriarchal history, and finally someone manages to reclaim one for women! Go MZB!
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-22 09:31 pm (UTC)THANK YOU. I despite MZB's Gwen intensely, and I wish she weren't seen as the 'correct' one. I'm also tired of the dismissal of the men in the legends -- yes, the women were important, but ultimately the story is about Arthur.
And MoA is such crappy historical revisionism. Mary Stewart does much better with the women, and there are many other authors who not only did their research better, but who didn't resort to shoddy, one-dimensional pagan/Christian conflicts that bear little resemblance to history to drive their stories.
I loved MoA when I was eight, but I didn't even make it all the way through again this summer. I should read the copy of Sword At Sunset on my bookshelf as an antidote.
(Regarding Blood and Sand -- Amazon and www.abebooks.com periodically have used copies, if you're willing to pay for them. I got mine, hardbound, for about $30 US, ex-library copy.)
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-23 02:56 am (UTC)My beef precisely. And the society she constructs... It just doesn't happen that way, as far as anyone can tell. The actual process is much more interesting, in my opinion.
...For one thing, in the actual process you get really interesting folktales about Mary, as in Our Lady Mary, the Holy Mother. In some of them she steals stuff. *is juvenile* Mary as a Trickster figure amuses me a wee bit too much.
(And MoA Gwen is an incredibly unattractive character, and I'm not really all that fond of any of the other women either, though I maintain a fondness for the crippled bard who becomes the Merlin whose name I can never remember. I tried to reread it a little while back. Quickly gave up before the few moments of beauty I remembered were sullied forever.)
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-23 06:45 am (UTC)Ooh, I haven't come across those before. I've seen some (mostly Italian) folktales with various saints as tricksters (usually Peter), but not Mary. How neat. Must go hunting. Yay research!
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-23 06:40 am (UTC)yes, the women were important, but ultimately the story is about Arthur
That really bugs me. The poor guy's reduced to being a mere catalyst in his own mythos. Yeah, there are other characters whose stories can be told, but Arthur shouldn't always be stuck as a walk-on (and it bugs me when the supporting men like Lancelot and Galahad do it too, so it's not just the female characters). From what very little we know about this new movie as yet, it sounds like it's focusing on Arthur as warrior and king, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that pagan priestesses might not have as many lines as some would like. Honestly, considering that it sounds like a action movie in fantasy dress, I was pleased that the very little we've seen of Guinevere appears to show her as a strong, fierce woman. Whether or not that's ultimately the case remains to be seen, but I'm hopeful that a warrior Gwen would have a better chance of being the personal equal of a warrior Arthur than a ladylike one. She certainly hasn't had much luck in that respect in the past.
It's been years since I've read Stewart, though I vaguely remember liking her, but this-- there are many other authors who not only did their research better, but who didn't resort to shoddy, one-dimensional pagan/Christian conflicts that bear little resemblance to history to drive their stories-- I really agree with.
I'll have to keep an eye out for Blood and Sand. I don't mind paying, though of course it would be nicer if it would come back into print. Oh well. Thanks for the info!