That was my biggest disappointment with MoA when I read it the first time. MZB put all that effort into rehabilitating marginal negative characters like Morgan le Fay and Morgause, and she left the "biggest" negatively-portrayed woman in the whole shebang to stay negative. Was it really a good thing to add priggish and repressive to the already long list of Gwen's traditional bad qualities? It's not enough that she was stuck for centuries being seen primarily as some sort of adulterous Yoko Ono? Poor woman.
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!
no subject
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!