Mmm, Vikings (Arthurian Vikings, but whatever, it's cool)

[ealgylden]

Okay, 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.

Comments

[ealgylden.livejournal.com]

Of course they aren't historically plausible. More so than modern neo-paganism affixed over a medieval setting, perhaps, but still fiction, and as much a product of their times and their authors' enthusiasms (for lack of a better word- politics, inclinations, biases, etc) as MoA. MoA has had an effect on Arthurian fantasy not unlike LotR did on fantasy as a whole, though- since its publication, its influence has been pervasive enough that it's nearly impossible to look at the corpus through a MoA-less lens. Works either show its influence or consciously don't. I'd say it's arguably the one modern treatment of the legend to have that level of influence, and that can be binding.

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.

[cruisedirector]

I did not in any way suggest that your lack of love for the book was misogynistic. I loathe Jane Austen and many other Victorian women writers whom I was informed in grad school were essential to feminist thought and I really couldn't claim the label if I didn't love them, which is a crock of shit.

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.

[castalianspring.livejournal.com]

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.

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.

[cruisedirector]

And so would Joan's, if people who love MoA were not summarily dismissed as teenys. I also wonder what book people read, if they think the women in Bradley are outrageously strong while the men are outrageously weak; I've read all four of her Avalon novels several times and think there's quite a balance.

[castalianspring.livejournal.com]

I don't want to try to speak for Joan, but I didn't read her comment that way. I read it as saying MoA had a potentially negative effect on "teenys" and their views on women's roles, not that everyone who likes the book is automatically in that category.

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.

[cruisedirector]

MoA had a potentially negative effect on "teenys" and their views on women's roles

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?

[castalianspring.livejournal.com]

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?

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.

[ealgylden.livejournal.com]

that you think it's bad if girls see the Arthurian mythos as centered on the women.

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.

[cruisedirector]

Okay, but that is not what your rantlet SAID. It said that you wanted the book to be banned, and even assuming you were joking, the idea that you want the feminist revision taken away from the so-called "teenys" until they have been properly force-fed the overwhelmingly patriarchal-based versions of the story (which you are privileging as a more authentic and vital version, when I think it's debatable that either the relevance of or the interest in Arthurian mythology has anything to do with British history or narrative development).

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!