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

[carmarthen.livejournal.com]

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.

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.)

[tiamatschild.livejournal.com]

...but who didn't resort to shoddy, one-dimensional pagan/Christian conflicts that bear little resemblance to history to drive their stories.

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.)

[ealgylden.livejournal.com]

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.

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!

[ealgylden.livejournal.com]

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!