Le Morte d'Arthur

[Knaight]

So, this is one of the most important works written about the Arthurian Romances, themselves an important part of English-if not western- cultural heritage. Yet, for whatever reason, it doesn't have a thread. That ends now.So, lets hear some impressions. What was liked? What was disliked? In the interest of a first post that might spark something, I'll go ahead and put a bit in.

I was surprised by how much the human element was played up, and pleasantly so. Sure, the whole love and brotherhood thing was expected, though the extent to which it was well done was still impressive; there was just so much more than that. The multitude of occasions where people hung out and bemoaned their circumstances feels so modern (even if the language used tends towards "made great dole out of measure"), the way honor ultimately comes back to hurt so many and that people know this and nonetheless stay with it speaks so well of human dignity, and even the way some characters are as multifaceted as they are -Gawaine in particular- makes this so much more than what "Arthurian Romances" connote in the public eye.

As such, I really disliked Galahad. He's a perfect person who does everything perfectly and never fails, nor is he even affected by temptation. That he was essentially so perfect he had to leave the world was a nice touch, but even that doesn't make the character more interesting. Perhaps if the story of Galahad and Percival had been spun towards the tragedy of Balan and Balin it would have been enjoyable, as is I'm really not impressed. Hopefully either The Once and Future King or The Mists of Avalon will help here.

[Viera Champion]

... Oh yeah, I remember reading that book when I was like seven. I took me a little bit to work out the old english, and I quickly lost interest after like halfway through when the plots seemed to be moving super slow and there wasn't a lot of cool fighting, but hey I was seven then and I still made it all the way through. To tell the truth I hadn't realized that it was an important work of English literature until about five seconds ago... Wow, I always assumed it was just some book written by some cool British guy with a knight-like title. God I was a weird seven year old.

[SaintRidley]

Middle English.

I'd have to dig out my copy from packing to look at it again, but I think just the way it set the stage for so much other work is probably its greatest value. It's not the beginning of the Arthurian cycle by any means, but its impact on the structure and perception of the cycle in the following centuries is undeniable.

I'm much more enthralled by works like Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and The Knightly Tale of Gologras and Gawain, though.

[Thufir]

As such, I really disliked Galahad. He's a perfect person who does everything perfectly and never fails, nor is he even affected by temptation. That he was essentially so perfect he had to leave the world was a nice touch, but even that doesn't make the character more interesting. Perhaps if the story of Galahad and Percival had been spun towards the tragedy of Balan and Balin it would have been enjoyable, as is I'm really not impressed. Hopefully either The Once and Future King or The Mists of Avalon will help here.

I haven't read Le Morte d'Arthur, but I have read The Once and Future King, and I can tell you pretty much for certain that it will not give you a more favourable view of Galahad. Your description of Galahad here soudns a lot like my impression of him from TOaFK (Which makes sense, as T.H. White did draw heavily from Malory, and acknowledges as much in the book).

[Knaight]

Middle English.
Its somewhere between Middle English and Modern English, basically being written at the time of Modern English in what was a deliberately archaic style. Its complicated.

I haven't read Le Morte d'Arthur, but I have read The Once and Future King, and I can tell you pretty much for certain that it will not give you a more favourable view of Galahad. Your description of Galahad here soudns a lot like my impression of him from TOaFK (Which makes sense, as T.H. White did draw heavily from Malory, and acknowledges as much in the book).
Honestly, I'm not sure there is really much of a way to make Galahad interesting while still making him recognizable as Galahad. I'm just glad he got way less in the way of dedicated pages than Tristram did, or even Launcelot.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Honestly, I'm not sure there is really much of a way to make Galahad interesting while still making him recognizable as Galahad. I'm just glad he got way less in the way of dedicated pages than Tristram did, or even Launcelot.

Let's see.

Late edition to the mythos.

Absolutly perfect.

Child of another popular character.

Does stuff that was originally done by another author's character (Parsifal).

Boring and or annoying to read about.

Galahad is pretty much the original Mary Sue.

[JonestheSpy]

John Steinbeck of all people did a retelling of Malory that I've been meaning to read. Not a reimagining a la' Mists o' Avalon, but a retelling of the story in more accessible language - though definitely not 'modern'.

As for Galahad, I've seen one version of the Arthurian saga where I really liked him, Bernard Cornwell's trilogy Winter King, Enemy of God, and Excalbur. In that telling the majority of characters are pagan and a lot of the plot revolves around Merlin trying to bring the Old Gods back to power, and most of the Christians are incredibly annoying, sanctimonious twits. Galahad, on the other hand, is the Real Thing, possessing all the virtues we associate with a traditional Christian Knight in a very dirty, gritty world, but still earthy and likable. He's also cast as Lancelot's younger brother instead of his son, so he's around for most of the story instead of just the endgame.