Rex Quondam Rexque Futurus
In the end I managed to move, of course, and things worked out. I quite like my new place, a swish apartment in a building with a lift, sharing with a music producer who keeps long hours but is good company when he's around. So far, so good. I feel much happier and settled here, even though I haven't got a proper bed yet and the flat as a whole needs more furniture and decoration and life. Still, the bathroom is like one in a hotel, so I'm happy. I'm an odd sort. Expect discontent to set in soon.
I watched an episode of BBC's Merlin last night. (Actually, I watched five hours of television last night and the only reason I'm not more embarrassed is because I knitted all the way, therefore it was not a complete waste of time -- right?) It just started here a couple of weeks ago, and I've watched two episodes now. It's not must-see for me because it's really not my version of King Arthur. I'm down with the many and varied versions of the Arthurian legend, both medieval and modern, and I know there is no one way to tell the story, no right way, no truth. Nonetheless, I have my preferences. I don't really understand what this show is doing, and I don't think it's as clever as it thinks it is. But it's silly and fun and just a little bit gay, so I like it. I also like how the language of magic is apparently Garbled Old English, but the language of manuscripts is conveniently Modern English In Vaguely Gothic Script.
I think what jars most for me is the character of Arthur. Who is this arrogant, handsome teen, who knows his father and knows his inheritance? I like my Arthurs humble and without knowledge of their ancestry. So often in Malory, and in T. H. White (my favourite Arthuriad), Arthur fades into the background as the story progresses, a retreating presence as the world changes. How can such a headstrong Arthur as this ever fade away? And if he grew up at court always knowing that Uther was his father, then how can he understand his people? How can he unite them, and build Camelot upon noble ideals? In this show Camelot already exists, so how will it be a big deal if it falls? And if it always existed and never falls, then where is the story?
Also, Merlin is such a very masculine show, all focused on the meant-to-be-ness of Arthur and Merlin. If we must reinvent Arthurian legend ad infinitum, could we get a female-heavy version, please? I mean, aside from The Mists of Avalon? I mean, I love Mists of Avalon in all its trashy, feminist glory, and in fact am going to reread it soon, but Gwenhwyfar is a bitch and the TV miniseries was awful. I would love to see a Guenevere who isn't just a love object, or a whining bitch, or a two-timing slut, or a blue Pict with belted breasts. Again, T. H. White's Guenever is perhaps my favourite because she is so real, but she suffers from White's close use of Malory, and, she lacks power. I don't understand what Merlin is doing with Guenevere at all. Sadly, she seems quite boring, and I don't trust the show to give her a personality any time soon. Guenevere is always problematic, but Merlin deals with that by not dealing with it.
Basically, I don't think that "putting a different spin on King Arthur" is a good enough reason to put a different spin on King Arthur (and that goes double for Robin Hood, although Robin Hood bores me stupid -- yes, I am a failure as a medievalist). I feel like Merlin just wants to be different to all the other versions, without the creators having thought about why they are doing things differently.
I watched an episode of BBC's Merlin last night. (Actually, I watched five hours of television last night and the only reason I'm not more embarrassed is because I knitted all the way, therefore it was not a complete waste of time -- right?) It just started here a couple of weeks ago, and I've watched two episodes now. It's not must-see for me because it's really not my version of King Arthur. I'm down with the many and varied versions of the Arthurian legend, both medieval and modern, and I know there is no one way to tell the story, no right way, no truth. Nonetheless, I have my preferences. I don't really understand what this show is doing, and I don't think it's as clever as it thinks it is. But it's silly and fun and just a little bit gay, so I like it. I also like how the language of magic is apparently Garbled Old English, but the language of manuscripts is conveniently Modern English In Vaguely Gothic Script.
I think what jars most for me is the character of Arthur. Who is this arrogant, handsome teen, who knows his father and knows his inheritance? I like my Arthurs humble and without knowledge of their ancestry. So often in Malory, and in T. H. White (my favourite Arthuriad), Arthur fades into the background as the story progresses, a retreating presence as the world changes. How can such a headstrong Arthur as this ever fade away? And if he grew up at court always knowing that Uther was his father, then how can he understand his people? How can he unite them, and build Camelot upon noble ideals? In this show Camelot already exists, so how will it be a big deal if it falls? And if it always existed and never falls, then where is the story?
Also, Merlin is such a very masculine show, all focused on the meant-to-be-ness of Arthur and Merlin. If we must reinvent Arthurian legend ad infinitum, could we get a female-heavy version, please? I mean, aside from The Mists of Avalon? I mean, I love Mists of Avalon in all its trashy, feminist glory, and in fact am going to reread it soon, but Gwenhwyfar is a bitch and the TV miniseries was awful. I would love to see a Guenevere who isn't just a love object, or a whining bitch, or a two-timing slut, or a blue Pict with belted breasts. Again, T. H. White's Guenever is perhaps my favourite because she is so real, but she suffers from White's close use of Malory, and, she lacks power. I don't understand what Merlin is doing with Guenevere at all. Sadly, she seems quite boring, and I don't trust the show to give her a personality any time soon. Guenevere is always problematic, but Merlin deals with that by not dealing with it.
Basically, I don't think that "putting a different spin on King Arthur" is a good enough reason to put a different spin on King Arthur (and that goes double for Robin Hood, although Robin Hood bores me stupid -- yes, I am a failure as a medievalist). I feel like Merlin just wants to be different to all the other versions, without the creators having thought about why they are doing things differently.