![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Deconstructing Heroes
Apr. 2nd, 2011 11:43 pm"Take away the “greatness” of what Arthur stands for:Noble, humble, brave, honorable and worthy of the crown and to be ruler of Camelot and all you’ve left us with is this man-child. WTF???"
I don't get Starz, so I haven't seen and likely will never see the new Camelot adaptation, but I read a review or three because the idea of the latest New and Different spin on the Arthurian legend might have been interesting. What Starz actually is broadcasting sounds pretty dire, and given that I enjoyed that 1990s Merlin miniseries with Martin Short in it, that's saying something.
But the whole issue of HOW to adapt King Arthur and his posse is eternally interesting... to me, anyway. Because, of course, his golden age falls to ruin-- and in many versions, the seeds of this disaster are quite literally sown by Arthur himself when he fathers a child upon his half sister. Sometimes he's been tricked or enchanted, sometimes he just doesn't know who this attractive older woman is... and I'm sure some adaptation of the myth somewhere has an Arthur who knows it's wrong but doesn't care. And in versions that ignore the Mordred angle to concentrate on the Lancelot/Guinevere end of things (a far less interesting plot thread, IMO), the same issue of Arthur's culpability comes into play. Does he know of the dalliance but passively condone it? Is he blissfully unaware of his wife's affairs? Is he just too damned busy being King Arthur to even realize what's going on?
It's all very tricky, and it's part of the reason I've never seen or read a version of the Arthurian myth that is 100% satisfying. If Arthur is utterly flawless-- perfectly noble, perfectly brave, perfectly honorable-- the decline of his kingdom feels hollow. Or perhaps his alleged success prior to the decline feels hollow: if he's so wonderful, why doesn't it work? Yeah, yeah, other people aren't as wonderful as Arthur. OK, so then you have a painted plaster hero surrounded by corruptible humans (who are usually more interesting by far!) like Gawain and Tristan. I just find that rather dull. Also, Mr. Perfect still slept with his sister and had wife issues, and if Arthur's the blameless victim in all of it... bleh.
On a mythical and a literary sense, it works better to have Arthur not be perfect, to have the ruin of Camelot brought on in some measure by the hero-king's own failings at home. But then, how far do you take it? Where does a conception of Arthur cross the line from "tragic hero" to "dumbass who had it coming"? It rather sounds like the new!Arthur in the Starz miniseries is deep into the "dumbass" territory, which frankly sounds rather repellent. I'm all for subversion and deconstruction, but this "whiny manchild" Arthur doesn't catch my fancy.
I guess the best version of the myth is still Monty Python's heh. It succeeds completely in what it was trying to be, which I can't say for any other Arthurian variation out there. And at this point, I've watched and read rather a lot of them.
Thoughts and recommendations welcome.
I don't get Starz, so I haven't seen and likely will never see the new Camelot adaptation, but I read a review or three because the idea of the latest New and Different spin on the Arthurian legend might have been interesting. What Starz actually is broadcasting sounds pretty dire, and given that I enjoyed that 1990s Merlin miniseries with Martin Short in it, that's saying something.
But the whole issue of HOW to adapt King Arthur and his posse is eternally interesting... to me, anyway. Because, of course, his golden age falls to ruin-- and in many versions, the seeds of this disaster are quite literally sown by Arthur himself when he fathers a child upon his half sister. Sometimes he's been tricked or enchanted, sometimes he just doesn't know who this attractive older woman is... and I'm sure some adaptation of the myth somewhere has an Arthur who knows it's wrong but doesn't care. And in versions that ignore the Mordred angle to concentrate on the Lancelot/Guinevere end of things (a far less interesting plot thread, IMO), the same issue of Arthur's culpability comes into play. Does he know of the dalliance but passively condone it? Is he blissfully unaware of his wife's affairs? Is he just too damned busy being King Arthur to even realize what's going on?
It's all very tricky, and it's part of the reason I've never seen or read a version of the Arthurian myth that is 100% satisfying. If Arthur is utterly flawless-- perfectly noble, perfectly brave, perfectly honorable-- the decline of his kingdom feels hollow. Or perhaps his alleged success prior to the decline feels hollow: if he's so wonderful, why doesn't it work? Yeah, yeah, other people aren't as wonderful as Arthur. OK, so then you have a painted plaster hero surrounded by corruptible humans (who are usually more interesting by far!) like Gawain and Tristan. I just find that rather dull. Also, Mr. Perfect still slept with his sister and had wife issues, and if Arthur's the blameless victim in all of it... bleh.
On a mythical and a literary sense, it works better to have Arthur not be perfect, to have the ruin of Camelot brought on in some measure by the hero-king's own failings at home. But then, how far do you take it? Where does a conception of Arthur cross the line from "tragic hero" to "dumbass who had it coming"? It rather sounds like the new!Arthur in the Starz miniseries is deep into the "dumbass" territory, which frankly sounds rather repellent. I'm all for subversion and deconstruction, but this "whiny manchild" Arthur doesn't catch my fancy.
I guess the best version of the myth is still Monty Python's heh. It succeeds completely in what it was trying to be, which I can't say for any other Arthurian variation out there. And at this point, I've watched and read rather a lot of them.
Thoughts and recommendations welcome.
