The Hobbit

Why do you make an assumption about whether or not i enjoy any part of the Arthurian cycle?

Nevermind, i see now why you make what nevertheless is an unwarranted assumption.



That doesn't mean that i don't enjoy the reading, it just means that i find the religious homilies tedious as a concept. As literature, they are often quite hilarious.

Dear Setanta,

I have based my assumption on two comments:





Kind regards,

Goldmund

I may perhaps be permitted to add a postscript.

In truth, my question did not concern «enjoyment». It concerned the illogicality of dismissing, in a work of fiction, an element of that fiction as «false».

Best wishes,

Goldmund

You will see that i have addressed the first quote. As to the second quoted portion, that was a response to your denial that there is any religious homily in Malory. I beg to differ with you, there most certainly is.

Good writing, whether factual or fictive, requires an internal consistency. In the case of Malory, for the work to have versimilitude, its elements must be consonant with the milieu in which it is placed. Therefore, the religious content is false, because it is not consonant with accepted dogma in the fifteenth century. There is an American author, whom i will not name for reasons which will be evident, who has made a tidy living writing historical novels about North Carolina. He was recommended to me. I read one, and it was just appalling. The protagonist is the son of a man and woman (in the fictive context of the novel) who move into the piedmont after marrying while in their teens. At a later passage, the author describes the protagonist as being twenty-one years of age. However, the progression of the narrative demonstrates that only thirteen years have passed since the couple married and moved into the wilderness. In terms of cinema, this would be considered a fault of continuity--when the camera does not portray the same static elements from one scene to the next. Nothing daunted, another of his novels was recommended to me. In this novel, the author describes the Confederate officer Harry Heth arriving in a carriage with a single star on the door denoting his rank of Brigadier General. Confederate officers did not ride in carriages--if incapacitated to the degree that they could not ride on horseback, they rode in ambulances (such as Lee was forced to do after a fall from his horse during that campaign, or Earl Van Dorn, incapacitated by a septic disease and forced to ride to the battle of Pea Ridge in an ambulance), the Confederate States Armies simply could not have provided carriages for anyone. Furthermore, the rank ensignia of the Confederate States Armies for a Brigadier General was three stars (usually, but not always, two five-pointed stars flanking a six-pointed star) enwreathed in oak leaves. The rank ensignia of a Brigadier General in the United States Army was a single star. Therefore, in both novels, within the fictive context of the novels, these aspects were false. The protagonist in the first novel could not have been twenty one years of age thirteen years after his parents married as teenagers, even had he been technically a bastard, as they would have been physically incapable of reproduction twenty-one years earlier. Harry Heth neither wore a single star as rank ensignia (not at that time, although he would have if at any point in his career he were a Major in the Confederate States service, for which the rank ensignia was a single star), nor rode in a carriage in the course of any campaign.

Were a story in the "sword and sorceror" genre of fiction to contain contradictory statements about the operation of magic, the author would quickly be a literary failure, as the devotees of that genre pay close attention to the fictive continuity of those stories. It is entirely possible for something to be "false" in a fictive context.

Setanta, that is a rather long-winded (yet entertaining) rebuttal...obviously, an author must maintain consistency within the rules of the world they create for the story to be accepted by audiences.

Well, Stuh, if it's longwinded, you might consider how obtuse Goldmund has been by insisting that it is not logical to speak of that which is false in a fictive context.

I referred to two types of falsification of fiction. The first in internal inconsistency. The second is falsification arising from a false reference to the "real" world.

Dear Setanta,

I am sorry if I have been obtuse. It is unfortunately often the case that we must seem obtuse to those who know more than we do.

Let us return to our falsifications.

1) «The first in internal inconsistency.»

a) You will perhaps know that Malory took his fictions from French writers. It is therefore a compilation of stories. We may therefore expect inconsistencies between different sections of Malory's book.

b) In the section that is called The Tale of the Sankgreal, I may not discern internal inconsistencies in the religious aspects. It is possible however that they are there. If so, you will point them out to me.

2) «The second is falsification arising from a false reference to the "real" world.»

a) It is most interesting that you discern an intention on the part of Malory to refer to the «accepted theology of the day», or «church history as known in that era», or «canonical dogma». I confess, I do not recall such passages. That does not mean that they do not exist, however. You will perhaps direct me to such passages.

It is also most interesting that you dismiss parts of the work -- the «disgusting homilies» -- as «not acceptable» on the grounds that they do not reflect «canonical dogma». It is as much to say, the «canonical dogma» were more «valid» than «the religious content in the Grail quest as portrayed by Malory». That is most strange, if I may say so, from one who is «irreligious».

It is equally true, for example, that the religious aspects of the works of William Blake do not reflect contemporary «canonical dogma». We do not therefore dismiss the religious content of the works of William Blake. It would be strange indeed, if we irreligious ones took the side of the bishops in literary matters, no?

Or perhaps, in the case of W.B. Yeats: we must dismiss as «disgusting» his poetry, because his opinions are not orthodox? But very well then, let us leave his poems for the astrologers and the Rosicrucians.

b) It is true that a fiction may refer to facts outside the fiction. Your friend in North Carolina has attempted some such. It is also true that if we may know the facts to which the fiction refers, and find errors, we may lose confidence in the fiction.

Nothing can be more human. Nothing can be more illogical. Let us posit a fiction in which little green men exist on Mars in 1945. Would it not be most absurd, to accept the hypothesis, but to reject the fiction on the grounds of some historical innaccuracy? That the colour of Hitler's greatcoat was inaccurate, for instance?

You have perhaps read the Iliad of Homer. It is a fine work. But there are many inconsistencies in its relation to the «real world». We may write many books on the subject of its military anachronisms, for instance. But it is not a serious objection. We may take the military aspects as we take the gods on Olympus. It is all fictive now.

c) Let us also speak of the «real world» to which Malory may be said to refer. It is in your opinion the real world of the French originals, or the real world of Malory himself? (That is to say, it is the real world of the «Wars of the Roses» and the Earl of Warwick? Truly? It is most remarkable, if so.)

I am again sorry that I have vexed you. I did not think that you would object to an examination of your opinions. But it is quite true, no? Those who disagree with us must be obtuse.

Kind regards,

Goldmund

I would prefer that you do not address me as "Dear Setanta." I know that you mean well in so doing, and this request is not made with any hostility. Addressing me in that manner implies a familiarity which you do not possess. I do not suggest that i know more than you, i do insist that we either differ in our views of the work in question, or proceed from different analytical precepts. It is no place of mine to set myself up as an authoritative literary critic, and i should therefore make clear that what i write is an expression of opinion. In that i usually do not comment on literature with which i am not well familiar, i feel safe in asserting that mine is an informed opinion--i do not in any wise assert that my opinion is authoritative.

I am well aware of Malory's reliance upon what the "Frensshe book sayeth." I have not alleged inconsistencies between different tomes of the overall work. In fact, Malory is to be praised for the wonderful effort he has made (largely successful) to reconcile his sources and produce an internally consistent account. It was long held, on the strength of an assertion by an American scholar at the turn of the 19th to the 20th century, that Thomas Malory was a resident of Warwickshire. This view continues to be the majority view, although i suspect that it is simply repeated in the short biographies of the author by those who have never given personal attention to the question. Online biographies are often identical in the text, suggesting a lazy sort of consensus in operation. However, more recent scholarship suggests that this Thomas Malory was a gentleman from Yorkshire, because of the language of the text, and because Thomas Malory of Yorkshire was long a prisoner in the south of France (prisoner of the Duc d'Armagnac, i believe, but i don't have my text in front of me). His captor possessed a very large library, including many works of de Troyes, Marie de France, and other jongleurs who had written laies of the Arthurian cycle. The principle reason for choosing Thomas Malory of Warwickshire was the name, and the fact that he was imprisoned in 1470. Caxton's version has the author describing himself as "an humble knight-presoner . . . in the ninth year of the reign or our Lord Edward"--meaning Edward IV, and equating to 1469-70. However, that choice cannot explain the frequent references to the French books. Thomas Malory of Yorkshire, however, was a prisoner in 1470, dying in captivity in 1471. Furthermore, he had access to the best collection of Arthurian literature known to have been in existence then. Finally, the Thomas Malory of Warwickshire was a shameless felon, indicted or convicted at one time or another of manslaughter, murder, rape, kidnapping--a host of petty crimes--he is hardly the type of a noble knight. Thomas Malory of Yorkshire had been made prisoner while serving in France at the end of the Hundred Years War, and could well fit the bill for a chilvalric knight.

All of which would point to a literate man with access to the most complete collection of source material for his work. Were one to point out internal inconsistencies in his work, it would not be something to wonder at. Rather, one should wonder that there aren't more. It is also worth noting that the West Riding Manuscript strongly suggests that Caxton heavily edited the text before printing it, and he may be responsible in large measure for the narrative flow.

My contention is that the "falsity" of the religious homilies implicit in the Grail quest aspect of the narrative are fales in reference to outside reality. In fact, that would make Thomas Malory of Yorkshire an even more likely candidate as author, as the Thomas Malory of Warwickshire was long a "guest" of monastic orders, having frequently escaped apprehension for his criminal deeds by claiming sanctuary with the monks. This has been advanced as the probable source of his exposure to "the Frensshe books," but i doubt that, as it implies very wealthy monastaries with large collections of profane literature, not very likely in the west of England in the 15th century--i find that implausible. Furthermore, were Thomas Malory of Warwickshire composing such a work while in monastic sanctuary, and using access to the library of the monestary, he would also have access to more theologically reliable material, as well as more theologically authoritative opinions in the form of the literate monks. But the Thomas Malory of Yorkshire had easy access to the French materials, and would not have had access necessarily either to theological texts nor the theological advice of prelates or monks.

So in regard to your point 1b, i am not saying that there internal inconsistencies in the religious aspects. I am pointing out that the religious patina is at odds with doctrines of the day.

Therefore, with regard to those inconsistencies, the examples abound. The appearance of Joseph of Aramathea to lead the pure knights to Paradise, the implication that the morally pure bastard, Galahad, could by his actions redeem the sins of his father and mother, the conversion of the "saracen" Palomides (an improbable name, the instant conversion and religious purification allowing him to see the Sangreal, all without benefit of clergy, is equally improbable). Not having recently read the work, i can offer no more examples at the present.

Finally, the disgust to which i refer is that a perfectly entertaining profane work has this pseudo-religious claptrap larded on. To me, the work would not suffer in the least were the entire Grail quest portion excised. More to the point, the concluding dénouement, and extended narrative involving the rivalry between Lancelot and the brothers of Orkney, Gawain and his brothers, and the ultimate battle pitting rebels against the King lead by his unwittingly begot bastard son, Mordred, is a non sequitur to the Grail quest. More properly, i would say that the Grail quest is a non-sequitur to the body of the entire work, unnecessary and unlikely to be missed if removed.

Therefore, i object to that aspect as being "false" in relation to the religious doctrine of the day (whether or not i am irreligious has no bearing on the standards which i apply to the value of a narrative--if it is false, internally or in its external reference, it is lessened in my opinion), and i object to it as unnecessary. However, i would point out that you are making mountains of molehills by an insistence upon implying that my view is inconsistent with my beliefs (or lack thereof)--a subject upon which you are ill-informed to comment.

Your comments about what you consider illogical grow tedious. The author of the novels centered in North Carolina was doing sloppy work, which contradicted itself internally on a chronic basis, and which was externally contradicted with equal freqency. The novel i mentioned with the ludicrous passage which has Harry Heth arriving at a Confederate encampment in a carriage retails one historically false account of the times and the events after the other. It is hard to overlook such poor work, as in the case of the American civil war--just about the most well-documented event in our history--it would have required the least of efforts to have reconciled the work with historical accounts, reliable historical accounts. All of these things--the sloppy internal inconsistencies which are glaringly apparent and the thoroughly bad history in what purport to be historical novels--give me little interest in the works of that author.

As for the Iliad, i am not particularly impressed with it as a work of literature. As for Malory, the Earl of Warwick and the Wars of the Roses--the value of le Morte d'Artur is precisely that it provides a window into the 15th century world of England. I have already noted that i do not consider Thomas Malory of Warwickshire to have been the author.

You really should find some with whom you can discuss literature who is louse-ridden, as you show a marvelous talent for picking nits. Those for whom it is necessary to explain something repeatedly even though one has clearly stated one's position previously are, in my never humble opinion, being obtuse. Make of that what you will.

Sir,

Your reply entertains and instructs. I do not at all mind your brickbats.

If you will permit, I shall consider one or two of the points that you have made.


You have perhaps misconceived me. It is not my contention that «Malory» was a resident of Warwickshire. It is my contention that he was a contemporary of the Earl of Warwick. (You will know that the latter died in 1471 at the battle of Barnet.)

You say also:


It is a most remarkable notion. I had never before considered that the value of this work of literature rested upon its historical relations. I do not say that it is untrue. But I do not recall a passage that may provide a «window» into the world that the Earl of Warwick inhabited - if we except the language, naturally.

What is an example of such a window?

Let us pick at another nit:


This I do not quite understand. Do you mean that it is a flaw in a work of literature, if it is not in concord with «doctrines of the day»?


It is quite true. There are many improbabilities in the tales of Arthur.

You will perhaps know the story about the bishop who stated that Gulliver's Travels was «full of improbable lies; and for his part, he believed hardly a word of it».

Kind regards,

Goldmund

The only knights in existence in the 5th century were those persons who laid claim to being members of the order of equites within the Roman imperial structure. Therefore, the knights as portrayed in Malory are depictions not of men of the age in which Arthur was reputed to have lived and acted, but of men as they were in the 15th century. One could not withdraw to the castle of Terrabil and garnish himself for a seige as did the Duke of Cornwall when Uther Pendragon lusted after Igraine, because there was no such castle in the 5th century, there were no castles at all in England (or Cornwall) in the 5th century. Therefore, references to castles, baileys, postern gates, brachets, palfreys, feutered lances, pricking across the plain, and many other descriptive aspects of the story are referential to the 15th century, and not the historical period in which Arthur is reputed to have lived.

Dean Swift did not intend his work to be probable--Malory did. I would not have said brickbats, rather, i would have said i was applying a bludgeon. But i am amenable to small matters of detail, and if you prefer to have brickbats hurled at your devoted pate, i am happy to oblige.

Sir,

And what of this:



Warmest regards,

Goldmund

If the work of literature purports to offer a religious homily, certainly it is flawed if it does not accord with the doctrines of the day. As i have already stated to tedium, the entire Grail quest portion of le Morte d'Artur is a religious homily of stultifying proportions.

Sir,

Let us consider the words of Father Zossima, in The Brothers Karamazov.

There are two possibilities:

A) The words are «orthodox», in terms of «the doctrines of the day».
B) The words are «unorthodox», in terms of «the doctrines of the day».

Is it your contention that the work is flawed, unless A is true?

Kind regards,

Goldmund

I refuse to play a game of examining words with you. The intent of those passages concerned with the Grail quest is to offer religious homily for the edification of the reader--and are flawed as not being consonant with canonical dogma and accepted church history.

The tedium grows . . .

Sir,

It is therefore a flaw in a work of literature, in your opinion, if the sentiments that the author or the characters express differ from the «doctrines of the day».

Remarkable. It is an opinion which the Inquisition would have been pleased to hear.

Let us imagine a modern novel. Let us imagine that the hero writes a work of philosophy.

If the work of philosophy that the hero writes contains entirely new philosophical thoughts, is that, in your opinion, a literary flaw?

I am agog for your response, sir.

Kind regards,

Goldmund

Goldmund,

It is clear that this is not what Setanta was saying.

There is a very big difference between making up original fiction, and including misrepresented nonfiction.

Thanks Stuh, i come to the conclusion that Goldmund enjoys an argument, and will manufacture an occasion for one if none presents itself naturally . . .

Ooh, guys... I'm far less literate than you are... Not littlerat at all in fact. BUT, really, did Germans masturbate, I mean, were they really able to masturbate over some writing when they didn't really exist at that time? I mean, there must be ... traces... spots?