Will he beat a dead horse?

[Riothamus]

...Except that by now Robin Hood is more of a fiction than fact, regardless of the historical details. If he wants to successfully pull off a historical Robin, he'll still have to hit the right notes, including Marion (similar to what he did in the Pendragon books by including Lancelot and the Grail, while retrofitting them into the historical context.) Robin, in the eyes of the public (and, I may say, in my eyes,) is the Robin of popular imagination, and any historical Robin is interesting trivia but irrelevant to the "real" Robin's story. (The recent disaster-movie that was King Arthur shows that if the historical development of a tale is ignored, it looses credibility.)

That said, making Robin illegitimate would not be out of line. A proper admixture of fact and tradition, as he's done in his Arthur stories and in Patrick would be exactly what I expect.

But (to repeat Calixar,) I'll read it either way.

[scothia]

Riothamus said:

...any historical Robin is interesting trivia but irrelevant to the "real" Robin's story. (The recent disaster-movie that was King Arthur shows that if the historical development of a tale is ignored, it looses credibility.)

Hear, hear! I would very much expect Robin to be brought to life as were Taliesin and Merlin two other larger-than-life characters.

And I agree wholeheartedly about the dismal Arthur flick. Worst Guinevere of all time. Period.

[Daae]

I have to agree with what was just "said". Robin Hood has become such a legendary figure that the legend is just as important as the fact. King Arthur is the same way.

And as for that Guinevere, was I the only one who saw that movie and thought "Gwenhyvar could kick her butt"? And the way the people making the movie kept saying that Guinevere had never been portrayed that way before...*tsk, tsk, tsk*

[dgan]

Daae said:

And as for that Guinevere, was I the only one who saw that movie and thought "Gwenhyvar could kick her butt"? And the way the people making the movie kept saying that Guinevere had never been portrayed that way before...*tsk, tsk, tsk*

I'm sorry...was Guinevere in that movie? I must have missed that....

[calixar]

Guinevere in that film was one of the few things that was more accurate, historically. A Celtic woman would have been a warrior, fighting alongside the men of her tribe, even if her father was king (cf Boudicca).

[Riothamus]

However, (correct me if I'm wrong,) she would not have worn the leather whatsit; in all likelyhood she would be dressed like the men of her tribe, correct? (Though "dressed" isn't quite the term....)

[calixar]

Riothamus said:

However, (correct me if I'm wrong,) she would not have worn the leather whatsit; in all likelyhood she would be dressed like the men of her tribe, correct? (Though "dressed" isn't quite the term....)

Ah... yes.

Maybe that's the deal with the "unrated" version on DVD.

[scothia]

I don't think we can categorically state that, because some Celtic women fought alongside their men, it follows that all of them did. We just do not have enough of their history to be certain of this.

[calixar]

Scothia said:

I don't think we can categorically state that, because some Celtic women fought alongside their men, it follows that all of them did. We just do not have enough of their history to be certain of this.

Well, it was one of the things Roman writers commented on... that there were nearly as many women fighting as men... so it's safe to assume that a lot of them did.

There are not extensive Celtic writings (because of the Druidic rules on writing), but those who knew them wrote a lot.

[dinadan]

Also, women were very important in the pre-aryan Indo-European cultures (of which the celts are a part)--which didn't entirely die out later, since Britain has had a long history of female rulers. It's long been a belief of celtic scholars that celtic women had equivalent social status with men--so I don't see a problem with women fighting as warriors. Plus, since it agrees with the ancient accounts, it seems reasonable to assume that Calixar is right.

[ellora]

On his site, when someone asks him if he would do a Non-Fiction book he says he would rather do another period of history like Egyptian. I think an Egyptian story by SRL would be awsome.

Also, I saw a programme about dragons recently and it got me thinking that abook on St George and the dragon would be cool too.

[Bard Child]

^ but thats not his style...never-the-less, snazy idea.
I also like something with Boudicca. But as for Robin Hood, I'll just half to read it. And give my opinon on it later.