More Pendragon Cycle?

[waterhouseemrys]

If you are like me and after you read the Pendragon Cycle you wanted more, I suggest that you read the Hawk of May trilogy by Gillian Bradshaw. She uses most of the same spelling of the names as Lawhead does. Plus, she does not call his realm Camelot but The Kingdom of the Summer! Sound familiar? And as the title suggest, the whole series centers around the character of Gwalchmai! However, he is not as impulsive as in described in Pendragon. He's a sensitive bardic warrior mixture more like Bedwyr or Myrddin, and constantly battles the flesh vs. the Spirit. I found these books a wonderful read especially when I so wished the characters in Pendragon to continue in tale. There not as good as Lawhead (does anything compare?) but I found them very addictive.

[Gwalchmai]

That is a fun series to read. But for some reason, I found it more similar to Mary Stewart's series than Lawhead's. And of course, having my hero as a main character did make me enjoy the series a bit more than it should have

Another series thats similar to that one is A A Attanasio's books. They arn't my favorite but I did think he brought up some interesting points.

[dinadan]

I loathe A. A. Attanasio. Abhor. Despise.

[waterhouseemrys]

Okay, you both have my interest peaked. I LOVE Arthurian myth, even as a little girl I was just fascinated with everything King Arthur. So, I try to read as much as I can, but I must admit most of my reading comes from the Medieval peroid and ends with the Victorians (with a little bit of Monty Python viewing of couse! )Part of my hestitation in reading modern interpretation is I just abhor the New Age sort of mystic King Arthur modern authors introduce. I know that is part of the wonder of Arthur,- that makes him the Once and Future King- is that for hunderds of years he keeps being reinvented, and the author has license for him to represent that King that most appeals to the culture or to the author himself. It is the oral tradtion! But, what I love about Arthur is the high ideals from past literature that are starting to be chipped away. I love the idea of the hero and the quest, of the redemption and the polishing of character and viritue. Yes, I guess I'm a bit of a romantic and a bit archaic, but that stuff just floats my boat! And that's why I love myth! Superheroes! Tolkien! Lewis! LAWHEAD! Is the very fact that they weave those ideas and Medieval Romantic elements into great storytelling. So, I would like to know is why you like A A Attanasio's books or abhor them? What are the qualities of the books that remind you of Lawhead or don't? I do not wish to start an argument, but I would like to "hear" what makes him good or bad according to your opinion if you wouldn't mind sharing.

[dinadan]

I think Anatansio's style is plodding, pedantic, and amateurish. And I think his interpretation of Arthur is way, way off base.

I suppose we have similar views--although I read the New Age Arthur stuff for fun (and/or to fuel my fires). I'm interested in what the re-interpretation of Arthur means to various peoples over time.

For example, you mention the medieval interpretations of Arthur--which were used (mostly!) by the Church as instructional tales for males of the noble class to learn how to properly behave through examples in good stories

Spencer, in the Renaissance, takes that further and actually spells out that connection even more literally in The Faerie Queene.

Tennyson, in the Victorian period, takes that tradition and works in it--but introduces into it conduct for women as well ("The Lady of Shallot" for instance, works on a number of levels, but one of them is definitely a re-enforcing of the "seperate spheres" ideology of gender relationships).

Eliot takes the main outlines of the Grail lore and uses the Fisher-King's illness as a metaphor for the spiritually barren state of the modern world.

Charles Williams takes the myth and re-works it as completely as no one had done since Mallory, turning it into a commentary on the nature of Christian spirituality and mysticism.

Steinbeck was doing amazing things with the Arthur myths before he died--and the extant portion is now in print. Personally, I think its his most significant contribution to literature.

T.H. White basically retells Mallory, melding in some Tennyson.

Then Arthur goes underground for a while, before re-emerging in the genres that we now think of as historical fiction/historical fantasy.

The pro-feminist, pro-neopagan version that is best is Marion Zimmer Bradley's version of the tale. Lots of knockoffs that are 5th rate, but her style is elegant and her story is compelling. But her agenda is plain as day to any critical reader.

Those fith-rate knockoffs of her ideology are similarly interested in propagating that agenda. Given the market for pulp fantasies, they sell reasonably well to justify their one-hit wonder books. There's nothing lasting in them, though.

Then you get Lawhead who is about as out of place as a viking at a World Peace rally. His understanding of Arthur is interesting, gripping, powerful, and harkens back to the Christian roots of the myth. So, so atypical of the popular and dominant take on the myth.

What really interests me even more than direct tacklings of Arthur and the surrounding legends, are places where it creeps in indirectly. C.S. Lewis' That Hideous Strength, for example, or somewhat more directly in Tim Power's The Drawing of the Dark. Lots of good stuff out there, if obscure.

That being said, AAA is a writer that I rank in the 5th-rate Bradley knockoff camp.

[Gwalchmai]

Well I'll agree that I'm not a big fan of AAA but I enjoyed some of the directions he took the story. I really liked his interpritation of Aurelius and Uther. I know later on, Uther turned into a disappointment but I still enjoyed him early on. And I liked the attempt to bring the Celtic and Nordic dieties into a much bigger role. That doesn't really come out too often the this extent. And I admit, I like the idea of Arthur being the greatest warrior ever. And just the style he wrote in was interesting to me because I hadn't run into that before were some of the books, the chapters are two to three page essays. But yea, after the Dragon and the Unicorn, things went down hill pretty fast.

MZB's books are the ones I hate. Everytime I try to read them I get so disgusted. The farthest I've read is about 15 pages into it and I could only watch about half the movie before giving up. I mean I was just so disgusted with the whole thing.... its horrible.

TH White drives me crazy. Of all the stuff he wrote, the one I enjoyed most was The Book of Merlyn. The rest was kind of give and take. I wanted to enjoy the story but someties he would take so long to properly describe the setting or the circumstance I just had to put it down. But at least I was able to finish it.

Lawheads is by far the best. For me its not because of the Christain roots or even the Celtic roots. Its the effort he put in to give all those various legends and tales and interpritations a place within his story. And he got Arthur right. He wasn't some bastard who pulled a sword from the stone or some ruler of a small kingdom who was never technically a King. He was hero who led his people to peace and prosperity. The fact that he became king was really secondary in comparison. Plus the excellent characterization of his "knights" is without equal. Plus when you read it, it sounds like the celtic legend it is catigorized under unlike most modern writings.

[waterhouseemrys]

Wow! The ulitmate Cliff notes of Arthurian lore! Yes, I am familar with Marion Zimeron Bradley and her Mist. I am bit embarassed to say that I have not read the book (I know: shame, shame) but caught the very bad adaptation that TNT did to get an idea of what she put forth in the Arthurian ripple effect. Although I cheated (which goes against the grain..I am a book first then movie adaptation person) and the book like usual is ten times better, if the movie is anything like the telecast it made me so mad. Yet, it was smart. It was interesting commentary having "Mother Earth" re-instate herself as the object of worship via the Virgin Mary. If I followed that whole worldview of thought, I would love it, but I do not like that version of Arthur. I try to follow it because I want to see how he evolves through time, but I do not have to like it , right?

Anyway, give Tennyson another read, will you? You talked about the gender role interpretation which that is a major theme in Tennyson's work, but there's so much more if you like allegory. Tennyson stated to Q. Victoria regarding idylls to "accept this old imperfect tale, New-old, and shadowing Sense at War with Soul, Ideal manhood closed in real man." A major theme that courses through idylls is the war against the flesh vs. the spirit (which I believe is a theme in Pendragon Cycle). Arthur is a metphor for the soul and Christ, Gunevere: flesh and His Church; and Camelot: the ideal kingdom: each knight represents a virture or idea (like Spenser's Faerie Queen..yeah, you listed all my favs. T. S. rocks especially Wasteland..wow what a read!) The Lady of Shalott, yes if deals with females being trapped in the stridgent Victorian male dominated oppressive society which if they break the tower it leads to their social death...but it also deals with art and the artist...the wish for isolation..the curse of going into society with you art to be known but the need for community and people's response....and the artist's social responsibility, etc. Which still discusses the war between the soul vs. the spirit. As a artist myself, I have to fight my natural behavior to hide my work and not share, but I have learned to share my art to be better known, to better my art, and to better society and culture if I can. I love Tennyson!!!!!! Maybe, you know all this and wrote it for nothing, but if you have not read it through these glasses and are interested, try it and let me know. BTW..have you heard Loreana McKennit's recording of The Lady of Shalot? If not, it is on her album called, The Visit; you must hear it! It's wonderful!

I have not read Steinbeck, but I do own it! I found it in a used book store along with Arthur Rex by Thomas Berger (read it?; it was recommened, another Malory adaptation). I gasped and danced around the place (dancing is figurative not literar) when I found it. But since you highly recommended, I'll try to move up in priortiy on the list. YOu seem very well read, and your list includes my top Arthurian reads. Have you read "The Marriage of Dame Ragnell and Sir Gawain" if not, I recommend it. It is my favorite Medieval Romance and very similiar to Chaucer's Wife of Bath Tale. BTW, it is wonderful being able to communicate with people who love this stuff as much as I do and who wish to discuss, analyze, and evaluate to its deepest core and signficance. What a breath of fresh air!

[waterhouseemrys]

Yes, I agree with you Gwalcmai in saying that Lawhead is the best. He may not ever be liteary signfiicant as some of the artist discussed, but I will say that he is the author responsibile for making a reading hobby into a passion (for me that is). His take was so refreshing, and he put flesh and bone on his characters to make them real and yet still keep the idealism of mythic reality entacted. I too love the Christian worldview that he writes it from me. He does not force it, it just natural becomes a part of the world he creates in his stories. In his own words, he is not a Christian writer but a writer who is a Christian. He does not write to make a Christian novel, but a novel that commuicates and reflects Christian ideals. He made me love Celtic heritage and literature as well. I remember reading an article in which he states that there was something about this people group that appealed to them...their passion, their sense of community, their warrior skills --woohoo! Before I read that interview that is exactly what happened to me through reading Pendragon, Byzantium, Albion...I became Celtic obsessed..read everything Celtic I could fine, watched movies from Wales, learned how to Irish dance (Yes, I know. Please don't laugh.) I loved how he described the people. And it started how Lawhead introduced us to their world...their ideals....and how their ideals made an influence on Christian worldview (How the Irish Saved Civilization). (BTW...if you have not ever read a author by the name of John Elrdige, I think you would really like him. Check out his website http://www.ransomedheart.com....I think...or to be on the safe side google him.)

[Gwalchmai]

"The Marriage of Dame Ragnell and Sir Gawain"

Thats one of my favorite tales ever. That story makes me feel like I'm more like Gawain than just a screen name (I don't say this to brag, it's just how I feel)

[dinadan]

Anyway, give Tennyson another read, will you? You talked about the gender role interpretation which that is a major theme in Tennyson's work, but there's so much more if you like allegory. Tennyson stated to Q. Victoria regarding idylls to "accept this old imperfect tale, New-old, and shadowing Sense at War with Soul, Ideal manhood closed in real man." A major theme that courses through idylls is the war against the flesh vs. the spirit (which I believe is a theme in Pendragon Cycle). Arthur is a metphor for the soul and Christ, Gunevere: flesh and His Church; and Camelot: the ideal kingdom: each knight represents a virture or idea (like Spenser's Faerie Queen..yeah, you listed all my favs. T. S. rocks especially Wasteland..wow what a read!) The Lady of Shalott, yes if deals with females being trapped in the stridgent Victorian male dominated oppressive society which if they break the tower it leads to their social death...but it also deals with art and the artist...the wish for isolation..the curse of going into society with you art to be known but the need for community and people's response....and the artist's social responsibility, etc. Which still discusses the war between the soul vs. the spirit. As a artist myself, I have to fight my natural behavior to hide my work and not share, but I have learned to share my art to be better known, to better my art, and to better society and culture if I can. I love Tennyson!!!!!! Maybe, you know all this and wrote it for nothing, but if you have not read it through these glasses and are interested, try it and let me know. BTW..have you heard Loreana McKennit's recording of The Lady of Shalot? If not, it is on her album called, The Visit; you must hear it! It's wonderful!

Starting off with Loreena--I love her. That song, in a live version, is on the Live In Paris and Toronto album, which is almost always in rotation at my place.

As for Tennyson--he is the best. I know there is more going on with Tennyson in Idylls, as well as with The Lady--I was merely commenting on one of the functions of the poem...and, since I was framing it under "ways we interpret" I thought it was significant.

[waterhouseemrys]

Yes, I have studied a lot about Gawain. My two of my three big papers in collage were over Sir Gawain (The Marriage of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnell and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight). I just find him very interesting. I saddens me that he runs away in Lawhead's books because then we do not get to read about him as much.

[Gwalchmai]

If you still have those papers I'd love to read them. Gawain's my main man so I love reading things about him.