Opinions on the opinions about the "real" Arthur

[scottishwitch.livejournal.com]

My senior project is on Britain in the fifth/sixth centuries and the historical basis of the Arthurian legends, so basically I have been reading and writing exclusively on this subject (so very near and dear to my heart) for the last year and have another nine months to go. I am not going to be addressing the identity of the "real" Arthur in the course of this work, but I have read more than enough books on the subject. I was wondering if anyone else had any opinions on the plausibility of some of the more well-known works such as Geoffrey Ashe (The Discovery of King Arthur), Norma Goodrich (King Arthur, Guinevere, Merlin)or Graham Phillips and Martin Keatman (King Arthur: The True Story). Does anyone else think Norma Goodrich is a wee bit daft? Or that the idea of a Scottish King Arthur is maybe wishful thinking? Also, did anyone else feel sorely let down by this summer's movie and deeply yearn for a brilliant Arthur film at long last?

Comments

[rockmygypsysoul.livejournal.com]

Well, I did like the movie, and I thought Clive Owen was Brilliant as Arthur, becasue I never pictured Arthur as a jolly ol guy. I was a bit skeptical about the guy they got to play lancelot, but then he smiled and I was like "ok, yeah, he's definitely lancelot with THAT smile." I thought the killing off of him was a tad strange, and of killing Sir tristan in the battle as well. The idea of Guinevere as a warrior ( as I stated in an earlier post) is one that is left to opinion, but I'd suffice to say that whoever she was, she had to be tough. I am not too familiar with the story, so I can't say much about it, but I thought Merlin needed a bigger role. I am familiar with the story as much as the next person, and from reading a book I have which is actually a childrens book and very old, about the knights and their adventures. I became more into the legend after reading the Guy Gavriel Kay "fionavar tapestry", which weaves the chaacters of Arthur into it's plot very well and I believe stays pretty true to the legend aspect. I also read about how they think it was some king like Arturus or something,and the reason that it is said he lived so long is that they used to name regiments after great leaders, and so perhaps this is what happened, and the battle that supposedly Arthur died at is really the battle in which the regiment named after him was annihilated. That is just a theory though, but it seemed to make sense. I thought a much better movie could have been made, though I liked the movie. But I have a feeling that if they had thrown druidic stuff into it, and more about the knights and the actual part of the story we want to know about, it could have been phenomenal, not just good. And I didn't hear a mention of Glastonbury at all in the movie, which seemed a bit strange now that I thought about it. I thought they did a good job of showing how the knights worked so well together and that there didnt need to be anything magical for the knights to work so well and aide each other, and how they jus outsmarted the Saxons. That part I liked a lot. But you are right, though it was good, it did need more.

[geca.livejournal.com]

Yes the movie was a letdown. Four King Arthur movies, and no really good wons. -_-

I don't know much about the historic arthur, I'm more intrigued by the mythic side of it, but check out arthurhistory and there's an issue of Renaissance Magazine about King Arthur (that you can probably back order if you don't have it) that may be helpful (a magazine helpful for a senior thesis...doubt it.)

[geca.livejournal.com]

Wow, I must really need to sleep. I meant "good ones..."