Sir Mordred and Drift of Legend · 5:59pm Sep 13th, 2016
Legend is always a fun thing, especially when it is largely focused on a cast of characters who largely seem like they could have been real people once you removed the embellishing fantastical elements. This is definitely the case with a lot of European and North Africa myths, where even some demigods, heroes, and fae might have been based off real people sometime in the past whose stories faded into legend with time. This doesn’t take all that long to happen, just look at some American legends, like John Henry or Johnny Appleseed, who’ve only been gone for about two centuries at most and already they and their exploits have become folklore. Now apply that to margins of thousands of years and you get an idea on how some of these legends might have a real life basis.
And arguably there is no better known legend based on some grains of truth than Arthurian legend. These were the codifiers for medieval fantasy we still use today. Maybe not the first, but certainly the ones who established the trends that we see all the time today in both modern fantasy as well as fantasy inspired fiction like Sci-Fi and Adventure series. So many tropes we see in the modern day, a wise old mentor, your powerful artifacts, wizards, a team of heroes, knight errants, captive beauties, the fisher king, and the return of the rightful leader all had predecessors; but these were the first legends to bring them all together and codify them in fiction.
And what legendary adventure would be complete without it’s final villain? Arthurian legend gives us this final challenge for King Arthur and his knights in the form of Sir Mordred, the archetypical black knight.
This guy has “Villain” painted all over him. He usurps power from Arthur, he’s the bastard son of or at least associated with the other main villain Morgause/Morgana le Fay, tries to kidnap Arthur’s wife, dies in a bloody battle in a mutual kill with Arthur-
-. And he usually is seen in black armor, can’t forget that.
(Except apparently in Excalibur where he looked over at Legolas and went “How can I one-up that guy in pretty-boyness?”)
Case and point, Mordred was an evil to be vanquished and he destroyed the Round Table of heroes; thus he shall forever be known as one of the most legendary villains and traitors in history of fiction.
Except… He’s actually not that bad. There is a case to be made. Arthurian legend has more retcons to it than DC, Dark Horse, and Marvel during a crisis event. The most common version known today which most media is born from was by the pen of Sir Thomas Malory of Newbold Revel in “Le Morte d'Arthur”; which he first published in 1485. This however means we’re actually dealing with one of the last versions of the story almost a full thousand years after its events supposedly took place, seeing as most historians and myth hunters peg King Arthur some time in the late 5th century assuming he wasn’t a retelling of an even older story; through a heavily French influenced lens.
So where’s that leave us with Mordred? Well it changes a lot actually. So much so I’m going to look at this both as a look at Mordred in later fiction as well as the oldest ones.
For starters, Mordred, or Modredus as he’s also called, had absolutely nothing remarkable about his parentage in the original in either the older legends or historical basis. Mordred's inspiration was likely either a Roman affiliated Briton or an allied Briton king's son. In early legends he wasn’t Arthur Pendragon’s illegitimate son but his nephew through Arthur’s possible sister Orcades and King Lot(h). And apparently he and Arthur got along very well as Arthur adopted him as his son and even heir in some versions. When King Arthur Pendragon left Britain to fight, Prince Modredus Pendragon didn’t seize the throne by force but by simple law as an acting heir-reagent with his uncle’s full permission.
In fact almost all of Mordred’s actions in later versions are completely absent, such as having anything to do with Morgana le Fay or her earlier counterparts. The only thing that seems consistent is it was said he died in the Saxon Invasion at the same time Arthur did. But very importantly, it only ever is said they died in the battle. Not once did it ever indicate Modredus was fighting for the Saxons; in fact that be very out of character for him to turn traitor for no reason. Instead we’re basically given every reason to think Modredus died fighting alongside his father figure.
Still other versions still have Modredus completely unrelated to Arthur or the round table, being just another royal in Great Britain at the time who had a kingdom to rival with Camelot.
So how’d the change occur? Shifts in narrative. For one there was a great many perspective flips to take into account as Britain wasn’t nearly as unified as it is now. Not only did you have many different native groups, but multiple wars and invasions that adopted local culture over time. Old stories get mixed together, characters split up or lumped together; and exaggerations for the sake of storytelling get root. Even to this day there are stark differences in the legend of King Arthur if you go to Wales, Scotland, parts of England, and Ireland.
Modredus had an edge to him at times and with new characters like Lancelot taking up a lot of the story focus, a new villain was concocted. It started with Modredus’ mother, eventually redubbed Morgause, getting fused into or becoming the sister of Morgana le Fay and becoming a villainess. This along with the parentage of Modredus’ siblings changing to not be her offspring, left Modredus to mutate into Mordred over time. After all, if you’re going to kill King Arthur you can’t have it done by Unnamed Saxon #58. An epic protagonist demands an epic antagonists and there is few quicker ways to make a conflict between two characters tense than to make it familial.
So that leaves us with the later Mordred. And honestly, despite being often lumped off as a one-not traitor villain; I think there is a lot too the guy. Had there been a perspective flip, one could possibly even see him as a flawed, but tragic anti-hero who got forced into a bad situation and tried to make the best of it.
Let’s start with his origin whom Mordred didn’t even learn of until he was a young man and already knighted. He’s the bastard son of Arthur with Morgause/Morgana. But here’s the kicker, it was largely an invention of Post-Medieval writing that “clarifies” how he was conceived. Most media today have it with the witch disguising herself as Arthur’s wife and thus Arthur thought he was only enjoying private time with his beloved. But in earlier tradition, it’s actually Arthur who instigates it, not knowing Morgause (some lumped her as Morgana together, some kept them as sisters) was his half sister. And by instigate, I mean he raped her while she was staying in Camelot as an envoy out of spite for her kin, King Lot. Sometimes very forcefully. Now obviously we gotta look at it from the Medieval perspective and can’t judge it from modern values, but even back then it was considered a No-No given the circumstances given in many versions Morgause was married already or otherwise accounted for.
And considering Arthur never legitimized Mordred, how do you think our young knight Mordy reacted when he found out what Arthur; whose douchebaggery prior I’m about to get into, brutalized one of the few people, few family, who was nice to him all his years growing up. Even bad men often love their mommas. He’d have been pissed.
Oh, but our little trauma conga just now getting rolling. Arthur then gets told by Merlin he’s destined to be killed by a boy born on May Day. It just so happened Mordred was born that day and he along with all other male babies are put on sinking boats to drown, with Mordred as the unknowing sole survivor. Having his fill of rape and mass infanticide, Arthur didn’t notice Mordred again until he was a young man. By this point Mordred was either a squire training to be a knight or a knight himself at that point but didn’t know details of his origin, and his skill and wit gave the king reason to bring him to Camelot and eventually put him on the Round Table.
And here’s a detail often forgotten. Arthur’s reign was anything but peaceful and many errants by the Round Table amounted to each knight trying to one-up each other and many times causing havoc for the Britons or outsiders that got in the way. There was near constant fights being picked with tribes, other kingdoms, and warlords who didn’t even have a beef with Camelot until after the fact. And Mordred, while labeled a sympathizer and often chastised by some of the other knights, frequently voiced disapproval alongside some other of the Round Table like Sir Gawain. Dude had a temper issue and was prideful to the point he had an ego bigger than the British Isles, but he did actually seemed to give a damn about his countrymen and getting them some stability. It didn’t take long for him to think a lot of folks would be better off with him in charge.
So focused on this was he that when Arthur and Lancelot finally came to blows over a love triangle with Arthur’s wife and the king left Mordred in charge, Mordred quickly reorganized the kingdom. And not in the movie cliche “I’mma make Mordor-Lite”, more in a “Hey guys, seriously; stop fighting. This sh*ts getting old”. And there was much rejoicing…. No, really. The Britons and surrounding people really liked the guy as he either stopped the fighting entirely or kept it down in a controlled manner without letting it burn everything around it. Most of Mordred’s “reign” was cleaning up the mess Arthur left and keeping new ones from springing up. He even managed to broker a peace with King Lot of the northerners, likely due to either Morguase’s ties to Lot or bleed over from older versions where Mordred was Lot’s son.
Of course because Mordred is a bastard child born of incest and he did have his flaws, values at the time quickly dictate he’s a villain. Especially when said origins were made public and Mordred turned on Arthur. He also decentralized Camelot’s hold on the land, thus giving more power to those outside of the royal house, the fiend! His family history, role as a usurper, and being a king who didn’t want absolute rule was actually a large reason why the portrayals of Mordred snowballed into him being a villain; as such traits and actions were unacceptable in the coming Renaissance and mainland European trends of divine right to rule and absolute monarchies. Add in the Christianization of King Arthur’s mythos and Mordred was seen as not only going against Chivalry by opposing his king, but against god by going against his ordained. In many ways, Mordred is one of the first Anti-Christ figures in fiction even if a lot of the stuff he did in legend would actually be seen as pretty progressive today.
I’d like to note that ironically because of Britain not being an absolute monarchy in later centuries, due to the English Civil War breaking the monarchy’s power, was a big reason why it wasn’t toppled by revolution like the French monarchy was.
But look at that betrayal and it’s context. Mordred learned his origin from a prophet priest, which completely shattered his view of the world and basically told him “Fate hates you, you’re destined for evil”. After killing said priest in a fit of rage, Mordred was in shock for, by some accounts, days after. His mother’s rape, the May Day massacre, indications Arthur knew of his parentage and never acted on it, the chaos Arthur and Lancelot caused the Britons; everything was breaking down in this guy by the time Arthur left him in charge to chase after Lancelot in France. And now he gets word Arthur is coming back, expecting Mordred to take a pat on the head and hand the kingdom back over to him.
To use modern lingo in what amounted to coming out of Mordred’s thoughts as he probably gave a death-glare at the English channel in Arthur’s direction-
“F*ck. That. Noise.”
And we all know what happens afterwards. Mordred’s loyalists and Arthur’s loyalists slug it out and father and son kill/mortally wound each other. Though I do have to laugh at one event prior. Some legends say Mordred attempted to take Arthur’s wife Guinevere as his own. But there actually are more that said Guinevere came to him after he crowned himself king and attempted to seduce him much the same way she did Lancelot. Granted this could easily be just her trying for self preservation, but a lot of these seduction versions apparently end in an epic fail because immediately after it has Guinevere locked up in the Tower of London and the still-single or already married Mordred going back to business. This gets especially funny when you consider Mordred pre-revelation was known to be both quite rude with and lusting after a lot of women. Guess the apple (Mordred) didn't fall from from the tree (Arthur) at first, but then shot itself out a cannon to get as much distance as it could.
Mordred certainly had selfish motives behind his behavior in legend, but he was hardly alone in that regard. And compared to many other motives which were selfish motives leading to and selfish servicing or service to only a small group, his selfish motives leading to an altruistic outcomes for a lot of people is pretty noteworthy. He wasn’t a hero of white moral, but he very arguably was of a paler gray morality than a lot of “heroes” of his day where. In fact his morality of “Law applies to everyone, no special favors” is actually a cited reason many see behind his betrayal of Arthur since King Arthur was pulling a lot of strings for both himself and his love triangle. Rule of law?! THE FIEND!
And so Mordred meets his fateful end, last man standing of his army in a duel with his old king where Arthur impales him through the stomach with a spear and he takes a swing at Arthur with Arthur’s own sword.
“The armor, it doth do nothing!”
But now look at that final battle with this lens on both Mordred and Arthur. It's no longer just a simple battle of an older hero vs. the younger villain. It's a family tragedy. Hit the music-
Arthur sinned in his early life and fate molded those sins into the form of a young man, made of Arthur's own blood, who was put on a tragic course of destiny until he manifested as those sins of his father come back for retribution. Arthur in his later years leveled out greatly. What if he on some levels felt guilty about what he'd done to Mordred and understood why his son/nephew turned on him, and on maybe another level wishes they could reconcile. On Mordred's side, now rather than a simple conqueror, he's been fate's punching bag all his life and not not only just now realized it, but also has been driven over the edge by it; abandoning all the principles he's been raised under and doing what was considered unspeakable for his day. Not a mere villain but someone steeling themselves to face someone to them is the presuppose of all that has gone wrong with his life, maybe even being a bit afraid of Arthur like all victims are.
Arthurian legend has been told countless times, and I think this multiple perspectives and additions to it is a big reason why.
Mordred is probably more than anything the archetype for “Ends justify the means”. He committed atrocities (by his day’s standards) and was seen as a monster because of it. In doing so he’s inspired dozens of characters in fiction, knowingly or unknowingly by their creators. Darth Vader and his grandson Kylo Ren are two infamous examples, but more can be found across fiction.
Which by the way
-Circumstances behind birth are committed by an evil act by his father
-Goes against his father the “king” with plan to kill him
-Caused havoc with good intentions in mind
-Is called a usurper
-bastard son
Sound familiar?
"Call me Mordred-"
Xenilla wasn’t just taunting King Sombra by calling himself after a kingslayer.
PS: Touché TVtrope crew, touché
DAAAAMN.
Wow, I really liked your analysis about Mordred. I know the popular version about Mordred being the bastard son of Arthur, but reading the Fate light novels gave me an appreciation on how legends and stories change as time passes, thus making characters become either more righteous or more vile depending on the current views of the era. Your analysis of Mordred was amazing due to acknowledging that he was actually a competent ruler and that he originally wasn't Arthur's son. Hell, you even pointed out that Arthur fathered him in a very dastardly way and that Mordred had reasons to hate him due to Arthur raping Morgause, trying to kill him as a baby, and being an incompetent ruler that let his Knight's conflicts screw over the kingdom. You even made a point to mention how some of the knights are petty and committed crimes for stupid reasons (I think one of Gawain's brothers killed his mother for having found a new lover). Overall, I liked your analysis, especially the way you notice how fictional characters like Darth Vader, Kylo Ren, and now Xenilla draw inspiration from the tropes associated with Mordred.
You know this makes more sense in explaining Mordred and xenilla other than that ma mind as been blown to bid *bows before superior being* teach us your ways o wise one
I found one version, from the movie Mists of Avalon, where Morgan and Arthur are drugged into having sex as part of an Avalonian ritual.
I'll admit, almost all of my knowledge about Mordred is highly inaccurate as I haven't done a lot of reading about him. But I found this fascinating.
This did remind me of an old movie called Merlin though, anyone seen that?
Ouch! Right in the childhood!
Whelp, cross off another childhood and cultural figure of my list that turned out to be douches in reality, like Chris Columbus for example.
Though, I can't say I'm surprised as this is to be expected. When we're wee little kids, we're taught the basic stories of this big figures of history, learning the values that they've taught us with a modern approach, so we may grow into productive adults. But when we're older and actually research these people and the reality of history, it's often shocking to find a lot of these icons are "less than perfect", and a product of their times.
Take Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding fathers of the USA, Author of the Declaration of Independence, and our Third President...and yet, he's probably fathered who know's how many illegitimate children (EVEN WHEN HE WAS MARRIED), out of the African American slaves he owned.
Thus, it's quite shocking to find our beloved cultural icons aren't as perfect as our culture likes to paint them, it was shocking for me when I was a teen growing up (would explain a LOT of things). But, as we grow older, we have to realize something about these people in history: They're NOT paragons of virtues. They're human and mortal, fallible and flawed, and still a product of their times, and values change over time, every day. We'll probably be looking back on ourselves 60 years from now, and think "God, was I really like that back then?"
It's like waking up one day realizing your parents are human's too, which also is pretty shocking. Here, you look up to these people all your lives who have taught you everything you know, then one day, when your much older, you discover: They can be WRONG! It's shocking, but it also can be enlightening in some way, showing that they too struggled as much as you do to grow up and live in this chaotic realm we call "the world".
And while I DON'T condone the actions that Arthur and many other historical figures have done that are appalling by today's standards, I do appreciate the lessons that we can remember the good from them, such as the value of Valor, Honor, Virtue, and Unity, even if it isn't completely accurate. And even then, we can learn from their mistakes, in order to make a better future....in a sense, giving them a kind of redemption in the eyes of the future. After all, we're only human.
"Tell my tale to those who ask. Tell it truly, the ill deeds along with the good, and let me be judged accordingly.
The rest... is silence."
Holy Shit, Where did you learn this from Tarb?
And THIS, is why I no longer like Saber of the Fate series, and absolutely LOATH my own country!
All of my countries heroes, legends and admired characters turn out to be nothing more then greedy selfish worthless and full of crap DICKS!!!
"Values of the time?" PAH!!! Don't try to feed me that crap! They were selfish dicks, they were always selfish dicks, and they will always BE selfish dicks! EVERY! LAST! ONE OF THEM!!!
The more I learn about these assholes, the more I hate and despise being British!
And I'm supposed to HONOUR these guys?! I'm supposed to admire them?! I'm supposed to look back and say "wow, that king Arthur was a real hero huh?"
FUCKING!!! HELL!!! NO!!!
I'd sooner rip the pages these "Legends" are written on to bits, spit on the pieces, burn them, then piss on the ashes!!!
FUCK KING ARTHUR!!!
FUCK BRITISH LEGENDS!!!
AND FUCK BRITON!!!
4208376
Remember what I said in the beginning or you miss the point of legends entirely. King Arthur is a legendary figure, not a historic or a mythological one. The difference is there was a real lie basis for the legend, but that person's life has been exaggerated, mythologized, and fused with other's. There was a real King Arthur at some point, we think the 5th century. He did probably have a close group of elite knights working with him, may have had a mentor; and fought off the Saxon invasions for a long time.
He probably was no looking for the Holy Grail, he didn't even know anyone named Lancelot (Lancelot was a later addition hundreds of years after Arthur died), probably didn't own an enchanted sword; and likely did not end up on Avalon. These were all added from later retellings of his life adding in fantastical elements to make him seem larger than life; be it the additions were to facilitate a religious, political, or just entertainment agenda. The May Day massacre for instance almost certainly didn't happen as it only popped up in later versions of Arthurian legend and seems to be a wholesale import of Abrahamic legend and theology given it closely parallels Pharaoh's culling of the Hebrew babies in Exodus and King Herod's culling of infant boys from Bethlehem.
Same with Mordred. He probably did have a historical person who inspired the legend, but said person likely wasn't a vengeful bastard son and almost certainly wasn't the spawn of a witch. But if I was focusing this article on him I'd be writing about historical contexts and nation states to speculate where the guy actually came from.
This was a discussion of the legendary, largely fictional Sir Mordred and King Arthur, characters of fiction loosely inspired by the life of real people. I might as well have been talking about a character from a fantasy story written twenty years ago. Nothing to be anti-nationalist about.
And yes, values of past persons can't be condemned or worshiped because those people grew up in a completely different context than we did. What was right and wrong to them was difference because that's just how things were for all people at the time. If you closed you views to hate on them, you don't look at the full picture; and when you don't do that you won't see that historic figures were just people. Of different values and different times yes, but usually of both good and evil. Near pure evil is uncanny because it is so rare because it is purely destructive to society. If everyone were jerks, nothing would get done. Humans as a whole are good, we're literally hardwired for it because benevolence leads to productivity.
And when you look at a person whole cloth, you often find resonances of certain values just like you find dissonances of them.
Take one from my country for instance, George Washington. If you look at him with a filtered view you'll either see a venerable god-among-men who fathered his country and is a shining example to all; or a plotting, racist, slave owning asshole who used people to get power. Neither one of these views are right, George was a person. If you look at him as pure good, you won't see his failures like him being the proverbial spark in the kindle-box that ignited the French and Indian war which claimed thousands of lives. But if you look at him as loathsome, you'll overlook facts like how his views of slavery drastically changed in his last decades to the point he freed all of his slaves and considered the fact he couldn't have sped up abolition without tearing the nation apart his greatest failure.
George Washington was a person. He did good deeds and he did ill deeds. Learning your history and context, especially values of the time, will help one understand that. It can help make a disagreeing person like him and make a praising person maybe be more of a realist. But the important part is you learn your history, the good and the bad, and use those of the past as examples so you don't repeat it.
Britain history is full of great men and women, and while very proud American myself; I've always considered my clan's ancestral home a cool place historically.
That was pretty clever. Xenilla in a way is like the heroic version of Mordred.
My own studies of this topic tend to be very casual and incomplete, but my understanding is that the most likely case for the "real" King Arthur was that he was either a Roman officer or the son of a Roman officer who remained in Wales after the Roman Empire's collapse saw the bulk of the Roman troops leave. Would it be fair to say that Modredus was likely also a Roman soldier (or son of the same) who chose to stay behind? Or, alternatively, was he more likely to have been a native warrior who was allied to the man who would one day be known as Arthur?
(Personally, I consider any version featuring medieval armor or obviously French knights to be of little value beyond being an entertaining story. Articulated Plate Armor didn't exist in 500 CE. Whoever it was that Arthur is based on would not have had any.)
4208234
Please refer to my comment to Max about historic vs. legendary figures. You and I have much to agree on.
If anything, considering Arthur leveled out a lot in his later years (and in many versions wasn't nearly as bad as listed here); I think it makes Arthurian legend's climatic end even more impressive from a story telling plot. Now it means the conflict between Mordred and Arthur isn't anymore Evil Usurper vs. All Good King, but a dramatic finale to a family tragedy where Arthur is literally seeing his sins come together into a form which they can fight back through.
It's a tragic person walking the line of hero and villain lashing out at what he sees as what is wrong in the world and a grizzled old hero faced with the realization of how he screwed up in the past. And on top of all this it's a son vs. his father. Just imagine the story telling potential behind all that. Now instead of just Arthur recruiting Lancelot to stomp back in and take his kingdom back, you can give Arthur a lot more human emotions. He may have gotten Lancelot back because he felt under the weight of Mordred's reality check, he needed his best friend back to keep stable? What if Arthur felt regret for what he'd done and on some level didn't want to fight his son who'd grown into a reflection of himself? What if Mordred on some level was sad he was doing what he felt he had to and was scared of Arthur? What if there was a chance in this tale for the two forces about to fight to reconcile, but tragic fate deemed it otherwise?
If anything, this is why I felt Arthurian legend endured because there are so many added in elements you can interpret it any number of ways. Opening up the view of Mordred as not a one-note villain only improves that.
4208653
AH! I see that you mean, and forgive me if I took your stance on Arthurian LEGENDS as historical accuracy. I just seems like a trend now these days to deconstruct hopeful myths and legends, or even modern works of fiction as something negative and unhopeful, as if the very idea of something or someone existing to do good for the sake of good is just "Too good to be true", and it's all negatives.
Film Theorist did this recently with their video of Star Trek, Calling the UNITED FEDERATION OF PLANETS a FACIST GOVERNMENT!
SERIOUSLY!?!
(I.E., don't watch it, it's stupid).
But, like you said, myths can have a different interpretation based on how you look at them from different perspectives (GREY PERSPECTIVES, NOT JUST EXTREMES, LIKE CALLING THE FEDERATION FACIST WHEN IT'S CLEARLY NOT!!!! Excuse me, I had a discussion here on that same video, and that video just riles me.
).
One example that could be open to interpretation that I've seen could be the legend of the Gorgon, Medusa. So many myths and legends paint her as a villain in her own right, when her curse wasn't even her fault to begin with. It basically goes that Medusa was a mortal woman who was so renowned for her beauty and looks, that one night while praying in Athena's temple, Poseidon, being the jerk Greek God that most were, VIOLATES HER, right there in the temple. And when the deed is done, Athena, angered by Medusa being violated in the sanctity of her own temple, by her own UNCLE NO LESS, cursed Medusa because she was violated in such a manner in her temple. If that doesn't paint the gods in a negative light, what doesn't?
But then again, there could be another way to interpret this myth in the benefit of Medusa, but still being a tragedy. Athena, being the Goddess of Wisdom could be painted in a better light if she didn't curse Medusa, but in some way "bless her". Athena, while still a powerful and wise God, couldn't compete and stop her Uncle by brute force, but Athena was known to be clever and outsmart her enemies. Therefore, what, in an act of compassion and pity for Medusa, "blessed" her in a way that no man could ever again look upon her with lecherous intent again, so Medusa could never be hurt again? That's one way to interpret legends. :)
And again, forgive us for taking your stance so literally Tarb, the way you told the story of Arthur and Morgan seemed like exerts taken from historical truth. And yes, the similarities between Morgan and Xenilla are just uncanny now.
Very clever Trab, very clever...
4208644
Legends never die if we find new ways to use 'em
4208651
Rome's groups in Briton did have local allies. It is likely the historic basis for Modredus was the son of an allied Briton chief or chief-king whom was the basis for King Loth if Arthur was indeed a Roman or son of a Roman. The idea of him being Arthur's nephew is certainly far more likely than him being his son and would make sense in the historic context, with Arthur's sister marrying to secure an alliance and kinship.
And yah, 5th century armor looked more like this. Usually scale mail or chain mail
s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/6d/56/72/6d56727a7ecd980a1cc8717e339a594a.jpg
4208166
Oh shush up you. This is just the result of reading way to much.
4208230
I have seen it.
4208203
I admit I only got vague memories of that series. Good fiction but I tend to remember it more for fact the author was a child molester
4208300
Excessive reading.
4208131
Moongaze posts never cease to impress!
Never read Fate Light despite above comment, might need to look into it. Thanks for the compliments. I attribute a big part of it to fact I research excessively before I read or write something myth or legend based as historic and fictional accuracy is a big target of mine. I'd like to think I research more than wikipedia and fantasy book guides.
Many of these old legends have untold tales and fascinating new angles. While I understand why modern fiction often takes things down to Good vs. Evil, these expansions make the conflict that much more invested in my mind.
4208706
Actually, the bit with the Gorgons is even more messed up that that. There are indications that the three started out as pre-Hellenistic agricultural goddesses, and that the invading Greeks demonized them in order to convert their newly concurred worshipers to the Greek's own religion. In other words, they are yet even more victims of gynophobic Greek story tellers deliberately vilifying powerful, independent women.
4208230
I watched that in an English class back in middle school if I remember correctly. Sam Neil is a surprisingly awesome Merlin.
4208714 If you wish to know more about Fate I suggest watching the anime Fate Zero, and then either Fate Stay Night or Fate Unlimited Bladeworks (both are different versions of the same story). It's about a competiton between magicians who fight using spirits of ancient heroes. There's even a light novel called Fate Apocrypha that shows the first antivillain in mythology (Karna) http://typemoon.wikia.com/wiki/Lancer_of_Red (Fun thing about Karna. In the anime, the mythological figures have fantastic powers based on their myths, so they're stronger than what their legends portray them as. Karna however is weaker than his legend because of how OP the guy was in the original legend)
4208714
It's actually called Fate/Stay Night. It has three versions, each representing an alternate timeline, one simply called Fate/Stay Night or Fate, Fate/Stay Night: Unlimited Blade Works, and Fate/Stay Night: Heaven's Feel. Be careful because mixing them up can get really confusing. It has a prequel called Fate/Zero and a ton of spinoffs. There's a parody called Carnival Phantasm that also parodies Tsukihime, and an interesting spinoff called Fate/kaleid liner PRISMA☆ILLYA, which takes all the characters and turns it into a magical girl show. Despite its goofiness at first, it becomes very deep and action packed later (episode 6 is one of the best).
4208714 Guilty as charged and yes I read too much, I can't help it its something I enjoy
4208583 ... ... ... I... have NO idea where my comment came from man. I hardly even remember typing it.
But reading it over, I can only guess I was on something or was just insanely tired or... something.
I always knew Arthurs legends were mostly just stories and all so why I blew my stack I just can't really say.
But thanks for setting me straight, I just wish you'd hadn't needed to in the first place.
But I DO still think the British leadership is a mess, even today. But I guess something I gotta put up with.
Again, sorry for the out-burst, it was out of line and really, I'd never say something like that if I hadn't been... whatever it was.
I sometimes curse the poor record of history. Especially the tendency of victors to re-write it and the masses to romanticize it.
Consider: the only thing known with certainty about King Arthur that none dispute is that the Saxon Invasion of the British Isles following the collapse of the Roman Empire stalled for about a generation around the beginning of the sixth century. If a single individual led the resistance against the Saxons, then that individual most likely is the ultimate inspiration for King Arthur. He would have to have been sufficiently skilled in diplomacy to bring the various tribes together and sufficiently skilled in warfare to command the battles. I would enjoy learning about such a man. However, after 1500 years, the truth about such a leader has been lost to the ultimate victory of the Saxons, then later of the Normans, and even worse to the romanticization of the few remembered tales of his valor. Instead of chain male or a Roman breastplate, we envision King Arthur in field plate from more then half a millennium after he died. Instead of a blued steel gladius, he wielded a magical longsword who's scabbard kept his wounds from bleeding in the current tales. Instead of local allies, we think of a French Knight as his greatest warrior. The list goes on...
As much as I would like to learn the truth behind the tales, I fear that truth is long since lost and may never be truly recovered.
Huh. Considering all this, I wouldn't mind seeing an adaptation that portrays Modred as a hero with Arthur as the primary villain.