Comments on: Then and Now, the Big Picture and Economics http://projects.pomona.edu/english83f07/2007/12/10/then-and-now-the-big-picture-and-economics/ The Lives and Deaths of King Arthur Wed, 12 Dec 2007 01:30:51 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: sean http://projects.pomona.edu/english83f07/2007/12/10/then-and-now-the-big-picture-and-economics/comment-page-1/#comment-119 sean Wed, 12 Dec 2007 01:23:00 +0000 http://projects.pomona.edu/english83f07/2007/12/10/then-and-now-the-big-picture-and-economics/#comment-119 Mark, everyone, I really appreciate the move toward closure, and recapitulation. I just have a factual caveat about SGGK: a unique MS, never, as far as we know, copied by anyone. It's sheer luck that it survived at all. By contrast the inarguably aesthetically inferior Carl of Carlisle exists in twice as many mss (2!), but these mss are separated by about 100 years. So - while SGGK languished in obscurity until the 19th C.- the Carl was being recited, perhaps continuously, over the span of a century. There's the good, the influential, and the popular. Occasionally these three combine in one work - maybe Geoffrey of Monmouth is a case in point here. But there is room for all, and I think it's important to look at the range of possibilities for this myth. The economics of culture play a great role in their production, reception and continuation, and each time we attempt a literary history of Arthuriana, we recreate and reify a narrative of its origins and evolution. But we leave out far more than we can include. We could start this class again at the beginning with Gildas, Culhwch and Olwen, Wace, Lawman, Marie de France, etc. etc. without repeating anything from this semester, and we still would miss far more material than we would read. Mark, everyone,
I really appreciate the move toward closure, and recapitulation. I just have a factual caveat about SGGK: a unique MS, never, as far as we know, copied by anyone. It’s sheer luck that it survived at all. By contrast the inarguably aesthetically inferior Carl of Carlisle exists in twice as many mss (2!), but these mss are separated by about 100 years. So – while SGGK languished in obscurity until the 19th C.- the Carl was being recited, perhaps continuously, over the span of a century.
There’s the good, the influential, and the popular. Occasionally these three combine in one work – maybe Geoffrey of Monmouth is a case in point here. But there is room for all, and I think it’s important to look at the range of possibilities for this myth. The economics of culture play a great role in their production, reception and continuation, and each time we attempt a literary history of Arthuriana, we recreate and reify a narrative of its origins and evolution. But we leave out far more than we can include. We could start this class again at the beginning with Gildas, Culhwch and Olwen, Wace, Lawman, Marie de France, etc. etc. without repeating anything from this semester, and we still would miss far more material than we would read.

]]> By: Mary http://projects.pomona.edu/english83f07/2007/12/10/then-and-now-the-big-picture-and-economics/comment-page-1/#comment-117 Mary Tue, 11 Dec 2007 22:10:26 +0000 http://projects.pomona.edu/english83f07/2007/12/10/then-and-now-the-big-picture-and-economics/#comment-117 While Chretien is, indeed, harder to find today than a copy of Mists of Avalon, I sometimes think we as a society decide that works have a "higher literary value" simply because they are older and more obscure. In Chretien's case, yes, it is a fine work of literature, but if you look at it from the perspective of the times, it was probably taken with about as much respect as Mists of Avalon is today. Who was Chretien writing for? A court of women who wanted to here romantic tales of knights and damsels. His target audience was not very broad, which causes one to wonder why his work carried on through the ages and became more timeless. Then take Mists of Avalon. Bradley is also, in my opinion, targeting a very female audience with her tales of women taking a huge role in the Arthurian legend, a genre typically reserved for buff men. This is popular now for that reason, but it makes me wonder if Mists of Avalon will be studied in the future in the cultural context. This brings me to my point: Why do we study Chretien so much? Is it simply because older Arthuriana is hard to come by, or are people fascinated with the culture of the times? Do think the culture of the 'future' is going to be different enough from our own to warrant the intense study of Mists of Avalon, or have we, in fact, reached a "cultural plateau?" Wow, that comment got a lot more philosophical than I originally planned... Enjoy! While Chretien is, indeed, harder to find today than a copy of Mists of Avalon, I sometimes think we as a society decide that works have a “higher literary value” simply because they are older and more obscure.

In Chretien’s case, yes, it is a fine work of literature, but if you look at it from the perspective of the times, it was probably taken with about as much respect as Mists of Avalon is today. Who was Chretien writing for? A court of women who wanted to here romantic tales of knights and damsels. His target audience was not very broad, which causes one to wonder why his work carried on through the ages and became more timeless.

Then take Mists of Avalon. Bradley is also, in my opinion, targeting a very female audience with her tales of women taking a huge role in the Arthurian legend, a genre typically reserved for buff men. This is popular now for that reason, but it makes me wonder if Mists of Avalon will be studied in the future in the cultural context.

This brings me to my point: Why do we study Chretien so much? Is it simply because older Arthuriana is hard to come by, or are people fascinated with the culture of the times? Do think the culture of the ‘future’ is going to be different enough from our own to warrant the intense study of Mists of Avalon, or have we, in fact, reached a “cultural plateau?”

Wow, that comment got a lot more philosophical than I originally planned… Enjoy!

]]> By: BraveSirRobin http://projects.pomona.edu/english83f07/2007/12/10/then-and-now-the-big-picture-and-economics/comment-page-1/#comment-116 BraveSirRobin Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:54:20 +0000 http://projects.pomona.edu/english83f07/2007/12/10/then-and-now-the-big-picture-and-economics/#comment-116 I'm not sure you could call Chretien medieval pulp considering his social audience, but perhaps in half a century what we consider pulp - Excalibur, Mists of Avalon - will be studied as closely as Chretien for its cultural connotations. I think you're right about the democratization of media, but I don't think it's as strictly economic as you suggest. Mists of Avalon in a way "democratizes" Arthurian literature thematically as much as it does so economically. And conversely, Excalibur may be cheaply reproducible, facile Hollywood pap, but it is a staging of Arthurian mythology initially produced with a lot of collective effort and money on behalf of people who may not have known or cared about any of that mythology. Capitalism at work yada yada. Just as Chretien is not much harder to purchase today than Mists of Avalon, an ostensibly "headier" film like Lancelot du Lac is not much harder to find on DVD than Excalibur, so the media democratization you describe is something of a two-way street: it has increased access to pulp, but also to media once reserved for Marie de Champaigne and Cannes film festival audiences, expanding that access geographically, economically, and temporally. I guess my feeling is everything's game, so democracy = good. I’m not sure you could call Chretien medieval pulp considering his social audience, but perhaps in half a century what we consider pulp – Excalibur, Mists of Avalon – will be studied as closely as Chretien for its cultural connotations.

I think you’re right about the democratization of media, but I don’t think it’s as strictly economic as you suggest. Mists of Avalon in a way “democratizes” Arthurian literature thematically as much as it does so economically. And conversely, Excalibur may be cheaply reproducible, facile Hollywood pap, but it is a staging of Arthurian mythology initially produced with a lot of collective effort and money on behalf of people who may not have known or cared about any of that mythology. Capitalism at work yada yada.

Just as Chretien is not much harder to purchase today than Mists of Avalon, an ostensibly “headier” film like Lancelot du Lac is not much harder to find on DVD than Excalibur, so the media democratization you describe is something of a two-way street: it has increased access to pulp, but also to media once reserved for Marie de Champaigne and Cannes film festival audiences, expanding that access geographically, economically, and temporally. I guess my feeling is everything’s game, so democracy = good.

]]>