I feel like this should come with a warning label.

[omphale23]

If only I could figure out what to call it.

The following post has sections. And lists. And translations. And footnotes. So this is your warning-criticism and literary analysis contained within. Also, profanity and fannishness.1

And probably typos-I would revise it again, but my copy of Mapping the Victorian Social Body showed up in the mail this

Comments

[pocketmouse]

Ngh. This is so hot.

I think the point at which we realize that Galahad is a bit simple is also the bit where he stares at the ground, and the angel smirks again as he realizes how easy this is going to be. And the line before it is also fairly heavy on the sarcasm.

The disrobing, in stages, is also one of those fairy/folk tale things of the trickster or whoever getting someone to do something in progressive stages, which was why by the time I got to the armor bit, I was sitting there going 'don't do it, Galahad, are you a moron? (oh wait, yes.)'

Also, looking at the last stanza also makes me think about The Curse, and the transformation in that, where the woman becomes the one with the curse, and she and the Mummy switch places. That's a theme in several of the songs in SRTWA, actually, with Another New World as well. But it makes me think of The Curse more, especially given the cyclical nature of the Grail story.

[omphale23]

Oh, no, he's definitely a bit slow when he stares at the ground. I'm just saying that by the time he doesn't notice the temptation, he's both dumb AND a bad listener.

When I saw the disrobing in stages, I mostly thought of lobsters. And of Inanna's journey to the underworld, but I'm pretty sure that Ritter's not using Sumerian source material.

Also, looking at the last stanza also makes me think about The Curse, and the transformation in that, where the woman becomes the one with the curse, and she and the Mummy switch places.

The reversal of roles is a consistent theme, yeah. I think it goes back as early as "Temptation of Adam" but I'd need to go and listen again to his earlier albums to make sure. Oh, darn. Anything but listening to more Josh Ritter albums. *g*

[pocketmouse]

I listened to my entire Josh Ritter playlist twice while at work today. Well, twice once everyone else got in. Before that it was Galahad on repeat. For, uh, three hours.

[omphale23]

I am afraid to click on my ipod and find out how many times I've played it this week. Thank fuck it remains awesome and brilliant even with repetition.

I have many thoughts and comments, but first and foremost

[tricksterquinn]

Do me now.

Re: I have many thoughts and comments, but first and foremost

[omphale23]

*g* It's the bible verses, isn't it. It's always the "thou shalt nots" that make people want to strip and make out.

[tricksterquinn]

I hate to admit it, but it was more like when you started with Arthurian legend as a fractal set and threatening to go off about Gawain and Welsh identity... I hadn't even GOTTEN to the bible verses yet.

Not that they hurt, of course.

[omphale23]

Dude. But. I had like, four more paragraphs on fractal sets and Arthurian identity stories. I cut them because I was pushing 5000 words and that seemed slightly self-indulgent.

I'd have put them back, but I spent two hours last night fighting with the footnote formatting, and the thought of revising enough to explain Mandelbrot equations in-text made me want to cry.

[brigantine]

Sooo... are you saying that my stubborn refusal to read Sir Thomas Malory's "Morte d'Arthur" might have a certain merit?

No, seriously, I've always been both attracted to and repulsed by the Arthurian sagas, 'cause in school it was always Tennyson and Malory, and even my BFF, who teaches 18th century Brit Lit and has known me since I was twelve (and is therefore well-acquainted with my hit-or-miss attention span and should know better) has been trying to get me to read ALL the Malory. She gave it to me for Christmas a couple of years ago. It is FOURTEEN MILLION pages long, and as far as I could tell from the brief glimpse I gave it the entire tragedy is written down in the form of a single humongous paragraph. It's currently holding up a lamp.

Please don't tell me I should read the Malory. *hides*

I did read Tolkien's version of Gawain and the Green Knight, which was kind of cool.

Also, re: #45, this gives the Headstones' "Three Angels" a whole different spin for me. O.o

[omphale23]

There are days when I utterly loathe Malory. He was brilliant, but his descriptions leave me cold and I admit he needed a good editor. It's hard to really get an idea of the scope of the Galahad legend without reading him, but I don't think it's necessary to read Malory to enjoy medieval literature.

That said, the best versions of Malory are the ones that use the Winchester manuscript (because it has fucking paragraphs added) and have some sort of glossary/footnoting for the Middle English. I like the newest Norton C.Ed., partly because it has a whole set of additional sources and critical commentary (including a translation of the Prose Merlin, which is awesome because I hate hate hate translating that. Almost as much as I love reading it.)

So, no. I don't think you have to read Malory. There are about a million other things to read instead; you just have to have a general idea of what Malory says, so that the cool things other people do are cooler. *g

[pocketmouse]

He played it acoustic tonight, so we just had the guitar. I don't know if it was that or the fact that everyone was quiet and listening during the song, not singing along like a lot of the others, but the whole thing felt a little more minstrely, and a bit like a long shaggy dog joke. I mean, also he flubbed some lines (he said 'your magnificence abounds' instead of 'your benevolence,' and he flipped the women/stableboys bit and had to repeat it, which I think lost the punch on that joke just a little), and he also repeated something else (the fear not line, I think). All the stuff with the repeated chords and phrasing. Everything seemed a lot more similar, tonally, without the drumline.