Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Question of the Week (12/17/10)
Discuss in writing Malory's narrative method, commenting on his apparent lack of interest in chronology of the sort usually found in the modern novel; his juxtaposition of plots and situations which serve to comment upon one another; his fondness for presenting crucial events offstage, etc. How does it compare with White's treatment of the Arthur legend. Post by Monday at the end of the school and don't forget to respond CRITICALLY to a classmate's response. Enjoy your weekend.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't think that Malory disregarded chronology when writing. Instead, he disregarded the chunk of time passing between these events, making them appear to be random. However, the events themselves seem to follow in chronological order. For example, Malory has the old King die, has a tournament, Arthur goes to the tournament, pulls out the sword, and becomes King after everyone acknowledges his birthright. These events don't seem random to me. What actually seems random is the fact that Arthur's birth is almost directly followed by him pulling the sword out of the stone, many years later. Then, the battle against the eleven knights takes several pages, while it is much shorter in duration than the one sentence talking about Arthur's childhood.
ReplyDeleteI'm also not quite in agreement that Malory prevents key events offstage. After all, Arthur pulled the sword out of the stone, was reunited with his mother, received Excalibur and battled with the Kings all "onstage". These are all important events that were described by Malory.
White spent far more time on Arthur's childhood and character than Malory did. He describes what Arthur likes to do, and even goes into his thoughts and emotions, something that Malory neglects to do. He also explores Arthur's relationship with Kay, as well as the kind of household Arthur lived in. Malory does none of this, and skips over Arthur's childhood almost entirely.
I agree with Michaela that La Morte D’Arthur does in fact follow a chronological order for the most part. The story begins when King Uther Pendragon falls in love with Duke Tintagil’s wife, Igraine. The story continues in a chronological order, and Merlin tells Uther he can have Igraine for his own if he promises to give him their first child. As promised, Merlin transforms Uther into the Duke, Arthur is conceived, and “When Igraine realized that the duke had died three hours before he had appeared to her, she was greatly disturbed in mind; however she confided in no one.” (Malory 22). The story proceeds chronologically with Arthur’s birth and Childhood, until his is 14 years old, and pulls Excalibur from the stone and is pronounced King of England. Although some of the thoughts and sentences in the story seem jumbled, this seems to be for stylistic reasons, not to disrupt the order of events.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Michela. Malory does seem to follow a sort of chronological order. He does go off on tangents that delve into the past so in a way I suppose he dos jump around howver the true story is in the proper sequence of time. With regards to Malory's narrative method. If you're looking for a detailed, highly stylized recount of Arthur's dealings, you will not find it in Le Morte D'Arthur. Malory in short, is brief.He skates over events quickly and doesn't go into very much detail. It's almost written as if it were in note form. Especially the passages where it talks about the King's helping each other get back on their horses:
ReplyDelete"Kings Brandegoris, Idres, and Angwyshaunce attacked SIr Gryfflet and Sir Lucas, and un horsed them both. Sir Kay attacked King Nentres, and, winning his horse, gave it to Sir Gryfflet, and then, with the same spear, charged King Lot and wounded him. The King of the Hundred Knights attacked Sir Kay, and, unhorsing him, remounted King Lot, who thanked him. Sir Gryfflet overcame Sir Pynel and remounted Sir Kay with his horse."
"Likewise, King Lot remounted King Nentes with Sir Meliot's horse; the King of the Hundred Knights remounted King Idres with Sir Gwyniarte's horse, and King Lot remounted King Idres with Sir Gwyniarte's horse, and King Lot remounted the Duke of Canbenet with Sir Clarivaunce' (*there's a typo in the book here) horse. The eleven kings, all being now remounted, swore their revenge." (Malory, 39)
As you can see Malory waists not time in recounting event, after event, after event. The entire story is told in this way, however this is a particularly good example.
Another of Malory's writing traits is that he doesn't waist time introducing characters either. From the quote on 39, he introduces about eight different characters in two paragraphs. This would be fine if he went on to say something about the characters so we could try to retain them in out minds...but he doesn't. As far as I've read he doesn't explain any more about for example, Sir Gryfflet, King Nentres, or Sir Meliot. I'm not yet sure if I like this or not because it makes things pretty confusing. However, his speed in moving between characters and events does keep the story fresh. It never lags.
I think that Malory decided not to be bound by the chronology of his tale it seems to me that having a nonlinear order of stories allows the author to do more with the order of the stories. This is a useful technique, as it give the author another area for content, however it is most effective when the audience is already somewhat familiar with the stories in question. I think that white's approach is more effective with an audience totally unfamiliar with the story, because it is easier to follow, and it keeps the readers more intent on the events, because they want to know what will happen next.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the previous posters: Chronology is most definitely different between Le Morte d'Arthur and a book like The Once and Future King. In the Once and Future King we know exactly in what order the events take place and we even have a fairly good idea of how much time each event takes; we know that first Arthur and Kay go to get the hawk after they spend much of the day day hay-making; we know that after that they carry the hawk across the hay-field; we know that next they spend a long time failing at hunting, with Kay getting annoyed and deserting Arthur, etc. However, for instance in Le Morte d'Arthur, Sir Balin leaves Arthur's court in his quest to slay Pellam's brother the invisible knight and eventually (it's not quite clear exactly how much time passes) destroys and is destroyed by his brother Sir Balan. Then the story jumps to the origination of the Round Table and Arthur's marriage of Guinevere; it is completely separate from the preceding part of the tale, and we don't know what chronogical relationship it has with that part. Did it take place while Sir Balin was at Pellam's castle? Did it take place while Balin rides through the wasteland after his dolorous stroke with the spear of Longinus? Does it even take place while Balin is still alive, or does it take place years afterward? As far as plotting the events of Le Morte d'Arthur on a timeline goes, we would be able only to plot the events within the discrete parts, and even that would be challenging at times; it would be impossible to plot the discrete parts in relation to each other. In contrast, in modern literature like The Once and Future King, it would be a simple matter to plot events on a timeline, and we would even be able to plot many of these events in relation to how much time each one takes.
ReplyDeleteWhen looking at the chronology of Mallorys writing it is very true that there are breaks in between events that happen in Le Mort d'Arthur. While chronologically the events are in order we do not know exactly how much time has passed and what has happened in this time. I agree with Graham when he says that the audience should be familiar with the stories in order to be able to fully understand Mallory's narrative style. While this is true I found that his type of writing was more enjoyable because of how fast he goes on with his stories. When analytically looking at his writing however it is as MJ pointed out, very spread out with many questions to be answered. I found that in The Once and Future King things moved along much slower and in more detail which answered questions when looked at analytically even if it was a bit more boring when reading. I agree with matt when he says that it is very easy to plot out the events in The Once and Future King while Mallory's narrative style is very spread out.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading Mallory's "Le Mort d'Arthur", it is evident that the concept of time is at sometimes drawn out and at other times rushed. Because of this, there is no cohesive set time between each event. I entirely agree with Michaela, who stated; "I don't think that Mallory disregarded chronology when writing. Instead, he disregarded the chunk of time passing between these events, making them appear to be random." I think that the author, Mallory, was very aware of how much time passed in each event of the story of King Arthur, but simply chose to tell the story more as if he were actually telling the story to another person. No person when recounting a tale will tell you every single detail, rather they focus on the chronology of events, as Mallory does.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Graham, who said that for the reader to have a strong understanding of Mallory's work, they would already have to have a background of the story. In my opinion, I actually find T. H. White's writing to be slightly more palatable, simply because of the fact that he goes into such painstaking detail and answers nearly all of the reader's questions, whereas Mallory is far more sparse with his details and can sometimes leave the reader confused.
Malory tells his tale chronologically. Indeed, it may be hard to follow at times, but at least for me, that's due more in part to the plethora of characters and relationships rather than the lack of a chronology. Malory is a good writer in that his work is enthralling and hard to put down. I also find it easier to comprehend the gist of what's going on in Le Morte d'Arthur than in The Once and Future King.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, I think Michaela brings up a very interesting point. There is definitely an order to the events in Le Morte, yet the blurred or missing transitions between the events do obscure the flow of the plot. I disagree with Meg's last point about Malory being a more confusing and less palatable author than White. I found, as I mentioned earlier, Malory to be much more readable than White, and there was no issue with there being too little background information. I know a little about the story of King Arthur and Camelot, but by no means a lot, and I understood and followed the plotline of Le Morte just fine.
I agree with Meg that in Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur the events are in order. But the gaps between each individual event are not very specific, so the reader has a hard time trying to figure out how much time has passed. This al so adds to the confusion Gabe talks about with the "plethora of characters". The unspecified amount of time that passes changes characters even more and each time one reads of a new event there are several more seemingly insignificant characters.
ReplyDeleteWhere I disagree with Meg and agree with Gabe is the readability of Le Morte vs. The Once and Future King by T. H. White. I also have a limited knowledge of Arthur and Camelot. However, I find it relatively understandable. The nonstop action also keeps my attention held and there is no lack in the amount of detail. White's version reads a little more into the story at a slower pace. While Malory's version reads more like how someone would tell it as a tale, White's version is much more like a book to be read.
One thing that I noticed while I was reading Mallory's Le Morte D'Arthur, is that it is written almost like a textbook. He presents almost every fact there is to present and introduces every character there is to introduce. However, unlike The Once and Future King, Le Morte D'Arthur doesn't go into great detail about these presented events and characters. I like to compare Le Morte D'Arthur to an encyclopedia: it gives you the basic knowledge and facts of numerous subjects.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Michaela with the fact that Mallory doesn't have any anachronisms; he tells the reader Arthur's story in order that it happened. I also agree with Gabe that because there are no transitions between the numerous events and characters, certain parts of the story may seem like they are happening “off stage”. It would be interesting to see how White goes about doing this. The books seem to be the same length, but White hasn’t even finished describing Arthur’s childhood in the first chapter. So if any version would be inaccurate, I think it would be the White version. However, this accuracy makes the Mallory version confusing and difficult to read.
In Le Morte D'Arthur, I noticed how Mallory introduces every single character and event, no matter how important or unimportant. This makes it very confusing, as it is sometime hard to understand what is supposed to be important or not. Personally, I think that parts of The Once + Future King are easier to understand than Le Morte D'Arthur while others are not.
ReplyDeleteI agree with steve that Le Morte is kind of like an encyclopedia. It tells every detail that can possibly be told in a very factual manner and introduces almost too many characters. I also agree with Gabe that the plot focuses more on different characters rather than the chronology.
I would agree with Matt Jin, in that chronology is definitely different between the two stories. However, I don’t think that Malory’s book is completely without it. There is a definite series of events, from Arthur’s conception, to his childhood, his discovery of excalibur, to the war with 11 kings, some of which are skimmed over, but in order. The author also frequently deviates from his tale, unlike T.H White’s. Malory is much less precise in regard to detail. In contrast, White’s book describes Arthur’s childhood precisely, adding in many details, like his nickname “Wart” and his adventure with Cully and Pellinore.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Gabe and Ellen in that The Morte d’Athur is not dry and unreadable at all. It grabs your attention, whereas while reading Whites, I found some of the passages slightly dull.
I actually think Mallory's way of narration is more accurate. Although the narration lacks smooth transitions, it does follow chronological order. Mallory's narration lacks transitions because perhaps those details were not found in writings Mallory read to create his narration. Though White does fill these gaps, it leads me to believe that he made up some of the details he gives to allow his narration a more smooth, story-like feel.
ReplyDeleteGabe mentioned that White's tale was a better read, but I disagree because his narration crawls along at a very slow pace. For the reader that enjoys action, Malory's straight to the point narration is more enjoyable to read.
I agree with Matt Jin that the chronology is very different in Le Mort and The Once and Future King. But I disagree that it is not possible to plot the timeline in discreet parts, I think, even though the story moves quickly it is still possible to determine the general flow of event and major points. It is true that some of the smaller parts are difficult to determine when they occurred, but those are often not significant to the overall story.
ReplyDeleteThis gives each story a different feel and rhythm. In the time period that Le Mort was written he may have used the lack of chronology to make the story move faster to keep the readers interested. Also, in Le Mort there is less character development so the author has to rely on the plot to keep the reader interested. In TOAFK it has a more modern style and the author White focuses more on character development and makes the plot move a little slower and more cohesively.