In which I ramble about poetry, Arthuriana, aroace stuff, etc. In theory. In practice, it's almost all Arthuriana.
215 posts
Latest Posts by taliesin-the-bored - Page 6
Since I posted this, another of my closest friends came out as aroace.
I’m quickly running out of allo people I know more than tangentially.
I‘ve been wondering about something. Last year, I found out that being asexual was a thing, not just a quirk of mine… then realized that five of my friends already privately or publicly identified as such. Consider that: asexuals are estimated to make up about 1% of the population yet account for about 40% of my friends. Is that just a weird coincidence, are ace people more likely to gravitate toward each other (due to their likely disinterest in certain topics of conversation or general vibes or goodness knows what), did the experts significantly underestimate how many asexuals there are, or some combination of the three? I suspect it’s the third but I’m not sure to what extent each thing is a factor. Any thoughts?
while im gushing abt north african & jewish art, here are some sephardic/mizrahi illustrated manuscripts that i am completely obsessed with *___* found these on pinterest and thru sum magrebi jewish archives
…as he should be.
I forgot the name of Maimonides-
So I searched up "Jewish philosopher with opinions" and he was the first result.
Does anyone know any songs which relate well to Gaheris? He is one of a few gaping holes on my Alarmingly Vast Arthurian Themesong List.
Shoutout to Howard Pyle for shooting down the Lancelot/Guinevere plot line in the funniest way possible.
One I didn’t like at first but which really grew on me as I read more of his poems is Edwin Arlington Robinson’s characterization of Gawain. He appears in Tristram, Merlin, and Lancelot, always as a side character who’s only there for a fairly short time, so you have to fit his arc together from the fragments. At the start, everyone sees him as cheerful and careless—he’s called “gay Gawaine” in the old sense of the word more than once—but he’s more insightful than most of the others give him credit for, and, after his brothers are dead and he becomes unhinged in his quest for revenge, you realize that he was already unhinged and his cheerful flippancy was a coping mechanism/mask. He also has a delightful way with words. In Tristram, he tells Isolt of Brittany that he isn’t sure whether he’s hitting on her or not but it doesn’t matter because “Tristram, off his proper suavity, has fervor to slice whales, and I, from childhood, have always liked this life.” During his last conversation with Lancelot, Gawaine tells him, “A gloomy curiosity was our Modred, from his first intimation of existence. God made him as He made the crocodile, to prove He was omnipotent.”
Tell me about the best modern characterization of your favorite Orkney brother(s).
Pick and choose from whatever adaptations or retellings you know of, they don’t all have to appear in the same story. No wrong answers. :^)
Arthur, Lucan, Bedivere, and Griflet Incorrect Quote
Arthur: Would you die for me?
Lucan: Of course, my liege. If I had to.
Arthur: Would you die for me?
Bedivere: As the Marshal of Camelot and a man of honor, it is my duty to do whatever is required of me by the throne.
Arthur: Would you die for me?
Griflet: No. That would be stupid. I would hold you in my arms as you died, then burn all your possessions.
Arthur: Out of grief?
Griflet: Yeah. Grief.
Obscure Arthurian text which everyone should read #2: The Awntyrs off Arthure at the Terne Wathelyne
The name is a bit misleading, since Gawain and Guinevere (here referred to as Dame Gaynour) feature more in the story. The first part concerns their lakeside encounter with the terrifying ghost of Guinevere’s mother, who bemoans her fate, gives Guinevere advice, and doles out prophecies of doom, predicting the death of Gawain and the fall of Camelot to Mordred. The second part is about a fight between Gawain and Galeron, which is more mundane in subject but suggests some of the factors which will make the ghost’s prophecies come to pass.
May I just say, non-condescendingly, that I love how we’re all such nerds about these characters that we take weird, obscure tidbits, like Kai’s laundry list of superpowers (which upwards of 99% of everyone everywhere will never know or care about), for granted as common knowledge.
hello. i was wondering sumn. what makes a knight of camelot ~A Knight of Camelot~? there are so many of them and they’re all different but do they have characteristics in common that are found in the average Famous Knight of Camelot and that when you see you think “ah yes that is very arthurian of them”. i hope my question is not a bother to you and too confusing.
Hi! Like every other answer I ever give, it’s highly dependent on the text.
In the Mabinogion, Arthur’s best knights tend to have special abilities, even magical powers. We all remember Kai’s fun list of attributes.
But generally speaking, fame in Camelot comes from 3 things:
Every successful knight is hot. I don’t make the rules.
They have to be good at beating the snot out of other guys. Obviously.
Branding. I’m so serious.
My basis for this comes from the Vulgate descriptions of the Orkney Bros. Specifically, Gaheriet/Gaheris. Not because he’s famous, but because he isn’t.
It’s no accident that Gaheris never makes it to the big screen the way his brothers do. He is, by design, basic. The quintessential middle child. He doesn’t have a Special Trait (such as Gawain’s courtesy or reputation as a ladies man or noontime powers etc.) and that makes Gaheris forgettable. To be a famous knight, you gotta put your whole pussy into it, in front of a live studio audience, or you won’t be famous no matter how good you are. Makes sense when you think about it!
Not sure if that answers your question, but that’s what I got. Take care. :^)
9.12.21 (technically. Actually finished it 12.29.22)
I love working on old art and forgetting what brushes I was using lol
At this point, my categorized Arthurian theme song list has spiraled entirely beyond reasonable proportions. If it’s taught me anything, it’s that at least two thirds of Imagine Dragons’ songs seem like they could be about Mordred.
A post of mine from several months ago about the Perlesvaus self-rearranging forest just wandered across my dash again and made me think about it some more, so I wanted to talk about it a bit.
Perlesvaus, for those who don’t know, is a 13th-century French Arthurian romance. It’s intended to be a continuation of Chretien de Troyes’s Perceval, but it’s mostly known for being completely batshit when it’s known at all. (There’s an old book on Arthurian texts that dedicates a chapter to Perlesvaus and repeatedly speculates that the anonymous author had Something Wrong With Him. This is the longest scholarly treatment of Perlesvaus I’ve been able to find & read.)
Anyway, there’s an odd worldbuilding detail in the text. See, it’s a Thing in chivalric romances that the questing knights happen upon castles & lords & damsels & such that are unfamiliar to them and have to be explained. You know, “this is the Castle of Such-and-Such, where the local custom is as follows. It’s ruled by Lady So-and-So, whose character I shall now describe to you.”
This is a genre convention that largely goes unquestioned, but it’s a bit odd if you think about it. All these knights are at least minor nobility. They don’t know the other nobles in their region? They don’t know what castles are where? Don’t they have, like, diplomatic relations with these people or at least attend the same tournaments? Even if they’re all fully committed to the knight-errant lifestyle and don’t really engage in courtly diplomacy, you’d think they would share information with each other and get the lay of the land. But instead, to use TTRPG terminology, it’s like they’re all on a hexcrawl that was randomly generated just for them to have these adventures.
The author of Perlesvaus decides to address this. In what’s kind of a throwaway paragraph late in the text, he explains that God moves things around so knights always have new quests to do (and, presumably, is also making sure they always arrive at the right narratively-significant moment). So the reason they’re always encountering people & places they have no knowledge of is because those people & places really weren’t there yesterday. They didn’t know about the Castle of Such-and-Such because it’s normally a thousand miles away and the forest path they followed to get there used to lead somewhere else.
And I think that would be a really interesting thing to stick into a novel or a TTRPG or something. When a knight rides into the forest with the intent of Going On A Quest, at some point they go around a bend in the path, cross an invisible barrier, and wind up in the Forest of Narrative. This is a vast forest with no set geography, filled with winding paths and populated almost entirely with questing knights, damsels in search of questing knights, friendly hermits, strange creatures, and allegorical set-pieces. Then, at the narratively-appropriate time, they cross back over the invisible barrier back into the regular world, and find themselves wherever the Narrative has decided they need to be. This could be a different country, a different continent, or a different world entirely.
Whether anyone involved is actually aware that this is how it works is… optional, really. Though if it’s not a Known Phenomenon, the people whose jobs it is to handle trade & diplomacy & god forbid, maps, are going to end up tearing their hair out in frustration.
Victor Frankenstein used corpses. Merlin used blood and fingernails.
Merlin is Frankenstein on a budget and Frankenstein is budget Merlin.
Gargantua, artificial grandson of Lancelot and Guinevere.
In further research into Yiddish collections of Arthuriana, my father found a story of Gawain. You'll never guess what it is, I guarantee. Go on, guess. You're wrong.
It's a Yiddish story about Sir Gawain becoming Emperor of China.
Six years ago
Me: Knights? Sounds boring. Greek mythology all the way.
Six weeks ago
One of my friends: Something-something-Dwayne Johnson-something…
Me: DID SOMEBODY SAY GAWAIN?!?!?
Proof That Jughead is Aromantic - Masterpost
*so we know he’s asexual in canon. but he could still feel romantic attraction!!1!1
what’s this? a screenshot from the writer’s twitter??? doesn’t prove anything. that’s just one comic. i’ll put an asterisk next to the comics by this guy to prove he’s the only one writing Juggie as aro.
i’m not convinced. that’s pretty open to interpretation; he’s probably interested
well… maybe that could mean he’s aro?
Keep reading
I just discovered TV Tropes' Wild Mass Guessing page for Arthurian legend. If you haven't read it, check it out. It's absolutely wild. For example, we have...
The theory that Merlin stole Kay’s powers
The theory that Guinevere is sterile segueing into the theory that Arthur is a cis female segueing into the theory that Arthur is Mordred’s mother segueing into the theory that Guinevere is male and Lancelot is gay
The theory that Guinevere wasn’t a historical figure but Arthur and Lancelot were (and Arthur was female)
The theory that Arthur has already returned and its possible Arthur subtheories (Winston Churchill, the Duke of Wellington, Queen Elizabeth I, Prince Harry, Sonic the Hedgehog…)
The theory that Merlin is John the Apostle
The theory that Isolde is Tristan’s mother (ick)
The theory that all versions of the legends, medieval and modern, are retellings by different characters
Also, TV Tropes is a wiki, so you can add your own theories to the page.
The problem with antisemitism and anti-Zionism
Someone recently reblogged this post I shared that called out antisemitism in pro-Palestinian rallies. An action I was initially happy about, until I went into this person's blog, and saw a lot of posts that I, as an Israeli-Jewish person, find incredibly antisemitic. I found myself utterly baffled by that. Because this person clearly recognized the things said in these rallies were extremely antisemitic, and yet, they posted a lot of things that were rooted in the same antisemitic worldview. Can't they see it? And I think the main problem with the current pro-Palestinian movement is that they honestly can't see the line between being on the side of compassion and humanity and being critical of Israel's actions, to spreading horrible lies and dehumanizing Israelis and Jewish people. And the ugly truth these people refuse to face is that the reason they can't see when they cross this line is probably unconscious antisemitism.
You don't need to hate Jewish people to be antisemitic
Antisemitism, like many other forms of racism, often works on an unconscious level. Maybe you have Jewish friends. Maybe you fought for better Jewish representation in media. Maybe you are even Jewish yourself. But over the years you have been exposed to a lot of antisemitic ideas and stereotypes that altered your worldview and made you more vulnerable to believing Jewish people are the bad guys.
If your gut reaction to this is- "but Israel is actually doing bad things, so I'm actually right about hating them." Please keep reading.
Your idea of Israel and what it stands for is based on the worldview of the most radical right-wing Israeli activists at best, and blatant lies at worst.
Imagine if we took the words of the most radical Republicans out there, the ones that go after trans kids and believe women should have no right over their own bodies, and believe all Americans are supporting this idea. That wouldn't have been very fair of us, right? Because there are a lot of people in America who are fighting for a better future. A lot of people who are standing up for human rights.
Just like the United States isn't a homogeneous entity, filled with only trump supporters, Israel is also an incredibly diverse place, with people who have radically different ideas about how Israel should look. Even the current Israeli government, which is extremely right-wing, and has people in it I personally believe should have never been in a position of power, is probably a lot less evil than you were led to believe by ill-intent strangers on the internet. Mainly because this is still a democratic government, in a democratic country, which has a lot of checks and balances that (for the most part) manage to prevent people with radical ideas from making them into official policies.
I don't blame you for believing the reports you see from Gaza. As a pacifist, and as someone who voted for left-wing parties ever since I was eligible to vote, someone who truly believes the Palestinians has a right to self-determination and sees how problematic the occupation is, I struggle a lot when I see posts about the suffering of the people in Gaza. Wars are horrible. I never want to see other people suffer. Let alone children. I wish I could go there right now and take all of them somewhere safe. I wish none of this was happening.
But I also know who my people are, and the values they stand for. And what I noticed about these anti-zionist posts is that they are often written in a biased, misleading way. They often attribute malicious intentions to Israel's actions. And they often jump to conclusions, without giving Israel the benefit of the doubt. Without asking the right questions. And often, without any sort of proof. Some of these posts are outrageous lies. Others are incredibly biased and fail to mention the terrorist organization Israel is fighting against.
Only a small amount of them are coming from unbiased sources that describe the reality of the situation without giving in to personal interpretation.
But most of you can't tell the difference. You are seeing lies about how IDF soldiers are targeting children, or about how Israel is lying about their true evil intentions, and you accept them as the truth, without questioning the intention of the person who wrote that post. Without stopping to think this is incredibly dehumanizing to think Israeli people are capable of such monstrous actions. Without examining your own biases. And that's incredibly problematic, and yes, this is antisemitic. Because you would have never spread this kind of accusation about any other group of people without definitive proof.
This isn't to say our soldiers are never wrong, and that there aren't any bad apples, or even systematic problems in the IDF and every allegation should be thoroughly investigated, because any harm to innocent people is terrible, unavoidable as it may be. And ideally, even terrorists should get a fair trial.
But if you think soldiers in Israel defense forces, who are mostly 18-21-year-old Jewish men and women from all sides of the political spectrum, are inherently evil and baby killers, you are in fact antisemitic.
Even if you believe your type of anti Zionism isn't antisemitism being anti-zionist is still not a great position to take.
I never defined myself as a zionist before. But it was more to do with my own disconnection with Judaism and my ideas about the place of religion in modern society than my belief about the right of Israel to exist.
I think it would be amazing to live in a utopian world where we have one multicultural democratic state where everyone lives together in harmony. But I’m also a realistic person. And someone who wants to keep living as a free woman with full rights in my home country.
And while I never felt particularly zionist, I was never an anti-zionist, and I never believed zionist was a bad word.
I'm probably not the first person who tells you this, but Zionist isn't a synonym for "everything I hate about Israel". It doesn't mean "a person who supports the occupation", or even "a person who only cares about the life of Israelis" or "someone who fully supports the Israeli government".
So what does it actually say? Let's look at a dictionary definition.
Do you notice what the definition doesn't say? Anything about Israel's borders or about the idea of a Palestinian state. There are many types of Zionism, some more radical than others. But as I said before, is it really fair to judge an entire group of people based on the idea of the most radical of them?
The truth is, most of us just want to live in peace. We want to go to work without finding ourselves at the scene of a terror attack or running to the shelter because of rockets. We want all the hostages to come home. We want to feel safe in our own homes. This is what it means to be a zionist. This is what you are standing up against. Not the "occupation," or the "settlers" or the extremists in the government. Just regular people who want to live their lives.
Zionism isn't colonialism
Jewish people are indigenous to the land of Israel. This was the land we dreamed of in 2000 years of exile, and it's a huge part of our religion and our culture. This doesn't mean the Palestinians don't have a claim to the land as well after living on it for so many years, or that what they went through in 1948 wasn't terrible, but it doesn't magically make Israelis into white colonialists who woke up one day and decided to take over a random land.
A lot of mistakes were made. In 1948, and especially in 1967. And we are paying for them now. But the idea that Israel is a colonialist state that represents everything that's wrong with society is entirely false.
If you support the existence of a Palestinian state but don't believe Israel deserves the same right, you need to ask yourself why that is the case.
Is that because you don't believe Jewish people when they tell you about their connection to the land of Israel? Because you think there is something inherently wrong with the existence of a state that is only for Jewish people? (But have no problem with all the Muslim and Christian states out there) Because you think Palestinian deserves to live from the river to the sea and Israelis should have nothing, or whatever the Palestinians would be willing to give them? Because you are more comfortable with the idea of Jewish people as a minority in a Palestinian Muslim state than the idea of them having their own free country? Because you think you know better than us what our future should look like?
Because all of these reasons are antisemitic.
Propaganda:
I generally interpret Galahad as aroace. That being said, if he wasn’t and Galadred were a thing, I think it could save the Round Table. Being in a relationship might stop Galahad from going on the Grail quest, which would stop a great number of people from dying, and having a very Catholic boyfriend might stop Mordred from participating in some of his more dubious hobbies, like plotting murder.
O The Round Table O
Coincidentally, I had Jacob wrestling as my Torah portion at my Bat Mitzvah and my parents had one on leprosy protocols and what to do with mold-infested houses at their wedding. The rabbi said that he generally dreaded having to talk about mold and leprosy at weddings but that it was oddly fitting in the case of my (future) parents: a doctor and a mycologist.
there is not nearly enough media about the bar/bat mitzvah process. anyone remember watching a kid do their fun drash about jacob wrestling the angel and thinking How the fuck. am i going to write a speech about leprosy protocols
Little reminder that in at least one version of this story, Tristan shoved the tongue of a dragon he defeated down his pants. This nearly killed him.
Brangaine finds him later in the swamp after Isolde deduces the crime scene. My personal headcanon is that every time he gets on her nerves Brangaine threatens to expose him.
The Passing of Arthur by Sidney Harold Meteyard
From what I’ve seen, Kay/Gaheris sometimes seems to go along with Balan/Bedivere, which could point to whatever source material there may be or be a testament to the lack thereof.
I’ve seen a few writers on Ao3 shipping Kay with Gaheris, which strikes me as a little random, though I haven’t read much about Gaheris and could be missing something. What do you think the rationale/source material behind that ship is?
i have legit no idea anon ive seen it too and i do not understand my only guess is that they interacted in an adaptation ?? if anyone knows tell me im curious now
The knights as YouTube comments, No. 1
I can’t decide which knight is saying this, but it explains a lot.
( A comment on “i accidentally read the worst book of the year so far” by The Book Leo, beginning with a quote from the video)
Edit: Never mind. Knights kiss all the time in some texts. Most of the Arthurian texts I’ve read are weird and random (Gawain plays tennis, Galahad gets married, Guinevere’s mother’s ghost issues prophecies of doom…) and gave the impression that being turned into a murder-dog was more common than physical affection.
A copy of The Tale of Balen by Algernon Charles Swinburne
There used to be a real gothic metal band named Tristania and I don’t know whether that was a coincidence or whether they named it after Tristram’s Tristania. I’m not sure whether I prefer the latter—them appreciating medieval literary characters—or the former—it being a splendid coincidence.
The antidote Palomides procures against death by unrequited love cannot fail to appeal to a modern reader, familiar as we all are with the therapeutic powers inherent in ones creative faculties: 'therewythall he leyde hym downe by the welle, and so began to make a ryme of La Beall Isode and of sir Trystram... [S]ir Palomydes [lay] by the welle and sange lowde and myryly (473-4.86).
— Between Knights: Triangular Desire and Sir Palomides in Sir Thomas Malory's "The Book of Sir Tristram de Lyones" by Olga Burakov Mongan
So the therapeutic powers part is a beautiful interpretation, but also all I can think of now is Tristania modern AU, in which they're all in a band with messy interpersonal relationships and writing songs about each other Fleetwood Mac style.
(Dinadan, the only one not tragically in love with someone, writes weird narrative songs and diss tracks about the people he dislikes)
It was supposed to be Mordred as he’s described in my writing. A friend and I couldn’t find any art which matched our headcanon of his appearance, so I decided to try to draw him myself, but my attempts to make him stop looking like me just made him look like an elven version of my mother. There are several characters who this sort of looks like it could be depicting, especially if you ignore the pointy ear (not quite sure where it came from), but I don’t think it quite fits anyone in particular.
Ah, well. At least it’s clear to everyone that it’s not Lancelot. I think Mordred would hate people mistaking him for Lancelot and kill anyone who did or vastly abuse (and maybe destroy) his borrowed reputation.
