Proposal

The Face Behind the Mask: Malory’s Paradoxical Use of Incognito Tournaments

I intend to perform a literary analysis of Malory Thomas’ Lancelot and Guinevere from Le Morte Darthur. The discussion will center around the three tournaments where Lancelot appears incognito, namely: the redemption joust, the Winchester tournament, and the Candlemas tournament. Even though Lancelot disguises himself in these events, there is still an intentional expression of identity. The aim of this paper will be to first explore the modes of expression that Lancelot wears, such as certain armor or tokens, and gauge their significance in the perception of his character. The detailed imagery of the tournaments offers some interesting suggestions Secondly, the paper will discuss the consequences of Lancelot’s incognito motif and what they suggest about his identity. The use of irony, dramatic and situational, prompts the readers to consider Lancelot’s character more closely. Third, the paper will propose a few larger roles that these incognito events play in the overall narrative.

In relation to the Sankgreal quest, this narrative seems to be rebuilding Lancelot’s reputation as the greatest knight. He wins every tournament that he is in, but at what cost? Gordon argues that the conflicting loyalties of the court can force a knight, like Lancelot, to go incognito (72). In all three events, Lancelot, in disguise, fights against various members of the court, essentially threatening King Arthur. Yet, King Arthur resolves to support the knight’s concealment, directly and indirectly, in order to endorse knightly values. This response proposes an interesting view on the role deception plays in King Arthur’s court. Lancelot’s affair with Guinevere also demonstrates conflicting values a knight faces—that is, love versus duty. While Malory certainly emphasizes Lancelot’s greatness as a knight, these incognito events captures the human tendency to be fixated on ideal chivalric values, like love and reputation.

As always comments are welcome!

Final project proposal

 

“He is a girl beneath his clothes”: Gender and Binary in the Roman de Silence

In my final project, I would like to perform an extended literary analysis of Marie de France’s Roman de Silence.  Specifically, I want to analyze the complex and contradictory way that gender is presented in the narrative.  So many questions arose for me while reading this text: why does Silence never confidently speak on their own gender preference, and what effect does this silence have on the narrative?  Why do the narrator’s pronouns for Silence vary? Why is Silence “allowed” to be the best knight if, according to the narrator, they are truly a woman and women are not physically suitable for such a career?  Though the ending makes clear that the narrator means to “side” with Nature and Silence’s biological sex, the narrative itself is far from convincing, and contains many instances of plot, characterization, and language that validate and give importance to Silence’s performance of male gender.  For this reason, I intend to explicate these seemingly incongruent representations of gender in the text and analyze them individually as well as in context with one another, aiming to fit them within a larger and more cohesive interpretation of the narrative. It’s possible that I will bring in modern ideas of gender and transgender discourse as a means of contextualizing or providing a base upon which to build my exploration of gender in Silence (in which case I would do more general research on these topics and combine that with the mainly scholarly research I have done already).  I anticipate working heavily with Jane Tolmie’s article “Silence in the Sewing Chamber,” because it provides an in-depth look at the binary systems at work in Silence, especially that of gender.  As there is already much scholarship surrounding gender in Silence, I hope to develop a bit more specific of an angle from which to view it as I continue drafting my paper. [ideas are welcome!]

Final Project: Lancelot the conflicted hero

Following the first prompt for the final project, I am going to do a literary analysis of how Lancelot is portrayed in Chrétien’s The Knight with the Cart compared to Malory’s Sir Lancelot and Queen Guinevere. Beginning with the different titles for these similar tales, it is clear that the authors have different opinions of Lancelot as a knight. Lancelot is widely known in the world of King Arthur as one of the greatest knights, however, he is also known for his affair with Queen Guinevere. I am going to examine how these opposing identities make a very human character in the world of magical occurrences. In Chrétien’s earlier version of the story, he focuses on courtly love and does not attend to the fact that Lancelot is betraying Arthur. That is his way of ignoring the situation so that Lancelot can still be the greatest knight. Malory also favors Lancelot’s positive attributes as a knight but brings to light his sins throughout the story. Cole and Scala’s essays will help me find argue the complexities in Malory’s depiction of Lancelot go beyond whether he is good or evil. Raabe’s argument about the paradox of courtly love is also helpful to show that the standards Lancelot is trying to live up to are not reasonable. Lancelot stands out in medieval literature because of his contradictions when he is supposed to be a perfect knight. In truth, he is a more human character than most as he tries to appeal to love and to loyalty, but is unable to find the balance.

I have been exploring this idea, but feel that I need a narrower focus so I am open to suggestions/comments!

 

Final project proposal: flawed heroes

“Trouble in Paradise: Flaws in Arthur’s Kingdom”

This paper will compare and contrast the flawed heroes in Malory’s Le Morte Darthur against each other as well as against their portrayals in Chretien’s romances. I will discuss how these flaws contributed to the dissolution of the Round Table and the fall of King Arthur, but more importantly, I will consider why these characters are presented as they are so that I can compare the two writer’s intentions and how they were influenced by the cultural norms of their times. I will be looking primarily at Arthur, Guinevere, Lancelot, Gawain, Galahad, and to a lesser degree, Yvain.

Almost all of these characters are flawed, yet the writers clearly felt they were worthy of remembrance and praise. Some of the characters have larger flaws than others, and yet those characters with the worst sins (such as Lancelot) are exalted over others with smaller flaws. Why does Lancelot deserve to heal Sir Urry, for example? Some characters aren’t presented as flawed at all by the author, and yet I could argue that they are not so perfect. Why, of all knights, does Galahad deserve the Grail? Why is Arthur not held to the same standard of heroism and self-sacrifice that he expects of his knights? And what are the two authors trying to say to the world by writing about these characters in the manner that they did?

I do not have a fully developed thesis yet. I intend to narrow my topic down as I continue developing the paper as there’s probably no way I can cover all of this in depth, but keeping it broad for now allows me more freedom and flexibility as I look for secondary sources. I’m not sure which sources I will work the most closely with, as our professor recommended I find different ones. I have been having trouble with that. Many of the articles on JSTOR and ESCBO are either old or not relevant to what I’m trying to do. I will keep looking over the weekend, but I was hoping you could recommend some sources. Maybe there is a database that better suits my purposes?

The Death of Arthur Pt. 2

I have a couple questions concerning the actions that lead to Arthurs death. Towards the end of the story we see that Arthur has two dreams that deal with his death. In one he sits in a chair on a wheel, “…And the king thought there was under him, far from him, an hideous deep black water, and therein was all manner of serpents and worms and wild beasts, foul and horrible. And suddenly the king thought that the wheel turned up-so-down, and he fell among the serpents, and every beast took him by a limb” (300). In the other dream we see that Gawain visits Arthur and warns him of his death unless Arthur creates a treaty with Mordred. What do you think motivated Arthur to duel Sir Mordred even though Arthur knew through these dreams and visions that he was probably going to die? Do you think it has something to do with the death of Gawain and the fate of Lancelot/The Round Table? Or do you think it was a personal motivation for Arthur?

Thurs. Apr. 11 – The End!

Okay, this might sound a little bizarre, but do you believe Mordred to be a truly evil character? Do you think he’s justified in his rise to the throne? Though we see him in the beginning of the section side with Agravain to disturb this “blissful ignorance” of Lancelot and Guinevere’s affairs, it seems he believes both the court, and Arthur, are unreasonable in their acceptance of this shameful affair, making a mockery of the court, as he agrees when Agravain says, “I marvel that we all be not ashamed both to see and to know how Sir Lancelot lieth daily and nightly by the queen” (246). He’s participating in something that he believes is morally wrong for the court to accept, and wants to correct it. Then, after the Queen is returned to Arthur and Lancelot is exiled, Arthur leaves the kingdom once again in pursuit of revenge (at Gawain’s counsel), giving full control of England and the Queen to Mordred, who we later find out is both nephew and son to Arthur (gross), making him (Mordred) an heir to the throne (285, 295). Though Mordred lied about Arthur’s death, “they [the people] were better pleased with Sir Mordred than they were with the noble King Arthur” (297). All power of the kingdom, including the Queen, was relinquished to the heir of the throne (Mordred), so is Mordred truly an evil figure as Malory paints him out to be? Or is he trying to do what’s best for England by taking control from Arthur, who’s effectively off on a war for revenge, despite Lancelot’s exile and surrender of the Queen.

The Death of Arthur

Throughout the story we find that Lancelot defends his sinful actions.I have a few questions concerning his outlook on the situation. He has reason to believe that he was right in in slaying his fellow knights when going to see Guinevere, and he has reason to believe that he was right in slaying more of his kinsmen when he went to save Guinevere from being put to death. A quote that is fascinating to me reads, “…’ye may say what ye will, for ye wot well with yourself I will not strive. But there as ye say that I have slain your good knights, I wot well that I have done so, and that me sore repenteth; but I was forced to do battle with them in saving my life, other ellis I must have suffered them to have slain me…'”(Malory,267). Here we see that Lancelot is saddened by the fact that he had to slay his kinsmen, but does there seem to be some sort of strange justification in his logic? Is Lancelot warping the idea of chivalry? Or does he still believe that he is acting as a chivalrous knight? In terms of his treatment of Guinevere, it seems as though he believes he is doing the right thing despite it being the furthest thing from a good idea. Are his actions some sort of warping of the chivalric code due to his love for Guinevere?

Tues. Apr. 9 – The Death of Arthur

Last week, we talked a little about Arthur’s reactions in “Lancelot and Guinevere.” When Guinevere was accused of murder, Arthur was able to be impartial, and try to provide a fair judgement to the accused and the accuser. Though he was saddened, his judgement was calm and reasonable. However, in the section we read for today, he seems a little less so. He’s a little quick to agree to Agravain and Mordred’s accusation, and allows the two to conduct their “stakeout,” then, despite Gawain’s counsel, goes to war with Lancelot. Why do you think Arthur was quick to escalate this accusation, even though he considers Lancelot one of his greatest knights. Why would he not be impartial in this accusation, as opposed to the earlier one we’ve seen?

Lancelot and Guinevere part 2

I want to zoom in on a particular scene, the last one, when Lancelot heals Sir Urry. After the miracle, Lancelot cries. How are we to read this especially in relation to the Sankgreal, since Lancelot was the only knight able to perform this task?. You can also answer this question by responding to this claim that some articles state: Lancelot is really amazed by the miracle, so he cries tears of joy.

4/4 Lancelot and Guinevere

In our reading for today, we encountered a very familiar episode in the story of Lancelot and Guinevere. Meliagaunt’s kidnapping of Guinevere and Lancelot’s subsequent response closely mirror Chretien’s Knight of the Cart, but there are some key differences, such as Meliagaunt’s attitude towards Lancelot. How do the differences in the tale change your perception of the story (characters, motivations, etc.)?