The Mists of Avalon

[Druid Faqir]

Peace!

Readers/Viewers have to take into account that is all fiction based on a legend, and not to take it as historical fact.

Ofcourse not!
When did that become an issue?
Blessings!
/|\

[Aelfarh]

Well I've heard of people saying "that was the way it was those days" and similar comments giving The mists a value as historical documentary almost

[Druid Faqir]

Now here's something you don't see every day...lol!
Blessings!
/|\

[Donata]

Personally I loved the book, and was disappointed in the film, especially the second part, though I thought some of the casting was brilliant.

No, it's not 'historical'. It wasn't meant to be. It's a fictional retelling of the Arthurian myths.Neither are the Arthurian legends 'historical' - medieval style knights in armor at a tournament in the 4th or 5th c ? The legends speak to our inner selves, not our logical selves.

I appreciated the legend as retold from the point of view of the pagan women.Some of the scenes in the first part of the movie were very powerful, especially the Beltane ones, and gave an explanation for some of the events - especially IMO the union of Arthur and Morgaine.

I enjoyed, to a lesser degree, the other Avalon books, especially The Forest House, about the Avalonian priestesshood.

BB
Donata
BB
Donata

[Druid Faqir]

I enjoyed, to a lesser degree, the other Avalon books, especially The Forest House, about the Avalonian priestesshood.

Well now...there's another one to look out for...
Who's the author?
Blessings!
/|\

[Donata]

The Forest House, and a couple of other 'prequels' to the Mists of Avalon were written mostly by Marian Zimmer Bradley, author of Mists, and co -authored or completed (from notes?) after Bradleys' death by Diane Paxson. I don't remember the other titles.

Just checked at amazon.com
Others in the Avalon series are Lady of Avalon, Forest House, Priestess of Avalon, Ravens of Avalon (actually authored by Paxson), Ancestors of Avalon (co authored by Paxson).

IMO the influence of Paxson doesn't add to the series.

BB
Donata

[Druid Faqir]

Thenks!
Blessings!
/|\

[Cinaed]

[quote="Paghnar"]As we say in German: "Tasts are different." and "You can't argue about tast."

No need to throw with things or to argue. Life is much more colorful with many different oppinions."


I think if one is going to throw things, they should taste good. And be colorful.

[Corwen]

Well I've heard of people saying "that was the way it was those days" and similar comments giving The mists a value as historical documentary almost

It does happen! Of course all the Arthurian Legends are fiction, but my problem with this book s that it doesn't fit with the overall feel or internal logic of the Legends and so in some way it detracts from the power of the corpus as a whole.

[Druid Faqir]

That might be because it's a different (but nontheless related) corpus altogether.
Blessings!
/|\

[DreamOn]

Personally, I love The Mists of Avalon. I find it a rich, novelly read and the creation of the Avalon priestesshood is a very romantic interpretation. As far as distortion of "facts" What facts would those be? The facts are that the world of King Arthur never existed as portrayed in legend. If King Arthur existed at all it would be in a time when historical writing did not even exist, when the type of armour and warfare depicted in the fables had not yet been invented. Arthur, if he existed at all, was never a king, but a warlord, and was never mentioned in legend as a king until something like the 14th century. The Aruthurian legends have always been a mishmash of tales recreated by authors throughout many ages. Why should Bradley not have as much as poetic license as other authors throughout the ages. If by facts you mean only those things that can be documented by historians and archeologists, then there is very little than can be called factual from the myths about Arthur.

DreamOn

[Corwen]

You seem to misunderstand, it's NOT ABOUT FACTS! None of it's factual!

But if you spend 1300 years as a culture building up an amazing collective work of art, the incredible work of many hands and minds, which is what the Matter of Britain, or the Arthurian Legends is, then if you decide to add to that artwork by writing a new version you had better think hard about how your addition will fit with the overall balance of the composition... IMHO the Mists of Avalon doesn't 'fit'. This tradition starts as the deep resonance of an oral bardic culture thousands of years old in works like Hanes Taliesin and Beroul's Tristan and Isolde and it is a sad fact that it ends up in the form of the trashy airport novel.

There is also a magical/spiritual dimension as well as an artistic one, and these are deep mysteries not often spoken of, and which I speak of reluctantly, but the thought forms built up by the Legends are powerful and strongly focused ones. These stories have over 1000 or more years built magical images which are at the heart of Druidry and at the magical heart of Albion, the etheric counterpart and magical 'body' of Britain. IMO the Mists of Avalon does not serve to strengthen or deepen these images, rather it dilutes and distorts them.

[Druid Faqir]

Peace!
I must admit I don't see it that way. In fact, I do see The Mists as a deeper dimension of the Legends. Basically what the author did was to say "Wait...there are 2 sides to every story." The Legends are the Christiann (or rather Christianised) side of that story. The Mists open up a whole new set of fecets to that story, but from the point of view of the Druids and Priestesses of the Godess. Yes, it is different (the movie even starts with Morgaine telling us that eveything we know about her, Arthur and his knights is a lie), but I see the 2 as complementary rather than mutually exclusive. Now insted of having one sole point of view, we have both "sides" telling us how it all hapened. I think it's a splendid idea! Remember, this doesn't nullify the charm and depth of the Legends, rather, even though you might see it differently, it gives them freshness in a way, keeps them alive.
Picture this:
A 7-year-old boy/girl sits in his/her grand-father's lap during a black-out with nothing to whatch on TV or play on the computer. And that old man asks:
"Have I ever told you the story of King Arthur?"
"Yes, grandfather. I liked it so much I learned it by heart from all those evenings we spent together when I was little!" Then he/she laughs.
It would all end there but for one thing...
The man sais giggling:
"Oh, I doubt you've heard what I'm going to tell you..."
And then he starts to lay before the young one's mind an entirely new, yet strangely familiar, tapistry...And so the Legends go on, told and re-told, from age to age, ever more colourful, vivid and profound...
Blessings!
/|\

[Donata]

I like your interpretation Druid Faqir! this is how I see the Mists - not as taking away, not even 'adding', but simply telling the story from the pagan point of view. It deeply enriched the Arthur legends for me, and made them less - again for me - of a fantasy tale. I loved that there were strong women portrayed, and of course, that the pagan point of view was represented. I don't see the book as harming the basic tales.

There are many books on the Arthurian legends. This one resonates so deeply for so many because we hear the echo of a truth within it, which is another layer of the original legends. This book didn't seek, nor will it, to destroy the original impact and beauty of the legends. It's another layer, not any attempt to replace existing ones.

BB
Donata

[Corwen]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one! But Donata, I don't see an absence of strong women in the original texts, if anything the women characters in MofA seem a pale imitation of the characters in Mort d'Arthur or Chretien de Troyes books, in Gawain and the Green Knight or even in the Arthurian parts of the Mabiniogion. One of the things that contrasts Arthurian material from other early medieval litererature is the strength, power and the sheer importance to the narrative of the female characters. Being told more about a character doesn't necessarily heighten your perception of that character, often it does the opposite, removing mystery and the possibility of multi layered depth of interpretation.

As for the Pagan viewpoint, the Paganism of the original texts is often just below the surface, hidden by a Christian veneer, but its content and meaning is tremendously deep and worthy of long meditation, whilst in MofA IMHO the Paganism is on the surface, but shallow. Read Gawain and the Green Knight and tell me its not Pagan!

I recommend the Tolkien translation but its not available online, heres one that is:http://alliteration.net/Pearl.htm

[Donata]

Your points are well made! I love the Arthurian legends. They aren't 'original' as they've been added to over the centuries, yet these adaptations and additions have only added to their richness and depth. They speak to a deep part of ourselves or they wouldn't have survived and gone through revisions and still seem a part of ourselves.

I can truly appreciate Mists of Avalon and still love the older versions. You naturally can reject MofA! We can agree on that.

BB
Donata

[Druid Faqir]

Peace!

I recommend the Tolkien translation

Master Tolkien did translations of Arthurian myth?! Well, he was a linguist after all...
BTW...from what language did he translate them into English? Cornish, Welsh? Just curious...
Blessings!
/|\

[DreamOn]

This is just one of those things people are going to have agree to disagree on I guess. Notice how the ones who love the romantic idea of this Avalon priestesshood are all women? This perhaps, is an image of power that we enjoy in looking at these women. I think a tradition is always in the stages of evolving and this is part of our generation's contribution to this legend. I don't think it diminishes the classic versions at all and I think its a very enjoyable read.

DreamOn

[Druid Faqir]

Peace!

Notice how the ones who love the romantic idea of this Avalon priestesshood are all women?

Ehem...don't generalize...
Blessings!
/|\

[Aelfarh]

Peace!

Notice how the ones who love the romantic idea of this Avalon priestesshood are all women?

Ehem...don't generalize...
Blessings!
/|\

Yep, that kind of generalizations are really useless to make a point, is the statistical sample big enough to conclude something? If not it's only anecdotical cases, and for that I could say that one of my best friends being pagan, female and very interested in the Arthurian legends, not only not like the Mist, she say that is the worst book ever written on the subject. As for me, I also love the idea of an Avalon priestshood, as long as people don't say that the old British/Celtic civilization were like that. I try to keep the Mists as a independend novel, apart of the Arthurian legends, as a separate novel, and that way I enjoy the reading.