Something I only just realized about the Arthur Saga-

[mary_j_59]

This is passed on from eleanor X, who had posted the video to her own livejournal. It really is a terrific song; I can't get it out of my head, and the lyrics (in spite of a couple of infelicitous words like "puppetile" - why not "puppet-like" or simply "puppet's"?) are pretty astonishing. If you watch this, consider the relationship described between Morgana and young Mordred, and then go here:
http://sigune.livejournal.com/93168.html#cutid1

Follow the links for "the Darkest Hour" and read the whole thing - and you will see, quite clearly, what I only just realized. The Arthur legend is, at heart, a revenge tragedy about a seriously disordered family. And young Mordred - if you read him as the instrument of his mother's revenge; there are other ways of reading him - is actually not so much a villain, as the last victim of this family. Why didn't I see this before?

Anyway, the song and the comic are both terrific, and I look forward to reactions to them both. ) BTw, the little fellow who plays Mordred is much, much closer to my idea of young Harry than Dan Radcliffe. For one thing, he is slender and actually has greenish eyes.

object width="560" height="340">

Comments

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Ygraine - definitely! I don't remember if you've been following Sigune's comic, but she tells Ygraine's story there, and the poor woman is treated barbarously. Further, her young daughters know it.

But the paragraph where you say, about Mordred's mistreatment: I suppose that wasn't such a big deal back in those days. - I have to say I disagree. I've seen this argued before; that people in earlier days, with higher rates of child mortality, did not love their children as we do now. And I don't see how or why we should assume this. After all, Arthurian Britain was as much a Christian society as Britain today - arguably more so - and I don't think human nature changes that much in historical times. People are people. But that Mordred was completely without any legal status, and that people would consider him particularly a sinner because he was conceived in sin - that part is sadly true. The poor kid! But that was the point of this post, anyway; he's a victim of both of his parents, who are acting out their own agenda through him.

I haven't read the Cornwell book you mention. I'm afraid I've avoided that author because I don't like war stories. it does sound interesting, though. I can recommend another Mordred tale by a different author, though the title's similar: The Winter Prince by Elizabeth Wein. In this one, Mordred is tutor to Arthur's legitimate son and heir. It's clear to Mordred, as well as to the reader, that the older boy has the qualities of kingship while the younger one, the legitimate heir, does not. Of course, the book postulates that Arthur did have other children, which, as you point out, isn't part of the original legend. That makes Mordred's dismissal by his parents that much worse, in my mind.

Thanks for your comment.

[sigune.livejournal.com]

Mordred was completely without any legal status, and that people would consider him particularly a sinner because he was conceived in sin

Correct me if I'm wrong, but - didn't Mordred pass for King Lot's son? I'd have to check Malory again, but I don't think it is generally known at court that he is Arthur's son. Consequently, he had the status of the youngest Lothian/Orkney prince. (In Geoffrey of Monmouth, he really is Lot's youngest.) That places him well behind Gawain in the line of succession, but still, there are worse situations.

Cornwell's trilogy is pretty good - I'd recommend it too. I mean, it's not T. H. White-good, but it's a very entertaining read, with a great Arthur and a strong Guinevere (and a silly little Gawain, but... *g*).

I'm curious about The Winter Prince; I'll look it up.

[seductivedark.livejournal.com]

I've seen this argued before; that people in earlier days, with higher rates of child mortality, did not love their children as we do now.

I'm not suggesting that they didn't love their children (with the obvious legendary exception we're talking about) but that children were a necessary commodity that people pretty much had to have. Even if they didn't want kids, which would, I'm totally guessing here, be unusual due to cultural influences, they had to have kids. It was a duty to reproduce. It was necessary to the family business. It was necessary to the eventual declining years of Mom and Dad, given that they had declining years when they were too weak to work and didn't drop on the job. There was still a flavor of commodity somewhere even though they did love their kids.