"The Once And Future King" Discuss Everything *Spoilers*

[Allison, Fairy Mod-mother]

So...what do you think of this version though? I'm not entirely sure I'd say it's "off-topic" to talk about other interpretations, but it's definitely not discussing OaFK, which is what this thread is for!

If you're gonna bring up other works, let's have some comparative lit please! (Thank you for that great explanation, YouKneeK!)

[Allison, Fairy Mod-mother]

A few conversation starters that I put in the first post but likely got lost:

1. Which "book" was your favorite/least favorite?
2. Did you expect the book to be like this? What surprised you most?
3. Did the change in tone work for you? What did that change convey to you?
4. What themes or messages did you think this book touched on?
5. Overall impressions!

[YouKneeK]

Some of this is a repeat of what I’ve said in previous posts, but to answer the questions more directly…

1. Which "book" was your favorite/least favorite?
The 1st was my favorite. Its humor was a surprise, but I enjoyed it.

The 3rd was my least favorite because it focused so much on the Lance/Guenever angst (which I found boring and repetitive) and their betrayal of Arthur (which I found painful) and Arthur’s intentional obliviousness (which I found annoying).

2. Did you expect the book to be like this? What surprised you most?
I didn’t expect the level of silliness in the beginning, but I switched my mindset and expectations from “Epic Fantasy Drama” to “Pratchett-Style Silliness” and enjoyed it. The second half of the book was more what I originally expected, both in terms of content and tone.

As discussed previously, there were some plot-related surprises, mostly due to my ignorance of traditional Arthurian lore. The biggest exclaim-out-loud surprise for me came when I learned that Arthur was Mordred’s father. I enjoyed these plot surprises; they helped hold my interest when I might otherwise have been bored with too much familiarity.

3. Did the change in tone work for you? What did that change convey to you?
I’m not sure. I enjoyed the second half less, but my problem was more with the content than with the tone. I usually enjoy books with a serious tone; blatantly silly books are the ones I have to be in the right mindset for. I just don’t enjoy angsty stories that are heavily romance-based, and infidelity is very high on my imaginary list of traits that I don’t appreciate in my would-be heroes.

The change in tone, not to mention all the foreshadowing, conveyed to me that the fun was (mostly) over, that things were going to get serious now, and that our characters would have to go through some agony.

4. What themes or messages did you think this book touched on?
There was a pretty heavy focus on psychological motivations. We weren’t just told what the characters did, but also why they did it and how past events in their lives led to their choices. Although the author did occasionally ramble on a bit, I thought this added depth to the characters, so they didn’t just feel like archetypes who were there to fulfill a certain role to move the plot forward. I think the author also tried to use this analysis to increase the reader’s sympathy for the characters despite their bad choices, and maybe also to try to get readers to sympathize with real-life people who have made bad choices by applying similar principles of analysis.

I mentioned this in my last post, but I also really liked the depiction of Lancelot as being physically unattractive and yet still capable of turning the head of a Queen and earning widespread respect and admiration because of his personality and his deeds.

5. Overall impressions!
The first half was fun, the second half was painful, but all of it was worth reading. For me, it was particularly valuable to finally learn about the more traditional Arthurian legend.

[Allison, Fairy Mod-mother]

:)

Yeah, the infidelity part is quite difficult. I actually have a lot of thoughts about this, if I could bore you with them!

A lot of people get upset because it seems at first like Lance might romantically love Arthur and settles for hero-worship/platonic love...and takes Arthur's wife for his mistress. I think for White, this may have been intentional (though it's also true that it seems like the use of the word "love" in a platonic or fraternal meaning was more common in the 30s and 40s).

It's widely hypothesized that White was gay in a time when his choice of partner could land him in jail. He was also the son of an abusive father and a neglectful mother and his views on marriage were therefore dim. I think it's very likely that Lance DID love Arthur romantically, but knew he couldn't have Arthur that way. In a way, Gwen became a sort of link between them. He could have Arthur's affection, but not all of it. He could love Gwen but not have her. If sleeping with the queen was cause for his death, imagine at him propositioning the king. Lance and Arthur couldn't explore that (if Arthur was interested, that I'm less certain about) but they could have a sort of intentional family that was frowned upon, maybe, but that also didn't mean White/Lance had to reflect on what was evidently deeply confusing for White.

As I've read this more, I've seen them more as a triad. Arthur never seems upset that his friend is "going behind his back." Their trio has rules, and Lance follows the rules, Arthur respects that Gwen and Lance need their own relationship, and it only becomes an issue when someone else calls it illegal.

So, not comfortable in any stretch, but this adds for me an additional layer to them--what commentary on the use of marriage to force a semblance of normalcy when your own "normal" deviates from what is socially acceptable! How grim that we only see one "healthy" heterosexual monogamous relationship and it's the kind idiot and the woman who chooses him for love? (Well, assumed on both accounts, right? I don't think we hear of Piggy or Pellinore sharing their affections with anyone else.)

[Melanie, the neutral party]

YouKneeK wrote: "The setting confused the heck out of me for a while. I was expecting it to be a little more historically accurate, except with magic and stuff, set around the 5th century or so. So it seemed like the book was full of anachronisms, but the author mentioned early on that he was using more modern terms to make it easier for readers to understand what he was talking about, so I thought that was intended to explain the anachronisms. Plus of course there were Merlyn’s anachronisms due to his reverse aging, but those were more obvious because they only came from him and they were understandable within the context of the story. It took me a while to understand that the author had actually set this book several hundred years after when it really should have been set for historical accuracy, at least if I understand everything correctly. Eventually I just gave up worrying about it and took everything at face value. "

This kind of mirrors my initial thoughts. I'm still not done with the first book, but I'm enjoyuing it thus far.

[CBRetriever]

dunno, Wart mentioning something about (view spoiler)[guns in reference to boar hunting (first instance of firearms was in the 1300s and cannons and ditto for cannons) (hide spoiler)] was a bit off for me. If it had been Merlin mentioning it, it would have made more sense, but it was not. And most tales put Arthur in the 5th-6th century if not earlier.

[Anat]

I'm almost done with 3rd book, I can't really explain my feelings properly, but it feels like Arthur is a side character after the first book? He's pretty much a pivotal background and everything happens around his existence, but he is featured little or has very little to say or do. It's disappointing for me, but overall I'm still enjoying the book(s).

[YouKneeK]

Allison wrote: "Yeah, the infidelity part is quite difficult. I actually have a lot of thoughts about this, if I could bore you with them!"

Your thoughts are not at all boring! :) I actually hadn’t considered that interpretation of Lance and Arthur’s relationship at all. Lance was about 15 when the author first told us Lance had fallen in love with Arthur, so I guess due to the age disparity I had read it as a sort of hero worship, the kind of love one would have for a beloved mentor/ruler/leader, that evolved more toward friendship as they got to know each other better. I interpreted Arthur’s reaction as being unhappy, but that he didn’t want to confront it directly, partly to avoid being forced into punitive actions that would hurt the people he cared about, and partly because he just didn’t want to know for sure, like a child hiding under the covers from the monster he thinks might be in the room.

If Lance’s feelings for Arthur involved romantic love, that adds a very different interpretation to things and changes the dynamic. I thought your explanation for that was very interesting. The background on the author was also interesting.

[YouKneeK]

Melanie wrote: "This kind of mirrors my initial thoughts.

I’m glad it wasn’t just me! I didn't notice any comments in this thread about confusion over the time period the story was set in, but I didn't read all the earlier comments with great thoroughness so I may have missed some.

CBRetriever wrote: "dunno, Wart mentioning something about [spoilers removed] was a bit off for me. If it had been Merlin mentioning it, it would have made more sense, but it was not. And most tales put Arthur in the 5th-6th century if not earlier."

Yes, that was the kind of thing that confused me. I think because I had heard this was considered a more traditional representation of the legend, I had assumed this also meant it was set in a more historically accurate time period. I had it in my mind that the setting was around the 5th century.

On around page 4, the author tells us ”It was not really Eton that he mentioned, for the College of Blessed Mary was not founded until 1440, but it was a place of the same sort. Also they were drinking Metheglyn, not port, but by mentioning the modern wine it is easier to give you the feel.” So I interpreted that to say I should expect anachronisms because the author was using them intentionally to “give us the feel” in a way his contemporary audience could better understand. (My knowledge of history is very poor, and I had no idea if Metheglyn was a type of wine that would have existed in Arthurian times, and didn’t take the time to look it up, which possibly might have saved me a lot of trouble.)

As the anachronisms piled up, going far beyond simple terminology replacements, I started to get confused as to whether the author was really going that far to “give us the feel” or if he had set the book in a later time period in I had initially thought. In the later books he referred to some actual dates which was when I finally understood for sure that it was set in a later time period.

[Edited to make my paragraph breaks less confusing.]

[CBRetriever]

I was expecting the other books to be a bit less "silly" and more mature especially given that White wrote them later.

The Lancelot bit, in particular, is really tedious. And the (view spoiler)[ 4 children and the unicorn bit (hide spoiler)] didn't fit with the rest of the tome of the books. Then there was the really dumb (view spoiler)[beast falling in love with several guys dressed up to look like another beast bit (hide spoiler)]... No wonder Disney wanted make the books into a cartoon.

[ALLEN]

If I recall correctly, the fifth and final book in the OaFK set is "The Book of Merlyn," and I know for a fact it is not in this OaFK to hand. It is available as a separate volume, possibly cheaper in the UK than here if you are wiling to use Amazon's wholly owned subsidiary bookdepository dot com and have some time to wait.

I have been going over this in my mind in the past year since I bought the edition we're now reading, which (as I've said) doesn't contain "The Book of Merlyn."

[Ian]

ALLEN wrote: "If I recall correctly, the fifth and final book in the OaFK set is "The Book of Merlyn," and I know for a fact it is not in this OaFK to hand. It is available as a separate volume, possibly cheaper..."

That's correct. But things are a little more complicated.

"The Book of Merlyn" stands in a very odd relationship to "The Once and Future King." When publishers turned it down, White apparently raided it for new material for "The Sword in the Stone" as revised for the omnibus "Once and Future King." Reading it well after OAFK gave me a very odd sense of deja-vu -- but the redundant material feels somewhat different in its different contexts.

[Ian]

YouKneeK wrote: The setting confused the heck out of me for a while. I was expecting it to be a little more historically accurate, except with magic and stuff, set around the 5th century or so. So it seemed like the book was full of anachronisms, but the author mentioned early on that he was using more modern terms to make it easier for readers to understand what he was talking about, so I thought that was intended to explain the anachronisms. Plus of course there were Merlyn’s anachronisms due to his reverse aging, but those were more obvious because they only came from him and they were understandable within the context of the story. It took me a while to understand that the author had actually set this book several hundred years after when it really should have been set for historical accuracy, at least if I understand everything correctly. Eventually I just gave up worrying about it and took everything at face value. ..."

The running "conceit" (to use a technical term) from "Sword and the Stone" to the very last pages, is that there was a real King Arthur in the fifteenth century, who was an older contemporary of Thomas Malory. In White, Arthur lived in the later High Middle Ages, instead of the Dark Ages, and Henries IV, V, and VI, and the Wars of the Roses, and the like, are merely legends.

White then throws in additional anachronisms, which were quite funny in "The Sword in the Stone," but had to be dropped in the later books as they got more serious. Some made it into 'The Witch in the Wood," but were cut when he turned it into "The Queen of Air and Darkness" for "The Once and Future King."

In fact White openly disparaged the idea of Arthur as a genuine ancient Briton "hopping about in woad" (as in the time of Julius Caesar: it was long out of fashion in post-Roman Britain). His general attitude toward Celtic-speaking peoples is contemptuous.

A lot of other writers have gone with the "historical" Arthur, defending Britain from the invading Angles and Saxons, and some have done a pretty good job with it.

Mary Stewart managed to integrate stories from Malory into that (roughly 5th century) context, and did it entertainingly, which demonstrates that White's decision was not the only alternative.

However, it did allow White to keep all the castles, plate armor, and other fixtures in the Arthurian literature in the modern mind. (See, e.g., Howard Pyle's illustrated re-tellings for children (1903-1910), which generally fit White's image pretty well: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_... )

[YouKneeK]

That is very interesting and helpful info Ian, thank you! It would have saved me a great deal of confusion if I had read your explanation (or looked up more context for myself) before reading the book.

[Ian]

Thanks.

If I participate in another "Once and Future King" discussion (this is my second), I'll have to decide whether to post this information early in the discussion, where it could be considered a spoiler. Of course, I could mark it as such, but that could discourage those who most need the explanation from reading it......

[CBRetriever]

it helps a bit as I was beginning to get a bit irritated with the "anachronisms". Now that I'm deeper into the third book, the book has become more palatable to me. However, I still prefer a more realistic telling of the basic story in the supposed "real" time period.

[ALLEN]

Matt wrote: "I’m 20% complete but having a very tough time getting into this. Inane, pointless and boring are some words that come to mind that describe my feelings about it so far.

The different scenes (Wart..."

Matt, there are those modern observers who would maintain that White somehow managed to construct a series of transmutations of the narrative rhetoric, rather than a merely additive series of plot events, to show Wart/Arthur's progress from presumed heir apparent to apprentice to military leader to King and to what the Germans would have called a "world-historical" figure.


He accomplished this by composing each of the four stories you mention in different styles, almost different modes, as a director like Quentin Tarantino (PULP FICTION) or Stephen Soderbergh (TRAFFIC) did in those films. That's why I said "the effect is transmutive" because, IMHO what White did may be more sophisticated (as to form and mode, if not in reading-level) than in one increasingly consequential series of plot events along the road from childhood to maturity to possible. (Good grief, have I just described Jon Snow as well? Note to self: Ponder GAME OF THRONES.)


That's why I humbly suggest, CBReceiver, that you keep plugging away at all of OaFK, and if you put it on the Unifished list, I'm sure everyone will understand. But . . . please try to take it at your own speed and enjoyment, and I for one will support and encourage you along the way. I may speak only for myself, but I'd like for you to stay here and contribute as you can and will. I do honestly feel it's worth your while and our benefit. And this opinion comes from a man who has read OaFK twice and taught it once.

At any rate, please keep in mind that the style(s) may be playful, but the themes are usually dead serious. Except for Mad Madam Mim, of course.

"Fie on goodness, fie! Fie! Fie! Fie!" ~ The song they took out of CAMELOT.

[CBRetriever]

ALLEN wrote: "That's why I humbly suggest, CBReceier, that you keep plugging away at all of OaFK, and if you put it on the Unifished list, I'm sure everyone will understand. But . . . please take it at your own speed and enjoyment, and I for one will support and encourage you along the way. I may speak only for yourself, but I'd like for you to stay here and contributing as you can and will. "

I did finish it and it started to get less inane (to borrow Matt's term) somewhere in the third book. However it feels unfinished. Where's Arthur's end? It feels like there should be another book to follow the first four.

[ALLEN]

CBRetriever wrote: "ALLEN wrote: "That's why I humbly suggest, CBReceier, that you keep plugging away at all of OaFK, and if you put it on the Unifished list, I'm sure everyone will understand. But . . . please take i..."

This is a job for Ian (or anyone else near), as I'm right in the middle of a Big Three basketball game, my one Sunday guilty pleasure. Besides, why should I really strain to tell you Arthur's end as portayed in this series? Spoiler alert and that, and if you MUST spoil, the Wikipedia reportage is quite all right, or you can rent John Boorman's EXCALIBUR (1981). I can say that most people are not disappointed as a kind of recapitulation, consolidation, and general mop-up job. (Mixing Media is not sin in this cosmos). I agree that the BOOK OF MERLYN is probably not worth the time, at least not for now.

[Allison, Fairy Mod-mother]

I think the ending is again very human and very symbolic. For that, I didn't love that Book of Merlyn starts with Merlyn and Arthur reunited, because I like the idea that we don't quite know what happens to Arthur. He is gone, but as his form is a symbol of hope, we don't watch hope die. We see him birth that hope in another and then we hope that he lives on, either in legacy or in the flesh (or, as the prophecy foretells, that he will live again, when the world is a better place and good kings can be loved.)

But if you're looking for a straightforward tale of magic, betrayal, drama and war, yeah, this book won't get you there, and the ending won't satisfy you, I don't think!

[Anthony]

I haven’t yet written here about my overall impressions of this book because they are varied and difficult to articulate.

I found myself feeling at times that White was keeping things too much at a remove, and it bothered me a bit that he was not showing us some of the more momentous events that happen offscreen (the death of Pellinore being one in particular, after we spent so much time with him). And at other times I was really impressed by how subtly and unpredictability he wrote scenes of dialogue, especially in the last book.

I was never as fully moved as I wanted to be, but I was always taken by the graceful prose, and I was often left with a powerful sense of dread in the last book.

I’m very glad that I read this, for sure.

[Mary]

Hmm -- does anyone else think that the anachronisms are another resemblance to Pratchett? The History Monks were doing their best?

[CBRetriever]

ALLEN wrote: "This is a job for Ian (or anyone else near), as I'm right in the middle of a Big Three basketball game, my one Sunday guilty pleasure. Besides, why should I really strain to tell you Arthur's end as portrayed in this series?"

I know the ending, I'm just surprised that the book ended before the traditional ending. And I have read multiple different versions of this tale as well as watched Excalibur and another movie version with Richard Gere (not that good in spite of Sean Connery as King Arthur).

and I wasn't overly satisfied with this book - I guess I'll stick with the other versions of the tale that I've read. What does surprise me is that in most lists of Arthur stories, this one is usually the "best" one.

[Ian]

I'm picking up on Allen's suggestion, somewhat reluctantly. This is a topic for learned papers, if not books, but I will try to keep things nice and concise.

I know this is a "spoilers" thread, but I'm warning anyone who might not have finished the book, *and* doesn't know the Arthurian legend at least in outline, that I'll be talking about the ends of several versions, not just White's.

I'm also taking for granted that White's fantasy about an English Arthur is just that, a fantasy. If there was a real Arthur, he was fighting the English, not peacefully ruling them.

(view spoiler)[White avoids telling the traditional "end" of Arthur, by stopping just before the battle is joined, but his title for the collection references the claim that Arthur still waits to return -- as "The Once and Future King."

A claim which, curiously was associated in the Middle Ages with his supposed tomb, the discovery of which may or may not have been a publicity stunt, and, if it was, may have been ecclesisastical, and directed at pilgrims to Glastonbury Abbey, or royal, and aimed at the truculent Welsh.

This is a common theme in the Arthurian legend, and belongs to no one in particular. It is very old, but the medieval Arthurian literature is often surprisingly non-committal. Or not so surprisingly: there are medieval reports of fights between the Welsh (and maybe the Bretons), who awaited Arthur as their liberator, and English and French, who denied it.

Our oldest comprehensive account of Arthur, the one the Middle Ages turned to for an "historical Arthur," if they believe there was one, is Geoffrey of Monmouth's twelfth-century "History of the Kings of Britain." Geoffrey has it both ways. He says that Arthur is mortally wounded: but an Angelic Voice prophesies his return.

Malory dodged around the issue: "Yet I woll not say that hit shall be so, but rather I wolde say, here in thys world he chaunged his lyff. And many men say that there ys wrytten uppon the tumbe thys vers: Hic jacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus." (Old spelling after the Winchester Manuscript of "Le Morte Darthur"/ The Whole Book of King Arthur...") Which contrives to be ambiguous enough, if not to satisfy everyone, then at least not provoke anyone.

Tennyson's "The Passing of Arthur" acknowledges the story. Arthur says of the queens who have come to take him away:

"With these thou seest -- if indeed I go --
For all my mind is clouded with a doubt --
To the island valley of Avilion;
Where falls not hail, or rain, or any snow...."

I should note that, in stopping where he does, White also avoids telling of the final catastrophe, traditionally the Battle of Camlann: the point where Tennyson began writing what became the "Idylls of the King," with the original opening, now embedded in "The Passing of Arthur,"

"So all day long the noise of battle roll'd
Among the mountains by the winter sea,
Until King Arthur's Table, man by man,
had fallen in Lyonnesse about their lord ..." (hide spoiler)]

[Kristin B.]

Once again, I find YouKneek and I have very similar thoughts!

1. Which "book" was your favorite/least favorite?
The first book was definitely my favorite. I mostly read for entertainment and it was certainly the most entertaining. While I enjoy life lessons and worldly truths, I also want to enjoy what I'm reading. (And I did overall enjoy the book, but it had a tendency to meander and get a bit preachy.) The third was my least favorite for all the reasons YouKneek mentioned.

2. Did you expect the book to be like this? What surprised you most?
I was surprised how sill parts of it were. Pleasantly surprised though. I preferred the silly parts to the somber.

3. Did the change in tone work for you? What did that change convey to you?
The tone change was fascinating. I kept thinking that this would have been a great story to read from ages 12-18. To grow up with the story. Coming of age is definitely how this felt.

4. What themes or messages did you think this book touched on?
All the various issues inherent in war were what I noticed most. I like the way the book handled it. I liked that Merlyn made Wart and Kay really think about it.

5. Overall impressions!
Overall it was enjoyable. However, I have rarely read a book over 500 pages that actually NEEDED to be over 500 pages. This book did not change my mind there. I find you get more emotional punch with a more concise telling. (And I really don't like paragraphs that stretch over pages.)

Also, I would read an entire series about Pellinore and Grummore. Especially if it included the Questing Beast.

[Kleo]

This is my first review so sorry if it's terrible! I've used the suggested conversation starters to help me out :)

1. Which "book" was your favorite/least favorite?
My favourite was the first book by far! I loved the humour and the relationship between Arthur and Merlyn. I felt it the most enjoyable for me to read and I didn't want to put it down. My least favourite book was the second one. I just couldn't get into it and almost gave up on it completely.

2. Did you expect the book to be like this? What surprised you most?
I was expecting all the books to be more Arthur focused. I didn't realize each story would focus on a certain character. I do wonder if my opinion on book two would change if I was to go back and read the series again knowing this.

3. Did the change in tone work for you? What did that change convey to you?
I found the first book to be more lighthearted and as someone above said very Pratchett like. As a Pratchett fan I rather enjoyed this familiarity. I felt after the first book the tone did change and it did ruin my enjoyment of the books somewhat.

4. What themes or messages did you think this book touched on?
One theme that really stuck out for me was Arthur always trying to do the right thing. I really sympathized with him throughout the books even when his choices weren't wise. I felt this the most during the last book especially when he opens up to Lancelot and Guinevere about past mistakes.

5. Overall impressions!

As this book is something I wouldn't normally choose to read I was surprised how much I enjoyed it! Some of the language wasn't too my taste but I guess that's due to the time it was written which I appreciate. I did feel it was a shame that tone changed after the first book but I did overall enjoy books 3 and 4 as well. I will definitely be going back to re read the first book in the future.

[Allison, Fairy Mod-mother]

Kleo wrote: "This is my first review so sorry if it's terrible! I've used the suggested conversation starters to help me out :)

1. Which "book" was your favorite/least favorite?
My favourite was the first boo..."

Kleo, thanks for these thoughtful responses! I also re-read just Sword in the Stone from time to time, I think it has the most densely packed nuggets of wisdom with lots of humor to make it easier to swallow, than say, the heart-wrenching Candle in the Wind. I'm glad you enjoyed it!

[Allison, Fairy Mod-mother]

I know folks are still reading and I can't wait to hear more from you, but I wanted to take just a second to say how much I've enjoyed reading all of your thoughts and learning more about this book, Arthurian legend, and a bit about you as well!

As White observes in The Ill-Made Knight, "it is good to put your life in the hands of others," and for me having you all read this book is something like that. So many of my beliefs are wrapped up in this story that it feels somehow personal, though it was written generations before me. It's been great seeing each of you interact with it.

I know not all of you loved it, and even that is something I've appreciated--the things that stick out to you, the portions that caught your attention showed me new things to appreciate and added depth to my own understanding, so thank you so much for sharing!

The Arthurian bit, the love triangle, the quest for the grail, all of that has always just been allegory for me, a veneer to make important things like the nature of man, our duty to each other, and what drives us more palatable. Watching many of you find your own moments of wisdom and resonance in the writing has been a real treat for me.

So thank you for humoring me by selecting my most favorite book for my birthday month, and bringing me along with you as you discovered the Gramarye of White's imagining! May you all succeed at your quests, but remain human, and may there always be a little room for silliness in your lives!

[Ryan]

I finally finished. I read dozens of books in between, I couldn't handle a heavy dose of TOAFK, though I wanted to finish it.

When did Arthur become consciously aware of Lancelot and Gwen's relationship? It's stated that he must have suspected subconsciously for a long time. He surely knew for sure when Sir whatsit made the allegation.

A followup: how did Arthur feel about it? I didn't really detect any implications aside from a weariness of how to deal with it when it came to a head. If he was personally disappointed by them being lovers, I couldn't see it.

Why did Lancelot kill the brothers Gareth and Gaheris toward the end of the book? There was some discussion of it but none of it was convincing, or I didn't quite get it.

[Allison, Fairy Mod-mother]

a shame it didn't work for you! I believe for me at least that Arthur's relationship with Lancelot and Gwen is that he knew the entire time because we know that Merlin told him before they wed. However, he didn't want to recognize that during the honeymoon phase, and afterwards he was resigned to it. It wasn't something he obviously loved but we've been told throughout through hint he gave both of them that he knew and that while he didn't exactly condemn it they needed to make sure that no one else found out because what was most upsetting to him was what he would have to do it with his official office should it be known that his two best friends were breaking the law.

As far as the death of the two orkney Brothers, it is heavily implied that Lancelot did not kill them. That it was Mordred who slay them to rile up his brother. Gawaine would have forgiven Lancelot anything except murdering his family, and Mordred is willing to do anything.

[Ian]

Ryan wrote: "Why did Lancelot kill the brothers Gareth and Gaheris toward the end of the book? There was some discussion of it but none of it was convincing, or I didn't quite get it..."

There is no actual authorial explanation. It was in the story White inherited from Malory, who got it from his French source (which may have made it up), and White wanted to account for it.

However, It is of a piece with the occasion on which Lancelot goes mad, and lives in the forest, while just about everyone thinks he is dead -- another inherited event which White treats in his own way.

What it adds up to is that White's Lancelot is not all that stable, and under extreme stress could act like / be a more-or-less dangerous maniac. In this case, he tells us he doesn't remember killing them, and we are supposed to believe him.

(Although White doesn't seem to have this it mind, it is apparently not entirely unrealistic for men in combat -- you react without thinking, without anything passing through your conscious mind to leave a memory.)

Other treatments of Lancelot tend to gloss over this aspect. The only popular-culture version of Lancelot as a berserk killer I can recall is "Monty Python and the Holy Grail," which from time to time reveals a good knowledge of the actual literature, mixed in with all the silliness.

[Ryan]

That's more or less what I assumed about Arthur re: the affair. Thanks for the interesting perspectives on Lancelot and Gareth/Gaheris.

As a followup: To my recollection it is never discussed or questioned whether adultery should be a) a crime worthy of attention by the state, and b) if convicted, deserving death. I realize that both these points would be taken for granted by people at that time and place, but surely Arthur, who is quite content to tolerate the affair, might consider the laws. I don't think the lawmaking process was ever explicitly discussed, but it's alluded to that Arthur was heavily responsible for both drafting and enforcement.

[Allison, Fairy Mod-mother]

the history of adultery (and marriage to the king) in English law is not as forgiving as you are, Ryan!

[Mary]

An adulterous queen raises the prospect of civil war after her husband's death, on the claim that the child is not actually the king's. War is not a trivial thing.