UnforgettableLemon
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Paragons of virtue. These superidealized perfect bastards that oversimplify the issues of a much more complex work. Though I'm not a huge fan of James Fennimore Cooper to begin with, I'd be much happier if the Leatherskin novels didn't actually feature Natty Bumppo. I know that sounds a little ridiculous, but humor me. The guy is the combination of Native American respect for nature and resourcefulness, but with none of the danger. Essentially, the noble savage stereotype instead of the bloodthirsty stereotype. But what makes it worse is that he seems to be this way because he is tempered with European American sensibilities. The only questionable thing he does in the entirety of The Pioneers is defy an UNJUST law. Doesn't he have any real flaws other than a hint of pride? Come on now.
Same thing with Galahad in Arthurian Literature. He's a bastard son born of deception that was meant to mirror an adulterous affair to begin with. Everywhere else in the Arthurian canon we see plenty of sinful inheritance. But no, not with Galahad. Yes, there is the argument that Galahad is what Lancelot could have been... but damn it, he not only achieves the grail... he ascends to heaven! Sheesh.
I just wanted to rant because I'm writing a paper for Medieval Lit right now (and recently read Cooper for Senior Seminar: American Romantics). And I'm writing about the downfall of Camelot, and basically arguing that the dangers presented to the kingdom come not from simply fornication, but adultery and the breaking of vows. After all, Igraine sleeps with Uther, but gives birth to Arthur: This is a good thing. But as far as she knows, she is sleeping with her husband. Neither Lancelot or Elaine is married, even though Lancelot believes her to be Guinevere. Both affairs involve mystical deception. Yet Arthur and Galahad are the results... huh?
And then on the other hand we have Arthur banging his sister unknowingly... incest is bad, but it's worse because what he does know is that she is married. Same thing with Lancelot and Guinevere. The first affair gives existence to Mordred, the second gives him the means to seize power. Both are examples of broken vows... okay, I'm done ranting now. I need to get back to actually writing the paper... oh, and you've got to love the title:
Of Lancelot's Loins: Love and Lust in the Downfall of Camelot
Same thing with Galahad in Arthurian Literature. He's a bastard son born of deception that was meant to mirror an adulterous affair to begin with. Everywhere else in the Arthurian canon we see plenty of sinful inheritance. But no, not with Galahad. Yes, there is the argument that Galahad is what Lancelot could have been... but damn it, he not only achieves the grail... he ascends to heaven! Sheesh.
I just wanted to rant because I'm writing a paper for Medieval Lit right now (and recently read Cooper for Senior Seminar: American Romantics). And I'm writing about the downfall of Camelot, and basically arguing that the dangers presented to the kingdom come not from simply fornication, but adultery and the breaking of vows. After all, Igraine sleeps with Uther, but gives birth to Arthur: This is a good thing. But as far as she knows, she is sleeping with her husband. Neither Lancelot or Elaine is married, even though Lancelot believes her to be Guinevere. Both affairs involve mystical deception. Yet Arthur and Galahad are the results... huh?
And then on the other hand we have Arthur banging his sister unknowingly... incest is bad, but it's worse because what he does know is that she is married. Same thing with Lancelot and Guinevere. The first affair gives existence to Mordred, the second gives him the means to seize power. Both are examples of broken vows... okay, I'm done ranting now. I need to get back to actually writing the paper... oh, and you've got to love the title:
Of Lancelot's Loins: Love and Lust in the Downfall of Camelot