I know, this is the sort of stuff that's supposed to go on my nerd blog, and probably it'll end up there too, but I think this has an element of interest to it that can put it here too. Also they're both my blogs and I'll deaL WITH THEM HOW I PLEASE.
So my mother was telling one of her friends how obsessed with Merlin I am. (Which is super great, thanks for giving me that reputation, Mom). And she says, and I quote: "It's a terrible show. It's based on the Arthurian legends and it just bastardizes them."
Leaving aside her extremely poor opinion of the show, which I find inexplicable (which is fair, considering everyone finds my love for it inexplicable), one cannot 'bastardize' the legend. It's actually not a thing that can happen.
Because here's the thing: there's actually no one legend. There is no set canon. Every author for the past few centuries have re-invented everything about this legend to suit their own needs, and BBC Merlin is just contributing to the trend.
For instance, in some versions of the legend, Morgana (who is sometimes called Morgaine and sometimes called Morgan, and sometimes she's Morgan le Fay) is a positive character. Sometimes she's a healer. Sometimes she's a heinous bitch/evil sorceress who causes the downfall of Camelot. Sometimes she's Arthur's sister. Sometimes she has an incestuous relationship with Arthur. Sometimes she isn't, and doesn't. Sometimes she isn't even a thing.
What about Guinevere? Sometimes she's caught between Lancelot and Arthur. Sometimes she's all about Lancelot. Sometimes she has an evil half-sister who convinces Arthur that she's the real Guinevere.
Sometimes Lancelot is raised by the Lady of the Lake (hence Lancelot du Lac). Sometimes he isn't.
Sometimes the Lady of the Lake is called Vivane, sometimes Niniane, sometimes Elaine, sometimes Nimueh. Sometimes she gives Arthur Excalibur from the lake. Sometimes he pulls it out of a rock.
Sometimes Mordred isn't even a thing. Sometimes he is. Sometimes he's Arthur's bastard son. Sometimes he's the bastard son of Arthur and Morgana. Sometimes he's completely unrelated to Arthur at all.
And don't even get me started on Merlin. Sometimes he isn't even Merlin. Sometimes he's the Merlin, a high priest of the Druids, and a new Merlin is elected when the last one dies. Sometimes he is Merlin, as in that is his name, and he is a sorcerer. Sometimes he's young, with a sister. Sometimes he's old. Sometimes he's Arthur's foster father. Sometimes he isn't. Sometimes he sexually harasses his student - usually Nimueh, who isn't always the Lady of the Lake - so much that she traps him in a tree. Sometimes he lives his life backwards, so that his specialty isn't so much prophecy so much as he already lived what happens in the future. Sometimes knowing the future just isn't a thing with him. Sometimes he and Guinevere are a thing. Sometimes not.
There are really just entirely too many version of this particular mythos, most of which contradict one another. Sometimes the same work even contradicts itself repeatedly. (I think of the story of the Grail, which Chretien de Troyes could not find it in him to finish, and it apparently ended mid-sentence. Thus began a saga of several different authors attempting to continue it, one taking up after the other after one gave up, and eventually ended up with four continuations and two different endings due to authors not communicating and both attempting to finish it at once. Supposedly, all read together, it's a chaotic mess of conflicting plotlines and themes and characterization, as well as the fact that most authors didn't even agree with Chretien on what a grail even is).
The point being, with this many versions of what is, essentially, the same story, you can't really claim one is any more the "real" story than any other. (Unless you're Thomas Mallory, in which case you write something so cohesive and good that you effectively ruin the party for everyone.) (Can you tell I've been doing some research?)
The show doesn't "bastardize" the legend, because it's just not possible to do such a thing to a story that already has so much history of being a complete mess. It adapts it. Which is the only thing that every author of a version of the story have in common - they're all just adaptations. The Arthurian legend is basically like having a bunch of characters who have a sort of basic function (Arthur is king, Lancelot's a knight, Guinevere's a queen, etc.), and then everyone else gets to write their own fanfiction about them and their relationships and how the story goes, and they're all as valid as any other.
Which I think is something that's kinda cool about the whole thing, and that's why that particular complaint bothered me.
No comments:
Post a Comment