See all those history professors and historians got it wrong after all. Man these guys with access to original documents (many in Gaelic) that have concluded he was a leader of the Armies who fought against the invading Anglo-Saxons after the Roman retreat from the British isles were misguided. The fact that the Anglo-Saxons were the ancestors of the English and that the Britons were ultimately beaten and forced back into Wales and eventually conquered by the English is also fiction.
Well you kinda proved my point there, didn't you? He was British -- but as in Brittany, not "Great" Britain. Indeed, that the "real" Arthur actually fought against the Anglo-Saxons only compounds the irony, does it not?
If you wish to involve university history departments, then by all means:
"It could be argued, of course, that English literature stole the most valuable treasure of the Celtic tradition by appropriating the Arthurian romances, and that the impenetrable wall between Germanic and Celtic was thereby breached. That in a sense is true. 'King Arthur' and Sir Galahad and the Knights of the Round Table have indeed been incorporated into the English sphere, and have made their contribution to a shared sense of common modern 'Britishness.' On the other hand, it is important to realize that the Arthurian romances followed a tortuous route through medieval Brittany and France before finding their way with great delay to England. They were not borrowed from the British Celts directly. By the time that Sir Thomas Malory composed Le Morte D'Arthur in the fifteenth century, he and Chrétien de Troyes were paying homage not to the post-Roman Celts of Britain but to the heros of medieval French chivalry [...]."
(Norman Davies, The Isles, p. 218, Oxford, 1999)
Ah, so because 50 years ago people believed something which wasn't true, FRANCE IS TEH GRETAST!? Nice logic you got there.
No, the conclusion I was attempting to draw was that the English are insufferable snot-noses (see original post)... their mockery of the French looks rather silly in light of all the borrowing from France that England has done in establishing its culture.
Celtic languages don't exist? The Scots, Welsh and Irish might be interesting in knowing that.
Those languages are called Gaelic.
No, it must be a French thing. I can never understand your "humour". What fucking difference does it make if the legend was "invented" in France or not? Oh thats right; no fucking difference at all. Assclown.
The difference it makes is that (at least until the 50's -60's) King Arthur had kind of a mythical status as the founder of the English race, the Romulus and Remus of England, so to speak. That the legend is originally French makes such myths (and ENDLESS claims of English superiority) look rather silly.
And the British have proven themselves (once again) insufferable snot-noses. It's too bad their beloved King Arthur -- and half their language -- was invented by the French. Talk about no sense of history...
Outside of a fairly hermetic subculture, comic books used to be dismissed as children's fare.
That is really only true in the US... comics/graphic novels are considered to be art just like literature and the cinema in most of the rest of the world; they are particularly popular and respected in Japan and France. The attitude of many Americans towards comics is rather similar to what people first thought of movies, that they are not "Serious Art." Of course most of the people who think that know rather little about art at all! and tend to overemphasize high/low art and genre distinctions... as exemplified by the author of this article.
Essentially the ease with which the author moves from interest in science fiction/fantasy to antisocial behavior marks him a trafficker in stereotypes and a painfully unironic one at that.
Slashdot Mirror
WASTCH UUT
Has anyone read the portrait of dorian grey, this discussion reminds me of that book.
Let's call it English-language provincialism then.
Well you kinda proved my point there, didn't you? He was British -- but as in Brittany, not "Great" Britain. Indeed, that the "real" Arthur actually fought against the Anglo-Saxons only compounds the irony, does it not?
If you wish to involve university history departments, then by all means:
"It could be argued, of course, that English literature stole the most valuable treasure of the Celtic tradition by appropriating the Arthurian romances, and that the impenetrable wall between Germanic and Celtic was thereby breached. That in a sense is true. 'King Arthur' and Sir Galahad and the Knights of the Round Table have indeed been incorporated into the English sphere, and have made their contribution to a shared sense of common modern 'Britishness.' On the other hand, it is important to realize that the Arthurian romances followed a tortuous route through medieval Brittany and France before finding their way with great delay to England. They were not borrowed from the British Celts directly. By the time that Sir Thomas Malory composed Le Morte D'Arthur in the fifteenth century, he and Chrétien de Troyes were paying homage not to the post-Roman Celts of Britain but to the heros of medieval French chivalry [...]."
(Norman Davies, The Isles, p. 218, Oxford, 1999)
No, the conclusion I was attempting to draw was that the English are insufferable snot-noses (see original post)... their mockery of the French looks rather silly in light of all the borrowing from France that England has done in establishing its culture.
Those languages are called Gaelic.
No, it must be a French thing. I can never understand your "humour". What fucking difference does it make if the legend was "invented" in France or not? Oh thats right; no fucking difference at all. Assclown.
The difference it makes is that (at least until the 50's -60's) King Arthur had kind of a mythical status as the founder of the English race, the Romulus and Remus of England, so to speak. That the legend is originally French makes such myths (and ENDLESS claims of English superiority) look rather silly.
Who is fictional..
Woah, no fucking shit. That's why I said "invented." By the French. Get it ??
Yeah, half French, half Celtic, half Germanic, half Norse, half Roman and half Indian (Various languages from the sub-continent).
Wait, how many halves is that again? ?? six? well, Roman isn't a language, and neither is Celtic so, I guess 4.
And the British have proven themselves (once again) insufferable snot-noses. It's too bad their beloved King Arthur -- and half their language -- was invented by the French. Talk about no sense of history...
That is really only true in the US... comics/graphic novels are considered to be art just like literature and the cinema in most of the rest of the world; they are particularly popular and respected in Japan and France. The attitude of many Americans towards comics is rather similar to what people first thought of movies, that they are not "Serious Art." Of course most of the people who think that know rather little about art at all! and tend to overemphasize high/low art and genre distinctions... as exemplified by the author of this article.
Essentially the ease with which the author moves from interest in science fiction/fantasy to antisocial behavior marks him a trafficker in stereotypes and a painfully unironic one at that.