Growing up, the most exposure I had to King Arthur was through children’s shows. Go figure. I watched Disney’s “The Sword in the Stone,” but not often enough to remember it for class. I’ll have to watch it soon. I vaguely remember an episode of Wishbone with the adorable dog in chain mail, though that may have been the Joan of Arc episode. There was a book, so I’m sure they made an episode of it.
And I remember an episode of Arthur where they go to a Medieval Fair with contests and a sword in a stone. (I have found the episode!)
And I remember an episode of Arthur where they go to a Medieval Fair with contests and a sword in a stone. (I have found the episode!)
Sidenote: In class this past Tuesday, I realized that most of my knowledge about classic literature comes from Wishbone: The Legend of Sleepy Hollow (by far the best and scariest episode there ever was), King Midas, Don Quixote, and Rip Van Winkle, among many more. If anything, I desperately want to watch the episodes that I have now read the books they were based on to see if they were done justice. I think shows like Wishbone were a great way to introduce children to literature, and maybe it played a part in my English Majorness. We need more television shows like this. It is also interesting to look at how certain books were adapted to be fit for television and children and to star a dog. It’s a pretty amazing example of crossing over. Like our discussion about Star Wars Uncut: Is it still Star Wars? With Wishbone, are those stories still those stories? Perhaps it’s a little different. But, with any adaptation it’s important to think about these things. We’ll be reading and watching various forms of Romeo & Juliet; are those still Romeo & Juliet? Adaptations are my favorite thing to study because there are so many variations for so many things. How far can we stray before it is no longer considered the same story?
King Arthur. The first King Arthur reading I did was Geoffrey of Monmouth for British Literature. I was excited because, as we said in class, everyone (or almost everyone) knows the names King Arthur and Excalibur. We could probably throw in Lancelot and Merlin, too. After Geoffrey, I wanted to read more, but I didn’t until this class. I was surprised by how little Merlin was featured in our passages and by how much face time Lancelot received. I expected it to be about King Arthur and not the Knights of the Round Table. There is so much of King Arthur that doesn’t get show through other texts. I can’t say I’m surprised that these things are left out, but there is so much I did not know. Reading Malory’s accounts of King Arthur was enlightening. I would definitely like to read the rest. I also feel the need to power through the last few episodes of Merlin. I know. But, I like it. At least the earlier seasons.
How far can we stray from something in adapting it before becomes something else entirely? It is an interesting question. We could just say it is all the same story under the umbrella of the Monomyth but that seems to be too easy a way out. The definition I’m going to go with for now is that an adaptation becomes its own thing when you have to know the original to understand it. I think that for the most part adaptations of King Arthur tend to allude to the legends or add to them without claiming that they are themselves the Arthur story in its entirety. The Star Wars Uncut wouldn’t be Star Wars but its own thing. Romeo + Juliet would be simply an adaptation and not its own thing.
ReplyDeleteI think that is a valid point. You can enjoy Romeo + Juliet without reading Shakespeare's original, but Star Wars Uncut would not be very enjoyable, or make sense, without the original. I accept this as a definition. :)
ReplyDelete