Sci-Fi/Fantasy - Merlin Appreciation Thread #1: Keep the Magic Secret - Page 19

london grammar · 10-17-2009, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lolipopo (View Post)

Yeah. And Bradley said they suddenly changed Arthur's love interest in season 2 just to give Gwen something to do.
Speak about the level of writing...

Which is a pretty crappy thing for Bradley to insinuate, imo.

"Lancelot and Guinevere" mean nothing to me. This is one of the few times where I can sympathize for Gwen.

Miss Bass · 10-18-2009, 08:25 AM

All I can say is that Guinevere/Lancelot are the Arthurian equivalent of Helen/Paris. Guinevere and Helen are merely fulfilling their stereotype roles as the unfaithful-flighty-"causes the ruin of men" bride, simply fulfilling how men at the time viewed women. Popular versions however romanticize the shyt out of their flight to sell a more interesting story.

and no I don't believe Guinevere is supposed to love Arthur anymore than Helen loved her husband. But that doesn't mean Gwen/Lancelot were an epic romance anymore than Helen/Paris were.

Quote:

Her history with Lancelot was never a story of lust, or Romeo and Juliet was. Though...maybe it was. After all, lust if oftenfly a part of love. So let's talk about it as a whole.

Oh no you didn't.

Romeo and Juliet? Seriously?

I firmly believe Shakespeare never meant R&J as an epic romance so much as a tragedy of how stupid and hopeless young people are. R&J are just a pair of impulsive preteens convinced they are in love and they know everything, but of course it turns out they know nothing and cause their own ruin. Romeo being in love with Rosaline and then in a blink of an eye switching over to Juliet is just farther proof of their naive youthfulness about their actual feelings. It's rather hilarious that they are build up to be this hugely romantic pair tbh.

waterflower · 10-18-2009, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miss Bass (View Post)

Romeo and Juliet? Seriously?

I firmly believe Shakespeare never meant R&J as an epic romance so much as a tragedy of how stupid and hopeless young people are. R&J are just a pair of impulsive preteens convinced they are in love and they know everything, but of course it turns out they know nothing and cause their own ruin. Romeo being in love with Rosaline and then in a blink of an eye switching over to Juliet is just farther proof of their naive youthfulness about their actual feelings. It's rather hilarious that they are build up to be this hugely romantic pair tbh.

I agree completely on what you said... IIMO Romeo is presented as fickle and very impulsive, something quite common in young ages. I never saw Romeo and Juliet as this epic love story

JohannafromIHJ · 10-18-2009, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miss Bass (View Post)

All I can say is that Guinevere/Lancelot are the Arthurian equivalent of Helen/Paris. Guinevere and Helen are merely fulfilling their stereotype roles as the unfaithful-flighty-"causes the ruin of men" bride, simply fulfilling how men at the time viewed women. Popular versions however romanticize the shyt out of their flight to sell a more interesting story.

The very first time Lancelot and Guinevere are introduces as a lovestory (which is in the same story Lancelot himself is introduced), their love is portrayed as full-blown truevuw4evah and all that. Yes, there's an underlying current of "Women ruin everything with their tantalising girlparts", and more modern versions of the story prefer a less doom-and-gloom take on it, but to call Guinevere flighty is just silly. If you want to go back to how the character of Guinevere was seen at the beginning of the Lancelot/Guinevere legends, you'll notice that Guinevere was almost a goddess-type character - to marry her was to marry the land, the right to rule. Out of all the men hounding her, Lancelot is the only one who doesn't seek the crown. He only wants Guinevere. Guinevere, in turn, is madly in love with him despite her ohbligations to the kingdom, and the power she could gain by going after more ambitious men (you'll notice in the earlier legends she "seduces" Mordred, and he becomes king in Arthur's stead). Even the super-Christian writers during the middle ages were fond of portraying the Lancelot/Guinevere love as pure and tragic, despite some of its more illicit moments.

Quote:

Romeo and Juliet? Seriously?

I firmly believe Shakespeare never meant R&J as an epic romance so much as a tragedy of how stupid and hopeless young people are. R&J are just a pair of impulsive preteens convinced they are in love and they know everything, but of course it turns out they know nothing and cause their own ruin. Romeo being in love with Rosaline and then in a blink of an eye switching over to Juliet is just farther proof of their naive youthfulness about their actual feelings. It's rather hilarious that they are build up to be this hugely romantic pair tbh.

From a modern standpoint, yes, Romeo and Juliet are morons. But at the time it was written, immediate love, love at first sight, passion and burning desire were seen as the height of love and whatnot. Romeo's intense emotions, although impractical, is what made him so admirable in the eyes of the author. The intent was to show a tragedy (as indicated by the opening lines), but the tragedy is not meant to be the love itself. If that makes sense.

JohannafromIHJ · 10-18-2009, 10:36 AM

Sorry about the double post.

Have a vid!

"The crime is love" (Lancelot & Guinevere)
Lancelot and Guinevere fall in love. The beginning of the end.
Music: "Alex's House" from the Winter Guest Soundtrack.
Fandom: Merlin.
Spoilers: Clips from episodes 1x05, 2x02 and 2x04.
Link: YouTube - The crime is love (Lancelot & Guinevere)