Where to start. I guess I should say a formal "Hello". I've never responded to you in your blog, but I have responded when you write as Sarmatian Son and when you write your "Resurrection" series .
I've truly enjoyed how your mind works as Lancelot. Just enough cynicism to make him cutting and abrasive, but, interesting. He always gets his point across without fail and that is certainly a good thing.
While I cannot totally agree with your assessment of Arthur I do see how he can be a sanctimonious prick on occasion. I cut him some slack because 1) the movie left little wiggle room to broaden his character 2) For the time period, portrayed in the film, Arthur was a product of a corrupt Rome/Church state and as such he was trained to think a certain way. Brainwashed if you like.
Granted once he took command of his Sarmatian knights the light should have come on. These boys/men were torn from their families and trained to be killers for the greater "good" of an empire that was bloated and cumbersome. However, Arthur never catches on. A very sad character flaw to be sure. He does however try to protect, if you will, his knights by keeping a great many secrets. I'm thinking of how Arthur never told his men the reason behind their final mission. The bishop had threatened to rescind their papers if they did not return with Alecto. An example of just how corrupt the system was, and how stupidly gullible Arthur was.
But, give the man his due, he did his duty to his Empire and tried to shield the knights as much as he could. Personally, I would have told the boys why they had to risk their lives one last time and let the cards fall where they might.
While Arthur is irritating in his steadfast belief of an all-just, all-knowing Roman Empire I think he knows that the Empire is crumbling. It's just too hard for him to give up his ideals until Alecto drops the bomb on him about Pelagius. Arthur has no choice at this point but to see the facts for what they are. I think that is why Arthur chose to stay and fight the Saxons and push Lancelot away. He needed to atone for his stupidity/sins and make things right in his own curious way. Sadly, I feel Arthur was secretly hoping his knights would return and fight with him (which they did), but that he was willing to let them go without any qualms. His need to atone, coupled with his knowledge of his men should have warned him of the outcome. The knights couldn't leave him to his fate. Their attachment and their respect for the Commander would not allow them to abandon someone who had become a brother. The deaths of Tristan and Lancelot were the price Arthur paid for his blindness. So committed to his path that he ignored, or maybe he didn't, the steadfastness of his comrades and their eventual return to his side/cause.
The Arthur/Lancelot pairing is unique in that you portray Lancelot as the stronger character. He sees the pitfalls and stupidity of the situation long before Arthur does. He lets Arthur find out the hard way that things can and do go wrong and that praying for forgiveness after committing some harebrained act doesn't absolve you of the sin. He is the perfect foil for Arthur's denial. Lancelot makes Arthur see his choices are not always sound and that they often have deadly consequences. Perhaps one day Arthur will actually relinquish this need he has to be self-righteous. I don't think it's a malicious sort of thing, just an ingrained pattern that needs to be broken and, Lancelot is the right man for the job. I do, however, feel that at times he is a tad too brutal. He has reason and right to be but he doesn't temper this with some compassion. You can chew someone out for being an idiot without tearing them to tiny shreds. Sometimes, Lancelot is a bit like Arthur, in that he is so certain of his path, his feelings, his needs, that he wears blinders. No matter the situation there are always 2 sides to every story.
That being said, I think you are doing a fine job in writing Arthur. He has just that degree of callousness to be believable while not being a total bastard. Both men are evolving under your skilled hand and I look forward to more of your stories.
no subject
I've truly enjoyed how your mind works as Lancelot. Just enough cynicism to make him cutting and abrasive, but, interesting. He always gets his point across without fail and that is certainly a good thing.
While I cannot totally agree with your assessment of Arthur I do see how he can be a sanctimonious prick on occasion. I cut him some slack because 1) the movie left little wiggle room to broaden his character 2) For the time period, portrayed in the film, Arthur was a product of a corrupt Rome/Church state and as such he was trained to think a certain way. Brainwashed if you like.
Granted once he took command of his Sarmatian knights the light should have come on. These boys/men were torn from their families and trained to be killers for the greater "good" of an empire that was bloated and cumbersome. However, Arthur never catches on. A very sad character flaw to be sure. He does however try to protect, if you will, his knights by keeping a great many secrets. I'm thinking of how Arthur never told his men the reason behind their final mission. The bishop had threatened to rescind their papers if they did not return with Alecto. An example of just how corrupt the system was, and how stupidly gullible Arthur was.
But, give the man his due, he did his duty to his Empire and tried to shield the knights as much as he could. Personally, I would have told the boys why they had to risk their lives one last time and let the cards fall where they might.
While Arthur is irritating in his steadfast belief of an all-just, all-knowing Roman Empire I think he knows that the Empire is crumbling. It's just too hard for him to give up his ideals until Alecto drops the bomb on him about Pelagius. Arthur has no choice at this point but to see the facts for what they are. I think that is why Arthur chose to stay and fight the Saxons and push Lancelot away. He needed to atone for his stupidity/sins and make things right in his own curious way. Sadly, I feel Arthur was secretly hoping his knights would return and fight with him (which they did), but that he was willing to let them go without any qualms. His need to atone, coupled with his knowledge of his men should have warned him of the outcome. The knights couldn't leave him to his fate. Their attachment and their respect for the Commander would not allow them to abandon someone who had become a brother. The deaths of Tristan and Lancelot were the price Arthur paid for his blindness. So committed to his path that he ignored, or maybe he didn't, the steadfastness of his comrades and their eventual return to his side/cause.
The Arthur/Lancelot pairing is unique in that you portray Lancelot as the stronger character. He sees the pitfalls and stupidity of the situation long before Arthur does. He lets Arthur find out the hard way that things can and do go wrong and that praying for forgiveness after committing some harebrained act doesn't absolve you of the sin. He is the perfect foil for Arthur's denial. Lancelot makes Arthur see his choices are not always sound and that they often have deadly consequences. Perhaps one day Arthur will actually relinquish this need he has to be self-righteous. I don't think it's a malicious sort of thing, just an ingrained pattern that needs to be broken and, Lancelot is the right man for the job. I do, however, feel that at times he is a tad too brutal. He has reason and right to be but he doesn't temper this with some compassion. You can chew someone out for being an idiot without tearing them to tiny shreds. Sometimes, Lancelot is a bit like Arthur, in that he is so certain of his path, his feelings, his needs, that he wears blinders. No matter the situation there are always 2 sides to every story.
That being said, I think you are doing a fine job in writing Arthur. He has just that degree of callousness to be believable while not being a total bastard. Both men are evolving under your skilled hand and I look forward to more of your stories.
Shelley