Fandom Blathering: OTP and Arthur/Lancelot

[amari_z]

I’m subsisting on no sleep here, and for reasons too stupid and boring to explain, I’m forcibly awake right now and am too tired to do anything constructive. So, it seems it’s time for some delirious, self-indulgent rambling.

I’ve been seeing a lot of discussion of OTP ("One True Pairing") issues floating around in fandom right now, and it’s made me think a bit, although admittedly in a my-brain-is-probably-not functioning-properly-anymore-but-I-can‘t-really-tell fashion.

Anyone who visits here, and is crazy enough to smoke the read the fic I manage to produce, will have noticed a distinct Arthur/Lancelot bent. (Not a shock, right?) But while I do almost exclusively write A/L in KA, I don’t really consider myself a OTP type of person. Why? Well, because I’m not really equally interested in both characters in the pairing.



I don’t think it would come as any surprise to anyone who has read a few of my fic that Lancelot is my undisputed favorite of the pair. While I don’t identify with him personally, I am myself a fairly cynical, negative, skeptical, untrusting type of person, so there are parts of his character that resonate with me. His view point (as I construct it, anyway) makes some sense to me, and it tends to be easier for me to write from.

Arthur, on the hand, I don‘t get. In the movie he really, really annoyed me, and although that might just be a reflection of a poor script and my irritation with all the anachronisms inherent in his character--I just don’t like him a lot of the time. While I am sympathetic to his issues in theory, in practice, he makes me gnash my teeth. Even if I wanted to, I don’t think I could present him as being a wholly sympathetic character. My problem is that I just don’t buy his idealism—and it’s not that I can’t convince myself that he believes in it, but that I don’t. I can’t help but see him as either something of an idiot or a sanctimonious hypocrite (or both). The moviemakers—for me at least—have left no alternative, given the story they’ve presented. The struggle is that I feel like I know what Arthur is supposed to be—I’m supposed to admire his ideals, which he holds to even in the face of adversity. But I don’t. Well, perhaps the flaw is in my character, but, anyway, mostly I just want to give him a knock upside the head. (And btw, I don’t have these concerns with Lancelot’s character, partly because he’s not interested in issues like being upstanding or having morality (or he denies it anyway), while Arthur is about those issues.)


So if I have such problems with Arthur, why A/L? Putting aside the whole they're so pretty together thing (which, I have to confess, is not really the reason I get interested in a fictional relationship--it‘s just the icing), the easiest answer to that is: you’ve seen the movie, right? It’s practically canon. It’s also long been an interesting current of the Arthurian mythos in my own head (and not due to MZB, whose portrayals I don't really like), although I think from legends, I would rather pair Lancelot with Tristan or Gareth (not crack!Gareth—that would be eww).

And it’s the characters’ relationship in the movie that drew me (kicking and screaming) into the fandom in the first place. I like the idea that the characters are opposites in nearly everyway. I like that they both do and don’t get each other. And, of course, I like the angst of it. (Who’d have figured?) But in the end, it's Lancelot who I’m more interested in as a character. And not the least because he and I are going through something of the same struggle—how to deal with Arthur. (I’m really not sure which of us Arthur actually annoys more--but at least Lancelot is getting sex out of the relationship--but then again, I don't end up dead (yet), so we're probably about even.) So, while I’m interested in Lancelot purely as a character, I’m interested in Arthur in the context of his relationship with Lancelot. For example, while I’ll write about Lancelot’s pre-Arthur days, I’m not (currently, anyway) all that interested in writing a story set in Arthur’s pre-Lancelot days.

Going back to the OTP thing, I think the real test, by definition, comes down to would I, as the main focus of a story, pair the characters with someone other than one another? The answer for Lancelot is most likely yes, although I haven’t really written that, and don’t know that I‘ll get around to it. I am certainly opened to reading Lancelot paired with someone else (so long as it is not a MS—which is a whole other discussion).

I don’t think I can say the same about Arthur. While I will write A/Guin, that pairing is actual canon and I admit I generally do it with a certain degree of vindictiveness. (As in, hah! Idiot, look where you ended up. Happy now!?). And while I might write Arthur in another relationship for any number of reasons—would I randomly read a story where A/other is the center of the story? Probably not.

I will admit that there is hope on the Arthur front, since Arthur has grown on me somewhat, and I do find him an interesting character because he is so (in my mind) flawed, and if for no other reason than I feel that I have to struggle at understanding him to treat him in a balanced fashion. Although I’m sometimes afraid that I’m tending to twist him into something I like better rather than dealing with him how he was presented in the movie, I have done my best to present him as fairly as I can (and I would be interested to hear anyone's thoughts on that).

This pattern for pairings in fandom is actually not uncommon for me. In addition to only really being attracted to source material that is highly flawed (I’m almost never compelled to write something about a story that just pleases me), I don’t know that I’ve ever really had an equal interest in both characters of a pairing.

What about you guys (if anyone‘s made it this far)? How does it work for you? Do you care about pairings? If you write/read a particular pairing do you find yourself liking each of the characters equally, or do you favor one over the other? Can you not stand the idea of one/both of your pairing with another character? Just want to yell at me for being mean to Arthur? Bring it on, it's all good. : )

Comments

[sarmajere.livejournal.com]

In KA A/L, I definitely lean toward prefering Lancelot, I definitely prefered him in the movie and that's probably why mine wound up "In my head" as it were, like he knew that he'd be welcome here.

Though I've definitely had a long standing love for the character of Lancelot throughout the mythos. I've known for a long time that my eventual thesis is going to deal with tracing his evolution as a character and the various versions have meant a LOT to me over the years, though I'm most struck by White's Lancelot (is it spelled that way in White? Hell I don't remember).

Arthurs on the whole for me tend to be a little...boring, or a lot boring depending on the source really. For some reason like you discuss in terms of the OTPing I find myself in much the same boat where you are with regard to the pairings. I can see Lancelot in any number of relationships, but not so much with Arthur, perhaps because of the triangle that's always pretty much existed.

This triangle issue did not help when my Chaucer prof a few years ago brought up the context of the homoerotic exchange in the Arthurian Mythos, but even so, it seems to be a weird part of my brain that allows me to see Lancelot shifting around so much, perhaps its that the Lancelot I write most often is in love with both of his two best friends and really tends to fall in love with anyone who will pay attention to him, or who is nice to him for a while, no matter what they do to him after.

That said, I'm fairly open with Arthurian ideas with regard to Lancelot and pairings as long as it is plausable for the writer's interpretation of the character. While I'm not overly fond of Bradeley's Lancelet, I do see his bisexuality and angst issues as plausable for HIM where they would not be for another Lancelot, and that tends to carry over into fandom stuff for me, perhaps because I'm used to looking at interpretations so very closely and deeply.

And other possible Lancelot pairings in the Mythos? Gawain all the way. At least in terms of Malory.

Um I stop rambling now.

[amari-z.livejournal.com]

For me, Gawain has never really clicked with Lancelot—although I can see why the idea would be appealing. I think it’s because I actually like the L v. Gawain conflict/relationship (a la Malory) as it is and it’s never really needed any more drama in my mind. I like them as somewhat uneasy, touchy “friends”/rivals and then with the breakdown at the end.

Arthur, I think, suffers from the problem that all good guy characters are prone to—it’s hard to be that interested in someone who is essentially an icon for righteousness. I suppose that’s why the movie’s version of Arthur does interest me despite my complaining—I see him as a very flawed character, and therefore there’s something to play with there.

White’s Lancelot (I don’t remember how he spells it either) is certainly one of the most fun and interesting versions, but although I love the book[s], I can’t say White’s is my favorite version of L. Off the top of my head, I think my favorite portrayal of a classic-type Lancelot is from Guy Gavriel Kay.

Your thesis sounds like it will be a lot of fun. : ) One of the things that makes this stuff (and all legends/myths) so interesting to play with for me is that al these stories are essentially “fanfiction”—back to the original Welsh stories, I suppose (and Lancelot is really a cross-over character who became an accepted part of the canon). We’re just continuing a long, venerable tradition here. ; )

Free to “ramble” here anytime. I enjoy it myself, as you can see.

[sasha-b.livejournal.com]

You had to know I'd say something. :p

I'm with you on the "practically cannon" thing. What's strange for me, is that when I saw the movie for the first time, I was all - "no L/G?" Weird. However, as I went back to see it *coughsixtimescough* I kept sensing the subtext between the two men, and honestly finally just couldn't ignore the draw they so obviously had on each other. And it to me was more than just the "brothers in arms" draw. It was a soul love draw. One like I thought I had ... but that's neither here nor there.

So yes, I've written A/G and L/G, and I did enjoy it (His Soul), the more I got to read and experience in the fandom the more it just hit me like over the head with a two by four about them.

As to the concept of OTP? Yes. I would never pair Arthur with anyone else anymore. I would Lancelot, but it would a fuck for fun, and he'd always come back to Arthur later. Arthur might marry someone for political gain (not for himself of course :p) but imho he'll never love anyone else.

As to characters. Well, my personality is sooooo Arthur like - not in the religion way, but in the way that I tend to believe in the inherent goodness of people and am loyal and fanatical to a fault when I believe in something - that he is as easy for me to write (hopefully IC) as I would be were I to write an autobiography. Lancelot on the other hand, while I'm very very attracted to his darkness and his sarcasm (and his HAWTNESS :p) I have a much harder time getting into his mind than I do Arthur's.

In lbts, I prefer them as a pair, however, I have written way more about Arthur's past than I have Lancelot's, just because I see him more easily. I may have to remedy that soon.

/rant.

And it was nice to read these thoughts from you.

[sasha-b.livejournal.com]

Forgot to mention too that in terms of legend - I've always been fond of Arthur - although the Steinbeck and White versions of Lancelot I fucking *adored*. I still do love him. But I identify more with Arthur, on a personal level.

And what does that say about me? *shakes head*

I haven't read MZB's Avalon. I have it...I'm just reading Cornwell first. Which his Lancelot - dude, if you haven't read those, you need to.

[amari-z.livejournal.com]

You wanting to say something when I poke at Arthur? I would never have thought it! :p

You know, I would have not minded some [more] L/Guin in the movie if they had done a better job with her character. As we've discussed (several times, probably), I just can't stand her in the movie--I think her character was written and acted extremely poorly. Thinking about it, it's rather a shame that there is such a dearth of good portrayals of Guin over all, despite the modern attempts to tell the story from her perspective. I read a bunch of those versions when I was younger, and they all sort of run together, but I don't remember ever being really impressed by any of them. She could be a truly awesome character in some version of the legend--if someone could write her that way. I have had moments of wondering why I dislike her so much and if it's a buying into some kind of misogynist view (Malory, for example, really does a number on her)—but no, it’s not that. I just can’t stand her as she is in the movie. She’s so damn annoying.

Well, anyway, I’d been a slasher long before this movie was even a twinkle in someone’s eye and even A/L had crossed my mind long, long ago, so it was completely obvious to me from the start. Besides, their relationship is the most interesting in the movie.

As to the concept of OTP? Yes. I would never pair Arthur with anyone else anymore. I would Lancelot, but it would a fuck for fun, and he'd always come back to Arthur later. Arthur might marry someone for political gain (not for himself of course :p) but imho he'll never love anyone else.

To me, that fulfills the definition of being a OTP person—but not a fanatical one. I think I could (actually, I know I could) pair L with someone else in more than just a casual fling kind of way. Although, of course, I do like them together best—it’s so interesting.

And you, identify with Arthur? No way.

MZB—well, she’s considered somewhat seminal, but I don’t really care for her later work, Mists included. It’s a bloated, self-indulgent mess in my opinion. She really, really needed an editor to cut it down to about half of its size. But it is rather interesting if you've never picked it up. L is bisexual, and there’s some actual A/L in it—which you’d think would be enough to sell me--but I’ve developed an aversion in it. I think I’d had a surfeit of the whole neo-pagan, feminist revision thing.

[sasha-b.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, I'm called Arthur for a reason. *snort*

I do have Mists, which I plan to read here shortly. I've read her Firebrand, which I adored, and I am absolutely ga ga over Cornwell's versions. There are so many versions out there that I'm sure it'll be impossible to finish all of them within my lifetime, but I'm sure going to try.

Guin to me was always never developed correctly until I read Rosalind Miles versions, and those are excellent. Of course, I hate her Arthur, so nothing's ever perfect. :p

The only way I'm an OTP fanatic is with Buffy and Angel. I'd never put either one of them with any one else, and that's why the last few season of Buffy drove me crazy. ;)

Thanks for replying, and an interesting topic, too.

[amari-z.livejournal.com]

I didn't love Firebrand, although I thought it was better than Mists, but it has been a very, very long time since I read either. I skimmed through the Miles version at one point, and I'm afraid I don't recall really liking it. It may be that her writing irritated me. I don't really remember her Arthur very well. I haven't read Cornwell.

When I was a kid, I read every single version of KA I could find. Awhile ago, I was bored and started racking my brain to try to remember the titles of all the Arthurian fiction I've read (most of it long ago). Sadly, I think I've forgotten a lot of the books all together, and even when I remember, a lot them did not leave a very lasting impression, so I can't really distinguish one from the other. I'll probably try to post it at some point (if I can find what I did with it . . . . I might have lost it).

And why wouldn't I respond? I started it, didn’t I? :p

[sasha-b.livejournal.com]

I have a list of a *lot* of Arthurian books that Michele made. I'll send it along to you. :p

[shelley-stone.livejournal.com]

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.

Shelley

[amari-z.livejournal.com]

I think part of my irritation with movie!Arthur is that he is just such an anachronism. I can buy the idea that he is a product of his belief system and environment, but what I don’t buy is that a man brought up with that belief system would be spouting off things about freedom and other platitudes that are essentially ideals usually declaimed by baldy written 20th (or 21st) century action heroes. Or modern politicians. As a product of his environment, Arthur would simply not have these modern notions of what “freedom” means. The movie makers took Pelagianism (which essentially went to the idea of original sin and how that tied into concepts of free will and the role of the Church) and twisted it. Ironically, if Arthur really were a follower of Pelagius, I don’t think he would have cared as much about obeying the Church.

Anyway, all your points are valid and well made (I especially liked the idea that Arthur (in his own silly way) was trying to protect his men by not telling them what the bishop actually said—I hadn’t thought of it in quite that way before), but I suppose part of my problem is I simply cannot escape the sheer bad history invoked by the movie (and don’t get me started on the date issue).

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.

You’ve hit here on something that has always really bugged me. If in fact Arthur actually expected (and maybe even wanted) to die in the battle—which I think there are grounds to believe—why on earth would he be happy to see his knights come back (and he clearly is happy)? Sure, a moment of “They like me, they really like me,” would be human, but really, do you want your pals to be joining you in what you might be viewing as a suicide mission? And how else to read his railing at end of the movie—did he really think that he might die but somehow no one else was at risk? This is why I have problems with him. He’s just—so, so maddeningly stupid. It’s hard to believe that someone with this sort of blindness could have, would have, successfully commanded men in battle, much less have survived with that sort of stupidity intact. It’s a child’s view of the world—making pacts with God and expecting them to be kept—he would have learned better, already, if there was any consistency to him as a believable character.

Anyway, blah, blah, blah, as Lancelot might say. ; )

And Hi, back at you, although you certainly don’t need to introduce yourself at this point. I always appreciate getting your kind and thoughtful comments. : ) I’m glad you’re enjoying the fic, and we’ll see how Res!Arthur and Lancelot develop—learning from the past or doomed to repeat it? Hmmm . . . .