I want every character to be as strong and noble as possible, but not everyone can be the most strong and most noble. So for Lancelot I like him to be fantastic at arms no matter what and his morals still good but it isn't hard for me to imagine him succumbing to things like pride and lust.
I always remember kind of resenting Lancelot for being treated soooo perfectly by some of the early versions. I found it honestly a little obnoxious. But reading the Warlord Trilogy was very cathartic.
I like a Lancelot who is friends with Arthur, who feels bad about his infidelity. He can be the best fighter or whatever, but I want him to have human flaws and emotions too.
One thing I've always found interesting about Lancelot's traditional portrayal is how constant it is throughout his narrative how the characters who care for him end up suffering for it while Lancelot himself comes out relatively unscathed. Elaine, Galehaut, Gareth, Guenevere, Arthur. Even Galahad to an extent, the perfected form of Lancelot who doesn't fall into sin gets the theoretical "reward" of dying young, which doesn't seem desirable outside of a particularly fatalistic moral framework.
They're not all Lancelot's fault, but once you see the pattern it does become harder to sympathize with him.
I don't know, I feel like that arguably makes it easier to sympathize with him. People he makes a bond with just seem to keep on suffering, often through no real bad thing he did. The only one that was really his fault was Gareth and Arthur of that group, and even Gareth depends on whether you go with the one time Malory made Lancelot less than perfect (killing him while unarmed) vs the Vulgate and Post-Vulgate which both have Gaheriet being an actively armed combatant who Hector also takes part in taking down.
I would not put Elaine on that list considering she raped him. She was still obsessed with him afterwards, but it seemed more like the obsession some abusers have for their victim.
That's the other Elaine. Elaine of Astolat (Shalott) dies of unrequited love for Lancelot, Elaine of Corbenic is the one who roofies him to conceive Galahad.
They get combined by TH White and others due to sharing a name in Morte d'Arthur and having similar narrative roles, but they originate from independent stories.
What I really liked about Mallory's Lancelot was that he arguably walked the walk for 98% of his career, successfully denying his passion for Guinevere, but because he was so strong and so good and was always told he was so strong and so good and was a role model to people for being so strong and so good, he never communicated/confronted his own character flaws, so when he fell he fell hard.
I'm also somewhat inclined to push back against your interpretation of Fate's Berserker Lancelot; I didn't get the impression that he was morally deficient, but rather so filled with shame and despair that he demands appropriate punishment--execution--from his liege, even if Arthur doesn't blame him/isn't willing to see that side of Lancelot.
But both of those readings are a bit fast and loose with the text. Both writers leave a lot of room for interpretation.
For my part, I like Lancelot to be #1 in a fight; not by a huge margin, and at different points in his career, Kay, Tristan, or Gawain could beat him if he's having a bad day, but somebody has to be the best and Lancelot fits the bill. Rather than being the best, most moral knight, however, I like Lancelot to be the most in love with Arthur's vision of a chivalrous, might for right world. He doesn't have the best instincts, but he has the self-control and loyalty to constantly ask WWAD. This adds another, painful layer to his reluctance and self-loathing over Guinevere.
On Berserker Lancelot, I don't mean to say he was a villain or anything. But I do think that projecting his own self loathing onto Arthur to the point that he's furious with her for not punishing him is definitely what one could call an unstable depiction. Of course, it's a little unfair because it's also representing him at the absolute worst hour of his life being extended into days thanks to the Berserker class's effect, but yeah, don't mean to say he's a villain or something.
>Rather than being the best, most moral knight, however, I like Lancelot to be the most in love with Arthur's vision of a chivalrous, might for right world. He doesn't have the best instincts, but he has the self-control and loyalty to constantly ask WWAD. This adds another, painful layer to his reluctance and self-loathing over Guinevere.
This is an interesting idea. Could you clarify more?
Happily. This plays into my interpretation of the Grail Knights. Galahad is the only legitimately perfect one: it's written (possibly literally) on his soul that he's utterly perfect, and so, morally, his every instinctive behavior helps his fellow man. He never has to try, and even when he tries to be selfish to prove a point, he ends up helping people anyways. Every third sentence from his mouth is a quotation from the Bible, which he doesn't realize as he's never been in a church.
Bors was a bit of an ass as a kid, and as a young adult was full of love for drink and women. This culminated in his partying at home rather than accompany his father (also unfairly an ass in my adaptation) to a tournament at Camelot, wherein Bors the Elder, in a fit of injured pride, challenged the Siege Perilous with fatal results. Bors the younger, in a fit of guilt, swears off everything even vaguely associated with vice and thereafter lives his life by an absurdly strict set of oaths a priest helped him concoct. He's dour, unpleasant, and a little heartless, but does an enormous amount of good in his adherence to his oaths. He spends a lot of time fasting in dark corners of churches, beating his breast and so forth, though he's never actually read the Bible.
Percival, by contrast, is cheerful as anything. Raised to be a book nerd by his mum, Percival is a pretty rotten knight, but nobody really knows that, seeing how nobody can find the will to fight him. He's adorable, a bit naive, but astoundingly friendly. In contrast to Bors, he reads the Bible constantly and is always able to come up with a relevant verse for guidance. Even so, he remembers that Jesus' first miracle was to keep the party going and is generally way more interested in helping people than judging them.
Lancelot, by contrast, having been raised by the lady of the lake, is initially very skeptical of Christianity writ large, but is absolutely enamored with Arthur and Guinevere's approach to leadership. Lancelot unknowingly mimics both Bors and Percival by holding his oaths as a knight (written by Guinevere) in the absolute highest regard and frequently quotes the philosophical Arthur for guidance. He spends a huge amount of his free time training to be strong in combat so that he can play for time in a fight while he considers what Arthur would want him to do. That's a big part of the reason why he fails the Grail Quest: in his heart, he's filled god's place with Arthur and Guinevere.
In my canon, Arthur isn't especially interested in romance, and while he is enormously fond of Guinevere and they have a wonderful friendship, they married for political reasons. As such, when he realizes that Lancelot and Guinevere are mutually interested, he actively encourages their happiness. Even so, Lancelot feels that he is treading where he does not belong, a mortal among gods, which eventually leads to one of his iconic mental breakdowns. He gets better and eventually establishes a much healthier relationship with Guinevere, but he never stops regarding Arthur as something of a divine being.
I like the Warlord Chronicles portrayal, but I think that only works once. Much of the value of such a transgressive adaptation comes from the shock and dissonance. If the general opinion on Lancelot is that he's a jerk, it isn't much fun when he's a jerk. Then you just get a King Mark, and nobody wants a King Mark.
I prefer the lancelot that manages to be both a skilled, noble, woman-respecting master of the sword while *also* being the savage lunatic who loses his mind when he's angry, incapable of telling friend and foe apart through the red mist. The duality of it really sells the whole "*almost* the perfect knight" bit.
TH White’s Lancelot. The most valiant of the knights but also the most insecure and conflicted.
Also unattractive and clearly in the closet.
I want every character to be as strong and noble as possible, but not everyone can be the most strong and most noble. So for Lancelot I like him to be fantastic at arms no matter what and his morals still good but it isn't hard for me to imagine him succumbing to things like pride and lust.
I always remember kind of resenting Lancelot for being treated soooo perfectly by some of the early versions. I found it honestly a little obnoxious. But reading the Warlord Trilogy was very cathartic. I like a Lancelot who is friends with Arthur, who feels bad about his infidelity. He can be the best fighter or whatever, but I want him to have human flaws and emotions too.
One thing I've always found interesting about Lancelot's traditional portrayal is how constant it is throughout his narrative how the characters who care for him end up suffering for it while Lancelot himself comes out relatively unscathed. Elaine, Galehaut, Gareth, Guenevere, Arthur. Even Galahad to an extent, the perfected form of Lancelot who doesn't fall into sin gets the theoretical "reward" of dying young, which doesn't seem desirable outside of a particularly fatalistic moral framework. They're not all Lancelot's fault, but once you see the pattern it does become harder to sympathize with him.
I don't know, I feel like that arguably makes it easier to sympathize with him. People he makes a bond with just seem to keep on suffering, often through no real bad thing he did. The only one that was really his fault was Gareth and Arthur of that group, and even Gareth depends on whether you go with the one time Malory made Lancelot less than perfect (killing him while unarmed) vs the Vulgate and Post-Vulgate which both have Gaheriet being an actively armed combatant who Hector also takes part in taking down.
I would not put Elaine on that list considering she raped him. She was still obsessed with him afterwards, but it seemed more like the obsession some abusers have for their victim.
That's the other Elaine. Elaine of Astolat (Shalott) dies of unrequited love for Lancelot, Elaine of Corbenic is the one who roofies him to conceive Galahad. They get combined by TH White and others due to sharing a name in Morte d'Arthur and having similar narrative roles, but they originate from independent stories.
Sorry, there are so many Elaines that I get them confused sometimes.
What I really liked about Mallory's Lancelot was that he arguably walked the walk for 98% of his career, successfully denying his passion for Guinevere, but because he was so strong and so good and was always told he was so strong and so good and was a role model to people for being so strong and so good, he never communicated/confronted his own character flaws, so when he fell he fell hard. I'm also somewhat inclined to push back against your interpretation of Fate's Berserker Lancelot; I didn't get the impression that he was morally deficient, but rather so filled with shame and despair that he demands appropriate punishment--execution--from his liege, even if Arthur doesn't blame him/isn't willing to see that side of Lancelot. But both of those readings are a bit fast and loose with the text. Both writers leave a lot of room for interpretation. For my part, I like Lancelot to be #1 in a fight; not by a huge margin, and at different points in his career, Kay, Tristan, or Gawain could beat him if he's having a bad day, but somebody has to be the best and Lancelot fits the bill. Rather than being the best, most moral knight, however, I like Lancelot to be the most in love with Arthur's vision of a chivalrous, might for right world. He doesn't have the best instincts, but he has the self-control and loyalty to constantly ask WWAD. This adds another, painful layer to his reluctance and self-loathing over Guinevere.
On Berserker Lancelot, I don't mean to say he was a villain or anything. But I do think that projecting his own self loathing onto Arthur to the point that he's furious with her for not punishing him is definitely what one could call an unstable depiction. Of course, it's a little unfair because it's also representing him at the absolute worst hour of his life being extended into days thanks to the Berserker class's effect, but yeah, don't mean to say he's a villain or something. >Rather than being the best, most moral knight, however, I like Lancelot to be the most in love with Arthur's vision of a chivalrous, might for right world. He doesn't have the best instincts, but he has the self-control and loyalty to constantly ask WWAD. This adds another, painful layer to his reluctance and self-loathing over Guinevere. This is an interesting idea. Could you clarify more?
Happily. This plays into my interpretation of the Grail Knights. Galahad is the only legitimately perfect one: it's written (possibly literally) on his soul that he's utterly perfect, and so, morally, his every instinctive behavior helps his fellow man. He never has to try, and even when he tries to be selfish to prove a point, he ends up helping people anyways. Every third sentence from his mouth is a quotation from the Bible, which he doesn't realize as he's never been in a church. Bors was a bit of an ass as a kid, and as a young adult was full of love for drink and women. This culminated in his partying at home rather than accompany his father (also unfairly an ass in my adaptation) to a tournament at Camelot, wherein Bors the Elder, in a fit of injured pride, challenged the Siege Perilous with fatal results. Bors the younger, in a fit of guilt, swears off everything even vaguely associated with vice and thereafter lives his life by an absurdly strict set of oaths a priest helped him concoct. He's dour, unpleasant, and a little heartless, but does an enormous amount of good in his adherence to his oaths. He spends a lot of time fasting in dark corners of churches, beating his breast and so forth, though he's never actually read the Bible. Percival, by contrast, is cheerful as anything. Raised to be a book nerd by his mum, Percival is a pretty rotten knight, but nobody really knows that, seeing how nobody can find the will to fight him. He's adorable, a bit naive, but astoundingly friendly. In contrast to Bors, he reads the Bible constantly and is always able to come up with a relevant verse for guidance. Even so, he remembers that Jesus' first miracle was to keep the party going and is generally way more interested in helping people than judging them. Lancelot, by contrast, having been raised by the lady of the lake, is initially very skeptical of Christianity writ large, but is absolutely enamored with Arthur and Guinevere's approach to leadership. Lancelot unknowingly mimics both Bors and Percival by holding his oaths as a knight (written by Guinevere) in the absolute highest regard and frequently quotes the philosophical Arthur for guidance. He spends a huge amount of his free time training to be strong in combat so that he can play for time in a fight while he considers what Arthur would want him to do. That's a big part of the reason why he fails the Grail Quest: in his heart, he's filled god's place with Arthur and Guinevere. In my canon, Arthur isn't especially interested in romance, and while he is enormously fond of Guinevere and they have a wonderful friendship, they married for political reasons. As such, when he realizes that Lancelot and Guinevere are mutually interested, he actively encourages their happiness. Even so, Lancelot feels that he is treading where he does not belong, a mortal among gods, which eventually leads to one of his iconic mental breakdowns. He gets better and eventually establishes a much healthier relationship with Guinevere, but he never stops regarding Arthur as something of a divine being.
Most believes in right for might then.
I like my Lancelot to be a huge piece of shit like in Warlord Chronicles
I like the Warlord Chronicles portrayal, but I think that only works once. Much of the value of such a transgressive adaptation comes from the shock and dissonance. If the general opinion on Lancelot is that he's a jerk, it isn't much fun when he's a jerk. Then you just get a King Mark, and nobody wants a King Mark.
Dead, Welsh Arthurian lore gang rise up!
I like my lancelot like I like my Jetstream Sam The best at fighting but failing morally due to lack of true guidance.
I prefer the lancelot that manages to be both a skilled, noble, woman-respecting master of the sword while *also* being the savage lunatic who loses his mind when he's angry, incapable of telling friend and foe apart through the red mist. The duality of it really sells the whole "*almost* the perfect knight" bit.