Olympic Mythology

Well, I stayed up to watch the opening ceremonies last night, not so much because I wanted to, but because my wife wanted to.  I don't mind them, it's just that I was tired last night and would have rather gone to bed.  However, I didn't mind too much, as the opening ceremonies always have something pretty neat in them.

Like the queen of England parachuting in with James Bond himself.

And that really cool image of the forging of the Olympic rings.

So too, the amount of detail that was given to the volunteers (actual doctors, nurses, and children from the GOSH children's hospital and the line of construction workers that actually built the place).

But I was surprised by a few things.  Mind you , I am not criticizing.  The ceremonies were amazing and the amount of work to pull it off has to be incredible.  The first thing that surprised me was that so much time was spent on celebrating England's role in the Industrial Revolution and not more on people like Shakespeare.  He got one quote in there.  Winehouse got more recognition than he did.

The mythology buff in me was surprised that King Arthur didn't make an appearance or at least the sword in the stone.  We had a hundred Mary Poppins but not one Excalibur.  Just struck me as odd to ignore the country's most famous legendary figure.

However, the ceremonies were still neat and I can't wait to watch the events.  I like watching all the events, but as a former swimmer, those events will be my favorite.  You only get to watch swimming once every four years on TV, so I'm ready!

And Now the Rest of the Story...

Strange Women Lying in Ponds

Another one from Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal:

We're Knights of the Round Table!

Round Table Found?????

That's what some researchers are claiming.  What a year for possible discoveries, huh?  Noah's Ark, King Arthur's Round Table, what's next?

You can read the news article below.  I got it from this source:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7883874/Historians-locate-King-Arthurs-Round-Table.html

Researchers exploring the legend of Britain’s most famous Knight believe his stronghold of Camelot was built on the site of a recently discovered Roman amphitheatre in Chester.
Legend has it that his Knights would gather before battle at a round table where they would receive instructions from their King.

Barracks site is location for fresh battle royalBut rather than it being a piece of furniture, historians believe it would have been a vast wood and stone structure which would have allowed more than 1,000 of his followers to gather.

Historians believe regional noblemen would have sat in the front row of a circular meeting place, with lower ranked subjects on stone benches grouped around the outside.

They claim rather than Camelot being a purpose built castle, it would have been housed in a structure already built and left over by the Romans.

Camelot historian Chris Gidlow said: “The first accounts of the Round Table show that it was nothing like a dining table but was a venue for upwards of 1,000 people at a time.

“We know that one of Arthur’s two main battles was fought at a town referred to as the City of Legions. There were only two places with this title. One was St Albans but the location of the other has remained a mystery.”

The recent discovery of an amphitheatre with an execution stone and wooden memorial to Christian martyrs, has led researchers to conclude that the other location is Chester.

Mr Gidlow said: “In the 6th Century, a monk named Gildas, who wrote the earliest account of Arthur’s life, referred to both the City of Legions and to a martyr’s shrine within it. That is the clincher. The discovery of the shrine within the amphitheatre means that Chester was the site of Arthur’s court and his legendary Round Table.”

How Many Gods Is Enough?

I have reviewed Bernard Cornwell's books before. I have two series of his that I love. The first is the King Alfred series. That is pretty heavy historical fiction. The other series is about King Arthur (told you I've been on a King Arthur kick lately). This takes a different approach than most King Arthur stories. It mingles the legends with a historical mindset and merges the two. You see familiar characters and they act in a familiar fashion, but they take a life of their own. I love how he portrays Lancelot as a coward (never did like the guy).

This is not really a book review (although if it was I'd rank it a 4 lightning bolts out of 5 - once you get into it, you're hooked, however, getting into it may take a little bit of patience). No, I'm going to point out one thing about it that I like. In both of these series, you get a good look of what it is like to be a follower of mythology - not a fan like we are, but a believer. What is life like on a daily basis? How does a belief in Mithras or Woden affect the choices you make? Good stuff like that. If you are interested at all in either Norse or Celtic gods and goddesses, you ought to pick up one of these series (King Alfred for the Norse ones).

In Excalibur, he addresses what it would be like living in an area that believed in Christianity, Saxon gods (like Woden), newer Celtic gods (like Lugh), Roman gods (like Mithras), Egyptian gods (like Isis), and older Celtic gods (like Cernunnos). This is what it would be like to live in Saxon-invaded-England-post-Roman Empire. Here is what was said when the main character, Derfel - not Arthur, finds out that before their feast, they'll have to worship a god unfamiliar to him:

"She's brought a Druid out of Demetia, and before we all eat tonight we have to worship Nantosuelta."

"Who?" Ceinwyn asked.

"A goddess," Culhwch said carelessly. There were so many gods and goddesses that it was impossible for anyone but a Druid to know all their names.

Another reason why Christianity rocks. I actually knew some things about this goddess from teaching a high school mythology class a little while back. Nantosuelta is a Celtic goddess, but to be fair to Derfel and his wife Ceinwyn, there are different generations of Celtic gods. Many of the older ones we don't have much to go on. Nantosuelta is one of those. This picture shows her with her lover Sucellus.

Her name means, “wandering river”. She was probably a fertility goddess (water being heavily associated with childbirth). In this book, she is depicted as a fertility goddess as well. She is a patron of hearth and home and she is usually seen carrying a basket of apples. Sometimes she is seen with a raven as her symbol, a symbol that some scholars think associate her with the dead. That's one thing I like about the Celtic gods - they pretty much did a little of everything.

Well, I want to get back to my book now. Merlin is up to something, the Saxons are attacking, and Mordred and Lancelot are plotting. Oh my!

Merlin

Sundays at 8:00 pm you can catch a fairly new show on NBC called Merlin.  I'm a King Arthur fan as much as the next guy so I gave it a whirl and I have mixed feelings about it.  I do like having a show with the Camelot cast, it's on in the summer, so I have some time to catch it (although I'm DVRing it and watching it whenever), and the stories are nice, simple fun.  There is a good supporting cast.  However, the pros seem to end here.

I can get past changing the traditional storyline of Arthur since pretty much every author has his/her own take on the famous king - sometimes Mordred a cool guy, sometimes he is a bad guy, and sometimes (as in Excalibur) he is an annoying little kid laughing while hanging grail knights from a tree.  The storyline here is that Uther is still alive and hates magic because of something that happened when Arthur was born.  Igarine is nowhere in sight and Morgana is like an adopted sister to Arthur.  Merlin, who is a bumbling Clark Kent like character, is Arthur's manservant and saves his life on a routine basis using magic (in secret of course).  Guinevere is Morgana's servant and does NOT look the part at all.  That I have a problem with.  I do not like the character of Guinevere anyway (little strumpet), but I hate it even more now.  The actress is a fine enough person and I have no problems with her, but she is just not a Guinevere to me.  Also, I am wondering why they are creating so many new characters when there are plenty of established ones in the Arthurian canon to pull from.  Oh and lastly, the opening credits make it look like it will be worse than a Sci-Fi original movie.  

I give it 2 1/2  lightning bolts out of 5.  My wife agrees, but gives it a 3.  As she says, it's good, but it is not like 24 where it is, "Oh my gosh, we can't miss it!" type of good.  what do you think, those of you who've seen it.  Care to weigh in?

Knight Life

If you are a King Arthur fan and have not read Peter David's Knight Life, then I have one question for you, what are you waiting for? Peter David has a great style of writing. It is not a deep, philosophical style. It is humorous, light hearted, and accurate. Peter David is obviously a lover of the Arthurian legend and it shows. Countless times the Arthurian legend has been rewritten. This is the only time (that I know of) that the legend has been continued.

That's right. The "once and future king" is back. It is the future (here and now for us) and we are in a time of need. Arthur has returned. This time, he has come back in New York. Once just can't go around wielding Excalibur and claiming to be president, so Arthur finds himself trying to go through the election process - starting with mayor of New York. Perceval is here, having drunk from the holy grail, he has eternal life. Morgana le Fay is still around, fat and lazy after centuries of a meaningless lifestyle. Merlin, too is around. Here Davis takes T.H. White's viewpoint that Merlin ages backwards, so we see him now as a 4 year old. You don't see too many mayor candidates listing a 4 year old as their campaign manager.

The best thing about this book besides the humor is the accuracy. David knows his legends and tries to keep his story, however light hearted, true to the Arthurian tales. He wrote two sequels that, while interesting, are not quite as good.

The author has a reputation for taking existing stories and breathing new life into them. I give Knight Life a five out of five lightning bolt rating. The next book, One Knight Only I give a 3.5 lightning bolt rating, and the last book in this series is Fall of Knight, which I give a 2.5 lightning bolt rating. Despite this, I am sure that once you have read Knight Life you will want to check out the others for yourself.