Hi guys,
I noticed Elizabeth posted- but my comments weren't relative to symbolism, so I figured I'd start a different post for this.
I was wondering if we drew some kind of conclusion on the class discussion today. We talked a lot about the beheading game, morality, and the choices that Gawain made. We jumped in and out of a lot of things, and it got a bit confusing, so I just wanted to leave the floor open on some concluding thoughts on the topic.
I was wondering what everyone felt about Gawain's guilt. I looked for passages that pointed specifically to Gawain's guilt before he was caught (after receiving the scarf from the lord's wife), and could not find any. It really draws me to the conclusion that he wasn't really guilty until he was caught. But then... what's the point? What is the message of this story?
As we were walking out of the room, we began to talk about how the "Golden Age of Knighthood" was ending. I kind of wonder if the author is trying to prove that this golden age never really exsisted. There was never really a time when everyone was 100% good, followed all rules of chivalry, and left out all human emotion. Even King Arthur's greatest knight falls to human emotions multiple times. I think this shows the imperfections and therefore intruths about this "Golden Age of Knighthood"
I realize this post kind of jumps around, but I just wanted to put some thoughts out there.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
His failure to uphold his morals shows the beginning of the fall knighthood and such but i think its his lacks faith that goodness (eg. his keeping the verbal contracts) will ultimately prevail that is the cause of his downfall. possible Christian reference MAYBE in that somethings that happen we question our faith and take our own risks (such as Gawain taking the green scarf). So many hypothetical things I know im gonna get burned
I disagree, Anisha, with your golden age of knighthood point... As Laz said, most of the Arthurian legend tales come at the end of the age of Camelot. By showing minor imperfections in Gawain, it shows a slight departure from perfect chivalry, i.e. the beginning of the downfall. Were there no such thing as chivalry and the "ideal knight," I doubt the author or the author's of the arthurian legends would've written them. Perhaps the perfect knight may have not existed, but I doubt it'd be to such an extreme where none of the ideals of knighthood were upheld.
About guilt: I guess this raises the question, "If a tree falls in a forest and no one's around to hear it, does it make a sound?" This can be applied by saying, if you get caught, are you really guilty of anything? Morally you might feel guilty, but as shown by Gawain, he didn't feel guilt until he was caught. We can say therefore that he would've been perfectly fine with keeping the scarf as long as no one knew. Not a clear answer but it's getting there :P
Something to kick off/supplement our discussion for tomorrow. I think Gawain wouldn't have ended up as ashamed as he did if it weren't for those meddling kids. er... Bertilak's wife. This shows the deceit of women, and how they are the downfall of man. She basically cornered Gawain, morally, when he must be both courteous and chaste in the presence of a beautiful woman obviously trying to put out (pardon my slang).
No, I'm not bitter.
Anisha- I do not think the author was saying that the Golden Age of knighthood did not exist. Rather, he concluded that it could never last because chivalry contradicts human nature (as in the tendency to strive for self preservation).
About the guilt- I agree that Gawain did not feel guilt until he was caught. So what is the signifigance? Perhaps Gawain did not feel guilty about his internal failure until the external world knew about it. Therefore, Gawain valued the opinions/expectations of others over his personal code.
To feminism- Albert, I agree that women's defeat contributed to Gawain's downfall (evil creatures of the Devil that they are). Another interesting point about Gawain's wife was her dominance in the game-playing. She initiated the 'game' of courting Gawain. Gawain played along, flirting and kissing her, though he thought that he was in control. When he realizes she was the pawn of Morgan and Bertilak, he becomes upset at her deceit. The article Laz gave us suggests that this is because she bruised his ego by revealing her dominance in the game. I don't know, though. Perhaps this gives her too much credit. At the same time, Morgan has great supernatural power, and she is a woman.
Would anyone want to divide up the study guide questions/topics. Even if we have no test on this, there is still the midterm...
In response to my ideas about the Golden Ages...
As Albert said, most of the Arthurian tales depict the end of the Golden Age, right? How things were going badly, human emotions and such got in the way of chivalry, etc. I feel like the author may be trying to point out that while there was a Golden Age, it wasn't as glorious as the Golden Age is held up to be. Arthur is one of the greatest kings of the Golden Age, and yet his greatest Knight still succumbs to this human emotion. Is it possible that the author is suggesting the perfect chivalry is a myth?
Well... yeah I guess. The ideal never really occurs. Something always botches it up and people lose faith in that way of thinking. The downfall of the "perfect knight" was that no one was able to live up to those standards.
Like communism! ^_^
Post a Comment