The Sword and Laser discussion

How do people feel about all the modern references White uses? I don't like it. They show up every few pages and it really takes me out of the story. I don't think I'll want to make it to page 639 if I can't ever get comfortably immersed in the fantasy world.

Also, not only are they disruptive a lot of it just seems like bad writing. I'm on page 50 and he just described some fish as being like ladies in Victorian novels and then went on in the same paragraph to compare a swan to a Zeppelin (spoiler alert: there will be fish and at least one swan).

I'm gonna soldier on for a few more chapter's and if I haven't learned to live with it by then, I'm switching to The Princess Bride.

Well White says early on that he's using a translation convention:

"It was not really Eton that he mentioned, for the College of Blessed Mary was not founded until 1440, but it was a place of the same sort. Also they were drinking Metheglyn, not port, but by mentioning the modern wine it is easier to give you the feel."

The story isn't being told in tight-third -- there's clearly a narrator intermediating for us -- so I have no problem if descriptions use terms that the characters wouldn't know. (Though Merlin would know them, being chronologically challenged.)

Really, most fantasies have issues like this, but you don't notice when an author uses words like "arabesques" and "saturnine."

Me - I'm not quite sure why people have troubles with contemporary names, but not totally fictitious (and sometimes unpronounceable) names made up by neophyte Fantasy authors.

"The fish circled lazily, like the maids told of in Lord Ril'mor'eud's fopish court"

"The swan floated like Zeptilicania, Lord Schaingulth's cloud spirit device."

I'm with the author of this post on this one. I just finished the Princess Bride and started this one and I wish now I had read them in reverse order.

I enjoy a book that allows me to get completely lost in it. In the Princess Bride, I was pulled out of the story often by the author's narrative. I found his outside story annoying and it added little to the story. When I finished it, I was thinking, "OK, King Arthur, I can get lost in that." However, like A.P Is saying here, the author's constant use of current references pulls me back out of the story.

I respectfully disagree with Stan's point. I do not think that the problem is contemporary names. The problem is that it creates a sense of being outside of the time line of the story. Its tongue in cheek when the story is good enough that it doesn't need tongue in cheek. It doesn't create consistency in setting or time space.

I will admit that I probably wouldn't have even noticed it as much if I hadn't just read Princess. Strange how these two got paired this way. Now, I am thinking that I may need to go read something else first and come back to this one.

"The problem is that it creates a sense of being outside of the time line of the story"

This is something that authors of historical fiction often have to struggle with. The reality is that using *any* modern English is actually outside the timeline of a lot of historical fiction. How much modern language should be used make the reader comfortable? How much to not use in order to "fake" a pseudo-authenticity?

Example:

Most readers would not have a problem if they read a characters "pants" were torn as they forced their way through the forest brush. That is because we know what pants are and using that name allows the reader to immediately recognize what the author is describing. But the word did not even exist until the 17th century. Stockings would probably be more appropriate for Arthurian times, but the word stocking has changed in it's modern meaning to mostly refer to an article of feminine attire

PS - "Pants" came from 17th century Italian comedy plays where the character Pantalone (a popular stock character portrayed as a foolish old man) wore slippers and tight trousers. It was later shortened to just "pants" to mean trousers in general, but British speakers of English also use this word to mean underpants.

I'm only a little ways into the book, but so far it's not bothering me greatly, mostly due to the point Sean raised. Since the narrator is upfront about "translating" some words to make them more approachable to a modern audience, it makes me more forgiving of possible anachronisms (and I'm sure there's some that slip by without me knowing).

Moreover, I definitely like that Merlin, because of his mixed-up path through time, sometimes accidentally summons modern objects and mutters about electric utility companies, etc.

I actually got a chuckle out of the reference to Encyclopedia Britannica 17th Edition being n Merlin's house.

The odd thing is, nobody ever complains about the anachronisms in Malory or Excalibur. The historical setting for Arthurian tales is the period after the Roman legions withdrew from Britain, which is barely even part of the Middle Ages, yet depictions of Arthur are almost always based upon the style and customs of the High Middle Ages, almost a millennium later. It's like if someone today made a movie about Pocohontas where John Smith dressed like a hippie and the Indians all lived in modern tract housing.

The anachronisms did bug me at first, but I think that was because this was a "classic", I was expecting something really serious. As I have read further into the book, I'm starting to appreciate the book for what it is and not for any preconceived notions I had of it.

I think the anachronisms help add a little levity to the text and keep it from getting too serious.

My perception of anachronism depends on whether I feel the author intended them, and they become part of a more interesting texture, or if they are the result of the author's ignorance, which tends to pull me out of the story. I found it really disappointing when "Wheel of Time" referenced a "treadmill", which I couldn't imagine the characters had ever heard of.

Watcher wrote: "I found it really disappointing when "Wheel of Time" referenced a "treadmill", which I couldn't imagine the characters had ever heard of."

"Treadmill" originally refered to a machine powered by a man or animal in a hamster-wheel type device like this:



It's a bit advanced for Randland, but not unbelievably so.

That's another problem with anachronisms -- people assume that things are more modern than they really are. Out of the followng examples, which is anachronistic:

A) A woman in 1300 named Tiffany.
B) A character in a Western saying, "I'm going to bust a cap on you."
C) A king in the crusades ordering his archers to "fire".
D) A Victorian woman asking, "Are you trifling with me?"
E) A medieval Englishman saying "aks" instead of "ask."

Most people would have a problem with all of these except (C), but (C) is the only one that's anachronistic -- "fire" didn't become synonymous with "shoot" until the advent of gunpowder. Tiffany is the English version of the Greek name Theophania; "bust a cap" is recorded as far back as the Civil War; "trifling" dates back hundreds of years; and "aks" has roots all the way in Anglo-Saxon.

MY GOD - The are putting children to work like HAMSTERS !!

Stan wrote: ""The problem is that it creates a sense of being outside of the time line of the story"

This is something that authors of historical fiction often have to struggle with. The reality is that using..."
It is also important to note that there are no such things as 'arthurian times' . The whole Arthur mythos is a medieval invention encouraged by a foreign (Norman French) aristocracy to negate and undermine English (Anglo-Saxon) identity. Treat Arthur and related stories as fantasy/myth and you won't go far wrong. In that case, as far as I'm concerned, as long as the story is good, you take whatever liberties with it you like.

Noel wrote: "It is also important to note that there are no such things as 'arthurian times' . The whole Arthur mythos is a medieval invention encouraged by a foreign (Norman French) aristocracy to negate and undermine English (Anglo-Saxon) identity ..."

Not entirely. Arthur appears to have originated as a figure of ancient Welsh mythology who became conflated with a pseudo-historical figure of post-Roman Britain who fought against the Germanic invaders of the period. In the pre-Galfridian works, it's clear that the "Arthurian times" would've been the 5th or 6th Century. Post-Galfridian authors added so many anachronisms to the stories that it's difficult to reconcile our modern notions of Arthur with the period, however even as late as Malory, Arthur is presented as a contemporary of the Romans.

Although Arthurian legends didn't take off until after 1066, there's no reason to think they were deliberately put about by the Normans -- the notion that there was long standing animosity between the Normans and Anglo-Saxons is itself dubious. Rather, the subject became popular after Geoffrey of Monmouth gave it a particularly memorable treatment in his History of the Kings of Britain. One of the earliest Norman works of the subject, Wace's Roman de Brut, was an epic poetic retelling of the whole History, with Arthur's reign being but one memorable part. The other major work of Norman literature, the Lays of Marie de France, contains a dozen stories, only two of which deal with Arthur. There's no indication that either Wace or Marie had any intention other than bringing interesting tales of a conquered land to the attention of the Norman aristocracy and the people back in France.

After that, Arthurian tales became popular in not just England, but France, Germany, the Low Countries, and even Italy, with new ideas traded about. Yes, Wace invented the Round Table, and Chretien de Troyes made up Sir Lancelot, but this wasn't to undermine the Anglo-Saxons. They just wanted to embelish the story -- if anything, Chretien wanted to give a Frenchman a part in these cool British tales. If the Norman-French had wanted to use the stories against the English, they would've retained the original context, in which Arthur is a Celt fighting brutish Anglo-Saxon invaders.

Sean wrote: "Noel wrote: "It is also important to note that there are no such things as 'arthurian times' . The whole Arthur mythos is a medieval invention encouraged by a foreign (Norman French) aristocracy to..."

Sorry Sean but you are wrong. There is in fact absolutely no mention of Arthur or anything similar in the works of Gildas or any pre English source. The placing of a living Arthur in post roman Britain is always cited but not backed up by a shred of convincing evidence. The Norman managerial takeover of England was a horrendous, bloody and brutish 'year zero' type event that saw the consistent undermining of all things English by the new aristocracy. The replacement, almost contemporary with Geoffrey of Monmouth, of Edmund as patron saint of England with a foreign George, was just one small aspect of a prolonged and systematic de-anglicisation
of England.
Yes, a lot of the subsequent invention of the Arthur myth was for entertainment purposes and very entertaining it is too but still entirely mythical. If you can point to one CONTEMPORARY piece of evidence I, and the whole archaeological establishment would be intrigued to see it.

of England.

I don't think that the anachronisms will bother me with reading the book, unless they have Arthur arrive at Camelot driving a car. Due to the different time periods that the Arthur tale could take place in, the anachronisms help us relate to the story. If the book was written sing the language and descriptions for which time period it took place in, there probably would have to been an appendix/glossary to help with reading it. With the evolution of language over time, I feel there will always be anachronisms, because it helps us to relate to the story. I would be bothered if it was a major anachronism if something really modern showed up, like a plane, car, computer, etc.

Noel wrote: "Sorry Sean but you are wrong. There is in fact absolutely no mention of Arthur or anything similar in the works of Gildas or any pre English source. The placing of a living Arthur in post roman Britain is always cited but not backed up by a shred of convincing evidence..."

Then good thing I didn't make a claim about "a living Arthur." As I said, he's "a figure of ancient Welsh mythology who became conflated with a pseudo-historical figure of post-Roman Britain." The pseudo-historical figure being Amborsius Aurelianus, whom Gildas names the leader of the Britons in a campaign against the Saxons, culminating in the Battle of Mount Badon; the conflation coming from the Historia Brittonum and Annales Cambriae, which attribute the battle to a general named Arthur.

Note that I'm making no claims about the historocity of Arthur, Ambrosius Aurelianus, or Mount Badon, only to the literary tradition. But I am saying that there is a historical era when Arthur was supposed to have lived, just as there is for Zorro, D'artagnan and Jesus. Do you claim that Arthurian legend didn't grow out of the attribution of Mount Badon to King Arthur? Do you deny that authors from Nennius to Malory placed Arthur in the context of post-Roman Britain?

The Norman managerial takeover of England was a horrendous, bloody and brutish 'year zero' type event that saw the consistent undermining of all things English by the new aristocracy. The replacement, almost contemporary with Geoffrey of Monmouth, of Edmund as patron saint of England with a foreign George, was just one small aspect of a prolonged and systematic de-anglicisation
of England

Contemporary? Edward III made George the Patron Saint two centuries after Geoffrey wrote his history and three after Hastings.

However brutal the Normans were after conquering England, the idea that they remained that way a century later is a fantasy out of Walter Scott.

Sean,

I can't speak to the facts of what you are saying, but this part caught my eye,

"...However brutal the Normans were after conquering England, the idea that they remained that way a century later is a fantasy out of Walter Scott."

A century after encountering American Indians, we European Americans continued to be pretty darn brutal to them (read about the 1890 Wounded Knee incident)

A century after creating colonies in South Africa the former Brits remained pretty darn brutal toward the native Africans.

Mankind as a species has a pretty good track record of being brutal to any one who is not part of their own group. We can (and do) carry it on for generation after generation. It does not stop until there is a full assimilation of one culture under the other (full adoption or genocide)

Stan wrote: "Sean,

I can't speak to the facts of what you are saying, but this part caught my eye,

"...However brutal the Normans were after conquering England, the idea that they remained that way a century ..."

Yes, there are certainly many examples of a subjugated people resisting their conquerors for centuries. But in the case of English history, there's no evidence for long-term resentment towards the Normans. There are a few scattered examples of people griping about Norman rule in the 13th Century, but they see to be more of "Damned nobles (who are Normans)" variety than general animosity. The people with the most to complain about -- the old English nobility who were dispossessed by William the Conqueror -- mostly fled overseas, while the common folk launched on a successful program of procreative ethnic deconstruction that rendered the issue moot.

The idea that Saxon-Norman conflict continued past the mid 12th Century was popular in the 19th Century, but is out of favor with modern hitorians.

Sean wrote: "Noel wrote: "Sorry Sean but you are wrong. There is in fact absolutely no mention of Arthur or anything similar in the works of Gildas or any pre English source. The placing of a living Arthur in p..."

We are actually in some agreement here. Most active opposition to Norman rule had ceased a century after the conquest but that is no surprise given the efficiently ruthless and brutal period that followed Hastings. You are right about the reference to Badon and Ambrosius but the Arthur connection is pure conjecture.

As for resentment against Norman repression dying out, it's still alive and well as far I'm concerned!

I think the way to settle this debate on anachronisms in an Arthurian tale is with a light saber duel.

Anachronisms are fine with me in a fantasy setting. Its a difficult path to go down when you try to eliminate anachronisms. You may find that you've eliminated readers along with them. If you weed them all out you may end up with something only readable by a handful of Arturian scholars, and I'm willing to bet there are already plenty of theses out there that fall into that category. The writer's goal is clearly to bring this to a broad audience of many different ages.

I found the information and debate in this thread to be fascinating.

Warning, possible Spoiler.

Since my original post, I have not been bothered by the anachronisms,as I expected. However, I've just reached the part where Wart and Kay encounter Robin Hood.

This has thrown me a bit off. The reason is that I am use to Robin Hood's stories revolve Prince John and the his other deeds seen through other stories and movies. Those stories don't tie into the King Arthur story, and his background is presented differently, involving Uther Pendragon.

From the informative posts, I understand where the legend of Arthur arises from and a sense of when it takes place. In that same token, my sense of when Robin Hood takes place is after that time period. If I'm not mistaken, the legends of Robin Hood arose after King Arthur. So, the bottom line is that Robin Hood part feels out of place, but has not stopped me.

Gotta agree with Christian. Everything else has been fine with me, as far as anachronisms go. But when Robin Hood pops up out of nowhere, it threw me for off as well.

I'm okay with there being Pepsi, as long as there are no utensils.

Just read a very funny passage pertinent to this thread. In the Ace paperback edition it starts at the bottom of pg. 91, with Merlyn trying to summon his lost wizard's hat, and whatever supernatural being he's communicating with (we only hear Merlyn's side of the conversation) mistakenly giving him a 1890's top hat and then (middle of pg. 92):

"Merlyn took off the sailor hat which had just appeared and then held it out to the air for inspection.

'This is an anachronism,' he said severely. 'That is what it is, a beastly anachronism.' "

Love it.

That is a great passage and it definitely speaks to Tom's point in the latest podcast that White is doing all of this with a wink and a nudge.

So far, the anachronisms have not taken me out of the story. Of course, there could be a real lulu lurking around the next page that will take me out completely.

The Sword in the Stone is pretty much the only "book" of the four where this happens a lot. The tone of the other three books changes as the subject matter changes and Arthur matures. It's one of the things I love about The Once and Future King.

As I recall, there are some scenes in the fourth book that hearken back to Wart's education to be king in the first. The sense of "who I was as a young man", versus "the man my life has led me to be" was strong to me.

While I haven't started reading the book yet (hoping to do so later today or tomorrow, almost done with The Name of the Wind), I did watch the old animated Disney version of The Sword in the Stone last night. Maybe it was just how the movie handled it, but the anachronisms really felt like tongue in cheek jokes, and provided some places to laugh where there otherwise might not be anything really going on. I definitely didn't mind them, will have to see how I feel about them in the book.

Not to bring up the 'historical Arthur ' debate again, but I have to say the anachronisms that bother me the most are the ones regarding medieval history. A couple times white refers to Pendragon as the conqueror who comes in 1066, and a couple other times he refers to William the Conqueror, the guy who ACTUALLY came in 1066. He also references Normans all over the place when Arthur, if he existed was fighting the Saxon invasion long before the Normans had ever come to France from Scandinavia. He even has Uncle Dapp quoting Henry II! I could deal with Merlin having a Brittanica set, or even an iPod if that had been known when White wrote. But all this historical confusion, which White does intentionally, he knows the real stuff it's clear, really puts me out of the story.

Also he really makes the celts look dumb. boo.

Tom wrote: "Not to bring up the 'historical Arthur ' debate again, but I have to say the anachronisms that bother me the most are the ones regarding medieval history. A couple times white refers to Pendragon ..."
Tom I can't emphasise enough that there NO mentions of Arthur or any evidence of his existence before the Norman invasion of England. People have conjectured, with very little evidence that he was a dark age figure who battled the invading germanic tribes (the first English) but again with NO hard evidence.
Don't get hung up on the Celts, the real English are of Germanic origin and Arthur is a myth. I noticed in the podcast you gave quite a good summary of your position regarding Arthur as an historical figure. The one big mistake I think you made is that you thought that the Norman tales were based on local folklore which might have been some sort of memory of an Arthur type figure. No. It was written in French, by people of Norman French origin who were then part of the ruling French elite who were eventually absorbed.

PS I hope you wore your black armband on the 14th of October to commemorate the darkest day in English history.

I respectfully disagree. And acknowledge this is a point of debate among historians. Geoffrey of Monmouth references Arthur as does the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. I recommend 'Arthur's Britain' by Professor Leslie Alcock and "The Age of Arthur" by Dr. John Morris. An excellent overview is "King Arthur: A Military History" by Michale Holmes.

Re Tom and Noel, message # 32-34:

I think that White's mashup with the Norman conquest and the Arthur legend was poking a sly finger at the idea that the historicity of a legend can be accurately pinned down in time. It was supposed to be intentionally jarring and make the reader think about the relationship between myth and what they think they know about history. The entire setting is anachronistic as soon as White places Arthur in the 12th century. Then he brings in Robin Hood to make sure you understand how AU this all is. If you can shrug that off, then William morphs into Uther Pendragon. White's trying to unmoor the reader and get them out of the feeling that they can fit this into the frame work of the familiar/known.

Noel wrote: "Tom I can't emphasise enough that there NO mentions of Arthur or any evidence of his existence before the Norman invasion of England..."

Here's Nennius in the Historia Brittonum (c. 830):

Then it was, that the magnanimous Arthur, with all the kings and military force of Britain, fought against the Saxons. And though there were many more noble than himself, yet he was twelve times chosen their commander, and was as often conqueror. The first battle in which he was engaged, was at the mouth of the river Gleni. The second, third, fourth, and fifth, were on another river, by the Britons called Duglas, in the region Linuis. The sixth, on the river Bassas. The seventh in the wood Celidon, which the Britons call Cat Coit Celidon. The eighth was near Gurnion castle, where Arthur bore the image of the Holy Virgin, mother of God, upon his shoulders, and through the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the holy Mary, put the Saxons to flight, and pursued them the whole day with great slaughter. The ninth was at the City of Legion, which is called Cair Lion. The tenth was on the banks of the river Trat Treuroit. The eleventh was on the mountain Breguoin, which we call Cat Bregion. The twelfth was a most severe contest, when Arthur penetrated to the hill of Badon. In this engagement, nine hundred and forty fell by his hand alone, no one but the Lord affording him assistance. In all these engagements the Britons were successful. For no strength can avail against the will of the Almighty.

And the Annales Cambriae (c. 970):

516 The Battle of Badon, in which Arthur carried the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ for three days and three nights on his shoulders and the Britons were the victors...
537 The battle of Camlann, in which Arthur and Medraut fell: and there was plague in Britain and Ireland.

Sean wrote: "Noel wrote: "Tom I can't emphasise enough that there NO mentions of Arthur or any evidence of his existence before the Norman invasion of England..."

Here's Nennius in the Historia Brittonum (c...."

Excellent examples. Those are the two most common works cited for historicity of Arthur. Alcock does an excellent analysis of their strength and weakness in chapters 2 and 3 of "Arthur's Britain" as well as bringing in some supporting material from Gildas' De Excidio et conquest Britanniae, which while not naming Arthur describes the siege of Mount Badon. De Excidio is dated mid 6th century.

Tom wrote: "Sean wrote: "Noel wrote: "Tom I can't emphasise enough that there NO mentions of Arthur or any evidence of his existence before the Norman invasion of England..."

Here's Nennius in the Historia Br..."<
Again, none of that is any where near contempory. The Welsh sources you mention are HUNDREDS of years after the events. Again the one and only mention of an Arthur is hndreds of years later. The Anglo Saxon chronicles do mention the Mount Badon british victory which while a setback to the English invaders was only that, a temporary setback. Gildas, in fact, all those later welsh sources (hardly unbiased coming from the conquered and displaced) really confirm a picture of unrelenting Anglo Saxon expansion and conquest.
The sources Sean quotes are way too late to be considered contemporary and for balance you really should be reading Bede and the Anglo Saxon Chronicles.
If the best evidence of Arthur's existence is a 9th century source I don't think that it helps the case for his existence at all.

Tom wrote: "I respectfully disagree. And acknowledge this is a point of debate among historians. Geoffrey of Monmouth references Arthur as does the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. I recommend 'Arthur's Britain' by Prof..."
Tom, I'm pretty sure Geoffrey of Monmouth should be considered a Norman source and I can't recall an Arthur as such being mentioned in the Anglo Saxon Chronicles. I could be wrong though!

Tom wrote: "Sean wrote: "Noel wrote: "Tom I can't emphasise enough that there NO mentions of Arthur or any evidence of his existence before the Norman invasion of England..."

Here's Nennius in the Historia Br..."

Exactly. Gildas is the only near contemporary source, though unashamedly from a welsh/brit perspective, and his lack of a mention of Arthur is perhaps the most telling evidence against his existence. Why wouldn't such a prominent figure be mentioned by him? Why wouldn't their Obi Wan Kenobi get even a sniff of a mention? I have no problem with evidence of British fight backs against the invading English and evidence of a successful battle at Mount Badon is there. He doesn't crop up as a name for hundreds of years.

Now, if you need a real hero can I nominate Aelfred or Athelstan. Proper English kings.

Noel wrote: "Tom wrote: "Sean wrote: "Noel wrote: "Tom I can't emphasise enough that there NO mentions of Arthur or any evidence of his existence before the Norman invasion of England..."

Here's Nennius in the..."
NEW EVIDENCE JUST IN!!!!!!!
The opening lines of an ancient 1960's cartoon called 'Arthur And The Square Knights Of The Round Table' provide telling proof of his existence and I quote

' Arthur, the King of Camelot, he's a ringa dinga ling of a King. Arthur, he likes to joust alot and he really makes the kingdom swing!

Dammit, I was wrong all along.

Noel you said "Tom I can't emphasise enough that there NO mentions of Arthur or any evidence of his existence before the Norman invasion of England." There are. These mentions don't prove his existence, but they show and plentiful evidence from Welsh tales show Arthur was not a Norman invention. He is Celt. He is seen as resisting Saxon invasion and fighting monsters.

However, to bring it back on track. It is an anachronism and bothersome to me how White has Arthur as the son of Uther who conquered in 1066. I think you can agree that Uther Pendragon did not conquer Britain in 1066.

Tom wrote: "Noel you said "Tom I can't emphasise enough that there NO mentions of Arthur or any evidence of his existence before the Norman invasion of England." There are. These mentions don't prove his exist..."

Ah yes, I agree. But that is such an obvious untruth that it implies that White was making it clear that his tale was a complete fantasy with no basis in reality at all.

Think of it like Hercules and Xena, where Abraham, the siege of Troy, the reign of Julius Caesar, the Voyage of the Argonauts are all contemporaneous. Or the way The Princess Bride takes place before Europe yet after America (though personally I think that's just a reference to the Peace of Westphalia).