Monday, November 12, 2012
It's all a matter of perception . . .
As you know, writers depend on their readers' history and background knowledge in order to construct meaning. With this in mind, what are you noticing that is ODD about this story? Do you see evidence of the Round Table's renowned chivalry? What sorts of things in this story are being CONTRASTED in order to emphasize tensions and possible meanings?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I have noticed it odd that very little background information is given about King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table in the story itself. Also, while the great chivalry of the Round Table Knights is frequently referenced throughout Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, there are very few examples of such bravery actually included in the text. Instead, we are actually given substantial evidence to the contrary (like when the Round Table knights cower at the very sight of the Green Knight), suggesting that their legendary bravery may be nothing more than mere myth. However, it is also quite possible instead that the author includes these cowardly descriptions of the valiant Round Table Knights simply to shine a different light on the men whose great bravery is already well known to the populous.
ReplyDeleteConsidering the story of Sir Gawain is not a series of books is seems odd that there is not much background information given about King Arthur and his Knights. Though they have not played as substantial a role as Sir Gawain until this point, without their resistance to accept the Green Knight's challenge there would be no story. As for their chivalry, it is not just absent from the Round Table but its absence is mocked. The Green Knight embarrasses King Arthur by saying that the honor so well known outside of the kingdom walls has disappeared, (accurately stated due to the fact that none of the Knights volunteered for the game). It's possible the author reveals the true tendencies of the Knights of the Round Table to emphasize corruption in King Arthur's domain. If the Knight's pride and valor are falsely represented what other virtues might the Knights be fabricating?
ReplyDeleteRight when you begin Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, it is not like the usual novels that provide background information about the opening scene. Instead it sort of just jumps into the first scene at the round table. I remember Coach Bowyer said before we started the book, “leave all prejudices about King Arthur behind”. So, obviously, when beginning I thought the author would provide information on Arthur, but there was not any. This made it harder to leave behind my preconceived notions because nothing was constructed by the author that would help me leave those behind. Instead of the renowned Knights of the Round Table whom are said to be chivalrous, readers are provided with cowardly knights. This contrast between what has always been theorized about the knights, and how they are actually portrayed might help emphasize how brave Gawain really was. It could also just mean the author thought the chivalry of the Round Table Knights was just a myth and he thought they were cowards. This idea could be backed by the scene where the Green Knight mocks King Arthur, and his knights especially, for not accepting his challenge.
ReplyDeleteI do not find it very odd that the poet did not begin the story with background knowledge on King Arthur because King Arthur was born in the 6th century and became a well known literary figure as early as the 10th century. The people reading Sir Gawain in the 14th century would have known that King Arthur and his court were a symbol of supreme chivalry. What is odd is that the author contests this view from the very beginning of the poem. When the Green Knight enters King Arthur's castle the King and all his knights do not act chivalrous at all. They do not welcome the Green Knight or invite him to celebrate, and they are scared to participate in his challenge. This contrast between what the people believed King Arthur represents, and what the poet made him represent within the story is what emphasizes the poet's scrutiny of King Arthur's chivalric values throughout the entire poem.
ReplyDeleteIt is odd that the story begins with a short recap of the Trojan War rather than with background knowledge in regards to king Arthur and Sir Gawain. The first stanza of the poem describes the fall of Troy and the establishment of Britain. The fact that the author goes on to talk about King Arthur's court symbolizes its importance in Britain's history. Rather than displaying their renowned chivalry, King Arthur's knights are represented as cowardly figures who fail to accept the Green Knight's challenge. As Kyle stated, the chivalry of the Round Table was well known to the people of the time period,and the author uses the knights' failure to accept the Green Knight's challenge in order to contrast the bravery depicted by the Code of Chivalry. The author makes reference to the historical significance of King Arthur's Round Table, yet he speaks in contrast to the positive perceptions its ingrained into the populous, rather than promoting or enforcing them.
ReplyDeleteSome readers might think it's odd and out of place that the author does not give background knowledge regarding King Arthur's court in the play. However, I think that it wasn't necessary for the author to provide us with this knowledge. For one, he/she does a good enough job setting up what type of place and what type of values the Arthurian court valued simply through the descriptions of the lavish feasting taking place and through the introduction in which Britain's founding is discussed. On a second note, most readers at the time would've recognized the chivalry of the Round Table and of King Arthur's court so the background knowledge wouldn't have been needed. What is odd however is the fact that these esteemed chivalrous values are being challenged when the Green Knight enters into the court with no one willing to accept his challenge, though it can't be ignored that Sir Gawain, who is a part of Arthur's court, does eventually accept this challenge. In this way, the poet utilizes perceptions the common reader would've held and still holds about King Arthur's court to contrast with the actions of the cowardly knights and with the shortcomings of Sir Gawain in order to question the legitimacy of the chivalrous Round Table.
ReplyDeleteA typical book will begin with a paragraph or a couple of pages of background, so the reader has a chance to become familiar with the story. However, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight begins rather abruptly, hardly mentioning the Knights of the Round Table. Personally, I find this strange. A reader must recall all they have learned about King Arthur and his court, which for me was the various Monty Python flicks. The Round Table is scarcely described as chivalrous, instead the author uses these characters to contrast with Sir Gawain. Instead, King Arthur scolds them, claiming they are weak and cowardly compared to the noble Sir Gawain. In this circumstance, the author uses the lack of background information he provided to his benefit. For example, if a reader was unfamiliar with how knightly the Round Table was suppose to be, they could assume that Gawain was the loyalest of all, true to King Arthur.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhen I think of the Knights of the Round Table, the first words that come to mind are bravery and chivalry, because that is what I grew up hearing about them. I found it odd that the fabled Knights show a real lack of bravery upon the Green Knight's arrival. All are to scared to face him besides Gawain, Arthur only goes up because he is forced to as the leader of the hall. I also found it odd that not much information was given about Arthur or his hall.I think that the contrast of the story lies in Sir Gawain versus the rest of the Knights of the Round Table. Gawain was considered to be a lesser Knight than the others, and yet he was the one who was the most brave and chivalrous out of all of them. This presents an interesting contrast between what is legendary and what is real. In this instance, the simple knight who no one knew turned out to be better than all the famed knights.
ReplyDeleteThe author of the novel is writing to a very particular audience. It seems that he is writing about King Arthur and the Roundtable like a current American would write about George Washington, even though there is a longer time span between the writing of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and the death of King Arthur. Their character would be well-known to citizens of the country and they would have a decent amount of background knowledge about the person. The author can not anticipate an audience roughly seven hundred years in the future and needs to be more worried about capturing his current audience. The author played on the preconceived notions of the Roundtable and depicted them as much less chivalrous than history perceived them. King Arthur is embarrassed by the lack of chivalry his men show and lays his life on the line before anybody is willing to step up. The bravery and chivalry of the Green Knight is being contrasted with the cowardice of the Roundtable. He is willing to get his head chopped first and he openly mocks them in front of a crowd. The author also uses Sir Gawain to show how the bravery of the renowned men of the Roundtable is exaggerated. It took a little nobody to step up and lay his life on the line for his king.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI was rather perplexed that the text did a very poor job of providing background information on King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table as it seemed necessary for some sort of background to be present. It is very odd that the reader needs to bring in outside knowledge in order to have a full understanding of the situation of the Knights of the Round Table, which seems necessary for a singular text to provide. In Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, there is a certain lack of actual evidence of the Round Table's renowned values of chivalry and bravery, as exemplified by the immediate cowering of all the knights when the Green Knight walked in to partake in a "game" with them. Despite this, there are a set of values forwarded by Gawain that are consistent with the fabled chivalry and bravery that the Knights of the Round Table should embody. There exists a stark contrast between the stories of the Round Table that are detailed in life and what is presented in the text as the qualities that the members of the Round Table carry. This contrast works to develop a criticism of the Knights of the Round Table in a way that insults their fabled courage and chivalry.
ReplyDeleteThe author seems to distance himself from other King Arthur works in order to emphasize that Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is not an archetypal Knights of the Round Table story. By abruptly starting the story and assuming only that the reader knows about the Court’s alleged bravery, the poet erases all misconceptions about the Knights of the Round Table. Many people believe that starting the story without any background information was odd; in my opinion, however, I believe that it accentuates the fact that the author seems to challenge the Court’s bravery and chivalry. In many instances, such as when the Knights cower in the face of the Green Knight, the poet describes the Knights as acting without courage or honor. In contrast, Sir Gawain, the only Knight willing to take up the Green Knight’s challenge, shows his bravery and chivalry when he steps in and accepts the challenge for his king.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the author purposely doesn't give us any background about the Knights of the Round Table. He does this that way we go into the books with our own prejudices; that the Knight's are all very honorable. This prejudice is sometimes hinted at when the characters refer to the so called chivalry of the Round Table. Soon into the story, our preconceived notions are questioned when none of the knights rise to the Green Knight's challenge. They are continuously challenged throughout the story when Gawain breaches chivalric code. I believe the stories main goal is to create tension between what we assume as readers going into the story and what the authors says is actually occured.
ReplyDeleteAs far as contrasts go, I believe that the greatest example of oddness that separates Sir Gawain and the The Green Knight from other stories of chivalry and courting is the situation between Sir Gawain and his three days spent with Lady Bertilak. The reason that this is such an oddity of work for the time is because of the way it criticizes chivalry and courting by contrasting them. When Lady Bertilak seduces Sir Gawain and pushes him towards adultery, there is an example of courting that was a normal aspect of noble life at the time of this writing. However, Sir Gawain is unable to partake in this sort of activity because he is trapped by the rules of a guest-host relationship and knightly chastity. But in refusing the offers and commands of a Lady more noble than himself, Sir Gawain is also acting without chivalry! Thus by juxtaposition the author has shown a critic of both elements of noble life, as would have been seen as odd at the time. In addition, this also puts the chivalry of the round table into a bad light.
ReplyDeleteI agree Harry, I found it odd that for a book that was supposedly written in centuries ago where promiscuity was highly inappropriate and women with qualities similar Lady Bertolac were not accepted in society, yet the entirety of the plot was based around Sir Gawain and his reaction to the temptation of the woman. Another aspect of the novel that I found very odd was the highlight of homosexuality during the scenes where Gawain gave the Lord the kisses that Lady Bertolac had given Gawain. A controversial topic itself, I was very surprised that such thematic elements were introduced into a story from that time period.
DeleteIt's definitely strange that the story doesn't touch on Arthur's past, especially since chivalry is such a constant theme throughout the text; what I find interesting is that the author contradicts the knowledge that the kinghts at the round table are brave and practice the values of chivalry by having them not volunteer to accept the Green Knight's challenge when he arrives. It's like he's showing the true side of man that when help is needed, fear can get the best of people which causes them to sit back and wait for someone else to do what is essentially their job. The author wants us to see that there are two sides to a story and while they may seem like a valient knight in one story, they may be the complete opposite when put in another situation.
ReplyDeleteI didn't see as much chivalry as I expected there to be, especially when the Green Knight first asks for a volunteer to play the game and prove himself. You would think that all of the round table would stand up. Not to mention, all they had to do was cut of a man's head with no immediate danger to themselves. Furthermore I expected that once Arthur offered himself the surely more than just Gawain would stand up. This lack of chivalry lends itself to contrast with the social constructs of that era. This seems to suggest that perhaps there is a need for questioning such as the Green Knight provided in order to find out what is too good to be true. It not only questions the tradition of the time period but also chivalry as a whole. In modern times we often hear that "chivalry is dead" but this contrast begs the question: did chivalry ever really exist?
ReplyDeleteWhen I read Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, it struck me as odd that the story seemed to divert from the way stories about King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table usually unfold. Typically, these stories would emphasize the heroic and chivalric traits of King Arthur and his knights. However, while this story did bring up their renowned chivalry at the beginning, the events that occurred shortly after started to question these values. This first happened upon the arrival of the Green Knight. Upon his challenge to King Arthur’s court, the inaction or reluctance by King Arthur and his Knights throws into question the idea of their chivalry. Also, at the end of the story the reader finds out that the challenge itself was supposed to be a test of King Arthur’s court’s famous chivalry. Since Gawain does not resist all temptation, he failed the test. Gawain’s failing of the test, even if only slightly, again throws into question the famed chivalry he was supposed to have. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight directly contrasts the usual stories about King Arthur’s court. While most stories act the build up their chivalry, this story puts it into question. By doing so, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight has created the possibility that those in King Arthur’s court are ordinary people. While taking away from their chivalry, this story makes the Knights more relatable to the reader, showing them as having human flaws.
ReplyDeleteWe learn that the Green Knight’s challenge had been presented to test King Arthur’s court, with this being so important I found it odd that the story did not go into more detail about the Round Table and the importance of the chivalric code. It is known that the Knights of the Round Table were to abide by the Chivalric code, so I found it strange that when the Green Knight presented his challenge no one stepped up. It is clear the Green Knight had been intimidating but when no one stepped up to receive the challenge it showed a lack of loyalty of the knights to Arthur. The expected bravery and noble acts that the knights are expected to possess are not shown, instead, our first impressions of the knights seem to be that they are cowardly and not even willing to fight for their king.
ReplyDeleteI noticed throughout this novel that there is little background information given. This is not necessarily a bad thing, rather it's simply a fact. This may very well be simply because there is an expectation of people's previous knowledge of the Round Table. Throughout much of my life I've always heard stories of the chivalric code of the Round Table and thus it surprised me immensely to see how little this was true. Upon the Green Knight's entrance, all of the men cowered down. Finally after a time passing, Sir Gawain stepped up but very hesitantly. Throughout the whole story you learn more about the chivalry that the knights possess and it seems to be very little. Sir Gawain time after time toes the line of the chivalric code of a knight of the Round Table.
ReplyDeleteIt is not remarkably unusual that this story does not provide ample "background knowledge". In other works,background knowledge is not essential in communicating the work's message ; the actual plot of the story takes priority and background knowledge may actually distract readers from the author's original intent. What is interesting is that the Gawain-poet begins the story with an account of the Trojan war and the eventual creation of Britain, the society in which King Arthur and his court rose to influence. Beginning the story with this story establishes King Arthur's political and symbolic importance to British society. What's peculiar is not that there is not sufficient background information on King Arthur's court, but rather the fact that the poet quickly contrasts the fame and veneration of the honorable Round Table, which the story of the founding of Britain strengthens by providing it with an historical foundation, with their cowardice upon facing the Green Knight. However, this does not necessarily completely discredit the bravery of the Round Table or suggest that it is a myth. In contrast, the bravery and chivalry of the Round Table was well established then and persists today, as indicated by several students' testimonies of their immediate image of the Round Table as the most chivalric of institutions. Perhaps then the authors intent is not to criticize King Arthur's court but more directly the nature of chivalry itself. Camelot is widely regarded as the ultimate chivalric court yet they are brought to silence by one man. Moreover, as clearly indicated, the Gawain-poet does not provide readers with examples of its courage and courtliness. In so quickly and easily diminishing Camelot of its previously held esteem, the Gawain-poet may be identifying the weaknesses of the medieval age and the empty foundation on which chivalry is built.In this criticism, the poet points towards the fact that chivalry places greater values in symbols and appearances instead of genuine truth and sincere character.
ReplyDeleteThe setting of Sir Gawain and the Green knight takes place is in King Arthur’s court, whose knights are known for their virtue, chivalry, fidelity, and truth. One would expect these characteristics to reside within each knight; yet, when the green knight challenges the court, no one initially volunteers. This causes the reader to begin to question the character of the knights who are supposedly so brave. Moreover, this also puts the bravery of Sir Gawain in question because even after he volunteers he still does not have faith in himself when he meets the Green Knight to get beheaded.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, the gruesome battles that the host goes through in order to hunt are contrasted with the flirtatious, harmless meetings between Sir Gawain and the host’s wife. This juxtaposition sheds light on the fact that Sir Gawain who is supposed to be the most righteous of all is in fact not virtuous, especially since he is reaping the benefits of the game.
I find it very interesting that there is little to no background information given to start off the novel. Is the reader suppose to infer this knowledge or is it intentionally left out in order for us to for our own opinions?
ReplyDeleteI think that the background information that would often be provided to make the knights out to seem "chivalrous, faithful, and fearsome" is left out on purpose to we can see the flaws in each individual knight. This allows our hero, Sir Gawain, to start off with a clean slate and it gives the reader the opportunity to purely examine his actions within the story.
Additionally, I think it's obvious that there are no efforts to portray the knights as chivalrous in the first scene. They are portrayed as cowardly and unable to act in the face of adversity. This serves to influence the reader's view of the knights in a negative light before we even get to examine the actions of Sir Gawain.
While everyone else has brought up good points about the lack of detail and back story, I think this is perfectly explainable. The Knights of King Arthur's court were commonly told stories, everyone knew them and adaptations of different tales were probably passed around like campfire stories of today. Sure, this particular example is a bit more sophisticated, the very fact that it is written down showcases a level of lasting that is pretty impressive. But even then, everyone would still remember the King Arthur tales. The abundance of other books and tales in this category support this notion, even today! Everyone knows the sword in the stone, and the round table, and Lancelot, why would it be any different back then?
ReplyDeleteLike many above, I found it very strange that the book just delved into the story of Gawain. There was no background of Arthur and his brave, chivalrous round table knights. As for the second part of the question, I think that the reader tried to speak through the green knight when he barged into King Arthur's court and called them out on basically not being as chivalrous as they say they are. I think that the author took control and tried to try to show the knights in a different light and say that maybe their chivalry is just there because of the stories past down claiming their chivalry.
ReplyDelete