On Fri, 29 Nov 1996, Richard Lawson wrote:
The plot was good, and John did manage to capture a lot of the spirit of
the Morte D'Arthur. My mother wrote her master's thesis on Morte
D'Arthur, and I read it when I was real young, so I understand a lot
about Arthurian legends (did you know that the sword in the stone was
*not* Excalibur?). John did a good job of sticking to the spirit of the
Morte D'Arthur.
And sometimes Arthur has a spear instead. I am familiar with the double
sword story...triple in a sense, given Arthur has 2 swords...first
the sword in the stone, then Excalibur. Later, we get a SECOND sword in
a stone, Balin's sword that later ends up as Galahads.
The only problem, alas, is very similar to the problem I faced with my
recent fanfic, "Weapons of War". WoW used the theme of an abomination
that gets out of control, kills its creator, and goes on a rampage. One
of my C&C'ers pointed out the Frankenstein thing has been done before.
To death. Frankenstein is a powerful, moving, and interesting story,
but since its been told so many times, the hundredth iteration leaves us
a little bored. We've been there so many times, the passion behind the
original becomes so diluted as to make us lose our interest. I got
almost no feedback on "Weapons of War", because, I think, the story
didn't really interest anyone.
Did you post that here? I haven't seen it.
The same thing happens with Arthurian legends. The same story has been
told over and over again for hundreds of years. What's left to say
about it? Yes, applying and merging the Sailor Moon mythos with the
Quite a bit, I think. I'd argue that its endurance and constant
retelling is the important part...Yes, it's been been done a million
times, but EVERY story has been done a million times. A million kings
sleep under the mountain, waiting to return, and they themselves are but
a diluted expression of older stories, of heroes who die and return, the
Corn Kings and all their kin.
If this story didn't still hold attraction, it wouldn't be retold. And
there's always more angles. If there wasn't, we couldn't tell ANY
story. (Although I hope no one ever applies William Bourroughs style to
the Arthurian cycle :))
The Arthurian cycle is not a static body that we rewrite. It's a
growing, living corpus that has changed over time. In the process of
retelling it, we change it. Galahad was inserted by Monks. Lancelot was
inserted by the French, Morganna splits into Morgawse and Morgan le Fay, etc.
There's always room for another tilt at the lists, I think.
We've just *been* there before, way too often. We *know* how it's going
to end, and no matter how moving and dramatic the story is, it just
doesn't rouse our passions like it did the first time we heard it.
Yes, but not everyone has read the story 10000 times :) *YOU* know how
it all ends, but not everyone does.
I think John is running into the same phenomenon with "Tokyo Senshi".
I dunno...90% of my stories get minimal feedback even from my Mailing
list who volunteered to read and C & C my stories...It's just when I put
a MASSIVE amount of effort into it that it gets really aggravating :)
All in all, a good work by a good writer. I still think DnR #15 is the
best thing John's ever written.
I don't :)
I dunno if it would even get into my top ten...
It's not BAD, but I've done better.
John Walter Biles : MA-History, Ph.D Wannabe at U. Kansas
ranma@falcon.cc.ukans.edu bailesu@komodo.hacks.arizona.edu
http://www.hacks.arizona.edu/~bailesu/falcon.html
P-chan ran across the field and hopped into Akane's arms. She
snuggled her little pet. "I love you, P-chan, especially with a little
apple in your mouth and that special sauce Ukyou makes." They cooked
P-chan over an open fire and made special okonomiyaki out of him. And
all was good.
--Draft of Lemon Sherbet, Episode 12