I believe a major paradox would happen, let me explain:
The legend of King Arthur and his knights of the Round Table is depicted in many different ways across these three sources; The Once and Future King by T.H. White, the film Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and the Pearl Poet’s poem “Sir Gawain and the Green Knight”. The tone and diction in each source help reflect how each author/producer thinks about Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, whether as a hero, or not a hero.
In the Once and Future King, T.H. White presents Arthur a innocent and serious king, and his knights as brave and respectful,basically characteristics of heroes. White’s depiction of Arthur and his knights as heroes is shown by the use of a formal and serious tone. An example of the formal tone is when Arthur says, “it is our Norman idea about the upper classes having a monopoly of power, without reference to justice… the people become beasts” (White pg. 247). Arthur uses formal language and shows the characteristics of a true king in The Once and Future King, which makes him and his knights seem like true heroes, deserving of respect, compared to the other sources. The Once And Future King is the only source in which Arthur is depicted as a hero, while the other sources depict him as not a hero in different ways.
The tone and diction in Monty Python and the Holy Grail is different from the tone of The Once and Future King, with the tone being more sarcastic and humorous. Unlike White’s version, Monty Python’s version makes Arthur lacy like an impatient fool, and everyone doesn’t thinks of him as a hero. A peasant says to Arthur, “Strange women lying in lakes distributing swords does not form the basis for a system of government!” (Monty Python). This quote displays Arthur negatively, as if he doesn’t deserve to be a king. It makes the sword coming out of the lake silly and fake. The peasant says this to prove that he wasn't going to follow his orders, and didn't respect Arthur at all, for he didn’t believe Arthur was a king. Monty Python however, is not the only author who does not agree that Arthur was a hero. The Pearl Poet of “Sir Gawain and the Green Knight” also mocks Arthur, but using a different tone.
The last source, the poem “Sir Gawain and the Green Knight”, has a tone different from the other two sources. Instead of serious or sarcastic, the tone of the poem is poetic, and Arthur and his court are seen as cowards in the beginning of the poem, especially when the Green Knight says, “What! Can this be King Arthur’s court? Whose renown runs through many a realm, flung far and wide? What has become of your chivalry and your conquest, your greatness-of-heart and your grimness and grand words?” (“Green Knight” line 213). In this quote, the Green Knight mocks Arthur and his court by saying they weren’t acting like true knights and they had no chivalry at all because they didn’t step up to his challenge (“Green Knight” line 213). He also mocks them for not being what the legend always thought of them to be. Instead of being strong and brave, the Pearl Poet writes about them being scared of the Green Knight.
In conclusion, The Once And Future King set a formal tone, and the diction was very serious. The Once And Future King showed Arthur as a true hero. Monty Python set a sarcastic tone, and the diction was very calm compared to The Once And Future King. Monty Python treated Arthur as if he didn't deserve to be a king, and depicted him as impatient fool. The Pearl Poet depicts Arthur the opposite of the legend, as the Green Knight mocks him for not being brave or chivalrous when he was expected to be, written in a poetic tone. In conclusion, there are many different viewpoints of King Arthur’s story, and each one is different because of the perspective of the author.
Diction and Tone by Benjy (I’m not telling you my full name)
Is fate inevitable? Fate is a series of events that happens outside of a person’s control. Throughout The Once and Future King by T. H. White, fate is a major theme. It is the story of humble Wart, who was fated to become Arthur, King of England. The following discussion illustrates how knowledge of Arthur’s fate, as well as attempts to effect it, ultimately could not change it.
Merlin, Wart’s tutor who lives backwards through time, knew the future. Immediately after Wart became King Arthur, Merlin told him that his time on the throne would be difficult, but he must persevere. “In future it will be your glorious doom to take up the burden and to enjoy the nobility of your proper title: so now I shall crave the privilege of being the very first of your subjects to address you with it - as my dear liege lord, King Arthur.” (pg. 209). Merlyn informed Arthur that positive and negative things would occur during his reign as king, and he must accept these occurrences. The author may have put this in the novel to foreshadow Arthur’s time as king. Of course, not only was Arthur affected by this fate, but Merlin was as well.
Though Merlin was keenly aware of Arthur’s fate as king as well as his own, both he and Arthur affected how those fates unfolded. Arthur became an enlightened leader and created a time of peace and prosperity by using the lessons Merlin had taught him about the responsible uses of power. However, Merlin ultimately determined Arthur’s destiny by neglecting to tell him the true circumstances of his birth. “I know all about about your birth and parentage, and who gave you your real name.” (pg.202). The author seemed to lead the reader to consider the possibility that if Arthur had known that Igraine had been his mother, he most likely would not have been tricked into sleeping with his sister Morgause, and Mordred would have never been born. The circumstances of Arthur’s death could have been changed. Additionally, if Merlin had remembered to warn Arthur about Guinevere, much of what occurred because of Lancelot and Guinevere’s affair could have been avoided. “The trouble is, I can’t help feeling there is one thing which I have forgotten to tell. Remind me to warn you about Guenever another time.” (pg.260). This seemed to suggest that Merlin wanted to give Arthur the information to change this part of his destiny, and if Merlin had been less forgetful, the circumstances surrounding this part of Arthur’s destiny could have been very different.
Inevitably, Arthur’s pure goodness and noble efforts were not enough to change his fate. At the very end of the novel, Arthur was in a deep depression because, in spite of his best efforts, peace had ended and war had come once again. The author suggested that this may have been payment for sin. “That is why we have to take note of the parentage of Arthur’s son, Mordred, and to remember, when the time comes, that the king had slept with his own sister. He did not know he was doing so, and perhaps it may have been due to her, but it seems, in tragedy, that innocence is not enough” (pg.308). Arthur did not know that he was sleeping with his sister, but his innocence did not prevent the result of that union, the birth of Mordred, from dooming him in the end. The author seemed to be pointing out that no matter how hard Arthur tried to create a world free of strife, circumstances beyond his control were always going to prevent that from happening.
Though there was knowledge of future events, and desire as well as efforts to change them, Merlin’s power and Arthur’s goodness were not enough to change the final outcome of the story. King Arthur’s fate, death at the hand of his son, and his kingdom’s fate, a society marked by violence, were inevitable.
Fate and Destiny by Benjy
