Welcome all to our online community.
I've posted below a few discussion prompts to get us started. I encourage you, however, to add to these and formulate your questions and responses. You should post around 250-300 words per week. You can choose to do this all in response to one question, or, if you prefer, respond with briefer answers to more questions. I would also like to see you engage with and respond to other member's posts to make this a conversation and not a series of monologues.
For next Tuesday's class here are some things to get you thinking:
1. Frye talks at length about the ritual quality of romance. He suggests (see esp. 189-94) that rhythms of romance mimic those of Biblical stories. What does Frye seem to believe the relationship is between romance and sacred narratives? Do you see such a relationship between the saint's life and the secular narrative included in this week's reading? In other words, how are Saint George and Arthur similar and different kinds of heroes?
2. What would Jameson have to say about the presence of the marvelous in The Golden Legend and Monmouth's account of the history of Arthur? What kind of cultural work might it perform?
3. Compare and contrast the degrees to which the three primary texts from this week's reading conform to our working definition of romance. Would they qualify as "romances" for Frye? For Jameson? Why or why not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1. Frye talks at length about the ritual quality of romance. He suggests (see esp. 189-94) that rhythms of romance mimic those of Biblical stories. What does Frye seem to believe the relationship is between romance and sacred narratives? Do you see such a relationship between the saint's life and the secular narrative included in this week's reading? In other words, how are Saint George and Arthur similar and different kinds of heroes?
ReplyDeleteAccording to Frye’s assessment, the connection between romance and Biblical stories largely results from each genre’s focus on the contest between good and evil. Whereas in Biblical stories the hero is motivated by more philanthropic aims (such as the redemption of society), in secular romances Frye claims that successfully completing the quest is often motivated by more material rewards (192). Frye’s concern with ritual in romance not only provides him with a means of classifying the tropes of romance according to repetition, but also functions as a strategy of examining the issue of legitimacy that emerges in The Golden Legend’s discussion of Saint George and Monmouth’s and Malory’s presentation of Arthur. The heroes of both of these types of stories require a degree of symbolic literacy in order to triumph over their opponents. While Saint George’s use of “the sign of the cross” (240) in The Golden Legend is itself a potent means of protecting himself against dragons, poison, and molten lead, Merlin’s power in The History of the Kings of Britain lies in his ability to recognize and wield the power of particular symbols and to deconstruct conventional interpretations in order to make room for his own hermeneutics. Merlin’s ability to identify accurately the problems with the fortress’ foundation, and then provide an extensive prophecy regarding the warring dragons underneath the pool, both saves his life and convinces King Vortigern of his supernatural qualities. One of the key differences between Saint George and Malory’s depiction of Arthur is George’s unfaltering faith in providence as opposed to what Frye might term Arthur’s bewildered acceptance of it. Whereas Saint George confidently accepts his role as martyr, Arthur is initially incredulous and uncertain about his role as king.
Sorry for the delay, my internet access has been patchy today.
ReplyDeleteIn Frye’s article, he effectively traces the origins of the rituals of romance to Christian sacred narratives. He tips his hand when he opines, “Attempts to compare Bunyan[’s Pilgrim’s Progress] and Spenser[’s The Faerie Queene, Bk. 1] without reference to the Bible or to trace their similarities to a common origin in secular romance, are more or less perverse” (194). Frye appears to trace this relationship throughout his account of the various forms the “quest-romance” (189) takes, which are all various manifestations of the leviathan – in Biblical terms, the most obvious parable is that of Jonah and the whale. Taking this characterisation of Frye seriously, there are quite clear parallels between St. George and Arthur as heroes. Beginning with Monmouth’s account, the duelling red and white dragons under the desired site for Vortigern’s citadel recall the various symbolisms Frye attributes to St. George’s emblem – a “red cross on a white ground” (195). Hergist and his Saxon hordes certainly seem quite leviathan-like as well. More importantly, perhaps, the legitimacy of Arthur’s rule is established by ecclesiastical sanction, as the Archbishop of Canterbury determines the authenticity of his claim to the throne in Malory’s account (10). However, the intercession of Merlin in Arthur’s tale muddies the providential waters - everything in the Arthur tale is not as god foretells, but rather, as Merlin does, and Merlin’s relationship with the church is as yet unclear. Moreover, Arthur's indirect access to divine insight adds an element of delay to his narrative that is not present in the story St. George. St. George has merely to pray and god will seemingly answer his call, as in the case of his attempted poisoning by King Dacian’s magician (240), and in the instance of his prayer to destroy the Persian temple (241).
Although I don't yet have a better proposal to make, I am dissatisfied with both Frye's and Jameson's discussion of 'Romance'. Frye's "central unifying myth" is for me a little too 'Joseph-Campbell-ish' in the sense that he seems to suggest Romances are for the most part variations on one story, reiterated and reinvented down the ages by different cultures. No doubt, there is an element of that, but as a genre (or system, or model) Romance can also transcend that limitation.
ReplyDeleteJameson's examples, used in his re-interpretation of Frye, are, I think, problematic, particularly his citations of Stendhal's work. Certainly there are elements of 'Romance' in these works, but equally there aspects of comedy, tragedy, epic adventure and historical fiction. Jameson's examples are hybrids, if anything, and they highlight the question he raises about categorization. Do we slot a work into a genre because of its 'predominant' characteristic? For instance, if a work has magic in it, is it then "romance" (what of 'magic realism' in that case?). What is the distinction between Merlin's magic and Christ's miracles -- why is one story Romance and one not? Jameson, building on Frye, says on P.153, that Comedy excludes magic. Perhaps we can then distinguish Romance as being something that fails to make us laugh (although humour is subjective -- but then so are views of what might be magic).
The Monmouth extract does not fit my ill-defined notion of Romance -- it seems like a history with a (awkwardly) bolted-on mythical life of Merlin (immaculately
conceived, no less).
The Golden Legend doesn't 'feel' like a Romance -- it seems like an extract from 'Lives of the Saints', probably because the religious elements are so heavy-handed.
The Malory feels more like a true Romance - there is magic (well-integrated into the plot this time), love (with some 'naughty bits'), a quest of sorts, an unlikely hero who rises to meet his destiny with the help of various others, and understated Christian elements that don't overwhelm -- let's hope the story's early promise continues past Chapter VII !