Talk:Sir Gawain and the Green Knight

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 17, 2008.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:
Maintained The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Wrad (talk • contribs • email)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

This article, or a prior version of it, was copyedited by the League of Copyeditors on 22:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC). The League is always in need of editors with a good grasp of English to review articles. Visit the Project page if you are interested in helping.

Copyedited by Finetooth (talk) – 20:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Proofread by Galena11 (talk) – 22:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)talk 18:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Kissing

Are we supposed to assume that Gawain is making out with the Lord? Is that how he's giving him the kisses? How else could he? Jedpressgrove (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Servants, male and female, kissed their lords all the time during this period, so it wasn't that strange. It wouldn't have been "making out", just a kiss. A minority of scholars see homosexuality in it, but the majority don't. Wrad (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not full-blown homosexuality, but certainly the literary scholars and analysts of this day and age would acknowledge the homo-erotic connotations behind the action of Gawain phyiscally passing on the lustful kisses of the Lady to Sir Bernilak. 79.73.91.111 (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, this is only a minority of scholars. I've seen just one article that talks about this in all my research. It's not a significant viewpoint yet. Wrad (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FA

Congratulations. Well deserved. Samuel Sol (talk) 00:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Wrad (talk) 00:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. Just be careful, it's "ok", not great, it needs help still. 71.191.137.121 (talk) 03:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the warning. If you have good stuff to add, go for it. Wrad (talk) 03:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Missing picture

There's a thumbnail of a picture, but it's missing. I didn't remove it, incase someone is planning on uploading it. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 13:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The old Cuchulainn picture got deleted! :( I switched it with a new one. Wrad (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Error

"From 1350 to 1400—the period in which the poem is thought to have been written—England was at war with Wales in an attempt to gain more territory." - no it wasn't. Check a history book. 86.134.159.183 (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... that's right. I thought the revolt of Owain Glyndŵr was the war being referred to here but that didn't occur until the year 1400. I wonder what the source is referring to?--Cúchullain t/c 23:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I changed it to what the source says. They weren't technically at war, but they were being raided and colonized. Wrad (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Ithacan news item

Just a heads up everyone. I sent an email today, to the newspaper Ithacan, and asked if they could get in touch with professor Michael Twomey and ask him how does the article reads now, after getting FA status. Let's hope they answer. Samuel Sol (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I've asked some experts that I know to look at it as well. Awadewit (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] plot summary

This is ridiculous, I just finished reading the story. It could not be more fresh in my mind. Seriously, just finished exactly 10 minutes ago. The stuff I wrote in the plot summary is correct. I'm done here. I've read half-way through this article and frankly it is crap. The sections on medieval literature, courtly love and chivilary make no mention of the chivalric revival of the late medieval period, there is quite a bit I could add to this article but have no interest anymore. Congrats at keeping your wonderfully sacred "featured article" intact, certainly any change to it would challenge your vision of how good it is (not). 71.191.137.121 (talk) 03:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You're overreacting. The article does mention it, just not in those terms. You need to have a little thicker skin than to accuse me of "Lording over the article" after just one revert of what really was some poorly-written stuff. I thought you would appreciate it when I kept some of the stuff you wrote, but apparently you are determined to be sour about it and call the whole article "crap". Feel free to come back after you're cooled off a bit. Wrad (talk) 03:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I've done several searches for "chivalric revival" and "green knight" in good faith, just to be sure we haven't missed anything. Apparently it is rarely mentioned in connection with this poem. It returned as many hits as I can count on one hand. I don't think it's enough a part of the scholarship of the poem to be mentioned, but if you have something else to add, or specific reasons you think this article is "crap", please let me know. Wrad (talk) 05:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] that/which

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is an important poem in the romance genre, which typically involves a hero who goes on a quest that tests his ability.

Is it just me, or should it be which tests his ability? Wrad (talk) 00:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"When introducing clauses that define or identify something, it is acceptable to use 'that' or 'which'." (Oxford English dictionary) Perhaps the writer felt having two "which"s in the same clause sounded repetitive. 24.207.58.131 (talk) 02:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what we decided. See below. Wrad (talk) 02:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minute points of grammar

(This is regarding [1].)

Several of my recent changes were recently reverted under the edit summary "fixing grammar problems" - a rather nice way to say revert - but I think that some of the fixes were important. I will gladly accept the revert on my stylistic changes, but here are my reasons for partially reverting the revert:

  • "outlining" → "which outlined" (actually, I should make this "which outlines" in a moment to make this present tense): it is bad style to have the relative clauses with an implicit relative pronoun (at least here)
  • "which" → "that": (See English_relative_clauses#That_and_which). Here, the relative pronoun is restrictive (of all of the quests that a knight can carry out, we restrict our attention to the ones that test a knight's ability)
  • "and draw" → ", drawing": Christian readings do not draw conclusions; they are inanimate.
  • "Bertilak" → "[[Bertilak]]": Though Bertilak redirects to Green Knight, readers who are unfamiliar with the poem and fable will not know who Bertilak is and it is the first mentioning.
  • "then-present" → "present at the time": I just Googled "then-present" which mostly resulted in "then present", as in "We then present". Just as I suspected, after going through several pages of hits, the phrase "then-present" is rarely used. This could explain why it sounded very weird to me and I misread it the first time.

« D. Trebbien (talk) 00:47 2008 March 17 (UTC)

There were grammar problems there, and I didn't revert everything, if you'll notice. The changes you made just now were better. I'm fine with this, though. Just don't link Bertilak to Bertilak, link it to Green Knight. FAs shouldn't have redirected links. Wrad (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
(Wrad, you're quick! How do you do it?) I noticed and I definitely appreciate that.
Would it make sense to change that first mentioning of Bertilak to Green Knight? I was debating myself on this one because the Green Knight appears to be two people; he has a macho, twisted side and a noble side as Bertilak (at least if I remember correctly from when I read the story a while ago).
Also, as regards "which/that", this article is written in British English (see the link you provided). We need to be consistent in our use of British style, but I don't think the issue is big enough to bother about. Wrad (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. This is interesting. I didn't know that the rules for that and which were different in British and American English. Ok. « D. Trebbien (talk) 01:04 2008 March 17 (UTC)
I'd like to keep yours, though, since otherwise we'd have two "which"s in one sentence and it isn't exactly a strict rule in British English. Wrad (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fil Adaptations ammar

The article says that the 1973 film version deviates from from the original story by adding an extra adventure - shoudn't it also mention that the second version has almost nothing to do with the original story other than having characters named Sir Gawain and a Green Knight? s-slaytor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.80.110 (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a source for it. I haven't found anything on that version. Must've been pretty bad... Wrad (talk) 01:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cephalophores

I moved this from the text. It is good but will need a ref connecting it to Gawain: The theme of a saint who is beheaded, then picks up his head and carries it to a holy site that becomes idenified with his cultus was well-established in miracle literature: in the East such saints are termed cephalophores, "head-bearers". --Wrad (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Should I waste further attention at an article that is so thoroughly owned? --Wetman (talk) 04:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean... Uncited information just doesn't have a place on wikipedia. What you might think of me has nothing to do with it. I'd love to have you add things, but it's just got to be cited. I like this info. Like I said, it is good, but it has to be cited. Wrad (talk) 04:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I found a source for this. I'm just not sure where to stick it in... Wrad (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
It is interesting information, but if it is unsourced, as Wrad said, it has no place. This has nothing to do with article ownership, Wetman, it is simply a matter of policy. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Midlands

It reads well to me, very fine bit of work. Couple of points. First, the embedded links to "North West Midlands" lead to "the North" and to "West Midlands". As the context relates to language is there not a better link which might cover the way the language (of that time) in the NW Mids might differ from elsewhere in England? Secondly, whilst Simon Armitage is wonderful he comes from Huddersfield, which culturally and linguistically is very different from the NW Mids (so, not a 'a native of the Gawain poet's dialect region'), although like many of us he may use short vowels. FifthMonarchist FifthMonarchy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The links actually go to North Midlands and West Midlands (region) articles, which will tell you about the area where he probably lived. With Simon, the issue isn't culture, it's location. The only reason we know where the poet may have lived is by dialect region, Simon happens to live in that dialect region. It doesn't mean he speaks the same language, just that he lives in the same area the poet did. Wrad (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Not a topic I know much about, but living somewhere doesn't make you a native of that region. If Armitage wasn't born in the correct region, suggest you re-word to simple say he lives there. 4u1e (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm using the wording of the source on that issue, so it should be fine. He was born in West Yorkshire, which is in the right area. Wrad (talk) 23:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough - I wasn't sure from your earlier responses. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 09:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to be seen as difficult, but having lived in different parts of the English Midlands as well as Huddersfield, I cannot see that Huddersfield is North West Midlands in any sense whatsoever (it's Western Yorkshire), but if, linguistically, it was part of the NW English dialect area at the time the poem was written I will accept this point without question. But even if that is the case, it is a simple fact that Hudds is nowhere near the North West Midlands and its dialect is not Midlands in accent or dialect words and its poet does not write with a NW Midlands dialect either. I won't comment any further, because I think I am getting a bit boring. Regards. FifthMonarchy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's the thing. Linguists don't necessarily follow everyone else's geographical rules. The NW Midlands dialect region, to you, may be something entirely different than what it is to them, especially considering the fact that we're talking about a dialect which existed hundreds of years ago. The main point is that Armitage lives where we think the Gawain Poet lived. If he spoke the same dialect, no one would understand him. Wrad (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Needs a source

Here's something that needs a source:

In the first branch of the medieval Welsh collection of tales known as the Mabinogion, Pwyll exchanges places for a year with Arawn the lord of Annwn (the Otherworld). Pwyll does not sleep with Arawn's wife during this time, thus establishing a lasting friendship between the two men. The story may, then, provide a background for the seduction test when Gawain attempts to resist to the wife of the Green Knight; thus, the story of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight may be seen as a tale which combines elements of the Celtic beheading game with a Celtic seduction test.

This sounds like WP:Original Research. Please verify that this is true by citing it to a scholarly source. Wrad (talk) 03:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought an adequate source would be the Mabinogian itself, and it is simply comment on it: Pwyll is the first tale ('Pwyll Prince of Dyfed'), Jones, G. and Jones, T. (Translators) (1974) "The Mabinogion", pp. 3-24, London: Everyman's Library. FifthMonarchy (talk) FifthMonarchy —Preceding comment was added at 09:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, it wouldn't be. See WP:Synthesis. We can't make new claims based on our own observations. This claim: The story may, then, provide a background for the seduction test when Gawain attempts to resist to the wife of the Green Knight; thus, the story of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight may be seen as a tale which combines elements of the Celtic beheading game with a Celtic seduction test. is impossible to cite from the Mabinogion. Without a citation it is original research. Wrad (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I found a ref for it!! Wrad (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I was just browsing through looking for ideas for what I could do to the King Arthur article to further improve it and saw this discussion. This did actually ring a bell for me and I think I have another reference you could use, if you need one :) Will Parker's new discussion, translation and notes to the Mabinogi mentions this; I haven't got his book to hand but he seems well read and he has put the translation and notes online... The specific web-address is http://www.mabinogi.net/pwyll.htm#_ftn14. Cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, just found this too: Andrew Welsh, "Doubling and Incest in the Mabinogi" in Speculum 65.2 (1990), pp.344-362 at pp.351-2:
"While he is in the Otherworld, Pwyll is in a situation much like that of Gawain in the Middle English romance Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. That is to say, he faces two tests, one that he knows about and one that he does not. Pwyll and Gawain both have their thoughts on meeting a fearsome opponent at the end of a year. But for each a more serious test comes, unexpected and unrecognized, from meeting the beautiful wife of his host.[FN 23: Both incidents are the traditional motif H1556.2, "Test of fidelity through submitting hero to temptations." Traditional motifs are catalogued in Stith Thompson, Motif-Index of Folk-Literature, rev. ed., 6 vols. (Bloomington, 1955-58); I list the motifs of The Four Branches in "The Traditional Narrative Motifs of The Four Branches of the Mabinogi," Cambridge Medieval Celtic Studies 15 (Summer 1988), 51-62.] (There is little doubt that this is in fact a test for Pwyll: there is no other reason for him to have Arawn's shape for the entire year.) Arawn explicitly offered his wife to Pwyll, but when he returned home and learned from her how virtuous her nights had been, he was very moved by Pwyll's discretion, sense of honor, and firm restraint -far more impressed by this, it seems, than by the fight with the other king." Hrothgar cyning (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Freud

This information still needs to be cited to a scholarly source, otherwise it is violating WP:OR, WP:Verifiability, etc, etc.:

The poem has Odephial overtones, which involves sexual desire for the mother and conflict with the father, a classic theme explored at length by Freud. The kisses given to Bertilak by Gawain could be perceived to have homoerotic undertones.

Wikilinks do not count as sources. Wikipedia cannot cite itself as a source. Wrad (talk) 03:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Unlike the unreferenced information in the previous section, relating to the Mabinogion, for which a source might yet be found, this Freudian interpretation would be very difficult to reference, as it is interpretation. If someone has actually undertaken a Freudian reading of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, so be it, but I rather doubt it myself. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I've found a citation for the kisses, but not Freud. (Gawain's mother isn't around at all in the poem. I don't get it.) Wrad (talk) 03:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Try Fathers and Mothers in Literature at google books, "Search in this book" for Gawain and go to p71. As I understand it, Lady Bertilak and Morgan le Fay represent the "good breast" and the "bad breast" —stop laughing at the back, I don't write this stuff— and are part of the "split parental imagos". To make even a bit of sense, that would make Morgan le Fay Gawain's mother; all things are possible in Arthurian stuff, but de Weever suggests that relationship was John Boorman's invention, see Cinema Arthuriana: Twenty Essays at google books. I think riddles and oblique suggestions are unhelpful here; the editor seeking to introduce this hint of an Oedipal relationship should put up his references, per policy. Mr Stephen (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I have a reference for you, via JSTOR :) From John Halverson, "Template Criticism: Sir Gawain and the Green Knight" in Modern Philology 67.2 (1969), pp.133-139 at p.138
I have not come across a Freudian reading of the poem, but the outlines of such an interpretation are obvious. Bertilak certainly qualifies as a father figure and his wife is therefore a mother surrogate; the events of the narrative illustrate the dynamics of the Oedipus complex: Gawain's beheading of the Green Knight reveals a wish to kill the father; being wooed by Bertilak's wife is a partly repressed incest fantasy; the final scene with the Green Knight demonstrates Gawain's guilt and its association (in the near beheading) with castration anxiety. It would not require great ingenuity to develop this outline into a detailed interpretation.
cheers Hrothgar cyning (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Cool. Wrad (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
(Still sounds like rubbish to me though, lol :P) Hrothgar cyning (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
If it isn't that common of a reading, then we probably shouldn't add it to the article. Wrad (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Not a whole session, definitely, but maybe a mention somewhere on themes might be warranted, a line at most I think, but I'm not sure how to write and not give WP:UNDUE. But I will agree with Hrothgar, it still reads like rubbish and far fetched.
In fact, reading it a little better, no I don't think it should be mentioned using this source alone. Here, Halverson deals with the outlines of a possible reading, and the base someone could do it, but it is not a reading in itself. If we can find someone who worked upon this, than I think a line somewhere should be done.
Samuel Sol (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to be common, and I'd probably leave it out of even an academic review article on SGGK myself. However, in fairness it has been pursued by some other commentators. Being of an obsessive nature, I've done an academic e-journal search using sources other than JSTOR and have so far turned up the following, which discusses SGGK as an "exploration of the oedipal themes of incest and parricide": Peter L. Rudnytsky, "Sir Gawain and the Green Night: Oedipal Temptation", American Imago 40.4 (1983), pp.371-83 (quote at p.382). Potentially also relevant (it seems at first glance to have a Freudian interpretation of the poem and references Rudnytsky positively) is Adam Freeman and Janet Thormann, "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight: An Anatomy of Chastity", American Imago 45.4 (1988) pp.389-410. Cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I am impressed by the research that has been done on this---and in such a short amount of time, too! I still think, though, that this is a little too ahead-of-the-curve to be allowed in the article. Of course, I have always thought this Oedipal stuff to be a bit rubbishy, so perhaps I am just prejudiced. As Hrothgar has said, though, this is not common and, as such, should not be in the article, whatever we think of the argument itself. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Celtic Pagan Interpretation - left out?

Overall the article is good, but I'm quite disapointed that the author(s) have left out the most basic Pagan interpretation of the story. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight represent the rival forces (sacrificial gods) of Winter and Summer (Life / death), often referred to as the Oak and Holly Kings. Each year on Yule the Holly King (god of winter /decay and death) is sacrificed to the Oak King (god of fertility / life / summer) and then on Midsummer's Day the Oak King is sacrificed to the Holly King etc. This cycle was often simplified into the sacrifice of a God of the Old year to the God of the New Year, which would occur on Yule. This simple tale was a metaphor for the constant cycles of the seasons, or life death and rebirth, so common in Celtic myth. The Lady in the story can also be seen as symbolic of the mother Goddess who is both prize and ruler of the two sacrificial male principles. It is She of course who gives them rebirth through her powers of generation. 207.47.25.98 (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you direct us to the source for this? Wrad (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification on verse form

The text currently implies that all four stressed syllables in a line alliterated. Surely it was only the two in the first half line alliterating with the first in the second half. Surely there's a better way to describe this. — Laura Scudder ☎ 21:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a tricky thing to describe. Any suggestions? Wrad (talk) 22:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
All of my suggestions would be more verbose. To convey it clearly, you'd have to start by explaining half-lines then talk about the alliteration pattern. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gawain stories

This was recently added: There exists a body of Welsh poems that feature episodic adventures of Gawain; these could be the source of choosing Gawain out of all the Arthurian knights as the protagonist of this tale. Many of these poems are attributed to the perhaps fictional Welsh poet, Bleheris. [2]

It's good, it just needs a better ref. 1911 was a long time ago, and we need to be sure opinions haven't changed too much since then. Wrad (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)