Is this a decent version of the Arthurian legend?

Is this a decent version of the Arthurian legend?

Not op but also curious

holy fuck who cares. it's one of the best books of all time. it's so damn funny. then hilariously tragic. one of the few literary fantasy books. although it doesn't go in too deep about the other Knights and shit. it goes super deep with Arthur. him as a kid was wicked. lancelot is pretty funny in it aswell. he's truly retarded. the author even tells you to read thomas mallory if you want the ultra detailed version. it's a must read for anyone. even if you think genre fiction is shit.

king Pellinore is one of the funniest characters. same with merlin, what?

Is it truly genre fiction if it's an adaptation of older legends and doesn't necessarily attempt to conform to any one genre as a individual piece of work?

honestly it has a lot of philosophy and I wouldn't consider it genre fiction. but you know how stuck up and annoying this board is. most of them would probably sa it's genre fiction and tell you to get back to your containment thread. it's one of my favorite books, along with the recognitions, mason and dixon, letters and the razors edge.

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is my shit

Seconded.

If it had stayed in book one it'd be genre fiction, but holy fuck. I really can't think of anyone who does a better job than White with showing just how hard it is to escape from our tragic circumstances.

also it has one of the most unexpected/hilarilus/disturbing scenes with a unicorn.

Just get it. You won't regret it.

Because its a story that has a lot of basterdisations of it hence edition can mean quite a bit

Haven't read it but I've read the Goshawk. White is brilliant

Nah, Steinbeck m9.

I started reading this, and I expected a comical tone for the childhood portion (first couple chapters with losing the hawk were great), but the chapter with Pellinore and Grummore was SO comical in tone that I couldn't stomach it. It wasn't even tasteful or interesting like Alice in Wonderland or something, it was like I was watching a cartoon for very young children. Given how most people praise the later sections, it seems like it would suffer from serious mood whiplash.

The only problem was that not only was the last book a philosophical novel for children and it turned out just as terrible as it sounds.
That and the sections with the animals get reused.

From reading Malroy, De Troyes and others you find that the minds of King Arthur's knights and by extension, the gentry who read or listened to the Matter of Britain, had a childish mindset. White recognised this, and his humour is in the same vein as a knight running off to kill Tristan when his wife seduced him and was in the wrong, the random slaughter that usually ended up with on of your relatives dead and the endless lists of jousts and so on.

I just read The Sword in the Stone recently, and it is great. Great colorful story for kids, but also some deeper thought for adults. Possibly the last uncucked work of English culture.

I haven't read the adult portion (The Once and Future King) yet.

You'll hate it when you find White spends half the narrative absolutely destroying Hitler and Fascism.

You'd want to read Le Morte d'Arthur by Thomas Malory first. T.H. White actually frequently references it in his book and you'd be somewhat confused if you don't already have a background on it already.

Depends on how he does it. I don't like fascism, but attacks from the left are pretty invalid. Leftism just turns into the same thing, but poorer.

"Leftism" isn't even a coherent ideology. It's just /pol/ speak for "things I don't like". Marxism, Classical Liberalism, and Anarchism have almost nothing in common with each other.

>I don't like fascism, but attacks from the left are pretty invalid
You can just say you like fascism, it's OK.

Classical liberalism isn't leftist.

It absolutely is. It values egalitarianism over traditionalism. Classical Liberalism is what made popular the idea of political equality.

anyone has the arthurian chart?

It's leftist in its civil politics, and right in its political ones. "Left" and "Right" are shit measurements of political beliefs anyway. Jesus, this is Political Science 101 stuff, user.

Classical liberalism values property rights - equal negative rights. That requires "egalitarianism" insofar as people have "equal" legal status, but it doesn't say anything about men themselves being equal.

Extreme (but consistent) interpretations of classical liberalism would say that a poor man starving to death is preferable to state intervention. That is the antithesis of egalitarianism.

Is the signet classic edition of this any good? Is the only that i can find.

>It's leftist in its civil politics, and right in its political ones
So classical liberalism is leftist in civil politics, and right in political politics?

Even if you meant economic, it wasn't right wing from the beginning - it was considered radically left in an era where monarchs with absolute power were themselves the state.

>"Left" and "Right" are shit measurements of political beliefs anyway
That was kind of my point when I said "leftism isn't even a coherent ideology".

>Extreme (but consistent) interpretations of classical liberalism would say that a poor man starving to death is preferable to state intervention
No, Randian libertarians would like you to think that. Rousseau was highly critical of property rights, and he was a liberal. It was also classical liberal economists (Adam Smith, John Locke) who created the labor theory of value, which would later be used by Marxists.

>political politics?
shit, m8, I meant economic. Sorry.
Either way, that's the modern words for it.
It believes in individual civil freedom; you should be able to do drugs and have sex with basically whoever, and you should also be able to start a business without the GUMMENT getting in the way. Basically against most forms of violent control.

You can read it online for free.

Every aspect of this post makes me not want to read it.

Yeah the last book was pretty disappointing. You can see why they did not publish it with the rest of the volume. It was lazy and repetitive philosophizing.

The greatest chivalry story of all time. Only someone who has read it can understand why.

I feel sorry for those that have to read a translation. Cervante's language is really something.

Are you fucking stupid?

There's a huge difference between reading Le Morte d'Arthur, the one in the OP or The Acts of King Arthur and His Noble Knights and so on

I bet you read a lot of translations and I bet you just fucking pic them randomly you giant pleb faggot