Following on from yesterday`s article about the pathetic attempt by the BBC to socially engineer perceptions of British history and mythology and to piss on one of the greatest of Aryan myths this is a response to one of Wulf V`s reviews of the aforesaid TV show on Amazon UK and the rather politically correct anti-Aryan reply that he has received. Please note that "T Stone"[Stein?}admits to never having watched this piece of crap but is nevertheless offended by his remarks:-
Wulf V`s Review
This review is from: Merlin - Series 1 - Complete [DVD] [2008] (DVD)
This TV show has absolutely nothing to do with the King Arthur of British mythology.
Anybody expecting anything like a faithful retelling of the story will be severely disappointed. The acting is poor and the story lines mediocre. It is clearly aimed at children but is viewed at a time when most of them are or should be in bed.
Merlin is shown to be a servant of the young Prince Arthur and to be younger than him. Anyone familiar with Sir Thomas Malory`s Le Morte Darthur will know that not only was Merlin considerably older than Arthur but the prince was taken and raised by a foster father and had no knowledge of his royal birth until he drew Excalibur. The actor who plays Arthur is ineffectual and does not strike one as a hero.
Hardly any of the male characters look as if they came straight from the Middle or Dark Ages with their short modern hairstyles and clean shaven chins.
The greatest crime of all is the BBC`s attempt at social engineering, casting a black woman as Guinevere and furthermore portraying her as a maid rather than a noble woman. Is this BBC`s pathetic attempt at trying to convey Britain as always having been a multiracial society and a classless democracy where a prince would favour an unattractive maid of a different race over an atttractive princess of Nordic appearance[see episode six of series 3]? Don`t buy this absolute PC tosh!
"T Stone`s" Response
The series (Merlin) that is decried by this reviewer may be good or bad. I can't say, as I have not seen it. However, the review itself is abominable strictly on its own. It says nothing useful about the series but much about its author!
To begin with, citing Mallory as the canonical form of all things Arthurian ignores his place or any such author's role in the composition of one story that is drawn from a long tradition of others. Mallory did not invent Arthur; he inherited a vast collection of material from many lands and many eras, possibly dating back to the paleolithic period. He made constant editorial decisions to include some strrands of this material and exclude or change others. Once upon a time, I'd wager, Pendragon breathed fire and had scales, Morgan was indeed une fey. In this respect Mallory played an identical role to that of the monkish redactor of Beowulf or the authors of both testaments of Judaeo-Christian religion. More recently, J.R.R. Tolkien and Ms. Rowling have done the same to widespread praise. These folks, including Sir Thomas, can do pretty much what they want with the material, as long as they do it well and give us a great story.
Misunderstanding the transition of myth is one thing, the ridiculous and utterly misplaced rant against a supposed effort at "Social Engineering" (whatever that may be!) is downright blameworthy. The decision to cast a woman of color as Guinevere is a casting choice. It requires no comment at all given a suitable attitude to the color-blindedness which ought to characterize the attitude of any decent person. We have, after all, been asked to evaluate our neighbors by the contents of their character, not the color of their skin. It is particularly dismaying that the author of this review cites his feeling that a "Nordic Beauty", (whatever that is) would be the more rational choice. Didn't the author's antecedents fight a rather nasty war to forever dispel the myth of one physiology's claim of superiority over another?
Finally, his dismissal of an England of racial diversity and classlessness is his most dismaying error regarding the inspiration and the meaning of the tale of this once and future king. At its core and in its best retellings, the story of Arthur is about the quest of all people for their own Camelot, a kingdom where the lowly receive equal justice with the great, where might does not make right, where true peace enables a good life for all. At its center is the notion that such a place is not made from magical spells but by deeds of courage, compassion and wisdom. None of these qualities are the byproducts of social engineering but represent the shared hopes of all people of all classes, colors, eras and beliefs who seek the better life that is enshrined at the center of this great story.
[from tstone1046@aol.com]
Wulf V`s Response
You admit to never having watched a single episode of this TV series and yet you single out my post to comment on.
Are you implying that the inclusion of not just one but a considerable number of black actors in Merlin is a matter of complete chance, that no selection by racial criteria has occurred?
This is surely by design and one has to question the motivation of the script writers and the BBC in their attempts to distort Arthurian mythology. This is a rather pathetic attempt by overpaid middle class BBC executives in executing a political agenda at the expense of British-genuinely British taxpayers.
Also please don`t attempt to assume what my `antecedents` are: you have already guessed wrongly.
May I suggest that in future you take the trouble to research the material that is being reviewed before you venture to comment: it would carry more weight!
0 comments:
Post a Comment