Quote from BlackOrion

anybody who is a real fan of King Arthur legend, can't help but hate the Fate saga.

In other words, those who like the Arthurian myth and the Fate saga and disagree with your opinion are not real fans? Yeah right.,

Quote from BlackOrion

that's offensive for any one with British blood.

It's pretty interesting that you are so offended for having king Arthur turned into a woman, after all the Japanese do that with their own historic figures all the time. Had any Japanese said the same for any of their historic heroes I'm sure people would be screaming sexism. After all, in what shape or form does having a woman as a hero "offensive" to your blood? Do you hate the idea of having to venerate women as heroines or something?

In that time period women would hardly even be called a person, the mind of the women itself was that. How could ever a legend of a cross-dressing girl be made?

Since Arthur is a Mystical character, who is 100% fictional, and based on real Kings, wouldn't it be stupid to claim it is a not a man when in most likely all of the reference than make him come to be were male? let's said there was 1 king who was actually a queen, to begin with that would be odd, since most kings would have several concubines and could even leave an offspring with each one, wouldn't it be odd that no one notice that whenever the king was about to have a descendent "he" would disappear for 9 months? How about not having a queen? Been homosexual (and i'm not talking about having sex with the same sex but been only attracted by the same sex) was something that could never "be" for a king...

Logic says that most people from who Arthur legend is spawned would be male, the mentality of the people that needed a hero in that time wasn't that of some one who wanted that hero to be female, and there is the problem of the descendants and concubines... So in which mind and with what logic we could ever said that Arthur was supposed to be a cross-dressing woman? I don't care about the historical point of view, let's talk from common sense.

It's pretty interesting that you are so offended for having king Arthur turned into a woman, after all the Japanese do that with their own historic figures all the time. Had any Japanese said the same for any of their historic heroes I'm sure people would be screaming sexism. After all, in what shape or form does having a woman as a hero "offensive" to your blood? Do you hate the idea of having to venerate women as heroines or something?

Yes exactly.. i'm extremely sexist. And i don't like how they turn all they historical figures into moe characters but that's them so let them be.

To try and get back on topic Hana no kishi, i know nothing about it but i hear it is full of King Arthur references.

In other words, those who like the Arthurian myth and the Fate saga and disagree with your opinion are not real fans? Yeah right.,

Na, you are right on that one. I'm just really sexist and write that on the spur of the moment.

Edit:

You're welcome Taopaipai, i just think that everybody should be honest about how much of a douchebag they are, such as me and you. But don't worry, ain't even mad. I just love to write what i think with out even worrying about other people opinions.

I find BlackOrion amusing

he can get so upset about something as silly as turning a mythological figure[in all aspects most likely] into the oposite sex
in a pretentious VN from 2004

100+points
its thanks to the likes of you the human race cant even start to pretend that we can get along
you atleast made me smile with ur unpolished in urface hate lol
so thank you

@OP
not a manga but one king arthur comic i find extreamly fun to read is
Camelot 3000
its very weird

So I know it's an old discussion but this is a dear topic to me. I strongly disagree with Orion, also because the most misoginistic side of arthuriana gets on with Victorian retelling, but also because the sense of Arthuriana is reimagining. We can always say that a real arthurian fan will forever dislike Lancelot, then.

I am a hardcore arthurian fan (like, bordering on obsession hardcore) and I collect arthurian books. I don't like Fate/Stay Night but for different reasons (I started to watch it for the arthurian bits but it didn't have too much arthuriana and was more focused on other sides of the plot) and I yet I still think that it has been a nice and original retelling of the arthuriana.

Camelot is a silly place

I think it takes a true hardcore fan to actually accept retellings because otherwise you wouldn't be left with much. There really is not "true" Arthur at least none that fits the modern myth. A lot of people don't realize or forget that the Arthur many consider to be Arthur is rooted in a story that was a mix of retelling and embellishment of older myths. I find the notion of being a purest towards Arthurian legend just silly. It is fun to see the myths played with in new ways (though I haven't picked up Stay/fate)

As for Lancelot, sometimes maybe even he can be the hero just a thought. Arthur was no saint and in many regards caused his own fate. Lancelot though selfish followed his heart. 😉

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -Einstein

Well, retellings, basically fanfictions XD I love them. I love every kind of reimagination from character development in different way to retellings of Malory. I think it's logical to encounter some criticism for reimagining of arthurian characters because after all everyone has some sort of connection and knowledge with these characters but it's delicious to see how a new author can add new emotions/hopes/stories.

No no, I didn't mean that he couldn't be a hero but that he can be disliked because he has been added late to the mix of characters (by Chretien de Troyes), but well, basically everyone but Gawain, Mordred, Kay, Arthur, Guinevere, Morgause and Bedivere is a late addendum.
Also, I admit I am not a fan of Lancelot&Guinevere retellings too much mostly because I love variety and I am a Galahad-fan and Mordred-fan and Laudine and Laurel and Ragnelle and so many characters, but the media seems only to pick up Lancelot's story and try to reimagine it again.

About the end, yes, I think Arthur and Mordred have the most responsabilities, with some for Lancelot. But well, it depends on the version you are reading 😀 (a strange part of me is fan of Monmouth's Guinevere/Mordred betraying Arthur).

Camelot is a silly place

Lancelot was made up by a French man and you know how they felt about the English back then. "Le Roast Beef!" So of course they HAD to dip their hands into Arthurian Legend and make up Lancelot to spice up the legends! Since the French were known for their lusty love. P=

My husband is British and he told me about the Le Roast Beef, what the French called the English because of how English food is all meat, potatos, meat, gravy, pasty (meat filled pastry) . XD I was so amused and he also told me about Lancelot and other stuff.

My eldest son is named Arrawyn (butchered from Arawn - Four Branches of the Mabinogi)
My youngest is named Taliesin - the bard/magician - Who supposedly worked in King Arthur's court or whatever.

Does this make me a cool mom? O=

Owner of Antisense Scanslation.

It makes you a 100% cool mum! Arawn is my favourite Welsh figure after Efnisien <3

Yes, Lancelot story is quite strange, but when Chretien de Troyes introduced him I think he didn't feel like Arthur was something English, more like Arthur was something in his culture and folklore because it is a traditional figura in France, Uk, Wales, Scotland and even Italy.
The only thing I am sad about of Lancelot is how in modern retellings many authors needs to have an out out between him and Bedivere as if Bedivere is this ancient form for Lancelot. Which he isn't.

Camelot is a silly place

Lancelot wasn't nessisarily made up by a Frenchman. A Frenchman was just the first to use the name Lancelot in the list of Arthurian knights. There is a possibility Lancelot was an independant legend before that date though there are a lot of conflictling theories. There are two works credited with truly beginning the tales of his exploits as an Arthurian knight. They are both written in French, but one author is unknown and the other was British (French was the language of British nobility at one time in British history which is why certain Eghish works are in French).

As for the Bedivere/Lancelot thing, I don't think two are actually being confused, more like Lancelot's role is being dropped onto Bedivere do to his early significance in Arthurian legend. Bedivere as the queen's lover is likely a product (victim?) of the notion of the historical Arthur. Lancelot being integrated later means people trying to be "historically accurate" sometimes purposefully leave him out. However, the notion of Camalot the utopia downed by the affairs of it's king and queen is too ingrained into the pop culture myth (and too scantilous a topic to leave out it seems). Who then to fill the role? Bedievere and Kay are the ones in some early works that hold the position in the lists of knights Lancelot would later hold. Kay's role is too well set in stone of the modern legend so maybe that's how Bedivere got the role. Bedivere is accounded as one of the knights to outlive Arthur. He has many heroic deeds chronicled. The only major role modern legend seems to give him is he cast Excalibur into the lake marking the symbolic end to Camalot. (If you haven't guessed I have a bit of an issue with "purest" and "historical" Arthur storylines, as they often pick and choose what's pure or historical then backpeddal by integrating later myth elements anyway).

As for my favorite character, it might be Owain. I kind of like the fact he is one of the few Arthurian characters that fairly consistently accepted to be based on a specific historical person.

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -Einstein

Quote from booknik

Lancelot wasn't nessisarily made up by a Frenchman. A Frenchman was just the first to use the name Lancelot in the list of Arthurian knights. There is a possibility Lancelot was an independant legend before that date though there are a lot of conflictling theories. There are two works credited wit ...

Well, we can only work with what we have and I have still to read a good theory about a previous character in arthuriana named Lancelot then re used by Chretien de Troyes but I don't know much of other legends added to arthuriana, so that may be (like for Iseult and Tristan, but I am not a fan of Tristan and Iseult).

I fear there is instead quite a confusion between Lancelot and Bedivere. I did an interview to Wise Wayne, who wrote a novel about Bedivere giving him a subtly love feelings for Guinevere, and I asked him the reason for this decision and he told me that it was because he had read in a text that Bedivere was the ancient Lancelot, he then realized his mistake when he actually couldn't find the reason for it and I suppose he picked up, like many people, from the general common knowledge of arthuriana.
I am quite sensitive about this topic because I am a great Kay&Bedivere fan (Kay/Bedivere even) and I miss the fact that in modern novels I can't seem to find one story about them or where they interact. Even in those few novels centered around Kay or only around Bedivere they seem to interact with completely different characters. Which makes me a sad fangirl. I am also quite a fan of Culhwch and Olwen, yes, and I think only Gerald Morris narrated it in one of his novels of the Squire's Tales.

Personally I am more on the legends 😀 I am only vaguely interested in historical Arthur and I am more interested in how the tales added to one another and modified and how it happened that one character got a certain role (like... Morgana as Mordred's mother? why? how?) or a certain personality (angry!Kay in Chretien de Troyes, for example, I'll never understand it).
But I quite like Owain, mostly because I like Ywain's story by Chretien de Troyes. Lunete is one of my favourite arthurian ladies.

Camelot is a silly place

(Sorry I'm not quoting too difficult from my tablet)
What Wise Wayne stated seems to fit a little bit what I was thinking. Bedivere seems to have held the position that Lancelot would later hold as the first knight. If some people learn that fact out of context, they may overlay the role of the Queen's lover (as well as A bit of Lancelot's personality) onto him. I've held for years the belief that Lancelot and Llwch were connected (shrugs maybe they are maybe they aren't). Ah I guess one of my comments was off earlier (looked up something). Chretein did later have a work that featured Lancelot. I don't think there is really anything wrong with creating a storyline with Bedivere/Guinevere pairing. Just as you say it's bothersome that Bedivere still seems lost to modern thought in some way. My thoughts keep coming back to my dislike of the current historical Arthur trend. The stories and elements that are accepted as Arthurian legend are in many cases later additions. You can set Arthur into a historically accurate scenario. You can eliminate the characters well accepted to be later additions. However, there is going to be a need to integrate some of the later myths in pop culture works so that the general public will actually accept the work as Arthurian. Historical Arthur works are rarely if ever " pure" and they can't be. I will enjoy a well written one maybe, but they are no more pure or based on the real Arthur then say Mallory or Geoffrey.

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -Einstein

Quote from booknik

(Sorry I'm not quoting too difficult from my tablet)
What Wise Wayne stated seems to fit a little bit what I was thinking. Bedivere seems to have held the position that Lancelot would later hold as the first knight. If some people learn that fact out of context, they may overlay the role of the Que ...

I think I've read a book about Lancelot and Llwch... but I am not sure, maybe it was Lancelot and Lleu, I don't rememer. It was a very short book trying to show how Arthur's various sons have ended in modern literature.

I agree about historical Arthur. It seems more like a 'historic-azation' of Malory and other later books than a really historical Arthur. I don't mind at all anachronistic knight armors and pseudo fantasy setting.
I think I have read some good historical good novel ("Here Lies Arthur", "The Winter Prince", "The Pendragon" and Rosemary Sutcliff's one but I don't remember the title) but the reason I liked them is that they were always more focused on the characters than on the desperate need to put the story in an historical setting with no pretense of purity. Omg, I think that's why King Arthur movie was such a disaster. I mean, I don't mind watching it and among the sea of terrible arthurian movies it is even enjoyable.

Camelot is a silly place

Pulling this conversation back to the original topic (kind of 😀 )
I ran into an unscanlated manga called Kakusansei Million Arthur - Gunjou no Shugosha . Then that led me to something interesting [url]http://ma.cherrycredits.com[/url]
I still am not having any luck with finding the manga recommendations the original poster wanted. Instead a stumble upon a game with Arthur, a scenario written by KAMACHI Kazuma, and an official English release.

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -Einstein