Oxford and Robin Hood
Oct. 4th, 2006 09:23 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ladyofastolat(...which, boringly, are two unrelated topics.)
Day off today, since I'm working on Saturday and Sunday, and, for some strange reason, didn't fancy working 12 days without a break. I can't really afford today off, since I have a tonne of things to get ready for the weekend, but, hey... Why on earth does Family Learning Week, Children's Book Week, Bookstart Day, and Family-friendly libraries day all happen in the same week?
Anyway...
Yesterday was a bit of an Oxfordy day. A conversation at work made me realise that I've not actually gone to Oxford for 3 or 4 years. We really must spend a day or two there soon. I also realised that, in all the five years I spent there, I never went to any Oxford museum, except for the Ashmolean. This is very shocking. I must go to the Pitt-Rivers museum, even if nothing else.
Then, after dinner, I stumbled on a TV programme about Oxford architecture, presented by the most annoying sneery man imaginable. Although he was talking about buildings, he made a point of detouring into the Eagle and Child just so he could sneer about Tolkien and CS Lewis. It was "ghastly", he said, to imagine Tolkien and Lewis talking about the drivel that was their books, and enough to put one of your pint. He also sneered at lots of Colleges on the grounds that frivolous people like Hugh Grant went to them. He even sneered mightily at half the buildings. He derided the Sheldonian, despite the valiant attempt of Allan Chapman (our senior member in History Alive) to be enthusiastic and positive about it. Nasty man. I hate this habit the media has of sneering at anything and everything.
Then, in the evening, I got a phone call from Merton. I vaguely remember them writing to me a few weeks ago to warn me that I was going to get a phone call from a bright and keen young student. Of course, the phone call was just to get money. I've been donating to Merton by direct debit for three years, and it needed renewing, so they were just trying to ensure that I carried on. But she started by interrogating me about my career, about what I did in Oxford - what activities I did, how I socialised. "Outside Merton, mostly," I told her, so she interrogated me about what societies I was in, and so on. It made me feel quite uncomfortable, and a bit patronised. I expect she had a script - "remember to pretend to be interested in their lives before asking them for money." I didn't like it.
I'm very much in two minds about the new Robin Hood. Part of me is looking forward to it very much. This is the part of me that looks at pictures of Guy of Gisbourne, and others, and turns into a shallow, swoony girlie. But the other part of me looks at the ridiculous costumes, knitted armour and stupid weapons, and wants to run a mile. It's worse than the worst of the 1950s swashbucklers. It's clear from the pictures that they've not remotely tried to be historically accurate. The costumes are modern casual with a faintly fantasy-medieval theme.
But, then, Robin Hood isn't history, but folk tale. Folk tales, like folk songs, exist to be interpreted differently by each teller. When Chretien de Troyes did his Arthurian stories, no-one wrote angry letters into the Troubadour Times about the historical accuracy. Older stories were automatically updated and cast in the clothes of the day, reflecting the values of the day. So an entirely modern Robin Hood would be entirely in keeping with the folk tradition.
But, yet, this Robin Hood version is set at a clear time in history. Richard I is away on Crusade. Robin Hood (according to the Radio Times) has just returned from Crusades. So they're taking it out of the realm of folk tale and into history. I think this means that requires them to take more effort at historical accuracy than if they were setting it in a vague medieval never-never land of folklore.
But, then, I love "A Knight's Tale", and that takes huge liberties with history, too...
*is torn*
Ah well. Maybe I should wait until it's been shown before agonising over whether to like it or not.
And, talking TV, when is Torchwood starting?
Day off today, since I'm working on Saturday and Sunday, and, for some strange reason, didn't fancy working 12 days without a break. I can't really afford today off, since I have a tonne of things to get ready for the weekend, but, hey... Why on earth does Family Learning Week, Children's Book Week, Bookstart Day, and Family-friendly libraries day all happen in the same week?
Anyway...
Yesterday was a bit of an Oxfordy day. A conversation at work made me realise that I've not actually gone to Oxford for 3 or 4 years. We really must spend a day or two there soon. I also realised that, in all the five years I spent there, I never went to any Oxford museum, except for the Ashmolean. This is very shocking. I must go to the Pitt-Rivers museum, even if nothing else.
Then, after dinner, I stumbled on a TV programme about Oxford architecture, presented by the most annoying sneery man imaginable. Although he was talking about buildings, he made a point of detouring into the Eagle and Child just so he could sneer about Tolkien and CS Lewis. It was "ghastly", he said, to imagine Tolkien and Lewis talking about the drivel that was their books, and enough to put one of your pint. He also sneered at lots of Colleges on the grounds that frivolous people like Hugh Grant went to them. He even sneered mightily at half the buildings. He derided the Sheldonian, despite the valiant attempt of Allan Chapman (our senior member in History Alive) to be enthusiastic and positive about it. Nasty man. I hate this habit the media has of sneering at anything and everything.
Then, in the evening, I got a phone call from Merton. I vaguely remember them writing to me a few weeks ago to warn me that I was going to get a phone call from a bright and keen young student. Of course, the phone call was just to get money. I've been donating to Merton by direct debit for three years, and it needed renewing, so they were just trying to ensure that I carried on. But she started by interrogating me about my career, about what I did in Oxford - what activities I did, how I socialised. "Outside Merton, mostly," I told her, so she interrogated me about what societies I was in, and so on. It made me feel quite uncomfortable, and a bit patronised. I expect she had a script - "remember to pretend to be interested in their lives before asking them for money." I didn't like it.
I'm very much in two minds about the new Robin Hood. Part of me is looking forward to it very much. This is the part of me that looks at pictures of Guy of Gisbourne, and others, and turns into a shallow, swoony girlie. But the other part of me looks at the ridiculous costumes, knitted armour and stupid weapons, and wants to run a mile. It's worse than the worst of the 1950s swashbucklers. It's clear from the pictures that they've not remotely tried to be historically accurate. The costumes are modern casual with a faintly fantasy-medieval theme.
But, then, Robin Hood isn't history, but folk tale. Folk tales, like folk songs, exist to be interpreted differently by each teller. When Chretien de Troyes did his Arthurian stories, no-one wrote angry letters into the Troubadour Times about the historical accuracy. Older stories were automatically updated and cast in the clothes of the day, reflecting the values of the day. So an entirely modern Robin Hood would be entirely in keeping with the folk tradition.
But, yet, this Robin Hood version is set at a clear time in history. Richard I is away on Crusade. Robin Hood (according to the Radio Times) has just returned from Crusades. So they're taking it out of the realm of folk tale and into history. I think this means that requires them to take more effort at historical accuracy than if they were setting it in a vague medieval never-never land of folklore.
But, then, I love "A Knight's Tale", and that takes huge liberties with history, too...
*is torn*
Ah well. Maybe I should wait until it's been shown before agonising over whether to like it or not.
And, talking TV, when is Torchwood starting?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: A Knight's Tale
Date: 2006-10-04 07:57 pm (UTC)If I'm not mistaken, that is broadly when the Arthur stories were "updated". (We do have a copy of Mort d'Arthur, but I can't remember off hand where it is and I'm too idle to look for it.)
A Knight's Tale isn't trying to use Chaucer and the Black Prince as historical characters, they are, as you say, simply "props" in the dressing up that is the film.
Re: A Knight's Tale
Date: 2006-10-04 09:53 pm (UTC)Re: A Knight's Tale
Date: 2006-10-05 07:30 am (UTC)In my defence I did say "broadly"!
Re: A Knight's Tale
Date: 2006-10-05 09:42 am (UTC)Maybe I should worry. Much of the history I learnt as history I've forgotten, but if I learnt it through a historical novel, I've remembered it.