Over the holidays, some folks shared their views on my handling of King Arthur in my Eighth Tower/Dark Fiction fable, Codex: Stories Inspired by Clive Barker's Hellraiser. Some claimed that I degraded the basic notion of a monarch as useless; others charged that I was exalting the importance (if not necessity) of such. In either instance, those who referenced the topic did so in light of recent, political perceptions: Do kings act as a benign or dictatorial force in governing?
Well, for the sake of "The All-Knowing Orb of Camelot," I decided to place my Hellraiser-inspired tale in the wake of Camelot's fall. When the story begins (and throughout its passages), Arthur Pendragon is out of range due to Guinevere and Lancelot's betrayal, and as such, his knights are reduced to roaming tyrants. "When the cat's away, the mice will play," or something thereabout.
To me, it should be obvious that Arthur's presence in Camelot was a virtuous one, and on that basis, I was in no way painting him as malignant or superfluous. His presence was and is essential to Camelot's well being. If Camelot fell, it's because heartbroken Arthur fell.
To a further point, my use of Arthurian attribution wasn't intended as a commentary on current events. I was just mixing and matching mythologies, no more or less.
A work of fiction, like any work of art, can prompt personal perception. I don't object to anyone interpreting my stories in a way that swerves from my intent. It's all okay by me, but even so (with so many questions and opinions hurled at me), I felt compelled to set the record straight.
And so, there it is, my friends. "The All-Knowing Orb of Camelot" isn't meant to be either anti or pro king. It's about an accursed knight (Sir Richard) who sheds his Christian virtue in an irretractable way, and (cross my heart), that's all (and I dare say, should more than suffice).
No comments:
Post a Comment