- This topic has 29 voices and 84 replies.
-
Posts
-
The book, The Once and Future King, shows violent actions and peaceful ones, although it tends to emphasize on the actions of non-violence. In full understanding, the book does resemble the quote mostly by the emphasized parts. Lancelot, one of the good and bad characters, has a realization that violence is not always the answer to problems, “Lancelot put up his sword and went back from the knight, as if he were going back from his own soul. He felt his heart cruelty and cowardice, the things which made him brave and kind” (White 279). Killing this man would have done nothing but leave a widow mourning; the knight may have been cruel, but killing him would have created more problems instead of solving anything. The man had learned a lesson, sparing him was the correct option to do in this situation. Lancelot takes a merciful solution again later in the book, “It is the second time he has spared me, the second time in a month.’ ‘Lancelot was always strong. The years don’t seem to touch Mm” (White 481). Gawaine had been fighting the French with Arthur and astoundingly, Lancelot has not killed the man. He shows violence will not make him a better person again; the story can develop without the need of violence. Would the story go along well if everyone was violent, wanting death on their hands?
@natc17
What you said is true and great point. Arthur saw Kay as a role model, which is why he hungered to always fight. Violence does not solve problems well if you were to compare it to a compromise; it is a simple fact that destruction only leads to more destruction, but Arthur takes awhile to understand this.@matt21miller
The story would change completely if Arthur was not King; everything would be re-written differently. Also the kingdom of England would have been ruled by the family line of Uther Pendragon because Arthur\’s half-sisters cannot inherit the kingdom. However, these sisters, who were powerful witches, could have easily overthrown the kingdom if there was no Round table and no Arthur ruling over them. In the End , the story would not be the same without King Arthur.I think that this quote demonstrates Arthur\’s belief of practicing might for right. I would justify this statement as a true statement because even though you might have the potential and ability doesn\’t make it fitting to automatically use force. Like Merlyn said, \”The destiny of Man is to unite , not to divide. If you keep on dividing you end up as a collection of monkeys throwing nuts at each other out of separate trees\” (White 231). Merlyn believes in creating peace and bringing man together in agreement. Even though Arthur wanted to use might for the right reasons,how do you think the kingdom would respond if Arthur had Merlyn\’s view on war?
@natc17 I don\’t think that there could ever be a real solution to violence. No matter how hard we try, agreement amongst everyone isn\’t going to happen. Do you think that there could ever be a suggestion that everyone agrees on about violence?
@dominikvalera That is an excellent question. If everyone wanted violence, then everyone would dead, there would be no story. I think the balance of the different views on war are needed, or else if everyone agreed on violence everything and everyone would be destroyed. What if everyone was against war, how do you think the story would turn out?
This quote exemplifies White’s novel because there are several characters who would rather shoot at animals than at people. However, there are others who are indifferent and do not care if they kill people. However, there are more individuals who are fairly casual about ending human lives. One of these being Arthur himself. He has a very laid-back view of war and of death. He does not show a lot of care when it comes to lives lost on the battle-field, as long as his side wins the battle. Another character like this is Lancelot. On his many quests, he kills several people, rarely showing any mercy. One example of this is when he finds a woman running from her husband who is accusing her of adultery. This man, even after being reprimanded by Lancelot, beheads his own wife. In turn, even after the man begs for mercy, Lance still kills him. Another instance is with Sir Meliagrance. He challenged Lancelot to a duel because of Lance’s affair. During this duel, Lance murdered him, practically cutting his head in half. He struck Meliagrance so hard that Lancelot’s sword cut clean through his helm. A character that opposes killing is Merlyn. When Arthur speaks of how much he loves fighting and battles, Merlyn berates him, telling him how wrong his ideals are. Merlyn states, “Look at the barns burnt, and dead men’s legs sticking out of ponds, and horses with swelled bellies by the roadside, and mills falling down, and money buried, and nobody daring to walk abroad with gold or ornaments on their clothes. That is chivalry nowadays. That is the Uther Pendragon touch. And then you talk about a battle being fun!” (White 225). In this quote, Merlyn describes the gruesomeness of battles that a “man of chivalry” never sees. He also practically compares him to his father, Uther, who was a terrible ruler and caused much damage. How would the novel be different if everyone had a “shoot rabbits” mentality? What about if they all had a “shoot peope” mentality?
@emilylarsen
Your question is definitely one that has crossed my mind before. If there were more people with the “shooting rabbits” mindset, there would be a huge change in the world around us. There would be a decrease in war, and in violence globally. All around, our world would be a much better place if it lacked the violence of human nature.@laurensayre
I think the story would have changed a fair amount if Arthur had the same ideals as an adult. If he had the “shoot rabbits” kind of mentality, it is highly likely he would not have taken part in many battles and fights. It is also likely that the Round Table would not have been founded, as its soul principle is using Might to do right. If Arthur was not okay with killing people, he would not want to use might against anyone, for any reason.might for right would best describe this quote. How its strength and Justice and although man against man may seem mighty or strong it may not be the just thing to do. Arthur sees justice as more pleasing then strength and that is why he would rather shoot the rabbit. but later on as he grows up strength has a different appealing then before and he becomes conflicted. If he grew up wanting strength would he have tried to kill the same people? If it was the same people would it matter as much to him?
@jalyinestebo I think it would be even more boring then complete violence because literally nothing would happen.
@lexiparks if there was just shooting people then it might have action but not a story. Same for just rabbits, i don\’t think there would be any storyline. its good to have both to contradict each other
The quote does exemplify because there are those characters who would shoot rabbits than people then there are those who would shoot people than rabbit. Agravaine, Mordred, and the enemies of Arthur would kill people than kill rabbits. Agravaine was in hatred when his mother was sleeping with another man that he killed her. Also Agravaine hated Lancelot. Gareth tells Lancelot,\\\”It is Agravaine and Mordred. They hate you. Or Agravaine is jealous\”\\ (White 561). It is true that Agravaine did not like Lancelot in the Candle In The Wind. In the Ill-Made Knight, Lancelot encountered a knight who used his wife to get him out of his armor. The man said,\\\”It was a trick. Ha!Ha! Now I have you without any of your famous armour on, and now I am going to kill you, like drowning a kitten\”\\ (White 358). This man was sent on killing Lancelot that he had his own wife trick Lancelot into rescuing a bird. The quote sums up \”The Once and Future King\” because there are those characters who\’s sights are evil intentions that they end up killing innocent people. This statement is a true statement. The ones who would shoot a rabbit are Arthur, Lancelot, Gareth, and some of the Knights of The Round Table. Another example of characters wanting to kill people was the second book, \”The Queen of Air and Darkness\”. The Orkney brothers were hateful that the would have ended up killing King Arthur if they had the chance, but in the end they became Knights of The Round Table. Do you think that King Arthur would have ended up \”shooting people\” if he was raised with his father, the previous King Uther Pendragon?
@ lexiparks, I agree with you that Arthur does have a calm personality when it comes to death, but when it is someone who he cares about,for example Gareth and Gaheris, he was upset that they were killed by Lancelot. Also it is true that Lancelot has killed people with them even begging for mercy, but in his mind he thinks he is doing it for justice even when that man beheaded his wife without knowing all the facts.I still agree with your point and it is a good point.
@ lizlar, your quotes were great quotes and that was a good point that you have made. Arthur did say he liked fighting when he was still a naive teenager and when he was still getting used to being the king of England. Although Arthur is now wise and tries to prevent many wars, Lancelot still kills people. He\’s killed numerous people on his quests even when they ask for mercy. Also you were right about Merlyn he doesn\’t like fighting. He would rather shoot animals than shoot a person. Your point was really good.
This quote would do a fantastic job of examplifying the novel. Throughout the series of books, war and violence and death become much more prevalent. In the beginning, when Arthur was young the most that would happen was that a boar or a dog would die. Later, in The \”Queen of Air and Darkness\” we see a cat boiling alive and a very bloody mutilation of a peaceful unicorn along with deaths and casualties on battlefields. In the third book, \”The Ill-Made Knight\” innocent people are killed often and the perpetrators of said murders suffered similar consequences. Many people died on quests and were killed by their fellow knights. Finally, in \”The Candle in the Wind\” more innocent people were killed, sometimes against the perpetrators\’ will. There was even an incident where more than 20 people were murdered at one location and at the same time. This kind of violence was what Arthur was sworn to be rid of. Ironically, however, some of this violence had come as a result of his procedures of trying to prevent it. He had already known this, but he knew that it was a necessary stepping stone in the path of universal peace. He just needed to figure out a way to finally get over it with the help of Merlyn\’s teachings. How would the kingdom\’s morality be if Merlyn wasn\’t there to teach the young Wart everything he had about society, war, and the overall human nature?
This quote from The Goshawk perfectly describes The Once and Future King. Once and Future King has many instances of people who are quick to start a fight. This is one of the main problems King Arthur faces during his reign as king. Mordred would be a great example of someone who is quick to start a war. He wanted to start a revolt against King Arthur, which was understandable because of his situation with his birth, \”I wanted to destroy Mordred for his own sake, and I didn\’t know where he would be born\” (White 548). Mordred hated Arthur for what he tried to do to him, and he wanted revenge in any way possible. All he would have had to do was talk to Arthur and get Arthur to ask Mordred to forgive him instead of wanting to cause trouble for him. It would not have been easy, but it could have been done to prevent any wars from happening. One could say the same thing for many of the characters in Once and Future King that could have solved things without violence. Another example of someone being quick to fight were the Orkney brothers. When Lancelot had killed Gawaine\’s other three brothers, Gawaine still came back to fight Lancelot a couple of times before he forgave him, \”Gawaine begged him to kill him. He was more furious than ever and called out: \’Why do you stop? Come on then: Kill me and finish your butchering. I will not yield. Kill me at once for I shall only fight you again if you spare my life\’\” (White 607). Gawaine knew Lancelot would beat him, so why did he fight anyway? He should have forgiven him like he knew he was going to do later on. What do you think, could Mordred and Gawaine solved their problems without fighting or not?
@jaylinestebo
To answer your question, Arthur should have used Merlyn\’s ideas because might is almost impossible to control. One can only direct might to different areas, and finding more and more areas to direct might could result poorly. King Arthur had this problem when his Round Table idea worked too well and there was not enough evil in Camelot to occupy all of his knights. Merlyn was right all along.@Caitlin Estabrook
I agree with you. Although there was a lot of violence throughout the book, little of it was sought upon by most of the characters. It was something they also had to live with. I honestly do not know how Arthur would have been growing up next to Uther Pendragon. If Uther had taken Arthur under his wing, it would have probably also meant him taking responsibility for what he has done. This could have given him a great change of character, and he could have been a much better person. So, I don\’t think Arthur would have been shooting people if King Uther Pendragon had decided to take responsibility for the sins he had commited!@matt12miller
This is a very good question. I believe if Arthur had not come up with the Round Table concept, he never would have gained control of the evil in Camelot. The knights would still be using their might to do whatever they wanted. Nothing would have changed from Uther Pendragon\’s reign to Arthur\’s. It was a great temporary solution to the Might vs. Right question, and it would have been chaotic without it.
- The topic ‘Forum #4: Violence? Yes or No’ is closed to new replies.