!Re: [LMB] king arthur OT:

[Paula Lieberman]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mervi Hamalainen" <Mervi.Hamalainen at uta.fi>


>> From: Elizabeth Holden <azurite at rogers.com>
>
>> No, I think Arthur was and is a fictional symbol of
>> kingship, whose qualities reflect the centuries and
>> countries in which his stories were told - anything
>> from the 9th century to the 21st. (And growing every
>> day.)
>>
>> I don't need or want him to be historical, either. He
>> has more power as an archetype.
>
> Exactly! I've tried so hard to explain that to people who just say  that 
> he must have been a historical person. Apparently they think that  nothing 
> fictional would have lasted this long and so he *must* have  been real. If 
> they start to talk about "the real Grail" I try to flee.

What, you don't grab a Norma Lee Goodrich marketed-as-nonrfiction book about 
Arthur or Merlin and beat them over the head with it chanting, "this is 
utter bilge!"??  Or dig out a copy of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, hold it out at 
arm's length, and cackle madly?!