October 9, 2017Cover Reveals, The Once and Future Queen

Cover Reveal: The Once and Future Queen

Nicole EvelinaArthurian legend, arthurian legend characters, Celtic History, guinevere, history, literature, non-fiction, The Once and Future Queen 6 Comments

The Once and Future Queen will be out in November (exact date TBD). I’m thrilled to share the cover and back page copy with you! Depending on when I know the publication date, I may or may not do pre-orders. I’ll let you know at that time.

I hope you are as excited for this book as I am!

Guinevere’s journey from literary sinner to feminist icon
took over one thousand years…and it’s not over yet.

Literature tells us painfully little about Guinevere, mostly focusing on her sin and betrayal of Arthur and Camelot. As a result, she is often seen as a one-dimensional character. But there is more to her story. By examining popular works of more than 20 authors over the last one thousand years, The Once and Future Queen shows how Guinevere reflects attitudes toward women during the time in which her story was written, changing to suit the expectations of her audience. Beginning in Celtic times and continuing through the present day, this book synthesizes academic criticism and popular opinion into a highly readable, approachable work that fills a gap in Arthurian material available to the general public.

Nicole Evelina has spent more than 15 years studying Arthurian legend. She is also a feminist known for her fictional portrayals of strong historical and legendary women, including Guinevere. Now, she combines these two passions to examine the effect of changing times and attitudes on the character of Guinevere in a must-read book for Arthurian enthusiasts of every knowledge level.

March 25, 2013Books

Falling in Love with Literature

Nicole Evelinabooks, essay, literary theory, literature, New York Times Book Review, reading, writing 2 Comments

reading Love or tradition? That is the question.

This week’s New York Time’s Book Review essay, “From the Heart” by Dean Bakopoulos, gives his opinion on the best way to teach literature while instilling a love of books. Is it through traditional theory or through reader reaction? In short, the author argues that people – not just English majors – connect more to a book if they form a relationship with it. He believes that asking basic questions about what makes your spine tingle in a work and what lines you wish you’d written are a better way to learn the arts of reading and writing than classical deconstruction. I’m not a teacher, but I have to say, I agree.

As a book lover and English major, I wish more attention had been paid to how a book made me feel when I was in school. I would have learned more about the craft of writing from analyzing questions like, “Why did this passage move me?” or “What makes me hate this character?” – all things I’m learning to do now as I read as a writer – than, “What form of literary theory was used here?” or “What do you think the author meant by this?” (How the heck do I know? I’m not in their head!) Perhaps these traditional teaching methods informed me in a ways I fail to recognize – after all, I never thought I’d find value in the dreaded History of the English Language class, and I use it all the time – but I think there are more accessible ways of learning about literature.

Thinking back on college, I remember very few of the books I was required to read, mostly because I’m not a big fan of the classics and that’s what we focused on. But those I do remember, I recall because they moved me – not because I was able to elucidate a hidden literary theory or expound upon their narrative form. I remember the independence I admired in Moll Flanders, the heart-rending pain of Tess of the d’urbervilles, and the laugh-out-loud hilarity of the Importance of Being Earnest (or anything else by Oscar Wilde).

Today, when I reach for a new book, I don’t often ask myself what the critics thought (although sometimes I do ask myself that upon finishing a book!) or what school of literary thought the book comes from. But I can tell you what I tend to go for in a plot and why I like a certain author’s writing. In the end it comes down to one thing: I connect with the book. If I don’t, I usually don’t finish it.

The books that truly move me are the ones I could easily teach a course on, but it wouldn’t be Ivy League accepted curriculum; it would be why I and the students like/hate the characters, how the author builds a world we want to inhabit more than this one, and what it is that tugs at our souls when we read it. These are the things that make people avid readers and what give them the urge to try to create something themselves. This is how we make sure literature, whether classical or popular, doesn’t die out, and how we inspire generations of future writers to make that same connection with readers.

What do you think? Is there value in traditional methods of teaching literature? Or would you rather focus on the emotional connection with the reader? Why or why not? What moves you as a reader? English majors: what was your experience in school? Teachers: how would/do you teach?

March 22, 2012Arthurian Legend

Literary Sources of Arthurian Legend (Part 2)

Nicole EvelinaArthurian legend, Chertien de Troyes, Idylls of the King, Lady of Shallot, Layamon, Le Mort d'Arthur, literary sources, literature, Lord Alfred Tennyson, Thomas Malory, Vulgate cycle 3 Comments

When last we met, Geoffrey of Monmouth had set many of our traditional ideas about King Arthur and his court in place, and Wace introduced us to the Round Table. But there were still plenty of changes in store to the legends. Without further ado, here’s a look at some of the later medieval sources that shaped Arthurian legend.

Chertien de Troyes – Ah, yes, where would the great romance of Arthurian legend be without the French? Chertien was a 12th century poet who gave the legends a softer side that would have the ladies swooning for centuries by adding in the love affair between Guinevere and Lancelot. He also gave us the Grail Quest (what would Monty Python do without him?) and the stories of many of the knights’ adventures.

Layamon – His Brut, based on the similarly named work by Wace (remember him from last week?), introduced the Lady of the Lake, who was an elf named Argante.

The Vulgate Cycle – This 13th century collection was written down by Cistercian monks. Given that, its likely not a surprise that it was in this cycle when Morgan falls from grace, going from the benevolent healer/priestess of earlier legend to Arthur’s evil, incestuous sister. These monks also gave us Lancelot’s life story and adventures, details of the Grail Quest, the characters of Nimue and/or Viviane (they are sometimes interchangeable, sometimes different people, depending on the author), and the theme of the maimed Fisher King and the Wasteland that must be restored.

Thomas Malory – Come on, admit it – you’ve been waiting for me to cover him. Thanks to his 1470 work Le Morte D’Arthur (The Death of Arthur), we have a popular notion of King Arthur as the greatest Christian King to ever rule England. (How many of you had to read Le Mort in school? Raise your hand. Mine is raised.) Malory firmly cemented Arthur in the Middle Ages, which is one reason why a lot of people have a hard time thinking of him as a historical Celt. He is also responsible for popularizing Guinevere’s kidnapping by Maleagant, making Morgan a shape-shifter and….drumroll, please…giving us the hope that Arthur may come again when Britain most needs him. The musical Camelot, and frankly the rest of us who dabble in the legends, owe him and his forebears a lot.

With Malory’s seminal work, the legends as we know them today were pretty much in place. Interest in them waned after the 1500s until Lord Alfred Tennyson wrote his famous Idylls of the King and The Lady of Shallot (among others) in the mid-1800s. These words rekindled an interest in Arthur and his court that lasts even to this day.

So, having been through the historical and literary sources behind the legend, tell me your reaction. What have you learned? Personally, I find it fascinating to watch the legends evolve. Which parts do you like the best? Where do you think they’re going in the future?

March 15, 2012Arthurian Legend

Literary Sources of Arthurian Legend (Part 1)

Nicole EvelinaGeoffrey of Monmouth, King Arthur, literary sources, literature, Mabinogion, round table, The black book of Carmarthen, wace, Y Gododdin 15 Comments

Welcome back to our exciting adventure through the evolution of Arthurian legends. I see you’re a brave soul, since I didn’t scare you away with the historical sources. Now we move on to the literary sources. Even though this isn’t a complete list, it is the top 10 sources, so it’s going to take us two weeks to tackle them all. Fasten your seat belts, because here we go.

Y Gododdin – This bardic poem, written down in the ninth or tenth century, chronicles a battle around the year 600 between a group of Pictish warriors from the Gododdin (hence, the name) and the Angles. It contains one of the first known mentions of Arthur in literature in this line: “He brought down black crows to feed before the walls of the city, though he was no Arthur.” So the warrior hero of this poem was praised for being a great military man, but still he couldn’t live up to Arthur.

The Black Book of Carmarthen – The Black Book (so named for its binding) is a collection of poetry complied in the mid 13th century. It refers to Arthur, Myrdinn (Merlin) and many of the knights we know and love, calling Kay, Bedivere and Lancelot by early translations of their names.

The Mabinogion – This famous collection of Welsh myth and legend was written down in the thirteenth or fourteenth century, but comes from a much older, likely oral, tradition. It includes five stories set in or around Arthur’s court: Culhwch and Olwen, The Dream of Rhonabwy, Geraint Mab Erbin, Peredur son of Evrawc, and Owein. These stories are complex and much has been written about them, so if you want to know more, I suggest you read them, ask my friend Tyler Tichelaar, or Google the stories and commentaries on them. I don’t know them well enough to do them justice.

Geoffrey of Monmouth – Or as I like to call him “the grand-daddy of Arthurian legend.” Geoffrey’s works History of the Kings of Britain and Life of Merlin (written around 1136) are responsible for most of what we automatically think of when we think of King Arthur and his court. He claimed his History was translated from a source no one else ever saw, so it is considered a “pseudo history.” Geoffrey’s contributions to the legends include:

Tintagel as Arthur’s birthplace, as well as the story of Arthur’s conception by way of Merlin’s magical disguise of Uther into Goloris, Igraine’s husband
The name Caliburnus for Arthur’s sword (it started out as the Welsh Caledfwlch and went on to become Excalibur when the French translated it)
The introduction of Morgan as a healer, her nine sisters of Avalon, and details about Avalon
The story of Merlin and Vortigern with the tower and the red and white dragons
Merlin being responsible for relocating Stonehenge from Ireland to Salisbury Plain
Merlin as advisor to Arthur, including his warning to Arthur about Guinevere’s betrayal
The hunting of the white hart
The concept of Arthur’s band of knights
Descriptions of medieval courts (feasting, ladies, hunts) that we associate with the legends, but are actually from times later in history than the historical Arthur would have lived

Wace – Wace was an Anglo-Norman poet whose Roman de Brut was based on Geoffrey’s History of the Kings of Britain. He brought us the concept of the literal Round Table and it’s ideology of all men being equal around it, as well as idea of Arthur’s Knights of the Round being from all across Europe. (I can’t help but picture an early medieval United Nations.)