Lancelot

Comments

1. Tim L says

   February 26, 2017 at 3:19 pm

   Thanks for the reviews. I’m reading the book now… I like it. It’s a bit easier for me to understand than “Love in the Ruins”, which I struggled with quite a bit. Clarity-wise it’s more like “The Last Gentleman” for me.

   Still though, Percy’s narrative abstractions can get a bit too deep for me to plumb.

   Reply
2. Tim L says

   February 26, 2017 at 3:21 pm

   Hey, the first review still has an active link, but Rufus, your link is dead. Would you be able to post the review you penned? Thanks

   Reply
   • Broderick Barker says

     February 27, 2017 at 11:14 am

     I think he’s referring to this:
     http://korrektivpress.com/1990/12/the-needles-eye-walker-percys-conception-of-language-limitation-and-sacrament/

     Reply
     • Rufus McCain says

       February 27, 2017 at 1:24 pm

       Thanks.

       Reply
     • Rufus McCain says

       February 27, 2017 at 1:52 pm

       I fixed the link in the original post, too.

       Reply
3. Tim L says

   February 27, 2017 at 2:38 pm

   Thanks for the help, guys.
   I’m alittle over half way done with it. And, it’s alittle confusing for me.
   I feel that Molly’s review is a bit too surface. Which is kind of understandable. If I just read the words I would come away with a similar view: a bit disgusted with Lancelot.

   Her comments on the “Unholy Grail” leads me to think there was some confusion on her part. To say this Lancelot is no Knight of the Round Table seems pretty inline with what Walker is trying to say. I mean, one searching for an Unholy Grail wouldn’t be similar in virtue as the other Lancelot.

   Lancelot Lamar seems hung up on people acting to him. He asked his friend/priest/psychiatrist a few times “are you acting now?” or “were you acting then?”.
   Is that what’s motivating him to want this 3rd Revolution to bring about the new order? To get rid of the actors (movie and real life actors) with their fake faces and their confusing motives? To be replaced by simple and real people? Lancelot a few times, when thinking about starting a new life with the girl in the other room, how simple things would be. Simple in the sense that when you ask someone “are you cold?” you mean “are you cold”.

   I think at one point Lancelot thought having sex/love-making was the most sincere expression where you actually knew what the other person wanted. But, then he’s confront with the situation where while having sex with Margot he notices that she’s not reaching for the bed frame in ecstasy but reaching to see the quality of the carving work done on it.

   Thanks for any time you have in responding.

   Reply
4. Tim L says

   February 28, 2017 at 11:07 am

   From your article:
   “It is a world of not much account, more paltry than sinful (a point Sutter explicates at some length in his “casebook” in The Last Gentleman), more to be pitied for its mediocrity than con­demned for its evil, more befogged by noxious particles and psychic fallout than delineated by clear sign-posts of truth and action, good and evil.”

   It reminds me of the Kierkegaard quote:
   “Let others complain that our age is wicked; my complaint is that it is wretched, for it lacks passion. Men’s thoughts are thin and flimsy like lace; they are themselves are pitiable like lace makers. The thoughts of their hearts are too paltry to be sinful. For a worm it might be regarded as a sin to harbor such thoughts, but not for a being made in the image of God. Even their lusts are dull and sluggish, their passions sleepy.
   They do their duty, these shop-keeping souls, but they clip the coin a trifle. … They think that even if the Lord keeps a careful set of books, they may still cheat Him a little. Out upon them!
   This is the reason my soul always turns back to the Old Testament and Shakespeare. Those who speak there are at least human beings: they hate; they love; they murder their enemies, and curse their descendants throughout all generations; they sin.”

   Reply