You Seem Like The Right Person To Ask About Jewish Knights And Judaism In General In Arthurian Legend

9.12.21 (technically. Actually finished it 12.29.22)

I love working on old art and forgetting what brushes I was using lol

Jewish Resources (Assorted)

Since my last post seemed to be helpful to a lot of people, I thought I’d make another to share some additional resources. This list includes a bunch of stuff, meant for Jewish people in general. I would definitely encourage you to explore them! There’s a lot of useful stuff here. Goyim are welcome to reblog, just please be respectful if you’re adding tags or comments. Jewish Multiracial Network, an organization for multiracial Jewish families and Jews of Color Sefaria, a free virtual library of Jewish texts Sephardic Studies Digital Library Museum “The SSDC includes key books, archival documents, and audio recordings that illuminate the history, culture, literature, politics, customs, music, and cuisine of Sephardic Jews all expressed in their own language, Ladino.” (from their website) The SMQN, an organization for LGBTQ+ Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews Keshet, a group for LGBTQ+ Jews JQY, a group for LGBTQ+ Jews with a focus on those in Orthodox communities  Queer Jews of Color Resource List (note: this list is way more than just resources, there’s a LOT there) JQ International: “JQ celebrates the lives of LGBTQ+ Jews and their allies by transforming Jewish communities and ensuring inclusion through community building, educational programs, and support and wellness services, promoting the healthy integration of LGBTQ+ and Jewish identities.” (from their website) Jews of Color Initiative, an organization dedicated to teaching about intersectionality in the Jewish community, focuses on research, philanthropy, field building, and community education Nonbinary Hebrew Project: It’s hard to describe, but they’re working to find/create/add suffixes that represent nonbinary genders in Hebrew. If you speak Hebrew/another gendered language, you might know what I mean about gendered suffixes. Jewish Mysticism Reading List  (These are related to our closed practices, goyim should NOT be practicing these things) Ritualwell (you can find prayers and blessings related to specific things here, I personally like that they have blessings related to gender identity)  Guimel, an LGBTQ+ support group for the Jewish Community in Mexico. The site is in Spanish. I’m not a native speaker, but I was still able to read a little bit of it.  SVARA: “SVARA’s mission is to empower queer and trans people to expand Torah and tradition through the spiritual practice of Talmud study.” (From their website) TransTorah is definitely an older website, but there are still some miscellaneous pdfs and resources up on the “Resources” page. Jewish Disabilities Advocates: “The JFS Jewish Disabilities Advocates program was created to raise awareness and further inclusion of people with disabilities within Jewish organizations and the larger Jewish community.” (from their website) Jewish Food Society (recipes, have not spent a lot of time browsing here but maybe I should in the future) Jewish Blind & Disabled, an organization that operates mainly in providing accessible housing and living. Jewish Braille Institute International: “The JBI Library provides individuals who are blind, visually impaired, physically handicapped or reading disabled with books, magazines and special publications of Jewish and general interest in Audio, Large Print and Braille formats.” (from their website) Their services are free!)

There used to be a real gothic metal band named Tristania and I don’t know whether that was a coincidence or whether they named it after Tristram’s Tristania. I’m not sure whether I prefer the latter—them appreciating medieval literary characters—or the former—it being a splendid coincidence.

The antidote Palomides procures against death by unrequited love cannot fail to appeal to a modern reader, familiar as we all are with the therapeutic powers inherent in ones creative faculties: 'therewythall he leyde hym downe by the welle, and so began to make a ryme of La Beall Isode and of sir Trystram... [S]ir Palomydes [lay] by the welle and sange lowde and myryly (473-4.86).

— Between Knights: Triangular Desire and Sir Palomides in Sir Thomas Malory's "The Book of Sir Tristram de Lyones" by Olga Burakov Mongan

So the therapeutic powers part is a beautiful interpretation, but also all I can think of now is Tristania modern AU, in which they're all in a band with messy interpersonal relationships and writing songs about each other Fleetwood Mac style.

(Dinadan, the only one not tragically in love with someone, writes weird narrative songs and diss tracks about the people he dislikes)

What Agravaine and Dinadan have going on in Book 10 Chapter 25 of Malory is unparalleled— (the world's longest post oh my GOD it didn't look so long while I was writing it)

First off, consider that they are both: known for their witty rudeness, their poeticism and cutting jokes and quick tongues ¹, their perceived unknightly values ², their knowledge of the private business of their fellows (to the point of spying on them in secret) ³, and their conscious use of rumor and reputation to influence how others are seen⁴— only, Agravaine is censured for it, and Dinadan is universally beloved at court, except by Agravaine himself ⁵. The heel-turn that happens in Malory with Agravaine & Mordred being suddenly villains happens in one chapter while they’re interacting with Dinadan specifically. It highlights the extent to which your reputation— how the court perceives you— shapes reality for a knight. A knight is only as good as his reputation. The way people speak of a knight is the only reality about that knight… whether or not it’s true. The series of events here is wild imho. Subtler readings of Malory seem few and far between but listen.

The frame of context here needs to start a couple of chapters before, in Chapter 11— Dinadan is traveling with King Mark (reluctantly).

“Right as they stood thus talking together they saw come riding to them over a plain six knights of the court of King Arthur, well armed at all points. And there by their shields Sir Dinadan knew them well. The first was the good knight Sir Uwaine, the son of King Uriens, the second was the noble knight Sir Brandiles, the third was Ozana le Cure Hardy, the fourth was Uwaine les Aventurous, the fifth was Sir Agravaine, the sixth Sir Mordred, brother to Sir Gawaine. When Sir Dinadan had seen these six knights he thought in himself he would bring King Mark by some wile to joust with one of them.”

He pretends they’re enemies and charges toward them, lance out, so Mark will panic and flee, and then—

“So when Sir Dinadan saw King Mark was gone, he set the spear out of the rest, and threw his shield upon his back, and came, riding to the fellowship of the Table Round. And anon Sir Uwaine knew Sir Dinadan, and welcomed him, and so did all his fellowship.”

Absolutely no beef with Agravaine and Mordred here. In fact, as we roll into Chapter 12:

“Will ye do well? said Sir Dinadan: I have told the Cornish knight that here is Sir Launcelot, and the Cornish knight asked me what shield he bare. Truly, I told him that he bare the same shield that Sir Mordred beareth. Will ye do well? said Sir Mordred; I am hurt and may not well bear my shield nor harness, and therefore put my shield and my harness upon Sir Dagonet, and let him set upon the Cornish knight. That shall be done, said Sir Dagonet, by my faith. Then anon was Dagonet armed him in Mordred’s harness and his shield, and he was set on a great horse, and a spear in his hand. Now, said Dagonet, shew me the knight, and I trow I shall bear him down.”

(Mordred is half-dead for like 70% of Arthuriana, poor kid) So they’re friends! More or less, anyway. At the least, they have overlapping friend groups, and, knowing who his options are, Mordred is specifically the one Dinadan chooses to bring into the prank— he didn’t know Dagonet was around, and though he might have known Mordred was too injured to do it himself, the prank still relied on Mordred’s willingness to give up his arms to someone else for the express purpose of scaring King Mark shitless.

But by Chapter 25, though— their next appearance on the page— Dinadan wants nothing to do with them. This is, again, the wrestling heel turn wherein Agravaine and Mordred get the minor-key leitmotif etc, etc. They’re theoretically portrayed negatively here and hereafter, where before they were mostly… doing things like pranking King Mark. There’s a reason in the intervening chapters, but we’ll get to that. Here’s how the chapter opens:

“Now leave we of Sir Lamorak, and speak of Sir Gawaine's brethren, and specially of Sir Agravaine and Sir Mordred. As they rode on their adventures they met with a knight fleeing, sore wounded; and they asked him what tidings. Fair knights, said he, here cometh a knight after me that will slay me. With that came Sir Dinadan riding to them by adventure, but he would promise them no help. But Sir Agravaine and Sir Mordred promised him to rescue him.”

Now there’s an inauspicious start, if you want to say Agravaine and Mordred suck— a stranger, badly wounded, fleeing from someone who wants him dead, and Dinadan says it’s none of his business. The honorable, knightly task of protecting a wounded man asking for aid from a murderous pursuer is taken up by Agravaine and Mordred. Unfortunately for them, this is one of those Breuse Saunce Pité stories where he rides across the scene for no reason except to beat the ever-loving hell out of whatever knight of midrange skill happens to be center stage at the time, for no reason beyond devoted and passionate rat bastardry (Thomas Malory, a knight during the War of the Roses: “don’t you just hate it when that one guy shows up to just make everything suck in your entire province as much as possible with no higher motivation other than YORKISTS GO TO HELL? I know I do! Except when I am that guy, of course!” Thanks Tom.). So he yells his own name whilst obliterating Agravaine and Mordred with utterly unnecessary cruelty, to make sure they know who did it (gee, thanks).

Now, we don’t yet have any cause to think Dinadan and Agravaine & Mordred have had a major falling out— Dinadan has been previously established to not fight when the moon isn’t in the right lunar mansion to make him feel like it today, etc, and he’s abandoned people to handle things for him before without it stemming from ill will, but it does seem to take quite a bit to get him to concede to help— it seems like more than would usually be the case—

“And yet he rode over Agravaine five or six times. When Dinadan saw this, he must needs joust with him for shame.”

Agravaine is on the ground, being trampled over five or six times by a loudly gloating Breuse Saunce Pité, before Dinadan determines it will, in fact, reflect badly on him if he doesn’t do SOMETHING. He unseats Breuse successfully (“with pure strength” okay go off Dinadan. You could’ve lead with that tho.), who then grabs his horse again and skips town without pursuit. Breuse, as he leaves, is described as “a great destroyer of all good knights.” Paragraph end.

Now we get into the meat of this episode, starting with the immediate following sentence.

“Then rode Sir Dinadan unto Sir Mordred and unto Sir Agravaine. Sir knight, said they all, well have ye done, and well have ye revenged us, wherefore we pray you tell us your name. Fair sirs, ye ought to know my name, the which is called Sir Dinadan. When they understood that it was Dinadan they were more wroth than they were before, for they hated him out of measure because of Sir Lamorak. For Dinadan had such a custom that he loved all good knights that were valiant, and he hated all those that were destroyers of good knights. And there were none that hated Dinadan but those that ever were called murderers.”

At a glance, it scans as good sense. But then— why is it that Dinadan’s feelings about them aren’t mentioned, just theirs about him? It seems surprising that they hate him more than he hates them— and Breuse was JUST identified as meeting the precise description of what Dinadan hates, but Dinadan didn’t seem overenthused to act against him. And what’s up with the specific framing of “none that hated Dinadan but those that ever were called murderers”? Not ‘only murderers’? And, more importantly, didn’t this chapter start with “Now we leave of Sir Lamorak”??

Because, of course, Lamorak isn’t dead. He’s fine. The intervening chapters involved Gaheris’s killing of their mother in bed with Lamorak, Gaheris admitting that he and Gawain (specifically and exclusively— where was Agravaine, while we’re at it?) killed Pellinore to avenge their father, and telling Lamorak that it wouldn’t be right to kill him like this so just watch out but he’s not going to touch him right then but like watch out!! Gaheris has issues but that’s okay. Lamorak also threatened him right back with blood feuding, for his part, saying his own father’s death was as yet unavenged on the Orkney clan. (Never 4get that Malory’s Lamorak is offered a blood price by Arthur to mediate the feud and refuses it, saying he’s not done feuding yet. Play stupid games, my guy—)

But this leaves a big ol’ gap in the logic here. Agravaine and Mordred have never murdered anyone. Agravaine and Mordred have never destroyed any good knights. Why do they hate Dinadan so intensely on Lamorak’s account? They hated Lamorak the whole time, and Dinadan was clearly never on their side about it. Why does—

I would say again, “And there were none that hated Dinadan but those that ever were called murderers.” He’s known to be close only with good knights, and he’s befriended Lamorak. He’s known to hate people that act against good knights. And if you dislike him, it reflects badly on your reputation— maybe inherently (if you came into my house and said “hey I hate your cat” I would not like you ever, which is probably how Tristan at least feels) but this is also the guy who wrote that mean song about King Mark to ruin his reputation and humiliate him and had it taught to a bunch of people who were then sent out to perform it across Mark’s lands. With Arthur’s explicit approval, too— which makes it a political act of lowkey espionage, which is wild and very sexy of him (also one of the foundational elements of my ‘Geralt of Rivia is a purposeful adaptation Tristan’ rant but we don’t have time for that right now). He doesn’t have a reputation for gossip, but he’s very clearly not unaware of how influencing people’s reputations works. Everyone loves him, and anyone who hates him is publicly maligned in image as a murderer. Or do people only hate him if he’s maligned them that way? Is that something he does? It would explain why it doesn’t seem to apply to Agravaine and Mordred on a practical level, in spite of their explicit hatred of him.

But he was friends with them! Recently! And they haven’t killed anyone or been implicated in any deaths (Gaheris, as I mentioned, confessed that he and Gawain killed Pellinore to Lamorak, but Agravaine isn’t part of that, and Mordred was like 12 and per Malory in a fishing village in BFE presumably at the time). However— Gaheris certainly has. Lamorak has been telling everyone about Gaheris killing Morgause. Everyone is explicitly talking about it at court.

If Dinadan is prone to that sort of thing— leveraging his influence and significant skill with public opinion against those he thinks have done serious wrong— he’s likely been smearing Gaheris publicly in solidarity with Lamorak.

And, quite frankly, going after Agravaine and Mordred’s brother is the only thing that would make them madder than going after them.

But we left off mid-paragraph there, in fact:

“Then spake the hurt knight that Breuse Saunce Pité had chased, his name was Dalan, and said: If thou be Dinadan thou slewest my father. It may well be so, said Dinadan, but then it was in my defence and at his request. By my head, said Dalan, thou shalt die therefore, and therewith he dressed his spear and his shield. And to make the shorter tale, Sir Dinadan smote him down off his horse, that his neck was nigh broken. And in the same wise he smote Sir Mordred and Sir Agravaine. And after, in the quest of the Sangreal, cowardly and feloniously they slew Dinadan, the which was great damage, for he was a great bourder and a passing good knight.”

Holy shit. What the hell. For one thing that escalated extremely quickly. For another thing all three of these people are half-dead already Jesus Christ everyone chill. But also— The entire idea of Agravaine and Mordred being murderers ties into their blood feud to avenge their father. Malory doesn’t touch on Dinadan’s adjacency to it, but we know his brother Brunor (that Knight of the Hideously Cut Jacket, who I briefly imagine as David Byrne in a great helm whenever I think of him) for his sartorially-signified revenge quest— Dinadan’s father was murdered, which probably has something to do with his hatred of destroyers of good knights/murderers. So it’s wrongfully-slain fathers all the way down, and then this wounded knight— that Dinadan initially refused to aid in escaping being murdered by Breuse— suddenly interjects to accuse Dinadan himself of wrongfully slaying HIS father! We’ve never seen Dalan before and we never see him again, but I think this specific interjection can be read as doing some absolutely insane heavy-lifting for this scene.

It’s not uncommon in medieval writing for a sort of moral predestination to hang over everyone— saying that Agravaine and Mordred hate Dinadan, only murderers hate Dinadan, and then that they go on to murder Dinadan could all be viewed as a fulfillment of the middle statement— they ARE murderers, even if they hadn’t killed anyone yet, so the statement is true! Except for Dalan’s outburst. This guy was badly injured and fleeing from Breuse, knowing he wasn’t strong enough to face him. Dinadan unseated Breuse in front of Dalan, and the guy isn’t getting any less injured— and yet Dalan hates Dinadan so much and holds him so accountable for the same wrongdoing Dinadan himself hates that he challenges him anyway, in spite of being injured, in spite of Dinadan having defeated in a joust someone who had been strong enough to defeat Dalan in the first place. And avenging a wrongful death, as an act, isn’t inherently censured in Malory— Dinadan’s brother does so offscreen, but it’s acknowledged as a noble thing that he succeeds in his quest to avenge his father’s murder. If you challenge someone honestly, even being incorrect about your accusations towards them doesn’t make it dishonorable of you (that’s how half of these idiots make friends, after all). So whether or not he’s wrong in blaming Dinadan for it, he is HARDLY implied to be a murderer— which means that right in between ‘Only people who get called murderers hate Dinadan’ and ‘Agravaine and Mordred DO murder Dinadan later btw’— there’s a brief exchange that establishes that what the narration has presented as a fact— only people who are called murderers hate Dinadan— is NOT TRUE. Dalan hates Dinadan, and isn’t a murderer— in fact, he may think Dinadan is one. What’s been said about Agravaine and Mordred isn’t true— even if it becomes so, it didn’t have to. What does that mean for the rest of— well, the entire narrative? For one thing, we can to some degree tie this disproving back to the lead-in of Dinadan having this particular ‘custom’— it’s not an actual fact, it’s just something presented as fact, believed to be fact— something that affects the realities of a knight’s life and knighthood as if it were fact, even though it isn’t.

Whether or not you take it as authorial intention doesn’t really matter— Malory is SO interesting if you take your cue from this series of escalating sentence-by-sentence underminings (Dinadan won’t help a stranger but Agravaine & Mordred will— but they’re morally corrupt and he isn’t; Breuse is a renowned destroyer of good knights and was announcing his presence like a Pokémon— that’s the exact thing that Dinadan hates most which is the cause of his beef with Agravaine & Mordred, but he didn’t want to get involved in fighting the guy; everyone who hates Dinadan is a morally bad person— except this other guy who’s right here currently too). The narration is NOT objectively giving you the truth— the narration is giving you what is ACCEPTED AS TRUTH by the court, by society at large, what will be remembered, because a knight is only as good, only as strong, only as virtuous, only as accomplished, as the stories told of him— only guilty of the crimes people gossip on, but guilty of the ones believed, whether or not they’re true. The narrative is influenced by what is and isn’t known, by what’s hidden and revealed to the world. It makes for an incredibly fun and good reading of Malory throughout!

And there’s a lot of room to say, too, that it makes Agravaine and Dinadan insane narrative foils, because any which way you think to develop and expand on Agravaine’s motivations and desires in Malory, Dinadan is doing something similar to great affection, approval, and acclaim— where Agravaine receives disapproval, approbation, and… nothing else. Agravaine is “ever open-mouthed”, waiting “every night and day” to root out Lancelot’s secrets— when he succeeds, Arthur blames him after his death for what comes to pass, even though he was right and what he uncovered was true. It’s Dinadan’s “manner to be privy with all good knights”, so he reads Lancelot’s mail while he’s sleeping, and Lancelot is glad of it, and lets him help. Agravaine is manipulative, Dinadan has influence with his friends. Agravaine, who values his honor greatly, is dishonored for it as vengeful and jealous. Dinadan, who is careless of his own honor, never bruises it with anything he does. Agravaine is considered resentful and ungracious to others, Dinadan is a beloved jokester who harangues his friends with affectionate invective to cheer them up.ᵃ Dinadan is what Agravaine isn’t allowed to be— and yet he’s a version of it that Agravaine has no desire to be, someone who doesn’t fit in the knightly mold, who isn’t respected the way he wants to be respected, someone reliant on the aid and influence of friends, someone who laughs first at himself, at his own lack of honor. To be envied and yet also to be disdained, to Agravaine’s sensibilities, and to Dinadan’s there’s nothing that Agravaine would criticize he cares about.

And yet— they were friends, too. And what ruined that friendship may well have been the same desire that killed Agravaine in the end— the desire to see that a position of privilege at court didn’t protect a knight who’d done wrong from the truth being known, or from facing the repercussions of his guilt and shame— only it was Dinadan who was repeating the gossip, Dinadan exposing the wrong, and Dinadan died for it, too, just as much as Agravaine would later. And in both their cases, their claims were never fully proven, except in the acts of their own deaths.

But can you IMAGINE the incredible amount of dirt they must’ve dug up between the two of them, before they both got killed by their shared streak of weird, stubborn justice, one by the other’s hand? Can you imagine how utterly fatally they’d be capable of roasting you into a charcoal brick by their powers combined? Can you imagine how terminally nasty they’d be if they were fighting, and how annoying they’d be if they weren’t and they got in your business? What an insane combination, what a silhouette of deeper characterization in the negative space that isn’t addressed!!ᵇ It has so many potential implications for the narrative overall and their significance in it as arbiters of social thought and public opinion.

¹ ² ³ ⁴ ⁵

1.“no good qualities except his beauty, his chivalry, and his quick tongue”, as the Vulgate describes Agravaine (quotes that made my wife say out loud, “what else is there?!”), plus that one translator’s note about the idiomatic and metaphorical way he speaks— Dinadan is constantly described that way— “Right so came Dinadan, and mocked and japed with King Bagdemagus that all knights laughed at him, for he was a fine japer, and well loving all good knights.” etc etc. he’s a fucking bard who wrote the hardest diss track of all time (see footnote 4). Also sends his gay friend group™️ (Lancelot, Galehault, Dinadan, and Guinevere) into hysterics with his potshots at Lancelot and Galehault at a tournament dinner. More on that later.

2. Agravaine is known for being extremely jealous, petty, a bad sport and a gossip, dishonorable and vengeable— Dinadan ONLY fights when he feels like it… '

“And at the first recounter, said Sir Kay, he smote me down from my horse and hurt me passing sore; and when my fellow, Sir Dinadan, saw me smitten down and hurt he would not revenge me, but fled from me; and thus he departed.” (He’s literally present while Kay is saying this like 🤷‍♂️ ya)

“So on the morn Sir Dinadan rode unto the court of King Arthur; and by the way as he rode he saw where stood an errant knight, and made him ready for to joust. Not so, said Dinadan, for I have no will to joust. With me shall ye joust, said the knight, or that ye pass this way. Whether ask ye jousts, by love or by hate? The knight answered: Wit ye well I ask it for love, and not for hate. It may well be so, said Sir Dinadan, but ye proffer me hard love when ye will joust with me with a sharp spear. But, fair knight, said Sir Dinadan, sith ye will joust with me, meet with me in the court of King Arthur, and there shall I joust with you. Well, said the knight, sith ye will not joust with me, I pray you tell me your name. Sir knight, said he, my name is Sir Dinadan. Ah, said the knight, full well know I you for a good knight and a gentle, and wit you well I love you heartily. Then shall there be no jousts, said Dinadan, betwixt us.” (I just fucking love this exchange. He really said ‘is your challenge from love or from hate? Oh from LOVE? Wow okay well that’s some kinda love coming at me with a LANCE :(‘ like babygirl why are you a knight.)

Also openly refuses to fight or runs away from combat when traveling with Tristan, when traveling with Mark, when traveling alone (the chapter in question, at first) when traveling with Tristan again, etc, and never denies this

Hates when knights fight for women and thinks it’s stupid. “For such a foolish knight as ye are, said Sir Dinadan, I saw but late this day lying by a well, and he fared as he slept; and there he lay like a fool grinning, and would not speak, and his shield lay by him, and his horse stood by him; and well I wot he was a lover. Ah, fair sir, said Sir Tristram are ye not a lover? Mary, fie on that craft! said Sir Dinadan. That is evil said, said Sir Tristram, for a knight may never be of prowess but if he be a lover. It is well said, said Sir Dinadan; now tell me your name, sith ye be a lover, or else I shall do battle with you.” Tristan promptly tells Isolde about this later and she gives him endless shit for it.

His exchange with Isolde abt it is very funny. He’s a fruitcake. “Now I pray you, said La Beale Isoud, tell me will you fight for my love with three knights that do me great wrong? and insomuch as ye be a knight of King Arthur's I require you to do battle for me. Then Sir Dinadan said: I shall say you ye be as fair a lady as ever I saw any, and much fairer than is my lady Queen Guenever, but wit ye well at one word, I will not fight for you with three knights, Jesu defend me. Then Isoud laughed, and had good game at him.” Y’know that song in the Oliver Twist musical where they’re trying to teach Oliver the concept of chivalry? That never happened for Dinadan and now he’s like this.

Lies all the time for no reason? Presumably it’s for The Bit™️ most times bc he LOVES jokes and pranks. Tristan ropes him into lying to Palamedes uhh hang on let me count in my head. Four? At least four times.

Basically Dinadan took a knightly oath the way other people agree to Terms & Conditions. He knows this abt himself. (See footnote 5)

3. Okay we know about Agravaine but UH “And so privily she sent the letter unto Sir Launcelot. And when he wist the intent of the letter he was so wroth that he laid him down on his bed to sleep, whereof Sir Dinadan was ware, for it was his manner to be privy with all good knights. And as Sir Launcelot slept he stole the letter out of his hand, and read it word by word.” DINADAN WHAT THE HELL? Agravaine and Dinadan were out here bumping into each other surveilling Lancelot’s fuckjgn bedroom I GUESS no wonder Agravaine killed Dinadan later awkwarddd

4. Agravaine is “ever open-mouthed” repeating gossip and spreading rumors to put pressure on Lancelot and Guinevere at court before he resorts to telling his uncle; Dinadan is imho implied by this chapter to be part of the reason Agravaine’s reputation fully tanks (also a gossip) but there’s also the lay he writes to humiliate King Mark and teaches to people to perform throughout Cornwall to ruin him: “And when Dinadan understood all, he said: This is my counsel: set you right nought by these threats, for King Mark is so villainous, that by fair speech shall never man get of him. But ye shall see what I shall do; I will make a lay for him, and when it is made I shall make an harper to sing it afore him. So anon he went and made it, and taught it an harper that hight Eliot. And when he could it, he taught it to many harpers. And so by the will of Sir Launcelot, and of Arthur, the harpers went straight into Wales, and into Cornwall, to sing the lay that Sir Dinadan made by King Mark, the which was the worst lay that ever harper sang with harp or with any other instruments.” (“And when Sir Tristram heard it, he said: O Lord Jesu, that Dinadan can make wonderly well and ill, thereas it shall be.”So true man. What a track.)

Also Dinadan once manipulatively provokes, mocks, belittles, and sneers at Tristan to get him really angry, because he’s letting someone else win a tournament and running support, basically— so Dinadan takes it upon himself to talk incredibly mad shit at him until he gets angry enough to stop being helpful and start fighting properly.

5. This is the chapter where we start to hear about the extent of Agravaine’s censure for his perceived dishonorable traits. As for Dinadan:

“and all the court was glad of Sir Dinadan, for he was gentle, wise, and courteous, and a good knight.”

“Sir, said Dinadan, wherefore be ye angry? discover your heart to me: forsooth ye wot well I owe you good will, howbeit I am a poor knight and a servitor unto you and to all good knights. For though I be not of worship myself I love all those that be of worship. It is truth, said Sir Launcelot, ye are a trusty knight, and for great trust I will shew you my counsel.” <— also this is when Lancelot just woke up from his angry nap and Dinadan is just. There. Having read his private secret letter from the Queen. But it’s fine for some reason I fucking guess!! Idk!! Starfucker extraordinaire Sir “Personal Key to Lancelot’s Bedroom” “Doesn’t Fight His Own Battles But His Friends Will For Him <3” Dinadan like. Agravaine experiencing heretofore unknown levels of gay homophobia. And he’s right.

a. Even adaptations love to make Agravaine Experience Homophobia™️ but rarely Dinadan, who habitually “lies with”, and “makes great joy of” in their beds overnight, his personal ranking of the top three strongest knights of the Round Table at any given time (“at any given time” meaning that he promptly does that to Palamedes as he takes spot #3 when Lamorak kicks it— presumably the secret reason he dies on the Grail Quest is bc he needs to get dick on the reg from the strongest knights in the world to survive and Galahad categorically does not fuck. RIP to a legend), loudly disdains romantic relationships with women, and is pranked on the page by Galehault and Lancelot for being unmanly or effete and afraid of women— by being knocked off his horse on the tourney field by Lancelot in a dress, carried off into the woods, stripped to his underoos, tussled into a dress himself, and paraded through the tourney field and then the hall at dinner in it (Always Sunny title card Lancelot Commits a Hate Crime. Wildass anecdote. Bet a night out on the town with Tom Malory was a HOOT. Guinevere canonically laughs so hard at this she falls over.)

b. Anyway this is why they’re an insane and compelling ship also. I rest my case. This is actually also the introductory post to a piece of fanfiction I’ll put somewhere later in which I used a shortened ballade form taking inspiration and structure from The Flyting of Dunbar and Kennedie to write Agravaine and Dinadan having a flyting competition. Y’know, real normal shit.

I was today years old when I remembered that Beowulf, Hrolf Kraki, some of the Irish King cycle characters and Dietrich von Bern (Theodoric the Great) all lived together during the reign of King Arthur.

500 A.D./Early 6th Century was a wild time.

At one point, Dagbert describes his curse by saying that in his thirteenth year, the firstborn son of “the Lord Grimwald” must kill or be killed by his father, which suggests that, if the character referred to as Lord Grimwald has multiple names, the title Lord Grimwald is the most official, the one he most favors, or the one which is most closely linked to his identity. Regardless, it’s a hereditary title, which means that, by the end, Dagbert is the Lord Grimwald and has his own castle. (This is never additionally ).

From the way Dagbert and Lord Grimwald describe it, it sounds like they started calling Dagbert “Dagbert Endless” for the heck of it. It would be very cool if his many names came from his mother—there is so much untapped potential that comes with the half-mermaid thing—and it would also make sense if Dagbert’s many names were a necessity. If he keeps committing murder/magical manslaughter (depending on how much control he’s in), he might be a wanted criminal under some name(s) and need aliases.

Dagbert having endless surnames but Lord Grimwald only having "Grimwald" implies Dagbert either inherited his many surnames from his mother, or Lord Grimwald also has many surnames but managed to pick one. If they're from his mother, it implies that mermaids all have long names. If they're from his father, then I think it's safe to say that a man who chose the name "Grimwald" is likely to be the idiot who decided to name a baby "Dagbert". In this essay I will

Fun fact: the musician who sang “Puberty Love” in Attack of the Killer Tomatoes was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

Of course, he’s also the drummer for Pearl Jam, but it’s less entertaining when you put it that way.

Starting a how-Lysander-was-able-to-kill-Grimwald theory list:

He was able to kill Lord Grimwald because curse had a time limit and expired. The Grimwalds aren’t aware of this, so they keep killing each other because they don’t know that they don’t have to. (See “The Annals of the North” on Ao3)

He was able to kill Lord Grimwald because the curse is conditional. The father and son are capable of dying in other ways, but if they aren’t dead yet, it will come to pass.

He was able to kill Lord Grimwald because he’s so powerful, the laws of nature couldn’t stop him.

He wasn’t. Lord Grimwald was trapped in the Sea Globe. (See “The Curse of the Endless” on Ao3)

I am a truther for a lot of things, but my biggest truth is that Dagbert is agender. Why? If Lord Grimwald had no first son, then Lysander could kill him all day every day no problem. He/They Dagbert who doesn't identify as a man or son or boy but actually just doesn't care

The problem with antisemitism and anti-Zionism

Someone recently reblogged this post I shared that called out antisemitism in pro-Palestinian rallies. An action I was initially happy about, until I went into this person's blog, and saw a lot of posts that I, as an Israeli-Jewish person, find incredibly antisemitic. I found myself utterly baffled by that. Because this person clearly recognized the things said in these rallies were extremely antisemitic, and yet, they posted a lot of things that were rooted in the same antisemitic worldview. Can't they see it? And I think the main problem with the current pro-Palestinian movement is that they honestly can't see the line between being on the side of compassion and humanity and being critical of Israel's actions, to spreading horrible lies and dehumanizing Israelis and Jewish people. And the ugly truth these people refuse to face is that the reason they can't see when they cross this line is probably unconscious antisemitism.

You don't need to hate Jewish people to be antisemitic

Antisemitism, like many other forms of racism, often works on an unconscious level. Maybe you have Jewish friends. Maybe you fought for better Jewish representation in media. Maybe you are even Jewish yourself. But over the years you have been exposed to a lot of antisemitic ideas and stereotypes that altered your worldview and made you more vulnerable to believing Jewish people are the bad guys.

If your gut reaction to this is- "but Israel is actually doing bad things, so I'm actually right about hating them." Please keep reading.

Your idea of Israel and what it stands for is based on the worldview of the most radical right-wing Israeli activists at best, and blatant lies at worst.

Imagine if we took the words of the most radical Republicans out there, the ones that go after trans kids and believe women should have no right over their own bodies, and believe all Americans are supporting this idea. That wouldn't have been very fair of us, right? Because there are a lot of people in America who are fighting for a better future. A lot of people who are standing up for human rights.

Just like the United States isn't a homogeneous entity, filled with only trump supporters, Israel is also an incredibly diverse place, with people who have radically different ideas about how Israel should look. Even the current Israeli government, which is extremely right-wing, and has people in it I personally believe should have never been in a position of power, is probably a lot less evil than you were led to believe by ill-intent strangers on the internet. Mainly because this is still a democratic government, in a democratic country, which has a lot of checks and balances that (for the most part) manage to prevent people with radical ideas from making them into official policies.

I don't blame you for believing the reports you see from Gaza. As a pacifist, and as someone who voted for left-wing parties ever since I was eligible to vote, someone who truly believes the Palestinians has a right to self-determination and sees how problematic the occupation is, I struggle a lot when I see posts about the suffering of the people in Gaza. Wars are horrible. I never want to see other people suffer. Let alone children. I wish I could go there right now and take all of them somewhere safe. I wish none of this was happening.

But I also know who my people are, and the values they stand for. And what I noticed about these anti-zionist posts is that they are often written in a biased, misleading way. They often attribute malicious intentions to Israel's actions. And they often jump to conclusions, without giving Israel the benefit of the doubt. Without asking the right questions. And often, without any sort of proof. Some of these posts are outrageous lies. Others are incredibly biased and fail to mention the terrorist organization Israel is fighting against.

Only a small amount of them are coming from unbiased sources that describe the reality of the situation without giving in to personal interpretation.

But most of you can't tell the difference. You are seeing lies about how IDF soldiers are targeting children, or about how Israel is lying about their true evil intentions, and you accept them as the truth, without questioning the intention of the person who wrote that post. Without stopping to think this is incredibly dehumanizing to think Israeli people are capable of such monstrous actions. Without examining your own biases. And that's incredibly problematic, and yes, this is antisemitic. Because you would have never spread this kind of accusation about any other group of people without definitive proof.

This isn't to say our soldiers are never wrong, and that there aren't any bad apples, or even systematic problems in the IDF and every allegation should be thoroughly investigated, because any harm to innocent people is terrible, unavoidable as it may be. And ideally, even terrorists should get a fair trial.

But if you think soldiers in Israel defense forces, who are mostly 18-21-year-old Jewish men and women from all sides of the political spectrum, are inherently evil and baby killers, you are in fact antisemitic.

Even if you believe your type of anti Zionism isn't antisemitism being anti-zionist is still not a great position to take.

I never defined myself as a zionist before. But it was more to do with my own disconnection with Judaism and my ideas about the place of religion in modern society than my belief about the right of Israel to exist.

I think it would be amazing to live in a utopian world where we have one multicultural democratic state where everyone lives together in harmony. But I’m also a realistic person. And someone who wants to keep living as a free woman with full rights in my home country.

And while I never felt particularly zionist, I was never an anti-zionist, and I never believed zionist was a bad word.

I'm probably not the first person who tells you this, but Zionist isn't a synonym for "everything I hate about Israel". It doesn't mean "a person who supports the occupation", or even "a person who only cares about the life of Israelis" or "someone who fully supports the Israeli government".

So what does it actually say? Let's look at a dictionary definition.

Do you notice what the definition doesn't say? Anything about Israel's borders or about the idea of a Palestinian state. There are many types of Zionism, some more radical than others. But as I said before, is it really fair to judge an entire group of people based on the idea of the most radical of them?

The truth is, most of us just want to live in peace. We want to go to work without finding ourselves at the scene of a terror attack or running to the shelter because of rockets. We want all the hostages to come home. We want to feel safe in our own homes. This is what it means to be a zionist. This is what you are standing up against. Not the "occupation," or the "settlers" or the extremists in the government. Just regular people who want to live their lives.

Zionism isn't colonialism

Jewish people are indigenous to the land of Israel. This was the land we dreamed of in 2000 years of exile, and it's a huge part of our religion and our culture. This doesn't mean the Palestinians don't have a claim to the land as well after living on it for so many years, or that what they went through in 1948 wasn't terrible, but it doesn't magically make Israelis into white colonialists who woke up one day and decided to take over a random land.

A lot of mistakes were made. In 1948, and especially in 1967. And we are paying for them now. But the idea that Israel is a colonialist state that represents everything that's wrong with society is entirely false.

If you support the existence of a Palestinian state but don't believe Israel deserves the same right, you need to ask yourself why that is the case.

Is that because you don't believe Jewish people when they tell you about their connection to the land of Israel? Because you think there is something inherently wrong with the existence of a state that is only for Jewish people? (But have no problem with all the Muslim and Christian states out there) Because you think Palestinian deserves to live from the river to the sea and Israelis should have nothing, or whatever the Palestinians would be willing to give them? Because you are more comfortable with the idea of Jewish people as a minority in a Palestinian Muslim state than the idea of them having their own free country? Because you think you know better than us what our future should look like?

Because all of these reasons are antisemitic.