What you need to accept Aurochs is, for readers of your content, & of your also-excellent guest contributers content, is that you have been creating some of the most breathtakingly original & refreshing Arthuriana of the last 50 years. You are also willing to re-adjust your theories when you've been presented with new information, whether that is from you yourself trawling headlong into Welsh texts that have been untranslated for literally centuries, reappraisal & fresh translation of Welsh source material, or pondering new archaeological findings.
I look forward to being able to covet your work in lavish, fully illustrated (with maps & timelines) in hardback at the earliest opportunity.
PS, if you keep writing the phrase 'Sub-Roman' I'll get a flight over there just to kick you up your swampy arse. What is this, 1981, ffs.
"What you need to accept Aurochs is, for readers of your content, & of your also-excellent guest contributers content, is that you have been creating some of the most breathtakingly original & refreshing Arthuriana of the last 50 years."
I have the same perspective. His book will proudly have a place on my shelf.
I agree that methodology is the key issue. Too many works on Arthur, including those written by academics, don't set out what methods they are following. I spend a lot of effort in my forthcoming book on this -- trying to make clear how philologists approach issues like those that arise with Arthur.
Your work is very good and interesting. I have learned a lot about a very interesting subject. There can be no doubt that some things were misattributed to Arthur very early but this only points to how strong an impression the real Arthur did leave on history. And the search for the truth about him is very much worthwhile.
What you need to accept Aurochs is, for readers of your content, & of your also-excellent guest contributers content, is that you have been creating some of the most breathtakingly original & refreshing Arthuriana of the last 50 years. You are also willing to re-adjust your theories when you've been presented with new information, whether that is from you yourself trawling headlong into Welsh texts that have been untranslated for literally centuries, reappraisal & fresh translation of Welsh source material, or pondering new archaeological findings.
I look forward to being able to covet your work in lavish, fully illustrated (with maps & timelines) in hardback at the earliest opportunity.
PS, if you keep writing the phrase 'Sub-Roman' I'll get a flight over there just to kick you up your swampy arse. What is this, 1981, ffs.
All the best Paul
"What you need to accept Aurochs is, for readers of your content, & of your also-excellent guest contributers content, is that you have been creating some of the most breathtakingly original & refreshing Arthuriana of the last 50 years."
I have the same perspective. His book will proudly have a place on my shelf.
You are both too kind. It is greatly appreciated.
I agree that methodology is the key issue. Too many works on Arthur, including those written by academics, don't set out what methods they are following. I spend a lot of effort in my forthcoming book on this -- trying to make clear how philologists approach issues like those that arise with Arthur.
Your work is very good and interesting. I have learned a lot about a very interesting subject. There can be no doubt that some things were misattributed to Arthur very early but this only points to how strong an impression the real Arthur did leave on history. And the search for the truth about him is very much worthwhile.
Thank you my friend. Very well said