Although I'm having a hard time believing this week's reading, I find the Malory readings so settling; the stories are straightforward, and so establishing about the facts about King Arthur and Merlin...regardless if they're real or not.
I think that's why there was so much debate in previous readings; the holes in the stories left so much room for possibilities that my mind would expand with ideas and then explode and the left over unicorn dust would raise all kinds of questions.
Okay that's definitely an exaggeration...but you have to question...why was this week's reading so straight forward? Why should I believe what a man in prison wrote these stories saying they're real? Why is it that of all people, this guy knows exactly what happened when King Arthur pulled excalibur from the stone, yet no one was around to physically witness?
Maybe it's the journalism world in me that's coming out right now, but I'm struggling to rely on this source for the truth. These stories seem so accurate and definite of the series of events that took place with specific details.
merp.
