Update[2023/12/6]: This post is getting a bit of attention, but it’s actually only the first of a series of posts exploring this topic. Here is the full list, which I will update as I write them, so that those interested in this journey down memory lane can follow me all the way to its grim end:
- The second in the series, discussing MZB’s contempt for women
- The third in the series, trying to identify some hints of MZB’s theory of paedophilia within the text
When I was a child Marion Zimmer Bradley’s The Mists of Avalon had a huge influence on me. I read it very young, perhaps at the age of 10 or 12, and I think it was the first fantasy I read after A Wizard of Earthsea. I think I already knew the Arthurian legends (most kids growing up in Britain did) but this novel introduced ancient “pagan” elements to them which profoundly changed my view of religion. I didn’t become a pagan of course, but growing up in deeply misogynist Britain in the 1970s and early 1980s, when everything was still steeped in traditional Christian ideology and Britain’s history was only taught to us as a story of greatness and righteousness, the idea that Christianity was wrong and that Arthur was really a pagan compromise, or that there was another, non-christian history to Britain, or that there was a woman’s side to a story, made a huge difference to the way I thought about the world around me. I’m not alone in this: generations of science fiction fans report MZB’s Mists of Avalon as a crucial and eye-opening book. MZB’s work is also heralded as an important milestone for feminism in science fiction and fantasy, and many people report its influence in this regard.
Since then of course we have discovered that Marion Zimmer Bradley sexually abused her own daughter, and appears to have been an ideologically committed sexual abuser, who sheltered and supported another sexual abuser and was active to some degree in furtherance of a political ideal of pederasty. All this should have been common knowledge by the time her books were published, but it seems to have remained strangely unreported even after her death, only becoming common knowledge when her daughter disclosed the information to the public in 2014. MZB was a hugely influential figure in modern cultural circles: she founded the Society for Creative Anachronisms (SCA) and was also involved in the early establishment of the modern western “pagan” religious movement through her Darkmoon Circle. She also had a huge influence on science fiction and fantasy. But what does it say when a known, ideologically committed child sexual abuser influences your cultural world? Does it have any echoes or influence on the ideals of that movement? I have written before about Jimmy Savile and growing up in a society steeped in child abuse, and how the things that were considered normal when I was young look deeply, deeply creepy in retrospect, so I thought: I’m going to re-read MZB’s work – which so influenced me as a child – and see what it looks like now, in retrospect, and what kind of feminist text it really is. Call me old-fashioned, but I don’t think it’s possible to be a feminist and be an ideologically committed sexual abuser of children, and I expect that this should show up somehow in her works. I found this (possibly anti-feminist) rant online about how the books always were creepy, and finding out MZB was a sexual abuser of children suddenly made the creepiness comprehensible, but I decided to do it for myself.
So, I’m going to reread these books, and see what they look like now, in retrospect, as a 48 year old knowing what I know now, revisiting books I haven’t read since (at the latest) my very early teens. Every novel requires the author to make choices, and in this case we are dealing with a novel based on an existing story, so decisions need to be made at every turn about how to present the story and how to change it. For example, MZB makes the decision to blend the characters of Galahad and Lancelot together, which isn’t accidental: for some reason she decided to do this. Her decisions about how to represent key parts of the story, key relationships, and the context of the story, should tell us something about the relationship between her politics of sexual abuse and her writing, just as it does about her supposed feminism and her writing. How does the sexual abuse affect the writing? How does a modern adult interpret the story and what do they feel? Is it creepy? Is there a particular stance or depiction of sexual abuse and of children that is depicted in the text that I did not notice (obviously) when I was 10? This post is just the first attempt to investigate and understand this – there may or may not be more. Also please be aware of the content warnings: These posts will involve extensive discussion of rape, child sexual and physical abuse, domestic violence, incest, and general arseholery, as well as some fairly serious levels of personality disorder, parental abuse and shittiness. So brace yourself.
Oh, also this post contains spoilers, because I assume the people reading this have read The Mists of Avalon in the past and are familiar with the story (though like me you may have forgotten details).
I will begin by describing the controversy surrounding MZB and her husband’s sexual abuse, to give a little more history to the tale. I will briefly describe what I understand of the politics of paedophilia in the 1970s (yes this was a thing!) as a background to understand how a paedophilia advocate might represent sex and children in their work. Then I will begin describing my key impressions from the first part of the story. I will use some quotes, which I am transcribing, so apologies in advance for any small errors. Brace yourselves, kids.
Outline of the controversy
The general public became aware of MZB’s sexual abuse history after the publication of her daughter’s revelations in 2014, but SF fandom should have been aware of them for much, much longer, because MZB’s husband Walter Breen was a known sexual abuser in the 1960s, and she was known to be facilitating his activities. The early history of Breen’s abuse is laid out in an awful document called The Breendoggle that can now be read online. This document outlines Walter Breen’s history of sexual abuse of children in the “fandom” circles of 1960s Berkeley, and the efforts to get him expelled from a convention. It’s absolutely shocking to read about how publicly and flagrantly he sexually assaulted children, and how sanguine the people around him were about it. At the end of the document we find out why: If they exclude Walter from fandom for openly abusing children, MZB will stay away too.
This is the first hint of MZB’s deep commitment to sexual abuse of children, but it isn’t just a hint. Her husband Walter Breen wrote a book about abusing children, called Greek Love, and also edited a journal devoted to pederasty called the International Journal of Greek Love. MZB wrote an article for this journal about pederasty among lesbians, so she was obviously aware of her husband’s political activities and supportive enough of them to write articles for his journal of child abuse. This journal and Breen’s book, by the way, were cited by the editors of the magazine Pan, which was connected to the North American Man Boy Love Association (a paedophile advocacy group in America) and the Paedophile Information Exchange (a similar and at one stage radically activist group in the UK). It’s hard to find Pan online but the index of the site holding MZB’s article includes links to some of its articles. Following links through the articles linked above will also lead to more information about MZB’s open support of child sexual abuse, such as helping Breen to adopt a boy he wanted to abuse, sexually abusing a friend’s daughter, and supporting Breen even after they divorced despite his repeated legal troubles over his paedophilia.
I hope from this that it’s clear that MZB was an ideologically committed child sexual abuser, who was definitely supporting at least one other committed sexual abuser and may have been part of an international network of sexual abusers that was active in the 1970s in the USA, Canada and the UK. So let’s see what the introduction of her first novel in the Mists of Avalon series is like. But before we do, let’s briefly look at the political paedophilia movement in the 1970s.
The politics of paedophilia in the 1970s
I can’t believe I had to write that line, but there it is. Believe it or not, in the 1970s and 1980s there was a movement to normalize sexual assault of children, which had its own political organizations, journals, magazines, meetings and rhetoric. Sadly the most famous part of it was connected to the gay rights movement, and the attempts by these people to insert themselves into the gay rights movement and turn it into a kind of pan-sexual liberation movement were seized upon by conservatives as ammunition against gay rights generally. The most famous organization is the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), which is well-described in the documentary Chickenhawk, but there was also a British organization and some groups on the continent.
These groups operated on a couple of basic principles, which are worth bearing in mind as we interrogate MZB’s work. They believed that children had sexual agency, that childhood is not a period of innocence, and that children actively solicited and enjoyed sex with adults. Breen in his journal of Greek Love, and other advocates in the magazine Pan argue that these sexual relationships help children grow and mature, and the exchange of sexual affection from the child for adult wisdom from the man is important for child development – they don’t just believe paedophilia is harmless, but actively beneficial to children. They also believe that these paedophiliac relationships were a normal part of most of human society and have only recently been cast into disrepute, usually due to Victorian prudishness, christian interference, or some form of communist or fascist political program (it seems it can be either). Some people writing in the journal Pan seem to hint that adult homosexuality is wrong but same sex relationships between a man and a boy are okay. They also adhere to strong principles of free speech, both for their political advocacy and for their kiddy porn, which they don’t believe harms anyone. Some of them seem to think assaulting infants is wrong but children above a certain age are fair game (or, as my father used to say with a straight face, “old enough to bleed, old enough to breed”). Most of the advocacy seems to have been focused around same sex male relationships, but there was no particular political preference in this regard – I think they just had a clearer voice because briefly in the 1980s and 1990s they were allowed some affiliation with the gay rights movement, to its detriment.
It’s worth remembering that the 1970s and 1980s were a time of sexual awakening in the west, with lots of new ideas beginning to circulate and important efforts being made to cast off the prudishness and sexual stifling of the last 30 years. This new awakening led to lots of mistakes, including things like manipulative and sexually abusive cult leaders, open marriages, political lesbianism, and a lot of abuse in plain sight. Music magazines, for example, did not ostracize or criticize people like Jimmy Page, guitarist of Led Zeppelin, who famously had a “relationship” with a 14 year old girl (and who remains famous and well respected despite his long history of sexual abuse of minors). Along with the sexual awakening that was happening at that time came an atmosphere of not judging people for doing things differently, and care about ostracizing or casting out fellow travelers who had some unsavoury ideas. This is why we see Alan Ginzberg defending NAMBLA in the Chickenhawk documentary, and it briefly allowed NAMBLA to have some political influence. But none of this explains the horrendous attitudes described in the Breendoggle document, or MZB’s continuing success when the people around her knew what she was doing. So bear this in mind, and the politics of paedophilia activism, as we delve into the story.
Igraine’s story: A terrible slog through sexual abuse and violence
Arthur’s story always starts with Uther getting Igraine pregnant. In the usual story Merlin puts a spell on Uther so that he looks like Igraine’s husband, so Uther basically rapes Igraine. In the Mists of Avalon we take about 8 chapters to get to this point, and to get there we have to slog through a long and brutal period of Igraine’s life. In this version she was married to her husband Gorlois, duke of Cornwall, at the age of 14 and by the time the book starts has been with him for five years, has a child of 3 years age, and is looking after her 13 year old sister Morgause. She never wanted to marry Gorlois and we are reminded repeatedly that she has just had to put up with five years of unwanted sex and has only just come around to appreciate him as a man and a husband – she has very mixed feelings. It should be mentioned that she was sent to Gorlois by her mother, Viviane, Lady of the Lake, the high priestess of all pagans in England, to seal a deal. Watching her deal with this circumstance is, frankly, a slog, and it is made worse when Viviane and the Merlin rock up and tell her that actually she needs to fuck Uther, because Uther needs to give her a son. It’s unclear if this ends up being done by magic or just bad luck, but Gorlois notices Uther’s interest in Igraine (which may have been manufactured by a magic necklace) and starts a war. At this point he is mad at Igraine, has become impotent in her presence, blames her and thinks it is some magic (which it may be, though not Igraine’s) and beats her savagely every time he tries to fuck her and fails. It’s hard going!
Igraine spends all this time – which seems to cover about a year, though it’s hard to tell – as a sex slave of Gorlois and a vassal to Viviane and the Merlin, who decide her fate. They tell her who she is to have sex with and who she is to have children with, and they have no care for her feelings or needs. In fact the only moment of this entire period when she has any agency and joy is the moment when Uther comes to her in Tintagel, under disguise: she sees that he is not Gorlois, but Uther, and finally gets to enjoy sex she wants. This is a radical turnaround on the traditional story, and ensures that the first 6 – 8 chapters of this book are basically a slog through domestic violence and rape, with one woman being fought over by two men who will do with her as they choose.
Once Gorlois is dead Uther takes Igraine as his wife and you might be thinking that the rape and domestic violence and use of women as vessels for political purposes is over – after all, this is meant to be a feminist retelling of the Arthurian legend in which the isle of Avalon offers women freedom and empowerment – but you would be wrong. Before we get to the rape of Igraine’s daughter by her son Arthur, effectively organized and implemented by Viviane, let’s talk about some other aspects of the gender relations and sexual ideology in this book.
Morgause and children as sluts
It is very clear in this book that MZB thinks children have sexual agency. Igraine repeatedly bemoans her marriage to Gorlois at the age of 14, not because she was 14 but because he wasn’t the man she wanted. But we also hear some damning insights into the sexual nature of children during the early stages of the book. For example, Gorlois says about Igraine’s 13 year old sister Morgause:
We must have that girl married as soon as can be arranged, Igraine. She is a puppy bitch with eyes hot for anything in the shape of a man; did you see how she cast her eyes not only on me but on my younger soldiers? I will not have such a one disgracing my family, nor influencing my daughter!
Igraine agrees with this assessment of Morgause’s behavior, and later cautions her against Gorlois’s attentions, which the book describes her seeking out, and later on Morgaine (Igraine’s daughter and the key narrator in this section of the books) also writes about Morgause that
I knew my mother was glad to have her married and away, for she fancied Morgause looked on Uther lustfully; she was probably not aware that Morgause looked lustfully on all men she came by. She was a bitch dog in heat, though indeed I suppose it was because she had no one to care what she did.
Morgaine is, I think, meant to be the feminist hero of this book. Is this how feminists describe other women, or in this case girls?
There is another scene later in the book, during a pagan ritual, where a young girl who was playing an auxiliary role in the ritual is drawn into the sexual activity that the ritual triggers. It is very clear that this girl is very young, and this is described as
The little blue-painted girl who had borne the fertilizing blood was drawn down into the arms of a sinewy old hunter, and Morgaine saw her briefly struggle and cry out, go down under his body, her legs opening to the irresistible force of nature in them.
So even very small children are sexual beings in this story, and their subjugation to older men an inevitability of their sexual nature. I’m 17 chapters (about 22% of the way) into this book and I have been repeatedly told by the main feminist icon of the story that girls (i.e. female children) are sexual predators who seek out men and need to be constrained for their own good. Which brings us to …
Virginity as a sacred duty
Feminists have spent a long time trying to demysticize virginity, to stop it being seen as a special and precious and sacred property of women that is “lost” or “given up”. In this supposedly feminist text the preservation of virginity is an essential goal, taught to young women by older women as a duty and a necessary form of self preservation. Morgause is warned by Igraine that if she fucks Uther and doesn’t get pregnant she will be worthless, and he will force one of his men to take her as a wife, and that man will always resent her for not having been a virgin. This restriction isn’t just a christian trait though: Viviane forces Morgaine (the main character of the story) to stay a virgin until she can participate in an important ritual, where her virginity will be sacrificed for the good of the land. Morgaine almost gives it up for Lancelot/Galahad, but he promises not to push her for sex, and so she preserves it (she of course being just a young woman of 16 or 17 is unable to control her lust and needs a man to control it for her).
17 chapters into this supposedly feminist book, I have not met a priestess from the matriarchal isles who has been able to decide for herself when and how she first has sex. This is an important part of this story: matriarchal society is extremely heirarchical and abusive.
The abusive society of Avalon
The original pagan survivors of England are all gathered in the Summer Country, on the misty isles, which float in a kind of separate world overlaid over christian England, separated from it by mists. This is very cool! On the central island of Avalon (which I guess is approximately Glastonbury in the real world), the priestesses of the old pagan religion reign supreme. Or rather, Viviane, High Priestess, Lady of the Lake, rules as an absolute tyrant over all the girls and women who live there. She dispenses them across the land to be used as sexual bargaining tools for the restoration of pagan culture in England (as Igraine was); she tells them when and how they can have sex and who with; and she subjects them to whatever torments she sees fit as part of her religious dictatorship. For example she makes a priestess called Raven take part in a ritual which leaves her vomiting and pissing blood for days, just in order to have some random vision that doesn’t make sense. No one is allowed to speak before she speaks, and junior priestesses in training have to wait on senior ones like slaves.
When she first brings Morgaine to the island to begin her training as a priestess, Viviane repeatedly considers exactly when to begin tormenting her, and we discover that she was initially considering beginning the torments the same night that they arrive, when Morgaine is tired and hungry. We are repeatedly reminded that Morgaine is used to going without sleep or food, and to being cold. It is very clear that Avalon’s matriarchal society is intensely heirarchical, and all the women on the island are Viviane’s to dispose of as she wishes – and we will see this is exactly what she does.
Competition between mothers and daughters
A particularly unsavoury element of the story so far is the competition between mothers and daughters, and between older and younger women. Igraine is jealous of Morgause (her younger sister) and in a very telling moment, Morgaine is deeply jealous of a very young girl, Guinevere, who is lost on Avalon. She had been having a nice moment stripping off for Lancelot (who ostensibly isn’t going to fuck her) when they hear Guinevere’s cries of distress and go to rescue her. Lancelot helps the girl out of some mud, and we read that
Morgaine felt a surge of hatred so great she thought that she would faint with its force. She felt it would be with her until she died, and in that molten instant she actually longed for death. All the color had gone from the day, into the mist and the mire and the dismal reeds, and all her happiness had gone with it
This is how our feminist icon reacts to Lancelot helping a female child escape some mud! This is interesting because we outsiders reading this just see a man being nice to a distressed girl, he really is just being a good samaritan. Yet Morgaine is dying inside at the sight of it! We will come back to this later, because a big issue with this book is that every character is a horrible person.
This jealousy is repeated often, with younger women seen as competitors and replacements for older women, who are always angry at them for their youth. This includes children, who remember are treated in this book as sexually active agents of temptation, and thus need to be guarded against. Every older woman needs to be on her guard against a younger woman taking her place! The ultimate expression of this comes after Uther Pendragon dies, and in his death moment appears to Viviane as a vision. In that moment she realizes that they have been tied together through many lives, and becomes jealous that her daughter Igraine got to have Uther rather than her:
She cried aloud, with a great mourning cry for all that she had never known in this life, and the agony of a bereavement unguessed till this moment
The only pleasure she gets from this vision is the knowledge that in his dying moment Uther thought of her, and not of the woman he loved (Viviane’s duaghter). That’s right, the feminist leader of the matriarchal island is jealous of her own daughter.
Men eat, women pick
Quite often this book reads like a Society for Creative Anachronisms (SCA) re-enactment, with a lot of focus on what people wear and eat in a mid-century American’s idea of “authentic” mediaeval British culture. Actually when I was reading the early parts of the book I thought to myself “this reads like an SCA document”, and only discovered later on reading her wiki entry that MZB started the SCA – it stands to reason I guess!
As part of this there are a lot of eating scenes, and it is noticeable that in every eating scene, women pick at small amounts of bread, honey and a little milk, while men eat fresh meat, bread, ale and other richnesses. I swear every time they eat, women are picky eaters who take as little as possible while men pig out. This is also seen in the sex: 17 chapters in and no women has had sex for fun with someone of her choosing, while multiple men have reputations for having fucked anyone they fancy. This might be excusable as a consequence of the christian world, but we are repeatedly told that “on the Isle” women are free to choose who they want to be with and men respect women as sexual equals. Except we never see it happen! Women in this story never get to have any fun, and the least enjoyable lifestyle is reserved for the “free” women of the supposedly sexually liberated isle, who are constantly fasting, going without sleep or warm clothes, and never having sex with anyone they want to.
Some utopia!
Everyone is horrible
I’m 17 chapters into this book and I haven’t yet met a nice character. I know it was written in the 70s when everyone wore brown, but these people are just awful. Igraine is a powerless wretch who is constantly crying; Morgaine is a jealous and angry woman who is also a complete sucker for Viviane’s power and is easily fooled by everything Viviane says; Morgause is a dirty slut who just needs to be rutted constantly and kept out of sight of men; Viviane is a manipulative, power-hungry and arrogant horror show who never accepts she is wrong and only ever sees people for their uses – she has no humanity at all. The men are all idiots, even the Merlin, who also have uncontrolled appetites and weak minds. Some, like Kevin the Bard, who is supposedly going to be the next Merlin, openly hate women. The most likable character so far has been Lancelot, who rescued Guinevere from the mud and promised not to despoil Morgaine even though she wanted him, but he also seemed to transfer his attentions from Morgaine the moment he saw a blonder, prettier girl, so who can say? Everyone is completely awful, and I have to read 600 more pages of this!
Ritual incest
The most shocking part of the story though is the ritual in which Morgaine is supposed to sleep with a future king of England in a ritual after he kills a stag with a flint knife. Viviane arranges this ritual, which is an ancient thing that is supposed to bind a king to the land. It’s also a kind of test (maybe the Stag would kill the king) and the only time you see a woman eat meat (Morgaine does, at the end of the ritual). Viviane set this whole thing up as a way to bind Arthur to the pagan parts of England, so that all the pagan cultures will follow him and he won’t be able to turn his back on the old ways even though he was raised a christian.
But the thing is, she doesn’t mention to Morgaine that Arthur is the king who is being tested – and Arthur is Morgaine’s half brother. So they go through the ritual, Arthur kills the stag, they fuck in the darkness of a cave covered in the stag’s blood, in the morning they wake up and fuck again, and then and only then does Arthur realize the girl he’s fucking is Morgaine (they haven’t seen each other for 10 years, and they’re both about 16 or 18, so it makes sense they don’t recognize each other immediately).
Morgaine of course is heart broken, because she has been tricked into incest with her half brother. What does Viviane say 10 days later when she finally allows Morgaine to speak to her about it?
“Well there’s nothing we can do about that now,” she said. “Done is done. And at this moment the hope of Britain is more important than your feelings.”
Did I mention that in this story everyone is horrible? There’s exhibit A. And also exhibit A of the idea that women’s sexuality is only there to be used for a purpose, women have no free agency over it, and it should be tamed and put to work for the greater good.
Conclusion
So far I am 17 chapters in and this is what I have seen so far: a bunch of horrible people who think children are all sluts who need to be controlled, virginity is a gift that should be preserved and given away only to the right man or for the right purpose, who see women’s sexuality as a tool to be deployed in the interests of family or nation, and who think incest is completely okay. The older women are all intensely competitive with and jealous of younger women, and no woman is free to be herself on a supposedly feminist island that is actually an authoritarian dystopia where everyone exists to serve a religious dictatorship led by a brooding, narcissistic, tyrannical old woman who is jealous of her own daughter for the marriage she arranged.
It’s hard going.
I don’t think of myself as a feminist, and I don’t think men should claim to be feminists or to have some great insight into feminist theory, but I really don’t think this is a story that is consistent with anything I know of feminism. It’s a hard slog in which women are abused regularly and viciously by all men, and by any women who is older than them and has power over them. This social circumstance isn’t presented in a context of overthrowing or critiquing it though – the goal is clearly (so far) to preserve the power of the matriarchal theocracy by brutally using its junior female members’ sexuality in any way necessary. If this is feminism, it’s a kind of lesbian separatist, almost fascist vision of feminism that was briefly in vogue in the 1970s but quickly died out. It’s the feminism of the anti-sex work activist Julie Bindel, who advocated political lesbianism (in which heterosexual feminists have lesbian relationships so as not to betray the movement), or of the anti-trans movement of the 2010s, which is spearheaded by older women insecure in their aging. It’s the kind of feminism we sometimes hear now from some second-wave feminists, bemoaning the fact that young women like to have sex with whoever they want and get Brazilian waxes, the feminism of women who distrust and don’t respect open expressions of female sexuality.
However, this ideology is tempered in this case by a foul attitude towards (female) children, in which they are seen as sexually permissive, sexually active predators who need to be constrained or married off early, and who are easy prey for older men – and who deserve it if they suffer bad consequences of their sexual activity. There is no mercy or pity for girls taken by older men, indeed no sense that it is wrong at all for girls to be given away to men to be used. It is unsurprising to read this attitude from a woman who actively supported the sexual predations of her husband, wrote articles in his paedophilia journal, and sexually abused her own daughter.
There’s a lot more of this book to go, so I will revisit this topic later. I am interested in how she influenced those who followed her in the genre, how she has misused paganism and pagan concepts for her own political purposes, and what her final conclusion will be about the Arthurian tragedy. I also don’t think the child abuse and incest will stop with Arthur’s unknowing rape of his half-sister (and I guess his being raped by her). My guess is there is worse to come. Let us see what horrors this paedophile activist is capable of conceiving of as acceptable, how she butchers the Arthurian story, and what influence she had on subsequent generations of fantasy writers and feminists. Stay tuned!
Compromise and Conceit 
December 27, 2021 at 9:12 am
I was blown away by this women-centric book in an early 1990s college class called Arthurian Legend. It was the last book we read after a semester of Christian and male dominated narratives. The Mists of Avalon seemed so innovative and fresh then.
I no longer feel that way. The author’s abusive sexual beliefs seems omnipresent in these works. I also loved Bradley’s book The Firebrand when I read it 25 yrs ago. The level of violence against women in her novels now seems less like historical reality and more like misogynistic sadism and deliberate torture.
December 27, 2021 at 10:00 am
Thanks for your comment Fleur. I’m now halfway through the second volume and there is an awful lot of very traditional griping about how weak women are and a lot of gossiping and bitching, and yes still a lot of sexual assault and treating women like chattel. It’s quite horrible, and quite on top of the violence against women and the child abuse, I am finding it really hard to understand how this novel ever won acclaim as a feminist reinterpretation. Unless depicting an animist, matriarchal society as abusive and cruel is feminism? Weird!
December 21, 2023 at 10:18 am
The society in The Mists of Avalon –the parts of it that were real at all– existed over 1500 years ago, so it doesn’t make sense to pull out vignettes and analyze them according to how we would judge them if they happened today. We’re not going to look back at Arthurian Britain and emulate how they treated *anybody*, even if we happen to have a woman’s perspective. You can’t expect your female characters from over 1500 years ago to magically have a modern day enlightened perspective on anything. MZB wrote characters that she imagined were consistent with how people acted in Britain in the year 400 or 500 AD (or whenever the Arthurian legends are based).
Also, you’re deliberately misinterpreting scenes from the book. For example- the thing with Morgaine, Lancelot, & Gwenhwyfar (however you spell that), in Avalon- the books goes into great detail about why M has the feelings she has. It’s not *just* because L decides to help a lost “child” (as you say). I got the impression M &G were about the same age. Additionally, you’re trying to say that someone is a “horrible person” just because they have intense feelings of jealousy for certain reasons? People have feelings…
My intention in writing this comment is *not* to defend MZB or the Mists of Avalon (although I know it may sound that way), only to point out flaws in your reasoning, so at least the discussion is fair and logical.
December 21, 2023 at 4:12 pm
I disagree that MZB wrote the characters that she imagined were consistent with how people acted in Britain 1500 years ago. I’ll be writing a post on this sometime soon, so I hope you stick around, but she clearly intended for Taliesin, at least, to be the voice of modern liberalism in the story, and through the cloud of her misogyny and small-mindedness she clearly intended for the society of Avalon to represent an alternative path for Britain to become a multi-religious, mutli-ethnic, essentially modern liberal society in 500AD. This project fails in this story because of the mistakes made by two religious zealots (Viviane on the one hand, and in particular Gwenhwyfar), but the vision is clear in the minds of many of the characters. Also, even if she was intending to write the story of how she imagined characters to be in the year 500AD, what are the chances that they all turn out to have the exact same vice (child-fucking) that MZB herself has? Seems a bit unlikely, wouldn’t you say?
I’ll also mention that I’m not writing this particular criticism (of how everyone is a horrible person) in order to offer a strong original review of the books (it’s a little late for that), but as part of the project of revisiting these books as an adult to understand why they had so much appeal to me and to so many other people when we were young. So I ask the question, why did I like them and stick with them when everyone is such an arsehole? As background to this I point you to my posts on Jimmy Savile (linked in this post, I think), who is also clearly an utter arsehole, a weirdo and a creep, but who was super-mega-popular when I was young. Why?! Why did we engage with such media in any kind of positive way? We don’t need to go back 1500 years to find that the past is a strange country – just 30 or 40 years is enough!
It’s not often that someone writes a super famous and influential book, and then gets outed as a completely awful person who was awful in ways that go against what we had all believed to be the fundamental spirit of that book, and yet the people who read the book when it first came out are still around to reassess it in light of the discovery. If people revealed tomorrow that Shakespeare was a paedophile and a murderer, no one who was alive when his works first came out is going to be around to reassess their appraisal and wonder how he got to be famous. But in this case we can go back to when the books first came out, and we can wonder why they were so famous, and whether any hint of the grossness of the author is in the novels, and what it says about the society that we grew up in that these books became famous. But I think *that* question – as opposed to the question of whether Gwenhwyfar is a faithful representation of 6th-century English womanhood – requires us to assess the past from the perspective of the present. Which is what I’m trying to do here.
And finally Morgaine really is a horrible person, and if you don’t think that it can be judged from this moment of horrible jealousy, cast your mind to the way she ensnares Lancelet in marriage to Elaine. Deliberate, vicious, wilful misuse of magic to ruin the life of a man who spurned her once, and once only, when she was a teenager!
December 22, 2023 at 3:42 am
wow thanks for the fast reply 🙂 Anyway before I continue, I want to make clear that my motivation in writing this is *not* to defend MZB, but rather to more accurately represent the situation, since the truth is, that people enjoy TMOA for a reason– because it’s a *good book*, and that’s the very reason that it’s important to talk about it– because it’s true that bad people can write good books, and this is all something we have to on the lookout for. I think this is what you were also saying in your second-to-last paragraph of the your last reply. So even though I’m disagreeing with you, I’m not really *opposed* to you, more like playing the devil’s advocate with the intention of making your position stronger.
I also feel that your tone in these blog posts is reeling in horror from the discovery of the sexual abuse, and reinterpreting everything in TMOA in light of that. Which is fair, maybe. But don’t forget that you, like many of us, read and loved TMOA long ago, and you *didn’t* throw it away from yourself thinking “disgusting! this must have been written by a child molester!” And there’s a reason for that. Because it’s a well written and *mostly* reasonable book (not entirely, but mostly). And those of us who love it are mostly reasonably people who would not enjoy something blatantly saturated in pedophiliac themes.
I really appreciate a few of your points– one being that women in TMOA are often described as not eating very much, while men are described as eating quite a lot. This is pointed out deliberately over and over, and a very common misogynistic theme in our society (ever seen the blog “women laughing alone with salad”?)
Like you mentioned, I also really didn’t like in TMOA how Taliesin is, in fact, one of the wisest characters, and is, in fact, male. How disappointing, and totally unnecessary. Viviane’s and Taliesin’s characters traits could have easily been swapped without impacting the story’s logistics.
I don’t see Avalon as intended to be a progressive and liberal society. Meaning– clearly it’s *not*, objectively, for a lot of the reasons you point out, but I also don’t think MZB intended for it to be. The mood in TMOA is that the goddess-worshipping pagans were living peacefully, according to their native religion & culture, until the Christians moved in & changed things, and Morgaine and the other priestesses are engaged in a struggle to reclaim their lands from these foreign invaders. I don’t see any evidence that MZB intended Avalon to be a model society for us.
Of course the pagans in 400 AD had many practices that we would abhor today– such as the girls going to the rites of Beltane often being younger than they should have been, and the rites being pretty coercive and probably terrifying and painful for the girls & women. No one would expect this society to be enlightened according to our values today, and women all over the world, in many cultures, were being forcibly married & having sex & having babies at *very* young ages. If MZB had avoided that reality, and made British pagans in 400 AD into some liberal utopia, she probably would have been criticized for whitewashing history and avoiding the reality of it.
And yes, the mention of young girls at the rites of Beltane is pretty creepy and disgusting to read about coming from an ideologically-committed pedophile. You would assume she was writing about the rites of Beltane with the mindset of “it was disgusting that young girls were made to do this, but I should represent it faithfully because that was the reality”– but now you’re wondering if her mindset was actually something like “whoa, nice, the pagans let *young* girls go to the rites too…” Which of course is horrifying for us to contemplate.
It’s also possible that MZB did see Avalon as a liberal utopia, but according to how people like Morgaine would define “liberal utopia” given that she was born in 400 AD. Think about what the word “progressive” means– “getting better.” “Progressive” in Arthurian England is by definition different then progressive today.
While there *are* many terrible people in this book who do really horrific and damaging things– Viviane and Morgause mainly– I don’t think Morgaine is one of them. Morgaine is shown over and over to carefully consider the impact of her behavior on others. This is even more to her credit given how little people around her do this. Yes, she has some bizarre emotions that I don’t relate to personally, but just having an emotion doesn’t make someone a bad person.
It was very wrong of her to meddle in Lancelot’s and Elaine’s marriage, but she was very hesitant to it, and felt very guilty afterward. Also, you can see exactly WHY she did it — e.g.,she felt pressured to take up Viviane’s mantle, she felt personally inadequate and thought maybe copying Viviane would be the right thing to do. Also she felt it was for the best to get Lancelot away from Arthur’s court. I think it was wrong of her, but doing a bad thing doesn’t automatically make someone a bad person. Meddling was an anomaly in her behavior, not a habit. She points out many times when she could have meddled but didn’t, because she knew it would be wrong. Remember that she renounced Avalon because of how disgusted she was by Viviane’s meddling, and by the incest she was forced into committing.
I also think it was wrong of her to kill Kevin. I felt very uncomfortable with that part. I was disappointed in Morgaine for doing that and disappointed in the book for ending like that. He seemed to have a good reason for whatever he did, and there wasn’t anything to suggest that he deserved to die, apart from fanaticism about sacred objects, which seemed below Morgaine’s usual level of intelligence and wisdom.
Anyway I could go on, but this is probably long enough. What is the point of writing all of this and not just dismissing TMOA as written by a completely gross monster? Because there’s a reason we all liked it, or even loved it, when we first read it… Horrifically bad people can write good books that appeal to good people, and can even write characters like Morgaine who is (in my opinion at least) a good person who also has a lot of charisma and is often very relatable. Don’t try to go back and claim that you never loved TMOA and it’s all horrible just because you now know who MZB is. People contain multitudes… it’s apparently quite possible to do horrible things to your own children, and also portray compassion and empathy and wisdom in writing.
December 22, 2023 at 2:02 pm
Serith, thanks for your reply. I think there’s a lot in your reply that is explanation/agreement, so I’ll skip it (thanks for reading this attentively!) I’ll address a few points here…
About Taliesin being liberal, yes it’s disappointing that the voice of reason is a man – I’m going to write about this – but in addition I think he plays a specific role as a liberal voice. This kind of character – the voice of liberal modernity – is super common in fantasy novels. I think Tyrion plays the role in Game of Thrones, for example, Gandalf in some ways in LoTR, Tanis to a certain extent in Dragonlance, and so on. I think it’s a necessary flaw in the fantasy genre that enables us, the modern reader, to stomach the barbarity and backwardness of the times we’re reading about. Taliesin plays that role in the Mists of Avalon. But more than that, I am not trying to say in my previous comment that MZB envisages Avalon as a liberal society, rather that she envisages two paths for Britain – one following Taliesin’s wisdom, to the creation of a liberal, secular modern Britain, ruled under Arthur; and the other, following Gwenhwyfar’s insecurities, to a theocratic fascist state. The story is about the failure of Taliesin’s vision and a large part of that failure is placed on the shoulders of the women (rather than Taliesin himself). I haven’t got to the end yet but we know (because the story is 1000 years older than MZB) that it ends in the ruin of Britain and its collapse into the Dark Ages. So that part of the book really has got to be about how and why that collapse happened, and what Britain would have been like if Arthur’s project hadn’t failed. And it seems pretty clear to me that the alternative vision, the one MZB wants us to see as better, is a modern, liberal society. All the parts are there, in the common ideas shared by Taliesin and Morgaine.
I don’t agree with your interpretation of Morgaine’s meddling in Elaine’s marriage or your interpretation of her attitude towards Lancelet. I’m at the point in teh book where they have grey hair and Lancelet has three children and she *still* gets consumed with jealous rage when she thinks about what could have been. She is *spiteful*, and spite is not a positive character trait. She isn’t just selfish or confused, she’s spiteful. A lot of the characters in this story are mean or spiteful! There is no other way really to interpret Gwenhwyfar’s attitude towards Morgaine, or the attitude of many of the men towards Viviane, or Lot towards pretty much every woman he ever fucks. There are lots of unpleasant people! And the ones who aren’t unpleasant are a) all men and b) dumb as a sack of rocks. Arthur is stunningly stupid! So is Uriens (towards whom Morgaine feels a lot of spite and contempt). Lancelet too, really. It’s like it’s not possible to be clever or wise and also have any other positive personality traits unless you happen to be Taliesin.
However, Morgaine is the key character driving this story, and after the first quarter of the book she becomes a rich and complex character, if not especially likable, and we stick with her because we’re interested in her vision, her struggles, and how she sees the losers around her. By the second half of the book she becomes a deep and interesting character.
Anyway, I hope you stay tuned to read more about my re-interpretation of the story. I’m also interested in whether anyone reviewed the book negatively at the time it was published. Now, obviously, there are many reviews, but I don’t know if at the time it was published any major figures said “You know what? This book has a lot of child fucking! and the main characters seem to think it’s okay, and are quite mean, and it was hard to read”. This interests me a lot – how did this happen, was the book really a feminist work at all, and how did people like Savile, MZB, Jimmy Paige, all these wankers, manage to have so much influence on our popular culture while being so irredeemably awful. If you watch video of Savile now you’ll think “Wow what a creep!” and no one under the age of 30 can look at his behavior and think anything positive. But my generation loved him! Why? What has changed? How did these people hide in plain sight? I don’t just mean how did they wield power to protect themselves (we know Savile made connections with all the people he needed to to ensure nobody touched him), but how did their cultural contribution manage to pass through all our filters? *That* to me is an interesting question!