Talk:Chivalric romance

message: Well if most authors are Portuguese, I can't see the reason why it should be called the "Spanish" Amadis de Gaula. I changed it to Spanish/Portuguese... 
--85.138.18.70 14:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Amadis de Gaula

message: This article seems to be wrong. The genre in the form of prose novellas originated in late antiquity and was Greek and continued uninterrupted in Arab literature.  Greek romances (or tales) furnished the plots for Ancient Roman comedies and are the basis for the tales of Boccaccio and other writers who inspired the comedies of Shakespeare. They feature children separated at birth or captured in slavery, star-crossed lovers, tokens of identification, and the like, and usually had a happy ending. The relation of the Romance to Romantic literature given here is confused and inaccurate. The term "Romance" comes from the fact that these Greek novels were written in the vernacular, which was referred to as speaking in the Roman way (romanice, an adverb) or in what we would call "vulgar Latin" , i.e., the non-literary vernacular Latin that gave rise to the languages that are today called Spanish, Italian, French, Romanian, Dalmatian, Ladino, etc. A complicating factor is that Greeks (including Greek speakers) of late antiquity referred to themselves as Roman, because they were part of the Eastern Roman Empire, not because they spoke Latin, necessarily. "Romance" began to include all popular literature written in the vernacular as opposed to learned works composed in Ancient Latin (a dead tongue) meant to be read by scholars, but specifically romance literature referred to the highly popular medieval chivalric epics. These epics (as opposed to the traditional Greek prose romances) featured a lot of magical and fantastic elements, enchanted swords, and the like (like the special effects of today).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mballen (talk • contribs) 18:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Critical Omission of Greek Romance

message: There is a lot of excellent material on the Scandinavian sagas.  Is this really the place for such a full treatment of them, however?  Bacchiad 18:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an article Norse sagas. If the subheading were Elements of Romance in Norse sagas that might keep the discussion more on track. Shall I or would you? --Wetman 03:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

text: It is strange. The emphasis on Scandinavian sagas feels a bit biased. FilipeS (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sagas

message: I'm not really the person to do it (my knowledge of this genre is pretty limited) but it seems like there should be more mention of Chretien de Troye's contributions to this genre, particular Erec et Enide and/or The Knight of the Cart. Marie de France's Lais might also be good to include in the article, since although they are not technically romances, they share enough characteristics that they would probably be good to mention.
Certainly I think that the lais are closer to a true romance than some of the other works mentioned, like works of the 1500s or even 1400s which are really after romance was at the height of its form. Malory, although his Morte d'Arthur is certainly an important work and a good one to mention, is really after the height of romance (I don't *think* it's written in verse, either, is it?). Gawain and the Green Knight, although another good example, is also somewhat problematic because it is arguably really a parody of the genre (albeit not as strong a one as Done Quixote) and not, perhaps, an entirely serious example. Chretien and to a lesser extent Marie don't really suffer these issues; besides, they're famous examples of the genre in their own right. --Sailor Titan 18:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chretien de Troyes...Marie de France? 

message: "these were assembled in imagination at a late date as the "homosexual" (actually centered on the life and deeds of Alexander the Great)"
Is this a joke? Shouldn't this read "the Matter of Rome"?
update: I see that Wiki does have an entry on "Matter of Rome" that refers to these stories, so I edited the page to remove the offending word....
Aristophanes68 (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  homosexual???? 

message: This page should be about the genre of romance, whether it be modern or medieval, printed or in film. If it's going to be only about medieval romance, then it needs to be moved so the more generic article can take its place. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too specific 

message: David Lodge wrote Small World: An Academic Romance and this fits in with the genre.  It is a satire but also a quest novel that uses extraordinary circumstances and other medieval themes and methods. Does someone know how to work this modern version into the article. WikiParker (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern example 

message: Why are paragraphs on the saga in general when most sagas are in fact in the older, epic genre?  Chivalric sagas I could see but it's not even touching on them.  Goldfritha (talk) 01:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Cutting. Goldfritha (talk) 20:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Saga

message: I cut this line
:Medieval romances most likely have their roots in the Ancient Greek novel, for instance the well-known Alexander romance.
on the grounds that not only is it unsourced, it is not supported by anything I've ever read, which point rather to the epics as the source of the bulk of them.Goldfritha (talk) 01:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Cutting unsourced

message: This line: "During the early 20th century romances were increasingly written as prose, and extensively amplified through cycles of continuation." is clearly meant to refer to the 14th or 15th century, I'm not sure which though. Possibly vandalism?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.185.68 (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Late Medieval 20th Century? 

message: I see the move is done and dusted. The problem is that heroic literature and romance are different and in many ways contrasting genres. The article title is now positively misleading. --Pfold (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So what romance isn't about a hero? Lancelot is certainly a flawed hero, but still a hero. According to Wiki's titling conventions, the title suggests that romance is a type of heroic literature, not that the two are the same thing. Kauffner (talk) 10:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you seriously think heroic literature means literature with a hero,... Romance is not a type of heroic literature. --Pfold (talk) 13:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

text: I agree with Pfold on this one. The title is at least possibly misleading, and I even wonder if the one who proposed it was confusing romance with chanson de geste. —Srnec (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: My basic plea is for a move to a title that is not factually incorrect. Romance (medieval literature) is fine if cumbersome. But I have to say I should like to see the vote challenged. This was a very marginal vote with low participation and the fact that it was for a move to a factually incorrect title undermines the entire article. If a vote is for something that is demonstrably wrong, then the votes in favour of it would lack credibility, even if they were much more numerous. ---09:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

text: "The half-tones of ordinary human nature are not for the romance writers; every man is either a hero and a good man, or a villain...Poetic justice reigns supreme throughout the romances." -- Essays On Middle English Literature. Kauffner (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms has a general entry on "romance" and subsidiary one on "chivalric romance". It says that "the emphasis on heterosexual love and courtly manners distinguishes it from the chanson de geste and other kinds of epic , in which masculine military heroism predominates." I won't say that "heroic literature" is wrong (every romance has a hero), but I think that "courtly literature", for example, would be better. Srnec (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "Courtly" is fine. I suspect those who voted for heroic literature don't realize that it has a specific historical and genre meaning quite separate from the much broader concept of the hero. No medievalist would confuse the two. --Pfold (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate move 

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move Lynch7 03:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Romance (heroic literature) → Romance (courtly literature) — See the section immediately above for why I (and another) think this is a better option than the present. Basically, romance is often contrasted with literature that is more often labelled "heroic" than it. One of the defining aspects of romance that distinguishes it from medieval heroic genres is its "courtliness". Srnec (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Any additional comments:
Well, Kauffner, if courtly literature is just another name for this type of romance, why not move to Courtly literature? (I'm no expert, I'm just suggesting ideas) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
This moving business is a disaster, and shows how RM is broken< inviting comments from random people on a topic they known nothing about will lead to some quick "consensus", and once the editors who developed the article come back and find what happened, they will be powerless to undo the damage, because, hey, there was a "consensus". 
Just undo the ill-advised move and have a proper discussion, ok? "Romance (genre)" was about a million times preferable over "romance (heroic literature)" regardless of its possible drawbacks. Try to make this about the topic and not about being right or getting your way or justifying wiki-bureaucracy, please? --dab (𒁳) 08:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

text: Couldn't agree more. The present disambiguator is so inappropriate it undermines the credibility of the article itself --Pfold (talk) 10:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move 2

message: *Oppose. "Courtly literature" is another name for Romance, so this is not a properly constructed disambiguator. The disabiguator should be a class that the subject is item within, or a subject or context. See WP:NCDAB. Kauffner (talk) 00:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Any additional comments:
Well, Kauffner, if courtly literature is just another name for this type of romance, why not move to Courtly literature? (I'm no expert, I'm just suggesting ideas) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>
This moving business is a disaster, and shows how RM is broken< inviting comments from random people on a topic they known nothing about will lead to some quick "consensus", and once the editors who developed the article come back and find what happened, they will be powerless to undo the damage, because, hey, there was a "consensus". 
Just undo the ill-advised move and have a proper discussion, ok? "Romance (genre)" was about a million times preferable over "romance (heroic literature)" regardless of its possible drawbacks. Try to make this about the topic and not about being right or getting your way or justifying wiki-bureaucracy, please? --dab (𒁳) 08:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

text: Couldn't agree more. The present disambiguator is so inappropriate it undermines the credibility of the article itself --Pfold (talk) 10:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I'm cutting this:
:A related tradition existed in Northern Europe, and comes down to us in the form of epics, such as Beowulf and the Nibelungenlied. However, the richest set of Germanic literature of Romance comes from Scandinavia in the form of the legendary sagas. The setting is Scandinavia, but occasionally it moves temporarily to more distant and exotic locations (including Constantinople). There are also very often mythological elements, such as gods, dwarves, elves, dragons, giants and magic swords. The heroes often embark on dangerous quests where they fight the forces of evil, dragons, witchkings, barrow-wights, and rescue fair maidens.
on the ground that it's about epics, not romances.  It needs to talk about what sort of influences they were on the later works to be appropriate. Goldfritha (talk) 02:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Cut

message: *Comment. "Medieval romance" outpaces "chivalric romance" on this ngram. See also The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Romance. Kauffner (talk) 06:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *That would also be an improvement and I'd support it. Srnec (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: * Wouldn't that ('medieval romance') be confusable with period romances set in the medieval period? -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Medieval romance redirects to Chivalric romance, but the term "medieval romance" is not introduced there as a synonym. I understand that both terms are used to disambiguate the term "romance", but the question remains: was there any kind of medieval romance other than chivalric romance?
This articleThe Cambridge Companion to Medieval Romance (book review) seems to say that at the very early times of the usage of the term "romans" there "romanses" were not necessarily chivalric and could include "free translations of Latin epics and chronicles", which, I guess, were far from "chivalric" - there were no chevaliers (knights) in Ancient Rome, right? Someone well-versed in literary lore, please update the article Chivalric romance with the clarification of the term "medieval romance", e.g., basing on the article I cited. Loew Galitz (talk) 04:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: " there were no chevaliers (knights) in Ancient Rome, right?" Is this a joke? The equites ("cavalrymen") of Rome are traditionally called "knights" in English. Dimadick (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this a joke back?  Here is a concept for you to revisit: "anachronism". The English are particularly notorious for using their standard English words for everything superficially similar. My fav is the habit of calling African chieftains "kings". Loew Galitz (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Medieval romance]]