Talk:Chivalric romance

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Poetry Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Literature Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Middle Ages Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

etc.

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

Mballen, I wish you would simply contribute most of the above to the article. I will add a reference to the wikipedia article for Ancient Greek novel. Markdf10825 (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

What about adding to the article some discussion of science fiction ("space opera"), fantasy, western ("horse opera") and other such genres, which (I think) carry the romance tradition to the present day? I don't have the required sources at hand, so I hope someone else would do it. Jussi Hirvi 20 Dec. 2005

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

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

As a result of a discussion at

Perhaps a simpler fix than renaming this (which would involve fixing all the links, etc.) would be to make the index at Romance (fiction) which would give you the chance to explain all the various aspects of this area and it would avoid hair splitting on whether something is or isn't a genre (which is partly how this arose in the first place). Just my twopenneth as I'm not an expert on the area. (Emperor (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

In August 2007 this page was moved to Chivalric romance. In December the same year it was moved back.

Most articles in other Wikipedias use the word "chivalry" or "knight" in some form in the title of the article. There's probably a good reason for that. "Romance" is a very wide term, but this article indeed deals with Chivalry novels, which would probably be familiar to common people mostly through Don Quixote. To the best of my knowledge far more people today know Quixote than Amadis. This English translation of Quixote uses "books of chivalry" throughout the book itself and both "books of chivalry" or "romances of chivalry" in the introduction; "romance" is almost never alone and is usually qualified.

Given all the above reasons, i propose to move this article to Chivalric romance. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about the elements of Romance in Lord of the Rings. Have you heard of Northrop Frye? What is the suggestion based on? Have you contributed text to the article Romance (genre)?--Wetman (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lord of the Rings is a very small part of this article; I didn't claim that i am a qualified literary critic; And i don't think that it is written anywhere that one has to

contribute text to an article

in order to achieve the right to propose a move.

I am simply proposing to rename this article so it would reflect its actual content - chivalry books. I believe that it would make it easier to find and a little more accessible to the general public and not just to qualified literary critics. To most people today the "romance" genre is about love stories, not about chivalry. I am not proposing to dumb this article down, just to make its title less confusing. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Cutting. Goldfritha (talk) 20:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cut this line

Medieval romances most likely have their roots in the

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Also, I would like to point out that Romance (genre) was not acceptable. After the move, I redirect Romance (genre) to Romance, and then upon reviewing link, found that over 50 links to Romance (genre) were not at all about heroic literature. Thus, having this article at Romance (genre) resulted in hundreds of pages linking to the wrong article. If you want to do another move, that's fine with me, but not to Romance (genre).

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)[reply]

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)

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm cutting this:

A related tradition existed in Northern Europe, and comes down to us in the form of

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)[reply]

" 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)[reply]

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)[reply]