In some other posts, we were discussing why certain historical figures are less popular than one would imagine they might be as subjects for HF, like el cid or charelemagne. this led me to the opposite end. overexposed HF personages.
Currently, Im on a personal boycott of both King Arthur and Robin hood. I feel these are the two most overexposed "historical" characters. Why do writers constantly feel the need to "reinvent" these same characters over and over again in literature and cinema. More importantly, why do readers still buy them? I reckon you could stack all the King Arthur and Robin hood books and films ever written and climb to the top and have a nice view. there is really nothing left to be done with these characters. I groaned when Ridley Scott came out with his latest "robin hood". Another one? just what we dont need.
these leads me to wonder why is a mostly legendary character like King arthur is more popular as a topic than say King Alfred, a real well documented, larger than life king? Or Kenneth MacAlpine? or Charlemagne? Why is the completely fictional robin hood more popular than say Dick Turpin, a real highwayman? Or any number of other authentic highwaymen.
Is it because the lack of records for these characters (Art and Rob, for short) gives the writers much more freedom? You can really do whatever the hell you want with King arthur as long as you include Lancelot, guenivere, and the rest. Make them English, make them celtic, make them roman, make them from the steppes of asia, heck nobody can contradict you. However if you get a fact wrong about alfred or chalemagne and the historians will pounce. So its less about the history, more about the story.
Or is it the familiarity that readers have with the characters that keeps them coming back again and again. the literary equivalant of Mcdonalds. you know more or less what youre gonna get. so whatever little twist the writer adds about the characters (ie. robin hood lived in the conquerors time rather than the lion hearts, that'll shock em) is extra spice. We all know little john, friar tuck and the lot and enjoy reading about whatever little twist the writer adds. that familiary makes the writers job easier. kind of like the way hollywood loves making films based on old tv shows. the familiarity is already there, they dont have to "sell" the story to you. you already know the basics.
I remember when the film "rob roy" came out and it was being described as "a scottish robin hood". i remember thinking that it was nothing like robin hood. but audiences needed that "familiarity" to sell them on the concept.
To me the dominance of certain personages means that other, more interesting personages are not being brought to light. instead every few years we get a "new" robin hood or a "new" arthur. and to be honest, these stories have already been told. no reason to "reboot" them.
Im really curious to see what others think about this. i hope i made my point reasonably clear (PS theres no anger here. just disappointment.) Do you agree with my points and/or can you think of other reasons why these guys are popular?
And im aiming this less at the writers and more at the readers. if readers didnt keep buying books on these characters they wouldnt keep getting written about.
for the nonce, im sticking by my personal boycott, for what its worth (please dont suggest I read.....such and such...because Ill like their original take on this old legend


thanks if you bothered to read this and i apologise if its at all confusing.