Compare/Contrast Steinbeck and ...

The life of Sir Launcelot has been rewritten and changed many times, and two stories about him portray his personality very differently. Sir Launcelot du Lake shows Sir Launcelot as a brave, strong soldier who is harmless to any man. He heeds to no bad persuasion, not even the threat of death if he did not 'be with' one of the three women. He possessed exaggerated powers such as super strength and courage. However, the Sir Launcelot portrayed by Steinbeck shows the softer side of Launcelot. He falls passionately for Queen Qwynever, the wife of his good friend King Arthur, and does something he regrets later for doing. Steinbeck's version was much more reaistic, and we could sympathize and empathize with many of his actions (except the outrageous kissing which showed that he was not as faithful to King Arthur and the chivalric code as everyone had expected). The narrator of Sir Laucelot du Lake sounded like one of the millions of admirers Launcelot had. According to Steinbeck's version, many witnesses were in awe of him, but Sir Launcelot seemed tired and uncaring about what they all said. This shows that even though he has strength, he is not entirely honorable, as he was bored while the exaggerated events played on in his ears. He also did not possess chastity, which shows that Launcelot did not completely obey with the chrivalric code. This makes Sir Launcelot seem more real and life-like, but not necessarily more likeable. This is a little relieved by the fact that he felt guilty after he did the outrageous thing with Guinevere, but he cried, which may be a little dissapoiting, but it makes him stand out more. Overall, both stories are very different, one with Sir Launcelot as an unfeeling warrior who fights proudly for honor without a second glance at any woman except Guinevere, the other showed a passionated love affair. One thing in common was that Sir Launcelot was strong.