Why are the epics of Charlemange, Orlando, etc, not as popular as other epics? I've enjoyed Orlando Innamorato and Furioso, but they pale in popularity to almost any other epic. Are they considered bad by literary standards?
Twelve Peers & co thread, I guess.
I would guess it's not the fault of these books, wich are well loved, but rather has to do with how highly popular are the other epics, wich i guess are the classics and the divine comedy. Those are consideres seminal works of whole literary cultures an epochs, after all
>>7706708
And on the twelve peers topic, i would love to see a higher dissemination of the many alternative tellings there are
>>7706725
Back when I started reading these, it really would have helped to have had discussions about the best translations, versions, whatever. I prefer the poetry feel over literal summaries so it was a bit of a chore to find what was what.
What >>7706708 said. The boners for Homer and Arthur overpower Roland and friends.
The Song of Roland is bretty gud.
Orlando Furioso is very good. The medieval ones, chanson de geste and chivalric romances are atrocious.
Just a thought, but what's with Astolfo being English? If he's Roland's cousin, shouldn't be be kind of French? Is he a Brit trying really hard to be a Frenchie?
>>7706754
It reads like brainwashing. I don't understand why chivalry revolves around blind loyalty to the king, look at what happened to the Templars.
>>7706708
But that doesn't really explain things. Why are Homer and Arthur more popular, even though Roland is culturally more relevant to Europe than Arthur is?
>>7707346
Roland killed Muslims, and that is NOT okay.
>>7709021
>Baguettes killing mudslims
Seems like a good time for a comeback.
