Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TheCosmicKid" data-source="post: 8006394" data-attributes="member: 6683613">The interesting thing is that in the early ballads, he kind of does oppose feudalism. Not in the systematic, ideological way we might expect of, say, a 20th-Century communist revolutionary, to be sure. But the story hadn't yet been fixed in a specific historical context: he isn't opposing Prince John, Prince John and King Richard don't figure in the narrative. Instead he's opposing generic representatives of medieval English wealth and power. In particular -- and this is an aspect that has almost disappeared from the story now -- he robs a lot of churchmen.Overall, these ballads read like fun, innocuous outlets for common folks' frustration at corruption higher up the social ladder. Although they don't advocate change in any grand way, they are predicated on a shared understanding that super-rich bishops and sheriffs are not respectable authority figures but rather greedy bastards, and wouldn't it be nice if somebody could live free of the laws they lay down and give them their comeuppance. In D&amp;D terms, this is chaotic as all get out.(I should stress that this isn't all that's going on in there. Again: they're medieval ballads, not post-industrial socialist parables, so we need to be careful about interpreting the social pressures they're expressing through an anachronistic filter. If I had to put a finger on it briefly, I'd say that the conflicts are broadly understood in terms of personal character rather than socioeconomic class: the bad guys are haughty, arrogant, and greedy, and the good guys are humble and kind.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TheCosmicKid, post: 8006394, member: 6683613"] The interesting thing is that in the early ballads, he kind of [I]does[/I] oppose feudalism. Not in the systematic, ideological way we might expect of, say, a 20th-Century communist revolutionary, to be sure. But the story hadn't yet been fixed in a specific historical context: he isn't opposing Prince John, Prince John and King Richard don't figure in the narrative. Instead he's opposing generic representatives of medieval English wealth and power. In particular -- and this is an aspect that has almost disappeared from the story now -- he robs a [I]lot[/I] of churchmen. Overall, these ballads read like fun, innocuous outlets for common folks' frustration at corruption higher up the social ladder. Although they don't advocate change in any grand way, they are predicated on a shared understanding that super-rich bishops and sheriffs are not respectable authority figures but rather greedy bastards, and wouldn't it be nice if somebody could live free of the laws they lay down and give them their comeuppance. In D&D terms, this is chaotic as all get out. (I should stress that this isn't all that's going on in there. Again: they're medieval ballads, not post-industrial socialist parables, so we need to be careful about interpreting the social pressures they're expressing through an anachronistic filter. If I had to put a finger on it briefly, I'd say that the conflicts are broadly understood in terms of [I]personal character[/I] rather than socioeconomic class: the bad guys are haughty, arrogant, and greedy, and the good guys are humble and kind.) [/QUOTE]

Verification