Merlin contra Camelot
Oct. 30th, 2014 03:25 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wiseheartAs I generally like crossovers, I was browsing the Merlon crossover section the other day and discovered that there were about three Merlin/Camelot crossovers... none of them very good. One of the reviewers (yes, I like to check out the reviews first sometimes) reflected upon this fact, mentioning they thought there would be a great lot of such fics.
Since I have been nurturing a vague plot idea for such a crossover for some time, I gave the question some thought. I think I know the reason - or, at least, one of the reasons - now.
Aside from the fact that the two versions seem to take place in vastly different times (Camelot in the Dark Age and Merlin in the time of chivalry), I think the main problem who le trying to match the two is the ethical one. In Merlin, people are generally trying to do the right thing. Unless they are evil, of course, in which case they get beaten, sooner or later. In Camelot, people just want things: the crown, a sword, other people's wives, power... whatever. And they aren't particularly quesy about the way they get it.
Camelot's Merlin is of questionable morale. He doesn't hesitate to help Igraine's bastard son to the throne, even though in these settings Morgan is the only legitimate heir. Arthur is an annoying little snot who fiends it okay to screw the bride of his most faithful vassal on the day of their wedding. And said bride is sly enough to produce false proof of her virginity, too. So, why is everyone (the characters, I mean) harping about Morgan's evil while they aren't one bit better? And the viewer is expected to identify with them? At least Morgan had a legitimate claim and was cheated out of it, thanks to Merlin.
Of course, BBC Merlin has more to do with a medieval romance than with actual historic facts. But I prefer their moral message.
Since I have been nurturing a vague plot idea for such a crossover for some time, I gave the question some thought. I think I know the reason - or, at least, one of the reasons - now.
Aside from the fact that the two versions seem to take place in vastly different times (Camelot in the Dark Age and Merlin in the time of chivalry), I think the main problem who le trying to match the two is the ethical one. In Merlin, people are generally trying to do the right thing. Unless they are evil, of course, in which case they get beaten, sooner or later. In Camelot, people just want things: the crown, a sword, other people's wives, power... whatever. And they aren't particularly quesy about the way they get it.
Camelot's Merlin is of questionable morale. He doesn't hesitate to help Igraine's bastard son to the throne, even though in these settings Morgan is the only legitimate heir. Arthur is an annoying little snot who fiends it okay to screw the bride of his most faithful vassal on the day of their wedding. And said bride is sly enough to produce false proof of her virginity, too. So, why is everyone (the characters, I mean) harping about Morgan's evil while they aren't one bit better? And the viewer is expected to identify with them? At least Morgan had a legitimate claim and was cheated out of it, thanks to Merlin.
Of course, BBC Merlin has more to do with a medieval romance than with actual historic facts. But I prefer their moral message.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2014-10-31 05:28 am (UTC)I admit I LOVE the musical Camelot.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-10-31 10:55 am (UTC)I don't know the musical, unfortunately.