/lit/ - Literature

Depends on if you want to be entertained or know the actual history of Arthurian legends.

>1. The History of the Kings of Britain - Geoffrey of Monmouth

Oldest surviving text about King Arthur, and an attempt by Monmouth to put King Arthur into the actual history of Britain.

>2. The Mabinogion - Unknown

Pre-Christian Celtic ural stories, probably the most important source of Anglo-French paganism, mythology, and tradition alive today, and the most important source for both France and Britain.

>3. Tristan and Iseult by Beroul

Dirty version but the Gottfried version is 500 pages long and way too expansive, is often skipped in other works but is definitely an essential read considering the massive influence on medieval culture's perception of romance.

>4. Arthurian Romances - Chrétien de Troyes
Everything by de Troyes in a single 500 pages book by a writer considered one of the grandfathers of the modern novel and one of the best writers of medieval literature.
His sources are unknown and sometimes a little dubious, but de Troyes was so popular that almost all of his works have survived and have become essential medieval canon.

I just want to have fun tier:

>1. Le Morte d'Arthur - Thomas Malory

A compilation of works from de Troyes and other sources with a few sources that were forgotten until Malory added them back in, it's essentially Arthurian Romances again with a few additions.
If you've read the rest then this is kind of a meaningless version, but some swear by it because of how it's written.

2. The Once and Future King - T.H White

The 'Disney' book, more of a fantasy novel than the actual thing, but it's worth reading if you want to be entertained.

>>11469310
He then accuses the postmodernists of Marxist elements to create another quarantine, together this only leaves a small group of intellectuals to be attacked from a limited understanding, rather than the full scale of participation. He never targets the subsequent usage of these works such as Edith Butler, who used Foucault to create a postmodernist view on gender, and is one of the leading figures in the activist side of the rejection of the Darwininan-Bateman paradigm.
To tie these intellectuals to Marxism, Peterson accuses both Derrida and Foucault of being Marxists, when both denied being Marxists, never let politics bleed into their works, and simply moved around the Marxist intellectual milieu of their time. Derrida wrote books against Marxism and his dislike for totalizing phenomena according to a single originary essence, Foucault had a libertarian streak and similar analytical aesthetics to Marx, but no one would describe him as a Marxist. But this French-Marxian milieu is simply enough for Peterson to morally condemn these intellectuals.
Both Derrida and Foucault never called themselves postmodernists, the term was applied backwards to explain the era of pomo. Foucault had to be told what postmodernism actually was during a talk a year before he died.