I was talking to some friends about Gloriana, and was told that it is has been rewritten. I've only read the original but would like to know what the difference between the two is as there seemed to be some disagreement as to whether the ending had been comprehensively rewritten, or just a couple of sentences altered.
Furthermore, it appears from some of the things that were said that Mike changed the book because he thought that it justified rape in some way. I'm rather confused about this as I thought that point of the ending was that it was deliberately ironic in that whilst Gloriana is 'fulfilled' by the rape and Quire is redeemed by his own 'unfulfillment' (which is itself ambiguous in that he takes joy in the fact he brought her to climax and the reader is unsure whether that joy is for her, or pride that he has done something no other could), the new age of chivalry is thereby heralded in by an act that is every bit as morally vicious as those which Montfalcon engaged in to set up and maintain the earlier age of chivalry. Furthermore, the fact that Quire rapes Gloriana because he sees it as his right to demand something for saving her life is itself a product of the code of chivalry; therefore the entire edifice is seen as necessarily structurally unsound from a moral point of view.
Now I could be wrong about all this, but my point is that such an interpretation only works if rape is taken to be categorically immoral, so I don't see how the original version could have been seen to justify such an act. Anyway, I'd be very interested in Mike's and other people's opinions.
Furthermore, it appears from some of the things that were said that Mike changed the book because he thought that it justified rape in some way. I'm rather confused about this as I thought that point of the ending was that it was deliberately ironic in that whilst Gloriana is 'fulfilled' by the rape and Quire is redeemed by his own 'unfulfillment' (which is itself ambiguous in that he takes joy in the fact he brought her to climax and the reader is unsure whether that joy is for her, or pride that he has done something no other could), the new age of chivalry is thereby heralded in by an act that is every bit as morally vicious as those which Montfalcon engaged in to set up and maintain the earlier age of chivalry. Furthermore, the fact that Quire rapes Gloriana because he sees it as his right to demand something for saving her life is itself a product of the code of chivalry; therefore the entire edifice is seen as necessarily structurally unsound from a moral point of view.
Now I could be wrong about all this, but my point is that such an interpretation only works if rape is taken to be categorically immoral, so I don't see how the original version could have been seen to justify such an act. Anyway, I'd be very interested in Mike's and other people's opinions.
Comment