In the previous weeks I have been thinking a lot about the modern story-telling, and how it is based on inversion. Even works old half a century, like LotR, have inversions: there is a quest to destroy a special object and not to retrieve it; also, it has, in the opposition between culture and nature, given the precedence to the element of nature which is very unusual since the modern civilization usually puts emphasis on culture as a way to separate us from animals. In many modern films (animated and non-animated) women are taking the active role; they no longer need to be saved by knights as was usual earlier, and can themselves save a knight or two 
What has this to do with "Merlin" - and with me thinking about the show? Well, I remember when I was kid, it was cool to imagine yourself as a knight fighting battles, riding horses, saving princesses - which I did, as most of other children did. I participated in great many sieges and duels, waved and slashed with countless swords of eternity and life, went into many a dark cavern or inapproachable castle on the hill - and all that in my own bedroom, or in the park. But more often I was in the role of the sage, the wizard, the advisor, wielding not weapons but secret knowledge and insight. Maybe it has to do with my personality, but I was always more Gandalf than Aragorn, and more Merlin than Arthur. (And a bit of an old, good, lazy and unwilling Bilbo )
And here we are! It's not just my recollection or preferences for a more passive role in a story. It's the inversion, and it's happening in "Merlin". The emphasis is not on the knight or prince, embodied in Arthur. He still plays a prominent role, though, amongst others, a role of defining the previously passive in Merlin, just as Merlin was there in those books on King Arthur I read to define with his passivity the active role of Arthur. In this TV series, the true hero is the wizard, or the warlock. Finally we get to see the other side of the coin more closely. Now the dragons words make more sense - they are two sides of a coin because, besides other things, they define each other - one has to be reason and cunning (Merlin) while the other has to be bravery and strength (Arthur). The opposition remains for the myth to function, it's the stress that changes from one pole to the other. And that's what I say: Finally! My time has come! Finally a series that suits my point of view that a wizard is as important as the knight, and the show gradually shows this transition from Merlin's qualities being unnoticed to him becoming one of the pillars of Arthur's success as "once and future king".
The other inversion has to do with showing Merlin in his young age, and atop of that, him being the same age (or slightly younger than) as Arthur. Of this I haven't thought very deeply, but it certainly deserves attention. It provides many new ways to redefine the myth, by adding a new kind of dynamics, replacing the old one between a mentor and unwilling student. But still, there is Gaius, who sort-of restores the balance.
I hope this has not been very long so as to bore you. What do you think? Do you find other inversions, or any other changes in comparison to the classical story-telling?
Edited on 01/06/2010 11:10am
The CGI work on the dragon is fantastic, but John Hurt's voice makes it just amazing. It mustn't be easy to perform just recording your voice on your own without having the chance to interact with other actors, and he makes a terrific job at it! (And by extension, so does Colin when he records his scenes with the dragon).
As cool as a dragon is, I'll have Arthur first 
