{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.036380597014925374, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.831521739130435, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
King Arthur on Film: New Essays on Arthurian Cinema ed. by Kevin J. Harty (review)

The grail, a bowl, is discussed with the indefinite article once at its first appearance; thereafter Chrétien uses only the definite article, and never is it described as 'holy.' Such changes irritate the knowledgeable reader, and though Raffel would counter that such changes are not relevant, they tend to take the reader farther away from Chretien's purpose and his achievement. In his preface Raffel comments: 'The final eight hundred lines or so, in my judgment, show a consistent and significant decline in Chretien's poetic skills, his ability fully to focus on what he was creating. Aged or ill, he was still immensely superior, as a poet, to the "learned cleric" who finished Lancelot. But he was not entirely himself, and I have tried to allow the translation (like the last portion of Lancelot) to reflect this diminution in verse quality.' But Raffel's translation shows no 'diminution in verse quality,' the closing lines following the same pattern of the entire translation.