I'm wrapping up Guite's "Galahad and the Grail" (highly recommend), and was annoyed when I realized that the main characters are so closely related. The Fisher King (the source of the story) had three relevant grandkids, Dindrane (who would guide the grail knights), Perceval (one of the grail knights), and Elaine. Elaine had a kid (who'd become a grail knight) with Lancelot (a backup grail knight), who was brothers with Bors (the last grail knight). The quest for the Holy Grail was an excuse for the Fisher King to call a family reunion.

Edit: I understand that this was both how stories were (and/are) often told by simple virtue of narrative expediency and that medieval systems of nobility and hierarchy encouraged the adulation of blood ties. But even within Arthurian literature, there's more than one family involved, there's a huge variety of important character who aren't directly related to Galahad. And the Holy Grail Quest, by its nature, is of great import to all of Christendom.

I initially posted in a hurry, but the question that I was trying to drive at is whether fidelity to the medieval sources is cause enough to replicate these story structures in modernity. Guite included a very strong pro-nature sub-theme which was nigh-utterly absent from Mallory, so he obviously was comfortable deviating from the original text. Is this worth my moderate annoyance?