Building Blocks

What I gathered from Chapter 1 is that the story of Arthur is sort of like a big puzzle, or building blocks being thrown together by a multitude of people.  And I do not mean a puzzle as in whether he existed or not is a puzzle, or the many stories force puzzling questions.  What I mean is that the many historians and poets and storytellers that have written about the mythic King Arthur all seem to draw on each other's ideas and sometimes even use the exact same foundation, and then add and build on to it.  Oftentimes they even specifically reference another's work.  Hence, the building blocks.  Take, for example, Gildas and Bede.  The two historians chronicle just about the same exact thing and neither makes any mention of Arthur.  But then comes along Nennius, who again repeats much of what his two predecessors state, but then throws in Arthur's name.  And this continues on through history with multiple writers until we get accounts from the likes of William of Malmesbury and Geoffrey of Monmouth.  William being the writer that added in the great knight Gawain, and Geoffrey being the writer who's work regarding Arthur and his knights is most known. 

All of the work by the great number of historians and writers on Arthur creates blurred lines and jumbled pieces for the modern person to sort through and try to organize.  This leaves every question ever asked of Arthur practically unanswerable and still a confused mess.