What I found most interesting about the two authors, was how adultry is a consistent topic. In Chretien's story, Lancelot's love seem to have conquered all and was not a social concern. while in the lais, it felt like the stories were more like anecdotes that want to tell the rest of the world that adultry is to be ashamed of, unless there's true love involved.
Another point I want to discuss about is the noble-ness of the knights. what is a knight? and what makes a good one? any one who does not do unethical things seems to be a good knight. Lancelot jumping into the kart was looked down upon, because it looked as if it was a bad thing, and the civilians became unappreciating of his action. the bravery and the 'strength' of a person also makes a good knight - that's why Meleagant fought Lancelot 3 times. He wanted to show his strength. With strength, comes glory and fame, and respect by all. Lancelot seem to have won that much easier, as have Bisclavret and the guy from the mountain of two lovers. Bought to them were long history of fame, because of the strength, and nobility they have.
One major difference I seem to have notice, but cannot support strongly yet, is that, in Chretien's writing, women have seem to have been so easy to earn their love. by Lancelot performing the task to behead a villian, Lancelot's glory battle at the coluseum, and Lancelot's encouter with the girl who wanted to sleep with him. while in Marie de France's writing, Ladies would end up liking the guy, only when the guy likes her first, as shown in bisclavet, le fresne, and equitan.