Facts versus truth and storytelling
Jun. 22nd, 2009 09:24 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
phoenix64(I've certainly beat on this drum or variations of it before but try to relax and enjoy the rhythms.)
I'm an odd duck sometimes in that I have to struggle to appreciate adaptations but I adore reinventions. Which means you can go ahead and do crazy, vulgar things to Mr. Shakespeare's work but how could you do that to one of my favorite comics?! But for the most part I try to approach a work with that part of my brain that reacts to inaccuracies of the historical, technical or textual variety turned off, and I try to encourage others to do the same. Sometimes turning it off requires very little effort, just like flicking a light switch off. Sometimes it has to be bashed into unconsciousness with a really big rock. And possibly finished off with a flamethrower. But I do try.
Having settled recently into a, "it's on so why not" pattern of TV watching I decided to give Merlin a try since NBC is broadcasting it. Initially: really, really big rock, ow. But I kept hitting myself in the head while reminding myself that one of the great things about folklore is there really isn't a single universally accepted as authentic source material. So criticizing a rearranging of the "facts" is so much balderdash.
Side note: has anyone else seen the animated series X-Men: Evolution? It reboots most of them to high school age. Kurt's accent is mind-boggling, but Rogue is kind of goth which I think is actually pretty nifty.
Anyway, back to Arthurian legend and accuracy: if you're going to lay claim to the right to determine what is and isn't accpetable, I'm curious what your sources are. Archeological or other historical sources? Troyes? Malory? Tennyson? T. H. White? How about Marion Zimmer Bradley? While I realize it's fashionable these days to look down on The Mists of Avalon, it really was pretty influential in both fantasy literature in general, and I believe it influenced perception of the Arthurian mythos more than many people realize. (I also happen to consider it a big heaping chunk of literary comfort food so I'd appreciate it if we just didn't get into a discussion of its faults.)
Arthurian legend is peopled with some pretty big characters and some pretty big stories representing some pretty big ideas. There's a lot of room there to tell those stories in different ways. Even with a cheesy British TV show.
Also? Merlin and Arthur may be the slashiest boys I've seen since House/Wilson. Mmmm, subtext.
I'm an odd duck sometimes in that I have to struggle to appreciate adaptations but I adore reinventions. Which means you can go ahead and do crazy, vulgar things to Mr. Shakespeare's work but how could you do that to one of my favorite comics?! But for the most part I try to approach a work with that part of my brain that reacts to inaccuracies of the historical, technical or textual variety turned off, and I try to encourage others to do the same. Sometimes turning it off requires very little effort, just like flicking a light switch off. Sometimes it has to be bashed into unconsciousness with a really big rock. And possibly finished off with a flamethrower. But I do try.
Having settled recently into a, "it's on so why not" pattern of TV watching I decided to give Merlin a try since NBC is broadcasting it. Initially: really, really big rock, ow. But I kept hitting myself in the head while reminding myself that one of the great things about folklore is there really isn't a single universally accepted as authentic source material. So criticizing a rearranging of the "facts" is so much balderdash.
Side note: has anyone else seen the animated series X-Men: Evolution? It reboots most of them to high school age. Kurt's accent is mind-boggling, but Rogue is kind of goth which I think is actually pretty nifty.
Anyway, back to Arthurian legend and accuracy: if you're going to lay claim to the right to determine what is and isn't accpetable, I'm curious what your sources are. Archeological or other historical sources? Troyes? Malory? Tennyson? T. H. White? How about Marion Zimmer Bradley? While I realize it's fashionable these days to look down on The Mists of Avalon, it really was pretty influential in both fantasy literature in general, and I believe it influenced perception of the Arthurian mythos more than many people realize. (I also happen to consider it a big heaping chunk of literary comfort food so I'd appreciate it if we just didn't get into a discussion of its faults.)
Arthurian legend is peopled with some pretty big characters and some pretty big stories representing some pretty big ideas. There's a lot of room there to tell those stories in different ways. Even with a cheesy British TV show.
Also? Merlin and Arthur may be the slashiest boys I've seen since House/Wilson. Mmmm, subtext.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-06-23 07:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-23 04:07 pm (UTC)Excellent description of that show, yes.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-23 02:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-23 04:06 pm (UTC)I will stand by my argument of "accuracy, schmaccuracy", but it's a long-standing irritant of mine with regards to storytelling in general.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-23 05:52 pm (UTC)Yes! But I can understand how it would be harder to go with if you've got a specific, favorite collection of source material, or you were taught a particular version when introduced to the story.
I've been watching the Classic Who episode "Battlefield," but that's more of a reinvention, I guess, a retelling.