site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 30, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

8
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

A Defense of Race Swapping in Adaptations

In the 13th or 14th century, an unknown author writing in Middle English decided to adapt the Greek myth of Orpheus and Eurydice. This retelling cast him as the noble Sir Orfeo, a harper-king of England, chasing his wife, Heurodis, spirited away by the fairy king into the Celtic Otherworld. It's a fascinating adaptation, taking the Thracian demigod's journey to the Greek underworld, and putting it into terms more familiar to English readers of the time. But for me, the most interesting part of this adaptation is at the end. Instead of the tragic ending of the original myth, the story ends with Sir Orfeo and Heurodis happily reclaiming their place on the throne.

I feel like people rarely put the changing of stories in its larger context historically and contemporaneously. Stories are changed all the time, and it rarely goes remarked upon. Modern retellings of the Greek myths for kids often omit some of the more violent or sexual parts of the stories. A recent example of this can be seen in this segment of the video game Immortals Fenyx Rising, where Zeus recounts the birth of Aphrodite. While the original myth, involving the severing of Uranus' genitals, is hinted at in the dialogue, the game manages to make it about a pearl falling from an oyster. These kinds of santized retellings of stories are so widespread that they're barely commented upon by people nowadays, and they have a lineage going back at least to the likes of Thomas Bowlder's 1807 The Family Shakespeare, which included such changes as making Ophelia's suicide in Hamlet into an accidental drowning.

I have a strange relationship to the changing of stories in this way. I can recall being a kindergartner in my Elementary school's library, and finding myself drawn to the nonfiction section where a kid's version of the Greek myths awaited me. Much of my love for mythology grew from that initial exposure, even if I would only encounter the more adult themes of these myths later in life as I read translations of the Iliad, the Odyssey, and Ovid's Metamorphoses.

I remember being amused while reading chapbooks from the 1600's , when I found a retelling of the story of the philosopher Diogenes the Cynic, though I also found it a bit odd that a Christian sermon was put into his mouth instead of his original Cynic philosophy.

I have a great respect for stories and the storytelling tradition. Stories help us understand the world and ourselves. They can convey important values, or, when written down, preserve the values of peoples and places far off in time. The people on the pages can become both alien and familiar to us, as we read about what they did and thought about so long ago. I find accounts of cross-cultural encounters like Laura Bohannan's Shakespeare in the Bush incredibly fascinating.

But I think our culture has a strange way of thinking about retellings. Many would consider "Sir Orfeo" in some way to be second rate - a mere retelling, and not a very good one, considering it removes one of the "most important" scenes of the whole myth: where Orpheus turns around, and loses Eurydice to Hades a second time.

But I don't share this view. While the musical Hadestown, another retelling of the same myth, might say:

See, someone's got to tell the tale

Whether or not it turns out well

Maybe it will turn out this time

On the road to Hell

On the railroad line

It's a sad song

[...]

We're gonna sing it anyway

I respect the unknown author of Sir Orfeo for refusing to bow to tradition. This isn't mere novelty for novelty's sake. This is something so very, very human. Seeing a tragedy, and turning it into a happy ending. I love this about us humans. That we see a tale, told for hundreds of years always with the same sad ending, and yet sometimes, we allow ourselves the indulgence of a happy version of the tale. See also Nahum Tate's 1681 retelling of King Lear with a happy ending.

Of course, a great deal of Shakespeare is just retelling stories that would have been well-known to his contemporaries, and of course even the oldest versions of myths we have from the likes of Pseudo-Apollodorus or Ovid or even Homer are not the originals. To me, the fact that we tell the same stories again and again, making changes with each teller is a beautiful thing.

And so I wander back to the topic of race swapping in adaptations. Why is it that when I hear about a 13th century Middle English author changing Orpheus from a Thracian to an Englishman, I feel nothing but delight? Why is it that when I hear about the Turkish trickster Nasreddin Hodja being depicted like this in far flung China it fills me with a strange awe at the unity of the human spirit?

I'm even a fan of changes made to a story for political reasons. I find beauty in Virgil's Aeneid, even if Virgil took some liberties with the existing Greek myths to find a place for Rome, and his opinions on Augustus in the book. Roman propaganda can be beautiful, in the hands of a skilled storyteller.

In the face of stories that have taken every possible form in thousands or hundreds of years of existence, there's something to me a little silly about insisting that Superman's Jimmy Olsen must always be a light-skinned redhead, or that Aragorn was, and can only ever be a white man. The story of Superman is only 85 years old. The story of Aragorn is less than 70 years old. If these characters endure, if your children's children are still telling their tales 1000 years from now, they will take many forms once they are as old as Orpheus is. Once these characters have passed through the hands of a thousand generations of storytellers and interpreters, who can say whether they will be the same. In fact, I daresay they will not be the same. If we could live to see these future takes on Superman and Aragorn, they might seem very strange to us indeed.

Even if I agreed that the decision of large corporations to raceswap well known characters was only made for cynical reasons, isn't that too human? A story that can only have one shape is a dead thing. Books preserve the words of a story, but until they are in the minds of readers, until they are imbued with meaning and given a new, alien shape, one which the author could scarcely have imagined, they are just a graveyard of ink and dead trees.

there's something to me a little silly about insisting that Superman's Jimmy Olsen must always be a light-skinned redhead, or that Aragorn was, and can only ever be a white man

Exactly! And that's why it's way past time that John Henry be depicted as a trans pan differently abled bi-racial Latinx!

Oh, but John Henry is different? Why?

Magic:The Gathering puts out a deck of cards depicting Aragorn as black. Well, woo-hoo, except why is Arwen still white now? Race swap everybody, or admit you're only doing it to sell more tat.

Tar-Míriel being mixed race in Amazon's "Rings of Rip-Off" didn't bother me. Giving Elendil a made-up daughter and Pharazon a made-up son so they could have a very weak and wet semi-sort of romance bothered me a lot more. The dirty little psychopath Harfoots bothered me more. Dísa popping up out of nowhere with not even "yeah she's a princess of the Stonefoots" bothered me more. Having Galadriel decide to swim the entire Atlantic Ocean, no biggie, bothered me more.

Changes need to be organic, not "how many boxes off the DEI bingo card can we tick?". Mixed-race Tar-Míriel? Can be defended, since we don't know who her mother was and what the maternal bloodline was like - it's possible (however far-fetched) that some of the loyal and faithful Easterlings or people of Harad were included with the Houses of the Edain that were gifted Númenor in the past. But the rest of it - the black Elf? Yeah, and where does he come from? Where are the other black Elves? When you only have one black Dwarf, one black Elf, etc. then it's plain you're not adapting to local circumstances, you're box-ticking. If the 13th century adaptor had changed Sir Orfeo to be a British harper-king, but left everyone else Thracian, we'd see the reason that was a poor choice.

Exactly! And that's why it's way past time that John Henry be depicted as a trans pan differently abled bi-racial Latinx!

Oh, but John Henry is different? Why?

You seem to assume something I don't agree with. Sure, bring on every variant of John Henry under the sun! Give me a white Black Panther, or an Asian Othello - nothing is forbidden in storytelling. I have experienced multiple versions of Cyrano de Bergerac, and I would imagine if you asked a person 100 years ago about a version where he's a little person, they would have thought it strange, and yet I loved Peter Dinklage's portrayal of the character in the musical.

John Henry is not an exception to what I say. Even sacred figures like Buddha can sometimes wander across cultures and become a Catholic saint.

Changes need to be organic, not "how many boxes off the DEI bingo card can we tick?".

I'm curious what you think the process is for a change to be "organic".

Do you also think Kirill Eskov's The Last Ringbearer, which recasts the orcs as the good guys, is inorganic?

Do you think the decision of Marvel's writers to take the originally red-haired Thor and turn him into a blonde character is "organic"?

Do you think that the manuscript traditions of the Mahabharata where the lower caste character of Karna is made more powerful is "organic"?

To me, there is no "organic" or "inorganic" retelling of a tale. There is only the storyteller's art, and what you make of the material you are given. If I was retelling the Greek myths, there are parts I would embellish and polish and things I would omit and they all feel perfectly natural situated in the particular time and place I am in. Saying any of the changes I would make are "inorganic" is to assume there's some way I "should" be telling the story, which I reject.

It's interesting that you reference the Mahabharata, because I've seen different adaptations of it and I have noticed that the character is made more heroic or a champion of the underclass or what have you, but they've been building him up since at least movies in the 60s.

So that's organic.

Do I care that Marvel movies made Heimdall black? For about three seconds, then I went 'well the comics version of Thor is so different from the mythological original, why not?'

Now, if they made Thor black... but Marvel do squeak past this with the multiverse notion of all kinds of variations on our Earth so that heroes here may be completely different on other planes or not even exist.

Do you also think Kirill Eskov's The Last Ringbearer, which recasts the orcs as the good guys, is inorganic?

Yes I do, but I also understand the political reasoning behind it.

I think the white version of Black Panther is The Phantom, but okay. Give me white Black Panther and Asian John Henry.

Except we won't get them, and you know why as well as I do. So your coyness about "why shouldn't Aragorn be black?" isn't simply "times change, peoples change, we adapt to our own local circumstances the legends we inherit from other cultures". Aragorn should be black! But John Henry should never be anything other than what he is! White Aragorn is racist, but black John Henry is just the way things should be.

"Organic" is not "hey, we need more Purples in this movie. Focus groups show that Purple Representation is the hot new topic. Just write in a few Purples, doesn't matter if it makes any sense or not".

Except we won't get them, and you know why as well as I do.

As big Hollywood movies, maybe not. But even I am sometimes surprised at what people are able to come up with.

Miku Binder Thomas Jefferson might have been super cringe, but I also think it was 100% sincere and "organic", even by your own standards. Some Gen Z artist saw Hamilton, and liked that depiction of Thomas Jefferson by a black actor in a play enough to take it one level further. That's just how people interact with media in this day and age.

Look at this list of Undertale AU's. All of that seems completely organic to me. Some people just like imagining their favorite video game characters in a cozy coffee shop, or as vampires, or whatever. This is only even scratching the surface - there are Undertale AU's that have their own Undertale AU's that have their own Undertale AU's with videos on Youtube that have thousands of views. It's a wild rabbit hole.

If I never have to read another! god! damn! coffeeshop! AU! I'll be a happy camper 😀

Look at this list of Undertale AU's. All of that seems completely organic to me.

Sure. Many changes from the original in fanfiction are organic.

That doesn't mean the same is true for changes in published works.