On one of our Facebook posts about the upcoming adaptation of The Magician’s Nephew, a reader’s comment stood out to us as something that helped us put things into perspective. We have our own thoughts as well, but we asked for, and received, permission to post his comment here. I’ve edited the formatting to make it easier to read. We’re not saying this is the only correct opinion, as art is subjective to the viewer, and you have your reasons. I just found this to be a very insightful comment. At the end of the comment, we added some additional analysis to verify the presented facts.
Reinterpretation is the sincerest form of flattery.
By Philip J. Brooks
When people are adapting your work, reinterpreting it, even fashioning it to serve their own agendas, then you know you’ve made it. You haven’t just written a great work. You’ve created a legend and legends are nothing if not adaptable.
Virgil rewrote Homer’s great epics to create one of the most shameless pieces of state propaganda in history. And now we read them both in high school classrooms. Chaucer and Shakespeare also rewrote classical myths and characters to appeal more to a Christian audience. Mark Twain lampooned Arthurian legends so much that he made what Monty Python did a century later look tame.
Disney has been rewriting Grimm’s Fairytales for so long that they’re actually remaking their own films. And people are now defending the older films like they’re part of the literary canon.
You know you’ve made it when other people are reinterpreting your works. You also know you’ve made it when people are clamoring to stop them. But we shouldn’t.
If the work is truly great, it needs no defense and will survive any reinterpretation. Homer’s Odyssey was not diminished by the Aeneid. Malory was not diminished by Marion Zimmer Bradley. Grimm certainly has not been diminished by Disney. Nor is Disney diminished by Disney. Well, you get the idea.
Christian audiences who are afraid that this film by Greta Gerwig won’t be the same Christian allegory as the book should remember first of all that Lewis specifically wrote it in such a way to appeal to non-Christians as much as Christians.
Secondly, we should remember this form of reinterpretation was certainly not unknown to Lewis himself. One of the works he was most proud of was “Til We Have Faces” a retelling of the classical myth of Cupid and Psyche told from the perspective of Psyche’s “wicked” older sister.
And yes, like with the Narnia Books the story was retold as a Christian allegory. In fact, Lewis believed all myths and great epics were all part of one great eternal story he believed became true in Christianity. I don’t know if there were any classical mythologists who tried to stop Lewis from publishing his work because of much it deviated from the original myth. I suppose it won’t surprise me, but I found most classicists I’ve known to be less uptight.
And before we try to put Narnia up on the same higher pedestal, let’s remember that our friend Jesus has been no stranger to reinterpretation either. Perhaps no figure in history has been more the subject of books, films, and other media before, and none seen through so many different lenses.
So let it be. Let the movie go forward. If you don’t like it, then just don’t watch it. And if people who aren’t Christian enjoy it, then they just might decide to read the books too, and wouldn’t that be great?
Now, we did do some quick fact-checking, and for posterity’s sake, here are the results:
Historically, myths and classics are constantly retold. Virgil did re-write Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey as the Aeneid (29–19 BC) to glorify Rome and Augustus. Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde is a Christianized retelling of a Greek story. Shakespeare frequently drew on classical sources (e.g., Troilus and Cressida, Venus and Adonis), adapting them for Elizabethan/Christian audiences. Mark Twain’s A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court (1889) is a satirical take on Arthurian myth. And, yes, Disney softened darker Grimm tales (Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty), and is now making live-action versions to varying degrees of success. Cinderella is probably still the best live-action version.
Homer, Grimm, and Malory’s works remain central despite reinterpretations. Lewis said he wanted the stories to work as fairy tales, even if readers didn’t see the Christian parallels. (Letters to Children, 1952, and elsewhere).
Lewis published Till We Have Faces in 1956, a retelling of Apuleius’ Metamorphoses (2nd century AD). He called it his best work. As far as records show, no classicists campaigned against it. Academic disagreement about fidelity exists, but there wasn’t organized resistance.
The idea of “myth becoming fact,” Lewis discussed in essays and in conversations with Tolkien (e.g., the 1931 talk that led to his conversion).
Adaptations have drawn new readers to the source material (e.g., The Lord of the Rings films boosted Tolkien sales). This has also been true of each of the Narnia films. They not only boosted sales of The Chronicles of Narnia books, it also boosted sales of other books written by C.S. Lewis as well.
What are your thoughts on this?
Be the first to comment