Letters to the Editor
XOXO
Published Letters: 27 Editor's Choice: 3
-
Missed opportunities
[Read the article: "Beowulf" vs. "The Lord of the Rings"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't really hold with taking artists, and even Hollywood directors, to task for "missing opportunities." First, because it is an incredibly trivial observation. I had a hamburger for dinner, for instance, when with an iota of artistic vision and talent, it could have been steak tartare. When one does one thing, the number of things one could have done instead, but doesn't, is fairly large. I am missing several worthwhile opportunities as I type, and I fully expect that this letter would be a more valuable contribution to the world, if only I had the wit to seize them. Or maybe I should be writing to my Congressman. That schmuck.
A sacred text differs from a cow in many respects. The cow's post-mortem potential will be capped by the choosing steak-tartare or hamburger. A sacred text, however, is not mortal and finite in the manner of a cow. It will continue to be available to be made into movies, toilet paper, or whatever, indefinitely.
We can call a poem, "The most important text of our ur-language," and be totally right, but castigating an opportunistic, twenty-first century Hollywood adaptation of that text for not paying it due reverence is silly. Its like accusing Wendys of not being Chez Pannis. When I love a book, I generally avoid the cinematic adaptation, unless it is the work of a director who's vision I admire in its own right. For me, this review is no more gifted with artistic insight, and no less opportunistic, than the film it takes as a point of departure. The happy news is that Beowolf, and Wuthering Heights, Tarzan, Dracula, Moby Dick, etc. are all still standing, should anyone be moved to tackle them. A bibliophile might make the argument that a really good adaptation is more likely to damage an original text, by more nearly eclipsing it. I think there's a better argument to be made in defense of that view. But not much better.
Tolkien's parable is pretty. But in a world that is primarily non-academic, the tower would be taken down for more practical reasons. Say, helping to pave a road, on which one might actually reach the sea. Or building a cow-shed, If the tower is a sacred text, it cannot, in fact, be taken down. Defending sacred texts in the style Mr. Kamiya adopts here suggests that they need defending. It is a heroic pose, but a purely theatrical one.
The big question now is, which are we going to see first, "Gilgamesh, The Movie," or "Njal's Saga?' Or did I miss them?