Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 8499856" data-attributes="member: 59082">I agree with this, although with the caveat that "recognition of the problematic elements" need not imply a monolithic conclusion and consensus that we must all come to. I'd like to see an openness to a variety of interpretations, rather than--as sometimes seems to be the case--the implication that if you don't come to the same conclusions about what is and is not problematic, and to what degree, than you are perpetuating the bad stuff. This is an interesting topic and involves a degree of subtlety, I would think. I have found that, as a general but not absolute rule, the closer to the text an adaptation comes, the better it is. Again, to emphasis: in general but not always.I think this is because of the fact that the world or story grew and lived in the author's head; they knew/know it best, from the "inside." Or to put it another way, no one quite does Middle-earth like Tolkien, or the Hyborian Age like Howard.But how to hew closely to the original, but jettison anything that is objectionable? I don't think it is all that difficult, and doesn't require a complete re-working of the mythos, especially if you focus more on retaining the vibe and atmosphere, rather than re-creating every individual component. In other words, you can capture the "Hyborian feel" without including specific, objectionable components.</blockquote>