Sing, Muse, of an Ode to Inaccurate Mythology by Marline Brink

Like many of my fellow UCU-ers, I like learning about mythology. Stories of strange and faraway times always seem to fascinate me. This is why I’m always ready to check out a new adaptation of a mythological story. However, after watching or reading a mythological retelling, many people are left disappointed or outraged. So very often, mythological adaptations change key things about the original stories. These inaccuracies have certainly bothered me before. Recently I have been trying to reflect on my impulse to critique inaccurate retellings of mythology. Why do I feel superior for knowing the ‘correct story’? Perhaps it is time to reconsider my aversion towards inaccuracy in mythological media.

Mythology is defined as the allegorical telling of stories and can form an integral part of folklore and religion. Mythology often has an origin in oral storytelling, meaning that the stories were told from person to person before they were ever written down. Every time a new person told the story it would slightly change. The perspective and interpretation of every storyteller got integrated into the myth, slowly shaping and moulding it over time. This means that a great variety of versions of the same myth can be discovered, as long as they were all written down and preserved. Even though one version may be the most popular and accepted one, this doesn’t mean that every other version of the myth is wrong.

Nonetheless, a certain canon of mythological stories does exist. Because influential people like Homer, Ovid and Snorri Sturluson wrote down and compiled the oral stories, these became the officially accepted versions of the myths, while other versions were ignored or discarded. Yet, alternate versions are not meaningless. What makes mythology so intriguing is the fact that it consists of a complex network of stories. They are not meant to give us concrete answers to

everything, but are instead mysterious and inconclusive. The existence of several versions of the same myth assists in this, by raising questions which play on our imagination. We may use our own fantasy to come up with more stories which solve the mysteries. The narrative fluidity of mythology is what makes it so beautiful to me.

Would it perhaps be possible to apply this fluidity to modern adaptations as well? If mythology transforms every time someone tells it, it doesn’t seem too bad that contemporary versions make alterations as well. When society changes, it may be necessary to modify the stories we tell. For example, certain behaviour that was accepted in ancient times is now considered immoral. If you want your hero to be sympathetic, it doesn’t make sense to make him a rapist, even if he was in the original story. Besides this, different audiences require different retellings. ThePercy Jackson series takes a wild and perhaps simplified approach to Greek mythology, but it makes sense, because its audience is children and its main intent was never accuracy.

Additionally, when mythology is used to relate to society, we must be aware that we now live in a very different time from the one the stories were originally created in. Many popular myths are timeless, and that is why we still tell them. However, sometimes, changes in the narrative can make mythology specifically relevant and relatable for the people of this day and age. For example, retellings of mythology from the perspective of historically marginalised groups, like women and enslaved people, can bring up new viewpoints. Related to this are retellings which expressly want to give a different moral message from the original story. Like depicting Medusa as a victim of rape and vicious gods, rather than a monstrous, immoral woman. Shifts in society will always be reflected in the stories we tell.

Nonetheless, criticism of inaccurate adaptations won’t stop. Think of the reactions to the trailer for Christopher Nolan’s adaptation of the Odyssey. The film hasn’t even come out yet, but the internet is already filled with comments about the inaccurate clothing, colours and speech. In my opinion, a change in the narrative of the original myth should only be made when it improves the story. When an alteration actively makes the characters less complex, leads to a misinterpretation of the myth and creates a less interesting story, then what even is the point of the change? For example, the 2004 Troy movie was an enjoyable watch, but also felt like a watered-down and inadequate version of Homer’s Iliad. Whether Nolan’s film will be that to the Odyssey will be discovered once the film comes out. To me, it all depends on whether the changes were made with consideration and intention, or because of misunderstanding and ignorance.

All in all, I do not consider myself a mythological purist. I believe that mythology is meant to be changed, although I would prefer for these changes to positively impact the story. Even if retellings contain inaccuracies, they do not have to be slandered into obscurity. Changes in mythology convey the character and message of the individual storyteller. Gaps in stories sometimes have to be filled with our own fantasy, especially because a lot of mythology has been lost over the centuries. Besides, occasionally, the most inaccurate adaptations capture the essence of the original the best. Remaking an iconic myth invites comparison with the original. Nonetheless, I’ll vow to give inaccurate modern versions like Nolan’s a fair try. After all, the most fascinating part about mythology is that it plays on our imagination. The imagination of writers, directors, and people just like you and me.