People love retelling stories. When they do so, they
frequently add and adapt them. Some find this charming and enjoy the fact that
another has added to the original narrative. Others are bothered and accuse the
performer they are “telling it wrong.” This is particularly the case when it
comes to jokes. One could note the way in which Jerry Seinfeld told one of
Louis C.K.’s jokes during HBO’s Talking
Funny[1]
to see the way in which the way a joke, using the same words, can have an
entirely different meaning. This retelling of stories is, of course,
inevitable. Where it seems to cause particularly challenge is in media. When
something is produced/published, it is troubling to many to “remake” it. One
notes this in popular films. Films continue to be remade – probably with the
expectation that a film that sold well once will probably do the same again
(sometimes with disastrous financial results) – such as with Bad News Bears, Mad Max, 12 Angry Men,
Conan the Barbarian, The Longest Yard, Father of the Bride, or 3:10 to Yuma. What is noteworthy is the
way that these films change and adapt the original story. Some find this
charming and worth watching. Others, however, are outraged. How dare they
change such a quality story? This is even worse when there is an original book
that presents a story and then is depicted later in film. The absolute horror
that was the ending of the film Watchmen as
opposed to Alan Moore’s original comic caused an uproar among fans. However,
despite the protestations, this is constantly done and will continue to be
done. While many hold to the loyalties of the original objects of their
adoration and therefore are bothered when the new item “changes” the story, it
might be helpful to consider a very different attitude toward media and
stories. The Rabbinic sages from the second to sixth century CE (and later on,
but later the history becomes a different phase that is out of my area of
study) held a very different attitude about the value of narratives that can
aid us in understanding how and why such stories can be changed without
necessarily challenging the original narrative. What the rabbis offer, though,
is a measured response. While they can respect an elaboration and adaptation,
they also allow that we do not have to like all of it – it is acceptable if we
also do not like it. But we value it not for “if it was the same or not,” but
rather, what this new interpretation and narrative can provide or not.
First, it should be noted that changing a narrative in its
retelling is inevitable and valuable. Every narrative that is retold, should be
told in a new manner. In fact, there is no way to avoid it. Every time one
reads or one tells a story, it is always interpreted in a new way. However,
rather than simply begrudgingly accepting this, it should go farther – it
should be embraced. Those who try their hardest to stay “true” to the original
by simply repeating the same thing as what had been done previously, their work
is not valued. Take, for example, the remake of the film Psycho directed by Gus Van Sant starring Vince Vaughan. In this
film, they chose to produce a shot for shot retake of Hitchcock’s original
masterpiece in 1960. The result was, as one would expect, amazingly
underwhelming. The question on everyone’s mind watching it was “why bother
doing this? We already have that – but better!” Those who say they want the
original story simply presented are wrong – they think they want that so long
as they don’t actually get it. What they actually want is a retelling of the
story that is not the original picture they say, but the attitude and feel of
the original picture in their minds. This is necessarily subjective and it is
not surprising that therefore the new interpretation does not satisfy many
people. Rather than pretending we will tell the story “as it were,” it is worth
it to add something – to show why this story matters to our lives.
This is precisely what the Rabbis did better than anyone. Rather
than simply reading the biblical text and going home, they “rewrote” the Bible
– they expanded upon it and filled in gaps that were missing. For example,
rather than simply reading Genesis 1-3, they wove within this what we now call
the Apocalypse of Moses. This
includes many direct passages from the text and further elaborations. Indeed,
the few pages of Hebrew Text becomes a full narrative that shows the
motivations of all parties – the serpent included. This “rewritten Bible” form,
of course, drops out eventually for the far more common (later) pesher interpretation first found at
Qumran. This interpretation would be something far closer to what would be
called “commentary” – to view a text as separate and then to have the
conversation about it set off rather than simply intermixing the stories
deliberately. How, though, is this really that different? The great rabbinics
scholar, James Kugel, argues precisely that it is not.[2]
Both kinds of exegesis (interpretation) are set to retell the story and apply
in to one’s own day. Neither is trying in invalidate in any way the original
story – in fact, we see both are trying to honor that original story by
retelling it and reframing it to say something new and different.
It should be noted that Kugel has his detractors. Stephen
Fraade has argued well that there is a fundamental different view of the
original text in a commentary rather than the “rewritten bible” suggesting that
it comes far closer to the way in which a text can be “closed” and that any
midrash is fundamentally separate from the story. This would suggest something
far closer to an idea such as an inspired text. I do not disagree with Fraade
at all that the commentary form does allow for this. However, I would point out
that while a commentary form does express this; there is no reason to suppose
that a rewritten Bible form does not also hold this same position about the
text. In fact, both forms are showing why the text matters to a modern world.
To do this, they are happy to change it. The rewritten Bible form seems to be
changing the text more deliberately – it is actually inserting things in the
text. However, a careful study of any commentary on a text has the same effect.
Where is the focus of reading? What is the “correct” meaning therein? All of
this depends upon the commentator pointing out one thing rather than another.
We must abandon the idea that any reader is not “changing” the text – of course
they are changing it. If the goal is to understand what it meant to the
original hearers or original author, then certainly we are changing it. We can
guess and hope we have that correct, but we never know.
Readers are not changing the text beyond repair, though. The
way a modern retelling presents the story – if the story is worth its being retold,
does not eclipse the original message. The original narrative still exists. The
original film exists even if there is a remake. The text is written and stands
even if there is a retelling. There is not a danger that we will lose the
original. It is possible that a modern remake will eclipse the original’s
popularity – that often does happen, for example, most people are very familiar
with Martin Scorsese’s the Departed without
any idea that it is a remake of Wai Keung Lau and Siu Fai Mak’s Internal Affairs. However, just because The Departed exists does not challenge
the existence of the original film. In fact, Scorsese made the film because he
liked the original so much. Of course, he changed things. That, however, does
not challenge the fact that the original exists.
Some stories, are updated to mean something to a modern
audience. For example, the brief 15 issue run of “Six Gun Gorilla” as a British
serial in 1939 in Wizard magazine
(author unknown), presents a story of a gorilla who has learned to shoot a gun
and is seeking the murderers of his master. It is an absurdist story which
tries to depict the “old west” from a different angle by making the protagonist
someone who cannot talk nor able to figure very much out (after all, he is a
gorilla). This went out of copyright in 2013, and Boom! comics rewrote the
story into a very different tale.[3]
This new story is a science fiction comic that is about the pervasive power of
stories and how they shape the world around us. They use the gorilla as a highly
intelligent being who is able to break with the laws of nature (granted, it is
a science fiction world where they exist “between worlds” so by “laws of
nature” I mean the gorilla is able to break the laws of this in between land
that all the other characters must follow). What Boom! has done is to
completely rewrite the story into something entirely different, while at the
same time retaining the very large themes of the original story. The amazing
thing in the Wizard in the original
run is that what makes the story interesting is the way that the gorilla is
something that breaks all the laws of nature – a gorilla residing in Colorado,
being able to shoot a gun, hunting down and killing armed men, and having a
hide hard enough to withstand bullets. This is not a real gorilla and clearly
not meant to be one. Instead, the story is about something that does not fit
but wants to make things right. The comic has changed basically everything
about the story, except for its reference to it (there is even a picture of the
original newspaper in the comic). However, they do it in such a way as it shows
the flexibility and value to the original story. It is not an affront to the
original to tell this story – it simply is presenting a new story with a theme
that is different, but still in connection with it.
All of this is far more changes to a narrative than the
rabbis probably would have been to a Biblical text, however, one should not
underestimate them. One should look carefully at the “rewritten bible” form in
the so called “Old Testament pseudepigrapha.” These are narratives that have
been discovered which are frequently alternate narratives about the Hebrew
Bible. Formally, these were mostly written before the codification of the Mishna, so they are not formally
“rabbis” in the same way (given the traditional dichotomy of those being called
“rabbi” after the Mishna rather than before), but they are clearly from a
similar tradition. These are Jewish authors who are speculating and imagining
new tales as inspired by the original Biblical texts. These were never meant to
be read instead of or in isolation with the Biblical texts – they were seen to
be supplemental. That is precisely the attitude that one should take when
seeing a remake. It is a supplement – there is no loyalty one needs to hold to
the original.
All of this does not suggest that one has to like all remakes. Remakes can be bad.
Original stories can be bad too. The Rabbis allowed for this. Just because it
is possible to rewrite and present new ideas in alternate forms doesn’t mean
they are all equally valuable. Of course not. However, they are either valuable
or not valuable not because they are “too far” from the original story – they
were seen as valuable or not valuable based on how useful the new story was.
The new story was judged the same way any story was judged – as a practical
guide or reflection for human life. This is precisely the way all stories
should be viewed. The fact that this new narrative has a different perspective
than the original does not make it automatically “better” or “worse” – it is
just different.
