Intention vs Result, Tolkien’s world, and Blyton’s character

I have encountered more and more arguments about rereleases of old books or other media where the new creators have changed the older versions to suit newer times. The outrage over this has been great among fans of old franchises such as Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings or comics and the argument I encountered most was that it would be wrong to change the original creator’s vision.

Now, I understand the argument but I also notice the lack of understanding of what that entails. The original creator had a vision, or intention when they wrote something but the result was not always what their intention was. The intention might not have been to write a, for example, racist text, but as the writer has prejudices and uses stereotypes that were and is racist, the result becomes a book with racist subtext.

An example of this is Tolkien’s world where the majority is white and the only black and brown people, from the Harad desert (which Tolkien based on ancient Aethiopians), are all allied with Sauron, making them evil. Or the white elves which should be a contrast against the dark orcs who are the aggressive race serving Sauron. The white people were good, fighting against evil, while the colored people were evil, fighting against the good. His intention was most likely not such a racist subtext but that is the result of what he wrote. If you are going on intention, then you will have to change the result, removing the racist subtext. That is still changing the narrative. This is what the movie by Peter Jackson did, by making the people of Harad either wear masks to hide their race or make them ethnically ambiguous so the racist subtext was far less noticeable.

Now, you could argue that Peter Jackson shouldn’t have changed anything and just gone with all the racist subtext without shame, but Tolkien had the excuse of being a product of his time. What excuse would Jackson or the viewer have?

Now, the other alternative, which from what I can tell, the new series depicted in Tolkien’s world removes the result and changes a lot by adding colored people in the series. Now, I have no idea what the origin of these colored people is. I remember seeing a picture of a black elf which would make sense in lore if he is half-elven with one parent from Harad, but if they just added black elves without explanation, they have changed a lot. Many argue that they changed the very lore of the book, but I would argue that they are just changing the result to enhance the author’s intention. I would personally prefer that they change it but that they do it in line with the lore. There are colored people in Tolkien’s world, why not show some good ones. Or maybe some good orcs. Anything new without touching too much on the original lore.

Another example of intention and result is Enid Blyton’s character, George, in The Famous Five. George is actually named Georgina, but she has cut her hair and wears boy clothes. She calls herself George and claims she is a boy, refusing to be addressed as she. Now, those of you who read this explanation of the character are most likely thinking it’s a transboy. So let me clarify something. Enid Blyton is an English writer who wrote the first Famous Five book in 1942. I don’t think I have to clarify that it is highly unlikely she wrote a transboy in a time when that was considered shameful at the least.

Her intention was most likely that George was to represent a modern woman which during this time had emerged. A working woman with short hair and wore pants. The prejudices during this time assumed that these women wanted to become men. Which was false information based on prejudices, but if Blyton intended to depict George as one of these women, then the result was not ideal. Because of the exaggerated way she has written George the result is what can only be described as a transboy as no girl would be this way. Not even a tomboy, which is the common excuse I hear from those who refuse to acknowledge the faults of the book which was that Blyton overdramatized a girl who didn’t like girly stuff which resulted in a girl who claimed she was a boy.

Now, let’s say that someone would make a modern series of the books. How would they depict George?

1. Should they change into a George transboy? Then they won’t have to change the narrative too much in the books as it would suit the dialog and the character better.
2. Should they change the dialog and narrative to remove the exaggerated parts of George claiming to be a boy and just keep the parts where she says she dislikes girly things, making her a tomboy which was more of the author’s intention.
3. Or should they keep the dialog and the character the same, but risk her sticking out like a sore thumb as she becomes a stereotype not suited in a live-action movie because it isn’t realistic enough for the viewer to buy it?

In the first two alternatives, you will have to change the original in some way, and in the last one, you will have a badly written character in a story that might be damaged by it. The first one goes with the result, the second with the intention and the last one just tries to go with both which will get a half-baked result.

None of these three are ideal, but most of the rewritten versions choose the second alternative, but as I mentioned, this one changes things as well. Depending on your own viewpoints, you will most likely lean more into the first or second alternative. I personally prefer the first one, as I think making George a transboy would be more interesting. We already have Blyton’s strange version, and several versions of her just being a tomboy. It would be nice to see something new instead of just writing the same thing over and over again. I already have the original, I won’t need it again.

I understand that others might not feel the same but I wanted to clarify the complexity of rewriting an old story. I think many forget that there is more going into it than just keeping the original intact. If that were the case, then Disney would depict Sleeping beauty being raped by the prince and waking up pregnant, or every depiction of a black person would be an animalistic cannibal instead of an actual character.

Change is not bad in itself as long as you respect the core of the story. The dilemma with that is that what the core of the story is might vary depending on the person. It all comes down to interpretation and today’s tendency to believe that their interpretation is the correct one. The one that is closest to the author.  Personally, I’m just interested in seeing how someone writes their version of an old story. It will be fascinating and it might be bad. But it won’t be because they have made changes to the sexuality or color of characters’ skins. It will be because they weren’t even interested in using the core of the original and just wanted to use the name of a famous author or work. Something that has become far more common today than it was before.

With Kind Regards

Senefer.