![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
restlessechoes.livejournal.comStill working on the adaptation.
A year or so ago I did a production of the tragedy that surrounds Oedipus, which, as you probably are aware comes from Greek mythology. Now, with that material, as I was writing the adaptation, I made some pretty radical changes. For instance, I started the play much earlier than most versions of the script I had read, rather than beginning when Oedipus was already an adult, I began with Laius and Jocasta, when Oedipus was just a baby, so that I could include The Oracle as a character. I also translated the character Creon from Jocasta's brother to Jocasta's sister.
The point is, I treated the material very plainly and openly as very flexible ad adaptable mythology. I never got the sensation that I'd step on anybody's toes, or bother anyone by these changes. I suppose because I myself was not familiar with the origins of the characters. I knew Sophoclese was the first of the Greek poets who majorly established the Oedipus trilogy in a formed dramatic text... But, where did he get it? -- You see my point.
Anyway, with these Arthurian characters, I am getting much, much different reactions and sensations from people, as I tell them about the project. I suspect because Arthur and Guenivere and Lancelot are simply much more popular than Oedipus and Jocasta and Laius. I kind of feel like everyone has a very specific mental image of these characters, and enjoy these characters for very specific reasons.
So, in the end, I am finding it quite difficult to work with these characters. For the first time, I am afraid of stepping on people's toes, and bothering them by the way I am writing these characters. -- It is quite daunting. I suppose much like it would be to do something based on the Tolkien writings. Everyone seems so touchy about how these characters are presented.
Anyway, that is the view from here. -- What do you think?
-J.
A year or so ago I did a production of the tragedy that surrounds Oedipus, which, as you probably are aware comes from Greek mythology. Now, with that material, as I was writing the adaptation, I made some pretty radical changes. For instance, I started the play much earlier than most versions of the script I had read, rather than beginning when Oedipus was already an adult, I began with Laius and Jocasta, when Oedipus was just a baby, so that I could include The Oracle as a character. I also translated the character Creon from Jocasta's brother to Jocasta's sister.
The point is, I treated the material very plainly and openly as very flexible ad adaptable mythology. I never got the sensation that I'd step on anybody's toes, or bother anyone by these changes. I suppose because I myself was not familiar with the origins of the characters. I knew Sophoclese was the first of the Greek poets who majorly established the Oedipus trilogy in a formed dramatic text... But, where did he get it? -- You see my point.
Anyway, with these Arthurian characters, I am getting much, much different reactions and sensations from people, as I tell them about the project. I suspect because Arthur and Guenivere and Lancelot are simply much more popular than Oedipus and Jocasta and Laius. I kind of feel like everyone has a very specific mental image of these characters, and enjoy these characters for very specific reasons.
So, in the end, I am finding it quite difficult to work with these characters. For the first time, I am afraid of stepping on people's toes, and bothering them by the way I am writing these characters. -- It is quite daunting. I suppose much like it would be to do something based on the Tolkien writings. Everyone seems so touchy about how these characters are presented.
Anyway, that is the view from here. -- What do you think?
-J.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}