Much has been written about the concept of value inversion, with what was once good being called now evil and vice versa. Most of this discourse, at least that I have seen, involves current political, religious, and social issues - the various activities and beliefs we as a people hold. And yes, this has and will happen. Again, referencing the words of Isaiah (as Nephi quotes it in 2 Nephi 15),
Wo unto them that call evil good, and good evil, that put darkness for light, and light for darkness, that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
What has not been as discussed, I think, or at least made aware is how this also has happened and is happening in our stories.
This post actually comes out of a short conversation I had yesterday about, of all things, the story of the Grinch (thus the title of the post). The conversation reinforced to me that there are, in fact, many examples of our stories being changed to literally swap good and evil, and that this is not well understood or even noticed by most people. I find this second observation - the lack of noticing - to be dangerous and concerning.
So, anyway, I am going to use the Grinch to see if I can illustrate my point.
Growing up, it was one of my family's Christmas traditions to watch the Grinch cartoon story every Christmas Eve (the one from 1966 with the iconic song "You're a mean one, Mr. Grinch"). In this original story, which is the same story as the book, you have a fairly simple tale of good and evil, and how the good changes evil by just being and showing its goodness.
I know 99% of people know this story, but to summarize quickly (because I will compare it with the new story). The Grinch is evil and joyless, with a heart several sizes too small, and who hates the Whos, who are good. The Grinch misunderstands the source of the Whos' joy and goodness, assuming that it is the gifts and other pageantry around Christmas, and that if he were to steal these things, he in affect would stop Christmas from coming and rob the Whos of their goodness and joy. So, he steals their stuff, and expects them to wallow in misery. But this is not what happens - instead the Whos are still joyful, because the source of their joy and goodness did not come from those things (those things were merely manifestations or outward expressions of their joy... a result). The Grinch realizes that he was wrong about the Whos and about the source of their joy, and in this realization, he finds his own joy. Of course, there is the dramatic ending where the Grinch saves the stuff from sliding off the mountain, and the Whos not only gain their stuff back in addition to the joy they already have, but they also gain the companionship of the Grinch, who now shares in their joy. Good has overcome Evil by means of its own inherent Goodness.
The movie version of this story, released in 2000 and starring Jim Carrey, goes to great lengths to change this story (I guess there is also a 2018 version - I haven't seen it so can't comment). Rather than the Whos being portrayed as Good, we are now introduced to them as uber-consumers, fully embracing materialism and who see Christmas as the accumulation of things, holding lavish parties, etc. We also get a back story to the Grinch, and realize that he is only now bad because the Whos bullied and tormented him as a child for being different. Thus, the Grinch becomes a sympathetic character, and his beliefs about the Whos and reasons for initially hating them are justified - they really are obnoxious psychopaths in this movie. Yes, we do get redemption for both the Whos and the Grinch, but this is mostly thanks to one Who - Cindy Lou, and her developing relationship with the Grinch.
Does anyone else see what has been done here? I know that the screenwriters are needing to make a full-length feature here, but in order to do so, they have completely subverted the nature of the Whos and thrown them under the bus. They also completely altered the story of Good and Evil, and in fact blamed the Evil of the Grinch on beings that were and are supposed to be known as Good. The Whos are made out to be more Evil (or at least misguided) than the Grinch, who actually ends up becoming a means of redemption for the Whos!?
The script has totally been flipped, and I am not sure many people took any note of it (the person I spoke with yesterday did not), or, if they have, probably think it was a better story that way.
But the Whos are Good, and it is their Goodness that ultimately won out in the face of Evil, and no amount of Hollywood-ization or value inversion will change that fact in my mind!
I also bring this up because these types of stories and value inversions happen in matters that aren't as 'fictional' as the Grinch, in that the realities and stories of those who have gone before us are also changed and subverted to fit current thinking on Good and Evil, usually with the outcome of the Good character being portrayed as Evil.
I will use Nephi as an example.
In 2017, a book called "The Book of Laman" was published. Written by Mette Harrison and published by By Common Consent Press (BCC Press), its premise fits the same mold as what I just described with the Grinch in re-telling Nephi's story.
Much like the Grinch, Laman is held out to be a sympathetic character. Laman's evil, including his desire and attempts to murder both Nephi and Lehi, are a result of many factors, including the family circumstances he was born into. Lehi, you see, in this telling is actually a womanizing drunk who abandons his family for years. This happens during Laman's formative years and impacts him greatly - but Lehi is greatly reformed and repented by the time Nephi and his younger brother Sam arrive on the scene, and so Nephi's goodness is explained by the fact that he had the father and life that Laman never had, in essence. Further, Nephi is demonstrated as being an insufferable know-it-all and self-righteous individual, whose behavior literally drives Laman to beat him. You read that right - while Laman laments that he would use force on Nephi, the story is angled to make one understand that Nephi kind of deserved it and actually brought Laman to these terrible actions.
You would think this new story sounds crazy and preposterous to most people, at least that is what I thought. The premise isn't meant to be parody, but rather taken very seriously. But, as it turns out, many Mormon thinkers and writers don't think this revised tale crazy at all, fully embracing this new interpretation, even calling it "compelling". Wrote Michael Austin, one of the publishers and board members at BCC press, who writes on their fairly popular blog and has a fairly involved readership:
What the book does do is introduce us to a much more complex Laman than we meet in the Book of Mormon and then view the narrative through his perspective. Perspective is important, and one of the requirements of treating the Book of Mormon as a work of history is recognizing that perspective colors the judgments of historians no matter how honest, competent, or beloved of the Lord they may be.
Harrison’s Laman does all of the awful things that Laman does in the Book of Mormon–he murmurs against his father, he smites his brethren, and he ties Nephi up when they are on the boat. But he is not just evil for the sake of being evil. He has reasons that many readers will find compelling. And he tries hard to be a good person and use the light he has to help his family and support his God.
But most of the time, he can’t do it. He is a person with noble intentions and weak follow-through who can’t quite ever measure up to his own ideals. Laman is, in other words, a creature very much like the rest of us–somebody that we can understand and sympathize with because we share both his desires and his weaknesses. And his fate should matter to us because, if we are honest, it will likely be our fate too.
This statement fully captures my issue with what is being done to our stories, and I believe it is endemic. We are asked to associate with the evil character ("he is very much like the rest of us"! - you know, how we all plot to kill our family members...) and view the good character with suspicion and disbelief. They can't be that good, and so we have to make them bad, while making the bad out to be the true hero, battling to be a good person in spite of everything that the 'good' characters have done to them. Good has become evil, and evil good.
It’s ridiculous, and unfortunately, it’s endemic. The heroes have lost their status because we can't bear heroes - no one can be that good, or so our own disbelief says, and so we knock them down several pegs, while we elevate and associate with murderers, liars, and thieves, calling them good and like us.
But these heroes earned their reputations because they were and are good, and no re-writing of history will change that. Nephi (and the Whos) really were and are that Good!
In the stories that I believe will come, this will all be made right - the Good will be known as such, and we will believe in Good because of these stories. While Evil will also be plainly known, and not as a sympathetic character or something to associate with or aspire to, but as something from which to flee.
No comments:
Post a Comment