Also, once you get over the petulant and frankly nonsensical complaint of "This isn't true to the original myth!", you get to have the much more fun adventure of analyzing how different versions of myth are in conversation with each other.
Example: I love Arthuriana, and almost every version of the King Arthur story works with the premise that Arthur was a nearly perfect King. This means each version in turn reflects a different author's idea of what a near-perfect king is. Is he a conqueror, or a peacemaker? Does he rule by might, or by diplomacy? Is he wise and experienced, or innocent and naive? Is he a furry? You know, important questions.
And even the adaptations that try to subvert our expectations by showing Arthur to be a bad king, actually, are playing into that conversation - because it is a pretty powerful statement to look at a history of stories about the best possible king and say, "No king can be good."
All of this isn't to say I love EVERY Arthur story. There are some that I dislike intensely, but even those have some interesting contributions to make to the conversation that is this folklore's history of retellings. And Arthur survives because we find new angles to tell his story from, even if some of those angles suck ass.
vaporwave
blakekathryn
titsay
theartofmadeline
kianamaiart
dailybridgerton
tangentwithtanner
origamiaround
