Sacred and Profane

For the second time this season, we have a reference to Norse mythology. In episode 10, the leader of the 'Red Museum' went by the name Odin, a somewhat curious choice of name for the leader of a community of vegetarians. Now, nine episodes later, in 'Død Kalm', which takes place largely on board an American destroyer escort, adrift in the Norwegian Sea, Scully makes a note in her journal that she has found a "children's book of Norse legends".

As we, the audience, never see the book, we cannot comment on what she finds therein or on its title. Is it actually called a book of legends, or is that just Scully's interpretation of the contents? If the former, then we must put it down to some marketing ploy by the publishers; if the latter, then Scully shows her lack of knowledge regarding the difference between myth and legend.

Being an account of the end of the world, what Scully is able to make out from the pictures in the book cannot be legend. However embellished the story may become, legends, at root, are based on historical events. We cannot take the events of Beowulf as history, but that's not to say that a hero of that name did not actually save the community at Heorot in Denmark.

Scully's mistake is all to common in this world of lost stories.

That her error is based on a book from the very culture whose myths it purports to tell is even more damning.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the commercialisation of myths and legends. Their commodification is a different matter all together.

In the oral culture in which they originated, myths and legends will have changed and been adapted by the bards to suit the situation of their listeners. They had a living to make and keeping their audiences happy was as good a way of ensuring payment as any. The disappointment many people today feel after reading a good book only to find it has been 'adapted' for the movies is just one way we show our lack of understanding of the nature of story.

A good film is a good film, whether it remains loyal to its source material or not. After all, it is just another bard's telling of the story to a different audience, in a different setting.

Changing a story to suit one's needs is one thing. Not understanding the material, having no feeling for the 'story' one is telling, is quite another and may well result in the bard going without payment - whether that be his supper, a bed for the night or a few coins in his pocket.

While Sherlock Holmes might seem old, originating in Victorian times, historically speaking it is a fairly recent story. Holmes' world is different to ours, but still recognisable. Taking Holmes and adapting him for modern audiences is not such a great task. King Arthur, however, comes from a whole different world - a world of legend if he existed; a world of myth if he did not.

In either case, King Arthur, like the myths of the Indo-Europeans, requires an understanding of the sacred nature of story and turning him into a London barrow boy with both barrels smoking on a winter's morning should see the bard run out of town with at least the threat of tar 'n' feathering thrown in for good measure.