Right now it seems like we are in the golden age of book to screen adaptations. The most recent example is Off Campus. A lot of plot changes were made compared to the book. I’m not deep diving everything here but there is one element that I keep seeing online that has got me thinking; the removal of some of the problematic storylines. I’ve lost count of the number of threads I’ve seen praising this, I can see their points and at first glance it does seem like a positive thing but the more I sit with it the more I feel a little uncomfortable.
For me and I’m sure I’m not alone in this, the core of storytelling is to learn something, to challenge the way we think about things and sometimes to make us uncomfortable and that’s ok. Characters and stories are allowed to be imperfect. This is the part that I’m struggling with when it comes to screen adaptations because why do those parts of the stories need to change just to make us comfortable?
I mean let’s be real here, when did we start expecting stories to perfectly align with our personal values. People who have read The Deal for example, can sit and tell you all the toxic behaviour and plotlines that occur, and that’s the magic isn’t it, we read the book and understand that Garrett trying to enforce a hands off campus rule was bat shit crazy, the way some of the hockey players treat women is horrendous but again we understand and see the toxicity. Character growth requires imperfection. If everyone begins perfect then where do we go from here?
Reading has never been about finding perfect characters or stories that agree with our own moral compass. The Bridgerton series is a perfect example of this, the sexism in those books and in the series is high, but we can still find enjoyment while acknowledging that it was a rubbish time to be a woman and importantly if historical fiction were to remove these elements, what history would it be portraying?
When I posted my thoughts about the Off Campus changes on my booksta (see this blog post for reference) I had this comment:
“Sorry, but you lost me at arguing that the highly misogynistic and sexist behaviour portrayed in the books should have stayed in the show for nostalgic reasons. And it’s not „just fiction”, misogynistic behaviour like this is still too normalised in society. I am glad that they changed it – showing that something like a hands-off rule is a no-go in real life relationships”
This is a prime example of nuance being lost online. I’m going to be really clear here, representation of a problematic theme/behaviour is not endorsement, it’s concerning that it seems we are increasingly losing the distinction between the two. If you look back at literature some of the most important stories contain attitudes and behaviours we’d call out today but it doesn’t make them worthless. It offers something that we don’t think we talk about often enough; the opportunity to look back at what we were, where we are now and what we still need to improve.
Showing a toxic dynamic is an opportunity for examination rather than approval. If everyone behaves exactly how we want them to in the beginning, then where’s the character growth? And if everyone is portrayed to be perfect to what society agrees with, can villains even be villains anymore?
This comes directly back to us as readers/reviewers. This is where fiction becomes valuable. How can we learn if we never see it, and as time moves on we need to remember these things exist so mistakes aren’t repeated. We don’t develop critical thinking if we aren’t exposed to subjects that challenge the way we think. Removing things that challenge us, erases conversations, it removes one of the safest spaces to examine difficult ideas – fiction.
Many adaptations seem to think changes need to be made to be more palatable for the audience, like we need protection from seeing harmful scenes.
Why can’t the audience be trusted to see that the hands off rule is ridiculous? Why is the assumption that everything shown to an audience is a sign of endorsement? Part of the issue may be media literacy, but I also think we’ve become increasingly uncomfortable with the distinction between depicting harmful behaviour and endorsing it. Again I want to be very clear, you absolutely have the right to dislike problematic content, I’m not questioning that at all. What I am worried about is the narrative that problematic content shouldn’t exist in stories at all.
So what happens when a story is flawless? Well we may find ourselves in a safe fiction paradox. The more a story is perfect and safe the less space there is to examine and challenge what we are seeing. Fiction gives us a lens to experience many things that life doesn’t. For example, we can read about prejudice without experiencing it ourselves. We can read and watch movies about toxic relationships without being one and we can experience loss and grief through a story to help us cope with our pain. Stripping those plotlines removes one of the most valuable things fiction can offer us.
This brings us to another interesting question, are we confusing modernisation with improvement? Modern doesn’t always mean better. Again Off Campus is a great example here, these books were written 10 years ago, and the show has been heavily modernised. This meant everyone’s behaviour had to meet today’s standard. In many ways, that is what altered the story the most, and I think we lose the opportunity to discuss how attitudes have changed and how some of those issues still persist.
Books often get labelled as poorly written because a storyline was too uncomfortable which is a completely different thing. Problematic doesn’t mean poor quality and it doesn’t mean the author endorses it either.
I’m not saying that every toxic storyline should remain untouched, some changes in adaptations do genuinely improve the story, but I am concerned that we increasingly treat discomfort as something to be removed rather than explored because at the end of the day reading isn’t just for comfort, books are meant to challenge us and question the way things are. If we remove all of that we lose the opportunity to think critically about the world around us.
Books & Other Pursuits 