S3E5 - Tel’aran’rhiod

[DigificWriter]

  On 3/28/2025 at 12:50 PM, Mailman said:

I question the sheer volume of alterations and additions made outside the original work and the value they provide. And the methods by which, and for which, they are inserted.

Expand  

 

Which shows your ignorance (IMO) and also demonstrates an unwillingness to accept that the decisions that have been made were made in good faith.

 

  On 3/28/2025 at 1:02 PM, Ithillian Turambar said:

Tbf, there was a heck load of extra stuff, maybe even 2 movies worth, of extra stuff, in the Hobbit Trilogy

Expand  

 

This comment demonstrates a common misconception about the Hobbit Trilogy that has sadly contributed to it being viewed as a 'lesser' work than the LotR Trilogy. If you dive deep and delve into the behind-the-scenes Appendices material associated with the Hobbit films, you will discover that only 1/4 of the Trilogy's cumulative runtime is filled by story ideas that were added through reshoots and Pickups, and that there is actually only a handful of material from that remaining 3/4 of narrative runtime that is filled by things that came purely from the imaginations of the filmmakers.

Edited Friday at 01:28 PM by DigificWriter

[Mirefox]

  On 3/28/2025 at 12:58 PM, Turin Turambar said:

Uh, The Hobbit? 

Expand  

The Hobbit is a great example of corporate interference since by all accounts many, many of the changes were based on mandates to do things like have a strong female character, include a love story, pad it out to make 3 movies, etc. ad nauseum.  Peter Jackson is still complicit but from what I understand the LotR trilogy was a passion project and the Hobbit trilogy was a corporate Frankenstein.

 

Tying is back to this show, it certainly feels more the latter than the former.

[DigificWriter]

  On 3/28/2025 at 1:31 PM, Mirefox said:

The Hobbit is a great example of corporate interference since by all accounts many, many of the changes were based on mandates to do things like have a strong female character, include a love story, pad it out to make 3 movies, etc. ad nauseum.  Peter Jackson is still complicit but from what I understand the LotR trilogy was a passion project and the Hobbit trilogy was a corporate Frankenstein.

Expand  

 

This comment demonstrates another common misconception about the Hobbit films and their development process, one that, again, can be dispelled through a deep dive into the behind-the-scenes Appendices material.

[Turin Turambar]

  On 3/28/2025 at 1:31 PM, Mirefox said:

The Hobbit is a great example of corporate interference since by all accounts many, many of the changes were based on mandates to do things like have a strong female character, include a love story, pad it out to make 3 movies, etc. ad nauseum.  Peter Jackson is still complicit but from what I understand the LotR trilogy was a passion project and the Hobbit trilogy was a corporate Frankenstein.

 

Tying is back to this show, it certainly feels more the latter than the former.

Expand  

Yes. It was mostly a joke. I'm also aware of the things derived from the appendices for the other comment.

 

However, even in LotR there are some things that are derived that don't seem needed. I don't particularly mind most of them but they do exist.

Arwen replacing Glorfindel at the ford's of Bruien??

The elves showing up at Helms Deep instead of the Dunedain.

The depiction of the dead army at Pelennor fields. 

The Witch King breaking Gandalf's staff*

Faramir ever seriously contemplating taking Frodo to Minas Tirith *

These last two are the only ones I get angry with every time I watch them. There are probably more changes that I didn't think of right here but the point remains. Changes get made.

[Mirefox]

  On 3/28/2025 at 1:27 PM, DigificWriter said:

 

Which shows your ignorance (IMO) and also demonstrates an unwillingness to accept that the decisions that have been made were made in good faith.

 

 

This comment demonstrates a common misconception about the Hobbit Trilogy that has sadly contributed to it being viewed as a 'lesser' work than the LotR Trilogy. If you dive deep and delve into the behind-the-scenes Appendices material associated with the Hobbit films, you will discover that only 1/4 of the Trilogy's cumulative runtime is filled by story ideas that were added through reshoots and Pickups, and that there is actually only a handful of material from that remaining 3/4 of narrative runtime that is filled by things that came purely from the imaginations of the filmmakers.

Expand  

You continue to attack other posts if they bring up legitimate issues.  Putting (IMO) in parenthesis doesn’t change that.  We could read your posts and say “Which shows you must be terrible at your supposed craft (IMO)” and it has the exact same weight as your retort.  Whenever other posts bring up logical or writing inconsistencies your response amounts to “you don’t know what you’re talking about but I do because I took a creative writing class.”  Appeal to authority is a fallacy, especially when the supposed authority is yourself.  @Mailman’s post is valid and a great many outside of a few select echo chambers agree that the show is lesser for the fanfic treatment the source has gotten.

 

 

[Kaleb]

  On 3/28/2025 at 8:11 AM, king of nowhere said:

No, they are showing tension with the bond.

They promoted alanna to a much more prominent character than she was in the books, so they are giving her some personal story arcs.

And she will probably take up lan's bond after moiraine dies.

Expand  

Because nobody's mentioned the obvious, Alanna is also very likely to bond Rand like she does in the books. That's why they are making her a prominent character in the show instead of the relative nobody she was in the books.

 

On Egwene's dreamwalking skills: We have seen one session. Rand says he hasn't spent a moment alone with her since Rhuidean. There is no reason to insist Rhuidean happened yesterday or two days ago between E4 and E5. I don't recall exactly how far away Cold Rocks Hold is from Rhuidean, but I remember days of travelling in the books... it's hard to indicate the passage of time on screen without obvious travelling montages, as Moiraine kind of called out with that "years ago" comment to Egwene. But it's clear enough to me that there have been multiple lessons, and they were consolidated on screen with that first one in Cold Rocks Hold.

 

I did feel this episode was a bit of a let-down after E4, we're back to slow catch-up scenes connecting to future major plot points. But it was pretty well-done for that, and all of it was clearly working to set up plots from the books.

[Mirefox]

  On 3/28/2025 at 1:41 PM, Turin Turambar said:

Yes. It was mostly a joke. I'm also aware of the things derived from the appendices for the other comment.

 

However, even in LotR there are some things that are derived that don't seem needed. I don't particularly mind most of them but they do exist.

Arwen replacing Glorfindel at the ford's of Bruien??

The elves showing up at Helms Deep instead of the Dunedain.

The depiction of the dead army at Pelennor fields. 

The Witch King breaking Gandalf's staff*

Faramir ever seriously contemplating taking Frodo to Minas Tirith *

These last two are the only ones I get angry with every time I watch them. There are probably more changes that I didn't think of right here but the point remains. Changes get made.

Expand  

 

Oof, I don’t particularly mind the things like Arwen/Glorfindel or the Elves/Dunedain because I can understand how that is part of adapting a story - keeping the movies a little tighter, maybe fewer characters or returning faces so the audience follows better, etc.  that Faramir thing was by far the most egregious for me because it was a complete change of his character and he went from a hero in the book to a borderline villain ready to finish his brother’s mistake in the movie.  It’s painful to watch.

 

Bringing it back to this show, I have felt from the start that a vast majority of the characters were given the Faramir treatment.  They may ultimately end up in some of the same place or do the same things, but that internal character - the personalities, motivations, worldviews, etc., seem changed in virtually every character.

[Mirefox]

  On 3/28/2025 at 12:50 PM, Mailman said:

Thanks for the explanation but just because he had the book knowledge and quite possibly already the intention to use Chesmal at another point himself does not validate the changes he has made.

 

I am sure at some level he and the other creatives have reasons for the numerous changes they have made. I question the sheer volume of alterations and additions made outside the original work and the value they provide. And the methods by which, and for which, they are inserted.

 

 

Expand  

I met my wife over thirty years ago.  She was young, vibrant, gorgeous, brilliant, funny, and the absolute love of my life.  Then we got married and once we were legally bound together I set about trying to change everything about her that I thought needed changing to better conform with how I think a woman should be.  That’s love, right?

 

Dont let the handful of people here who will defend absolutely anything and then shoot you down for your opinions distract you from the fact that this show continually disrespects  source material and many recognize this on its face.

[DigificWriter]

My personal point of view is driven by far more than my having taken creative writing courses. As I have previously noted, a large portion of my analysis of the series and the creative processes behind it - and, in turn, my dismissal of complaints that run directly afoul of and contrary to that analysis - is fueled by my having worked directly in concert with an experienced Freelance television writer and the numerous things that I learned from him.

 

Also, none of my commentary is - or has been - a direct attack on posters whose complaints I disagree with or believe to be demonstrably bad-faith arguments borne of ignorance.

[Mirefox]

  On 3/28/2025 at 1:27 PM, DigificWriter said:

 

Which shows your ignorance (IMO) and also demonstrates an unwillingness to accept that the decisions that have been made were made in good faith.

Expand  

 

Rafe: I’m going to make characters gay just to anger fans.

 

-Moiraime is gay.

-Susan is gay.

-Elayne is gay.

-Aviendha is gay.

-Ishamael might be gay.

-Rand’s ancestor is gay.

 

”Good faith”

[Mailman]

  On 3/28/2025 at 1:27 PM, DigificWriter said:

 

Which shows your ignorance (IMO) and also demonstrates an unwillingness to accept that the decisions that have been made were made in good faith.

 

 

Expand  

How does that show my ignorance.

 

Of course I believe that the decisions were made in good faith I don't believe that the showrunners and creatives are intentionally producing bad content. That is a mad assumption to make and one that I have never made.

 

The show defenders really need to stop accusing me of saying things that I have not said.

[Kaleb]

  On 3/28/2025 at 2:04 PM, Mirefox said:

 

Rafe: I’m going to make characters gay just to anger fans.

 

-Moiraime is gay. BOOK FACT

-Susan is gay. BOOK FACT

-Elayne is gay. IMPLIED IN BOOKS

-Aviendha is gay. IMPLIED IN BOOKS

-Ishamael might be gay. NO IMPLICATION OF SEXUALITY IN BOOKS

-Rand’s ancestor is gay. NO IMPLICATION OF SEXUALITY IN BOOKS

 

”Good faith”

Expand  

This recent interview goes into detail on Rafe's perspectives on sexuality in the books, it's really intelligent and worth reading. Assuming the accuracy of the Robert Jordan quote asserting "30 to 50 percent" of the characters in the book are not straight, Rafe understands this point a lot better than people who are upset about queerness in the show.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-features/wheel-of-time-queer-universe-season-3-rafe-judkins-interview-1236173757/

[DigificWriter]

  On 3/28/2025 at 2:04 PM, Mirefox said:

Moiraime is gay.

-Susan is gay.

-Elayne is gay.

-Aviendha is gay.

Expand  

 

You are assuming that those 4 characters' dalliances with members of the same sex absolutely and binarily defines their sexual orientation in a way that it does not.

 

You also come across as being ignorant of the fact that Moiraine and Siuan's romantic relationship is absolutely present in one of the novels and that the novels also very heavily imply that there was a romantic and sexual aspect to Aviendha and Elayne's relationship in the novels.

 

  On 3/28/2025 at 2:08 PM, Mailman said:

How does that show my ignorance.

 

Of course I believe that the decisions were made in good faith I don't believe that the showrunners and creatives are intentionally producing bad content. That is a mad assumption to make and one that I have never made.

 

The show defenders really need to stop accusing me of saying things that I have not said.

Expand  

 

The tone and tenor of your posts quite frequently gives off the impression that you view each and every decision that the show's writers have made through a lens that is clouded by a presumption that said decisions were inarguably wrong.

 

The tone and tenor of your posts also quite frequently gives off the impression that you do not understand - or are not willing to take into account - the ways in which each and every decision that the show's writers have made are shaped and driven by the same things - their own personal interests and beliefs, the social Mores of the time, and the medium in which they are working - that drove Robert Jordan and/or do not believe that they should be afforded the freedom to be driven by said things.

[Mirefox]

  On 3/28/2025 at 2:33 PM, DigificWriter said:

 

You are assuming that those 4 characters' dalliances with members of the same sex absolutely and binarily defines their sexual orientation in a way that it does not.

 

You also come across as being ignorant of the fact that Moiraine and Siuan's romantic relationship is absolutely present in one of the novels and that the novels also very heavily imply that there was a romantic and sexual aspect to Aviendha and Elayne's relationship in the novels.

 

 

The tone and tenor of your posts quite frequently gives off the impression that you view each and every decision that the show's writers have made through a lens that is clouded by a presumption that said decisions were inarguably wrong.

 

The tone and tenor of your posts also quite frequently gives off the impression that you do not understand - or are not willing to take into account - the ways in which each and every decision that the show's writers have made are shaped and driven by the same things - their own personal interests and beliefs, the social Mores of the time, and the medium in which they are working - that drove Robert Jordan and/or do not believe that they should be afforded the freedom to be driven by said things.

Expand  

Wait, so you’re admitting here that this show has been altered based on the writers’ personal interests and what they believe are the appropriate social mores of the time but you co time to argue that this is a faithful adaptation and not a fanfic using an existing IP?

[DigificWriter]

  On 3/28/2025 at 2:47 PM, Mirefox said:

Wait, so you’re admitting here that this show has been altered based on the writers’ personal interests and what they believe are the appropriate social mores of the time but you co time to argue that this is a faithful adaptation?

Expand  

 

Yes.

 

And the majority of the die-hard book fans who produce WoT content online that I follow share that point of view.

Edited Friday at 02:54 PM by DigificWriter

[Turin Turambar]

  On 3/28/2025 at 2:04 PM, Mirefox said:

 

Rafe: I’m going to make characters gay just to anger fans.

 

-Moiraime is gay.

-Susan is gay.

-Elayne is gay.

-Aviendha is gay.

-Ishamael might be gay.

-Rand’s ancestor is gay.

 

”Good faith”

Expand  

There is evidence for Suian and Moiraine in the books. The Elayne  Aviendha ship has been a big thing for years. They seemed to be in line.with the sister wives vibe of other book throuples that sort of implied polyamory. I don't think there is any evidence either way for Ishy so meh, maybe he is actually  asexual but really friendly. Same for a random ancestor. 

My question is why does it bother some people so much? Do we really care who our heroes go bump in the night with? 

[Mirefox]

  On 3/28/2025 at 3:00 PM, Turin Turambar said:

There is evidence for Suian and Moiraine in the books. The Elayne  Aviendha ship has been a big thing for years. They seemed to be in line.with the sister wives vibe of other book throuples that sort of implied polyamory. I don't think there is any evidence either way for Ishy so meh, maybe he is actually  asexual but really friendly. Same for a random ancestor. 

My question is why does it bother some people so much? Do we really care who our heroes go bump in the night with? 

Expand  

It bothers me in that it is inorganic and feels forced.  All people ever want to say is that there is “evidence” that some characters may have had a relationship or that a show relationship is some sort of extrapolation of themes in the book.  Sure,  Siuan and Moiraine were “pillow friends,” a term that is never actually explained and can mean many things in the context of an all-girls school.  Make whatever you want of it.  There are also 15 books - including New Spring - which go into all of daydreaming about men to flirting to marrying, etc.  But this is a derailment of the topic.  It was claimed that all changes were made in good faith but we have it on record that Rafe threatened to change characters just to spite fans.  Whether you agree with the changes or think he was justified in lashing out, that statement alone is an example of bad faith.

[Mirefox]

  On 3/28/2025 at 2:53 PM, DigificWriter said:

 

Yes.

 

And the majority of the die-hard book fans who produce WoT content online that I follow share that point of view.

Expand  

A group of fools does not make the untrue true.

[Mailman]

  On 3/28/2025 at 2:11 PM, Kaleb said:

This recent interview goes into detail on Rafe's perspectives on sexuality in the books, it's really intelligent and worth reading. Assuming the accuracy of the Robert Jordan quote asserting "30 to 50 percent" of the characters in the book are not straight, Rafe understands this point a lot better than people who are upset about queerness in the show.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-features/wheel-of-time-queer-universe-season-3-rafe-judkins-interview-1236173757/

Expand  

 

Well firstly the first sister ceremony is not a marriage. They literally become sisters, birthed again and imbued with a magical bond of basically becoming a twin sister. If they keep the bond and ceremony the same as the books and have them sleeping together it is going to be incredibly close to incestuous.

 

Yes Elayne and Avi spend far more time together than they do with Rand but it is not sexual in nature they are sisters holding each other. This I believe is a queer person seeing something that is simply not there and I will again reference the fact that the first sisters ceremony involves a birthing element. I am not against Rands ladies having a more physical relationship but it should not be between sisters unless the show is advocating for a truly incestuous intent. I respect the issues his mormon upbringing coupled with his sexuality must have caused, but this is truly not the relationship that occurred in the books.

 

I really like the talk about not setting the sexual identity of the character as that characters main defining trait. A real problem in a lot of the increased prominence of female and gay leads is that it is those very characteristics are their main ones.

 

However, I don't believe that he has followed this. I have never disliked the idea that we could see an expanded physical relationship between Moiraine and Siuane. My problem is that it has super ceded their defining trait which was the single-minded desire to find and guide the Dragon and thus save the world. It began with the FFH ter'angreal being used for a hookup and when they finally had the meeting there they had sex before discussing the fact that Moiraine had found the Dragon which had been there most important goal of the past 20 years and their lives. And then this episode he has broken down the worldbuilding and storytelling to throw these characters at each other again by using Egwene.

 

 

 

[DigificWriter]

  On 3/28/2025 at 3:10 PM, Mirefox said:

A group of fools does not make the untrue true.

Expand  

 

The individuals who run this very website are not fools just because they hold a viewpoint that is different from yours.

 

Nor are the likes of  Rob (Malkier Talks), Mat Hatch (The Innkeeper from The Dusty Wheel), Jon from WoT Up, KritterXD, Winespring Cafe, Ta'varen Tavern from X/TikTok/The Wheel & Chill Show, Lezbi Nerdy, Kevin Angus, Rebecca from Reading the Pattern, Lauren from Unraveling the Pattern, Jess from The Amrylin's Study, Dani and Brett from The Wheel Weaves Podcast, and Rhuarc and Saimma (the book fan hosts of the Watch Party Wheel of Time Podcast).

[Sabio]

  On 3/28/2025 at 10:48 AM, DigificWriter said:

I can't believe I'm about to reference a fandom meme, but if the writers were truly "tossing in changes just to have change", Rafe would've let the Yellow Ajah Sister whom Valda burned at the stake in Episode 1x02 be named 'Chesmal Emry'.

 

Every single thing that the show does is calculated and serves a purpose, be it to flesh out the world-building and Lore, serve as an Easter Egg, flesh out or develop characterization, or help facilitate storytelling, just to name a few considerations.

 

Nearly every time someone with a negative view of the show makes a comment, they continually demonstrate just how ignorant they are when it comes to storytelling, and also that they've taken the way that Robert Jordan chose to tell his story - which was shaped and dictated by his own personal interests and beliefs, the social Mores of the time, and the Literary medium - as if it's some 'Holy' blueprint that can't be deviated from.

Expand  

Didn't I claim I was for some of the changes?  Claiming people who have a negative view is ignorant of storytelling is actually a pretty ignorant statement.  There is good storytelling, bad story telling, and lazy storytelling.  Just because they think it serves a purpose doesn't mean it was needed or worked.  I mean the way they portrayed Mat''s dagger at the end of season 2 was a good change?  The whole Alanna being saved at the end was pretty lazy and predictable.  Min's drawing her visions seemed a lazy way for Mat to find out.  I mean never before have we seen a drawing of her vision and now there is a room full of them and what just happens to be on the floor by Mat?  Call it what you want but some of these changes just seemed tossed in without a lot of thought.

[Mailman]

  On 3/28/2025 at 2:33 PM, DigificWriter said:

 

The tone and tenor of your posts quite frequently gives off the impression that you view each and every decision that the show's writers have made through a lens that is clouded by a presumption that said decisions were inarguably wrong.

 

The tone and tenor of your posts also quite frequently gives off the impression that you do not understand - or are not willing to take into account - the ways in which each and every decision that the show's writers have made are shaped and driven by the same things - their own personal interests and beliefs, the social Mores of the time, and the medium in which they are working - that drove Robert Jordan and/or do not believe that they should be afforded the freedom to be driven by said things.

Expand  

I present clear examples of the world breaking and storytelling issues when I provide my analysis on each issue. People frequently dismiss them as nitpicking however the fact that you are able to look past said issue as you do not see it as a problem does not mean the problem is not present.

 

The show writers are there to adapt the WoT their personal interests and beliefs are not as important as the story written by the original author. The are working within Jordans world so no they do not get the same freedoms as he does.

 

As you are talking about tone and tenor your posts almost always come across as if your word is absolute and sacrosanct on every writing issue and are unwilling to accept that there are any worldbuilding or story issues at all.

[Jaysen Gore]

More Random thoughts based on the feedback

- I know internally that a big chunk of time passed between Egwene's first foray into T'A'R and her trip with Moiraine, but they sucked at showing it; so again, Egwene looks overpowered and uber competent

- Siuan's line that Elayne is out of the tower is not a lie - she's hunting black ajah, and was not given specifics how

- the Amico / Joiya murder scene did take place in the books - only in the Stone, not the Tower, and with Egwene, not Elaida. And it does serve a story purpose - making it blatantly clear that Elaida is not Black.

- time compression / storyline overlap has created a problem that none of the WG's are actually in the Tower to watch the collapse as due to production limitations, they need Egwene to be two places at once (the Waste and the Tower)

- beefing Alannah's role up is beginning to feel like the "undercut the boys" complaints from Season 1 - once again, there is a woman in a much more prominent arc than was present in the books; this time in the battle of the 2R's 

- the Maxsim / Alannah scene is Frodo / Sam all over again. It was dumb then, and it's dumb now. But it's Hollywood fake drama

- Natti getting barbecued, I suspect, is taking the place of murdering Perrin's family. That way, he doesn't get a second massive grief hit, given that they fridged his wife. 

- the interpretive dance approach for the Wave Mistress; I actually like that the Sea Folk channelers is a full body activity - this isn't exploding some dirt, or making a fire dragon; this is affecting the weather, and should be a massive effort.

- I'll be curious to see how much of Egwene's vision was looking into people's dreams, and how much was her as a Dreamer

 

Maybe more to come...

[Mailman]

  On 3/28/2025 at 3:00 PM, Turin Turambar said:

There is evidence for Suian and Moiraine in the books. The Elayne  Aviendha ship has been a big thing for years. They seemed to be in line.with the sister wives vibe of other book throuples that sort of implied polyamory. I don't think there is any evidence either way for Ishy so meh, maybe he is actually  asexual but really friendly. Same for a random ancestor. 

My question is why does it bother some people so much? Do we really care who our heroes go bump in the night with? 

Expand  

Definite for Siuane and Moiraine in New Spring. Was it simply the fact that they were trapped in a harsh all girls environment? No idea it's not important. They share a lifelong bond and they have a goal that trumps every other relationship and thing in their lives

 

Elayne and Avi are sisters and that is it they are rebirthed together as essentially bonded twins.

 

Ishy in the books I never got an impression either way the same as Siu and Mor he had taken up a cause that was more important than anything else to himself. As a man from an extremely cultured and educated world I don't believe he would have any issues any form of relationship although this does not prove in any way which way he might have swung before his fall.

 

I don't care relationships between characters should make sense to the characters worldbuilding.

[DigificWriter]

  On 3/28/2025 at 3:25 PM, Sabio said:

Didn't I claim I was for some of the changes?  Claiming people who have a negative view is ignorant of storytelling is actually a pretty ignorant statement.  There is good storytelling, bad story telling, and lazy storytelling.  Just because they think it serves a purpose doesn't mean it was needed or worked.  I mean the way they portrayed Mat''s dagger at the end of season 2 was a good change?  The whole Alanna being saved at the end was pretty lazy and predictable.  Min's drawing her visions seemed a lazy way for Mat to find out.  I mean never before have we seen a drawing of her vision and now there is a room full of them and what just happens to be on the floor by Mat?  Call it what you want but some of these changes just seemed tossed in without a lot of thought.

Expand  

 

Storytelling is not objectively good or bad in and of itself because those terms are not in and of themselves objective.

 

The execution of certain things is not going to land for every single person who watches the show, but poor execution of a thing does not invalidate the thing itself or reflect negatively on the decision-making process that accompanied its inclusion.

 

As an example, some of the book fans I follow had issues with the execution of the practical processes that were used to transform Josha into some of his ancestors, but that doesn't mean that it was a mistake to even ask him to play all of his ancestors in the first place.

 

  On 3/28/2025 at 3:35 PM, Mailman said:

People frequently dismiss them as nitpicking

Expand  

 

Because they come across that way to others.

 

  On 3/28/2025 at 3:35 PM, Mailman said:

The show writers are there to adapt the WoT their personal interests and beliefs are not as important as the story written by the original author. The are working within Jordans world so no they do not get the same freedoms as he does.

Expand  

 

This viewpoint comes across as very ignorant because it is absolutely and inherently impossible for an adaptor to not infuse the thing they are adapting with their own personal interests, beliefs, interpretation of social Mores, and the constraints and mechanics of the medium they are working with.