# Literary characters who come to symbolize the opposite of how they were portrayed. **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [June 24, 2010, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literary-characters-who-come-to-symbolize-the-opposite-of-how-they-were-portrayed/544304 "2010-06-24T01:52:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Rocketeer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rocketeer/32/4437_2.png) [@Rocketeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rocketeer)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2010, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literary-characters-who-come-to-symbolize-the-opposite-of-how-they-were-portrayed/544304/101 "2010-06-25T15:15:22Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > …In the John Wayne movie [_The Quiet Man_], the theme has been radically altered; now it’s all about joining in in the great male tradition of having a knock-down drag-out brawl; Thornton is depicted as perhaps being the coward that Mary Kate’s brother thinks he is, is not holding back for any explained or discernable reason, and when he is finally goaded into a fight the thing lasts and sprawls across the whole village and everyone comes to watch including a guy who gets off his death bed. Rather than making his point and making fools of those who had thought him weak and cowardly for not throwing a punch in response to provocation, it is the tormentors whose point is proven in the movie: just be a man and stick up your (ahem) dukes and we can all fight and then we can be friends cuz you’re one of us. Um, no, not actually. In the movie, he’s killed a man in a fight and has sworn never to fight again. He’s certainly not a coward–but Mary-Kate thinks he is, since she doesn’t understand his motives (and that’s because he never told her about it). The film follows her as she realizes just what a good man he is–and it also follows Sean as he realizes that he’s in a different culture now, that his vow is inappropriate for this new culture, and that he’s going to have to fight Daneher in order to maintain Mary-Kate’s respect and love. Also, the fight is being artificially prolonged by Sean, probably for the amusement of the crowd and to ensure Daneher’s later good will; you’ll notice that after the “time-out” in the bar, Sean puts Daneher down and out with one punch. Mary-Kate changes, too; although she’s hell-bent on getting her dowry, by the end of the film she’s willing to let Sean burn it, having gained enough insight into Sean to realize that only by doing that can she help him maintain his self-respect. It’s really very much a movie about two people who marry in a rush, without knowing much about each other’s personalities, and the struggle they have to achieve mutual understanding. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2010, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literary-characters-who-come-to-symbolize-the-opposite-of-how-they-were-portrayed/544304/102 "2010-06-25T15:17:21Z")
Annie X-mas beat me to her, but I’ll mention Scarlett O’Hara again. She’s the ideal of so many romanticist women: she’s seen as the strong southern/American woman who is capable of anything. While she’s definitely a survivor and has strong protective instincts for her family, she is also a cold manipulative almost sociopathically selfish character, an unloving mother (except a bit to her youngest daughter and that’s mainly because there’s plenty of money and the child is pretty) and somewhere between clueless and outright stupid in romance (ignoring Rhett who actually adores her for Ashley who in the first place is a weakling and in the second is completely devoted to his wife); she’s not a character you’d want to emulate. Melanie is by far the more admirable character: she has survival instincts but they function within a strict moral code- she will not harm others for purely selfish reason but at the same time she’s very pragmatic: for example, when Scarlett kills the Yankee (which is justified- he was definitely a thief, probably a rapist and possibly a murderer) it’s Melanie who suggests going through his pockets, yet after the war she willingly lives a very modest life uncomplainingly rather than benefit from exploiting others. Mammy is also used as an archetype by some people as a simpleton slave/servant who is delighted to be in a servile position to her white employers and has no needs or life of her own; this is far more true of _Alice_ from _The Brady Bunch_ or even of other Hattie McDaniel characters than it is of Mammy, who in the movie to a large degree and moreso in the book is anything BUT uncomplaining or a simpleton. In the movie McDaniel- who completely deserved her Oscar- does more with glances and expressions than many actresses can do with dialogue to show disapproval and sometimes disgust with Scarlett and she’s the only person in the movie who can yank Scarlett’s leash at all. In the book it has the time to develop her further and even though Mitchell was a spoiled white princess to a degree in her upbringing she clearly understood that they had inner lives and domestic work wasn’t their idea of a wonderful fulfilling time. One that comes to mind is when Scarlett sets her sights on Frank Kennedy and Mammy is appalled— until she thinks it through and realizes that while it’s evil, it’s a necessary evil; if Scarlett marries Frank Kennedy she’ll see to it he provides for everybody at Tara, while if Suellen marries him she’ll probably drive him back to the poorhouse with luxuries for herself while not giving a damn whether Tara is starving or not, and at this point Mammy actually _helps_ Scarlett capture him, but once wed she takes Kennedy’s side in almost every fight he and Scarlett have. There’s also a scene where Scarlett becomes furious at her and orders her to go back to Tara (from Atlanta) and Mammy calmly tells her “Miss Scarlett, I am free”- though a very short line, this lets you know that the significance of the northern victory isn’t lost on Mammy and that while she loves Scarlett she knows she doesn’t _have_ to take shit from her anymore. She stays with her as much for the fact she’s too old to go work for another family as for the (very real) emotional attachment, but she knows that now she’s there by choice. She’s not a simple character- not intellectually, emotionally, or morally, and while she loves and- more importantly- respects Scarlett, she’s not the least bit blind to her faults or completely glamoured by her like others are. Prissy otoh- she’s a stereotype. That I’ll grant. If a house can be a character, then Tara as it appears in the movie and as it’s used sometimes in pop-culture is completely different than its literary origins. In pop-culture or romanticism it’s a beautiful home that’s always been in the family and a lovely homey place; in the book it’s not romantic or beautiful but a big ugly isolated rambling house that’s only been in the family for a generation. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Excellent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f19dbf/32.png) [@Mr.Excellent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Excellent)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2010, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literary-characters-who-come-to-symbolize-the-opposite-of-how-they-were-portrayed/544304/103 "2010-06-25T15:30:50Z")
> [@Nobody](#): > > That’s the definition of cowardly. Brave means you face your horrible fate with some form of dignity. I somewhat disagree here. I’d say that bravery is facing your horrible fate, period. If Winston Smith had held out _just enough_ that he didn’t call out for torture to be inflicted on Julia, I’d say that he had acted bravely. Even if he was terrified, soiling himself, begging for Big Brother or God or his mother to make the pain stop - if he’d held on to just enough of himself to keep from doing harm, then I’d count him as heroic a character as any in fiction. Bravery isn’t about not being scared, and it’s not about stoicism. It’s about doing what has to be done in the face of fear - everything else, even dignity, is optional. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2010, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literary-characters-who-come-to-symbolize-the-opposite-of-how-they-were-portrayed/544304/104 "2010-06-25T15:33:08Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > I would say that, given the nature of HH’s fantasies and perversions, that nothing he says about Lolita is likely to be reflective of the true Dolores. Including, perhaps, that none of the events happened anywhere other than in HH’s fantasies. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2010, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literary-characters-who-come-to-symbolize-the-opposite-of-how-they-were-portrayed/544304/105 "2010-06-25T15:42:42Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > Including, perhaps, that none of the events happened anywhere other than in HH’s fantasies. Yes, I realize that is a possibility. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2010, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literary-characters-who-come-to-symbolize-the-opposite-of-how-they-were-portrayed/544304/106 "2010-06-25T16:17:27Z")
I find a lot of the arguing over Winston Smith very interesting, truly. But I don’t think Winston Smith fits the topic here. That is, Job is known to everyone as a model of patience, even though that’s not how he was portrayed in the Bible. “Uncle Tom” is a widely known slur, suggesting that a black man is a bootlicking, servile toadie, even though he was nothing like that in Harriet Beecher Stowe’s book. But Winston Smith has never been an icon of heroism. We can argue whether he was a good man or a bad man, a decent-but-flawed man or a coward… but I don’t think ANYBODY has ever held him up as a symbol of courage. ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2010, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literary-characters-who-come-to-symbolize-the-opposite-of-how-they-were-portrayed/544304/107 "2010-06-25T16:22:51Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > I find a lot of the arguing over Winston Smith very interesting, truly. But I don’t think Winston Smith fits the topic here. > > That is, Job is known to everyone as a model of patience, even though that’s not how he was portrayed in the Bible. “Uncle Tom” is a widely known slur, suggesting that a black man is a bootlicking, servile toadie, even though he was nothing like that in Harriet Beecher Stowe’s book. > > But Winston Smith has never been an icon of heroism. We can argue whether he was a good man or a bad man, a decent-but-flawed man or a coward… but I don’t think ANYBODY has ever held him up as a symbol of courage. Agreed. Whether he was a coward or a hero or an everyman is a matter of interpretation, all justifiable - it’s not wrong to say any of them. ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2010, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literary-characters-who-come-to-symbolize-the-opposite-of-how-they-were-portrayed/544304/108 "2010-06-25T16:25:49Z")
Sorry to jump back many (many!) posts, but back to Job, I quote from the old Staff Report on “Who Wrote the Bible (Part 3)” [Who wrote the Bible? (Part 3) - The Straight Dope](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1987/who-wrote-the-bible-part-3) : > [@](#): > > Scholarly opinion holds that the book of Job was probably written by at least two authors, one who wrote a prose prologue and epilogue that are likely quite old (say from 1000 BC or so), and one who wrote a poetic middle section, perhaps before 600 BC. There were later additions and revision of the poetry, perhaps as late as the 4th century BC. Ezekiel (prophesizing around 580 BC) mentions Job, but we do not know whether Ezekiel meant the folk-story or the scroll that we have today, or some other Job. So, to whoever thought that the two authors were one, no. They’re separted by several hundred years. ---
**Author:** ![BrotherCadfael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BrotherCadfael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrotherCadfael)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2010, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literary-characters-who-come-to-symbolize-the-opposite-of-how-they-were-portrayed/544304/109 "2010-06-25T16:50:47Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Hamlet is suppose to represent overly intellectual vacillation, indecision and ineffectuality. But Shakespeare’s character is a hot-blooded young man of action who can barely restrain his rage; does so only because assassinating a king is extremely dangerous; and almost all his tragically destructive errors (pushing away Ophelia, killing Polonius) come from passion and impulsiveness. The one exception is his failure to slay Claudius when he catches him at prayer; and that is because he is **so** mad at Claudius that he wants him not only dead but damned. Otherwise that would have been the perfect moment – Claudius having just tacitly and publicly admitted his guilt by fleeing from the play that re-enacted the murder of Hamlet’s father, Hamlet could at only that one moment gotten away with killing him **and** become king himself. That’s an often overlooked aspect – Hamlet is **ambitious;** he doesn’t just want revenge, he wants the crown (of which Claudius cheated him by killing his father, and securing the election, while Hamlet was away studying in Wittenberg); and in most circumstances, he couldn’t hope to get it just by killing Claudius. He’s not indecisive or ineffectual; it’s just that all his actions are restrained by danger on one side and ambition on the other; and he’s very painfully aware of that and it just makes him madder. Also, his anger at his mother is completely explained by the fact that, by marrying Claudius, she basically endorsed his succession as king, cutting Hamlet out entirely. Hamlet was away at school when the old king died; had Gertrude waited a bit, Hamlet would have arrived in time to make his own bid for the throne. > [@thelurkinghorror](#): > > Captain Bligh, a real person, was perhaps not as bad as _Mutiny on the Bounty_ portrays, and the mutineers were not that good. Nevertheless, he wasn’t a great guy either. However, his navigating his tiny lifeboat back to civilization, without losing a single crew member, is considered to be a great feat of seamanship, for which he is rightly acclaimed. ---
**Author:** ![jordanr2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/838e76/32.png) [@jordanr2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jordanr2)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2010, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literary-characters-who-come-to-symbolize-the-opposite-of-how-they-were-portrayed/544304/110 "2010-06-25T16:52:20Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > Including, perhaps, that none of the events happened anywhere other than in HH’s fantasies. I don’t know about _that_. He paints a fairly shabby portrait of himself - not just with respect to his treatment of Lolita, but especially with reference to Charlotte, who comes off as a largely sympathetic character despite her obnoxious personality tendencies. If it were all fantasy, wouldn’t his self-portrayal be more self-aggrandizing? ---
**Author:** ![Sr\_Siete](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6de8d8/32.png) [@Sr\_Siete](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sr_Siete)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2010, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literary-characters-who-come-to-symbolize-the-opposite-of-how-they-were-portrayed/544304/111 "2010-06-25T17:14:03Z")
Along the lines of Romeo, _“Lothario”_ is used as an epithet to mean “a ladies man”. Originally it comes from Don Quixote, from a story within the book where Lothario’s best friend forces him to attempt to seduce his wife in order to test her fidelity. Lothario, first tries to dissuade him, and then, when he grudgingly accepts, falls in love with the girl. Hardly a womanizer, then. ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2010, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literary-characters-who-come-to-symbolize-the-opposite-of-how-they-were-portrayed/544304/112 "2010-06-25T18:21:35Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > (ignoring Rhett who actually adores her for Ashley who in the first place is a weakling and in the second is completely devoted to his wife You took on Scarlett, now I’m going to take on Rhett. He knows from the get-go that Scarlet thinks she loves Ashley and has seen the worst of her behavior. Yet he hangs around, pretty much stalking her, seeing her more as a challenge than actually being in love with her. When Scarlett finally admits she loves him, he turns his back on her. Some quotes from Rhett’s goodbye speech: I cared so much I believe I would have killed Frank Kennedy if he hadn’t died when he did. I thought I could make you love me. I thought Ashley would fade from your mmd. I use to like to pretend that Bonnie was you, a little girl again…but she wasn’t like you. She loved me…When she went, she took eveything. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2010, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literary-characters-who-come-to-symbolize-the-opposite-of-how-they-were-portrayed/544304/113 "2010-06-25T18:52:51Z")
# Keeping with GONE WITH THE WIND, Emmy Slattery is still used as an insult to mean “no 'count white trash” and classless users. In the book and in the movie Emmy does give birth to an illegitimate child that Ellen [del]strangles[/del]delivers and baptizes, but unlike Scarlett she truly loves the baby daddy, and after the war when he has money and can have a much higher class woman he goes back to her, the mother of his firstborn and the woman he apparently loved throughout the war. # He was a real person but since he’s been depicted in films and on stage I’ll mention him: Bruce Ismay is seen as a blame shirking corporate fat cat (ala Tony Hayward) who cowardly takes a seat that could be used by a woman or a child. In reality Ismay accepted his share of the responsibility and he only took a seat when there were no others in sight (save obviously for whoever lowered the boat) at his station. Not literary but television: _The Waltons_ is sometimes used, like _The Brady Bunch_, to signify a goody-goody family with no real problems. In the show they had tons of problems- the Depression\*, World War II, illnesses, deaths, etc.- and the kids weren’t that goody-goody but often fought among themselves with some of them doing things like eloping or having marital problems and the like. Grandpa and Grandma were always at each other’s throats, Grandma looked down on the bootlegging sisters who supplied her husband with hooch, and the show in general has an undeserved reputation for unrealistic wholesomeness. (_The Brady Bunch_ of course WAS like the analogy: they didn’t even have a toilet and yet 6 teenagers never got horny, fought beyond a one episode squabble, or resented the replacement of their parent by a step.) \*Homer Simpson once compared his family to _The Waltons_ saying “we’re all just lying back waiting for the depression to end”- the pun works better verbally. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2010, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literary-characters-who-come-to-symbolize-the-opposite-of-how-they-were-portrayed/544304/114 "2010-06-25T18:55:46Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > (_The Brady Bunch_ of course WAS like the analogy: they didn’t even have a toilet and yet 6 teenagers never got horny, fought beyond a one episode squabble, or resented the replacement of their parent by a step.) Oh, please. Everybody knows that Greg was doing both Carol & Marsha; Mike just didn’t care for reasons we won’t go into until the children are in bed. And don’t get me started on the brain-goggling promiscuity of Jan’s college years. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2010, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literary-characters-who-come-to-symbolize-the-opposite-of-how-they-were-portrayed/544304/115 "2010-06-25T19:04:54Z")
> [@Promethea](#): > > Well, that’s how he started life, as a cartoon by David Low and he really is like how you originally imagined him to be in those cartoons. The film version came later and though inspired by the cartoons, is still a deliberate reinterpretation of the character in a more sympathetic light. It’s also worth noting that the protagonist in the film isn’t Colonel Blimp, it’s General Wynne-Candy, who at the beginning of the film, is _a_ Colonel Blimp - an ineffectual dinosaur unequipped to deal with the realities of the second World War. The film shows how he became such a person (The “Life of…” part of the title) and how he came to realize that his beliefs and attitudes were dangerously outdated (the “Death of…” part). I’d argue that the film isn’t a reinterpretation of the character, so much as a deconstruction of the archetype. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2010, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literary-characters-who-come-to-symbolize-the-opposite-of-how-they-were-portrayed/544304/116 "2010-06-25T19:06:11Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > Homer Simpson once compared his family to _The Waltons_ saying “we’re all just lying back waiting for the depression to end”- the pun works better verbally. This was in response to George H. W. Bush’s remark: [“We are going to keep on trying to strengthen the American family, to make American families a lot more like the Waltons and a lot less like the Simpsons.”](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Bad_Neighbors#Background) Which I suppose is a good example of _The Waltons_’ goody-goody reputation. ---
**Author:** ![TWDuke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e495f1/32.png) [@TWDuke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TWDuke)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2010, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literary-characters-who-come-to-symbolize-the-opposite-of-how-they-were-portrayed/544304/117 "2010-06-25T19:27:02Z")
> [@Lamia](#): > > Although Malory’s work was very influential, he was writing about 350 years after the first recorded narrative about King Arthur’s life. (And even longer after the first recorded references to Arthur or the earliest unrecorded stories.) His depiction of Arthur is thus about as far removed in time from Geoffrey of Monmouth’s account as _West Side Story_ was from Shakespeare’s writing of _Romeo and Juliet_. _Le Morte d’Arthur_ was pretty much the end of medieval Arthurian literature, not the beginning. To quote myself, “Now there may not be a single definitive source in his case, but many of our modern tellings are based on [or] influenced by **Le Mort d’Arthur** , and in that he can be a right bastard.” Geoffrey of Monmouth’s account of Arthur wasn’t the first either. (For that matter, neither were Shakespeare’s versions of **Romeo and Juliet** or **Hamlet**.) But I think it’s fair to say that Mallory’s work is the primary source for the most influential later tellings, such as White’s **The Once and Future King** , Tennyson’s **Idylls of the King** or Boorman’s **Excalibur**. Yes, there have been many attempts to strip away late-medieval influences and present a “real” history of Arthur, but most of them have more or less failed to make much of an impression on the popular consciousness. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2010, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literary-characters-who-come-to-symbolize-the-opposite-of-how-they-were-portrayed/544304/118 "2010-06-26T03:43:11Z")
> [@TWDuke](#): > > To quote myself, “Now there may not be a single definitive source in his case, but many of our modern tellings are based on [or] influenced by **Le Mort d’Arthur** , and in that he can be a right bastard.” I read what you wrote, I just don’t see how it’s relevant to the thread. For some reason you chose to ignore the portion of my post that explained this, so here it is again in different words. The popular conception of King Arthur today isn’t the opposite of the way he was portrayed by Malory, and Malory had no special claim to authority on the subject anyway. Malory, like almost everyone else before and after, portrayed Arthur as a great king. Malory did not portray Arthur as a perfect human being, but “flawed individual” isn’t the opposite of “great king”. Even if Malory had depicted Arthur as both a flawed individual and a _terrible_ king, the modern notion of Arthur as a great king would be perfectly consistent with earlier medieval literature. > [@](#): > > \*Geoffrey of Monmouth’s account of Arthur wasn’t the first either. \*Yes, that’s what I said. > [@](#): > > \*But I think it’s fair to say that Mallory’s work is the primary source for the most influential later tellings, such as White’s **The Once and Future King** , Tennyson’s **Idylls of the King** or Boorman’s **Excalibur**. \*Well, which one is it? Are these works based primarily on Malory, or do they depict Arthur as being the opposite of how he is in Malory? _Le Morte d’Arthur_ was certainly a big influence on _The Once and Future King_, but I note that _The Once and Future King_ includes the incest and baby-killing found in Malory. Arthur’s attitude is somewhat modernized, but he’s portrayed by T.H. White as a great king who made a number of mistakes and did at least one really terrible thing. Other well-known modern works, like Marion Zimmer Bradley’s _Mists of Avalon_, differ significantly from Malory but they rarely turn Arthur into Mr. Perfect. IIRC in _Mists_ he doesn’t kill any babies, but he does betray his promises to the priestesses of Avalon. Even the cheesy _Merlin_ TV series depicts young Arthur as arrogant and prone to being a jerk. Many people are probably unaware of all this and know of King Arthur only as a legendary great king, but again this is not the opposite of Malory or any other significant depiction of Arthur. Flawed or not, he’s been almost invariably portrayed as a great king for the past millennium or so. What counts as being a great king varies depending on who’s telling the story, but the general notion that Arthur was a great king certainly isn’t a recent development. ---
**Author:** ![Horatio\_Hellpop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Horatio\_Hellpop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatio_Hellpop)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2010, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literary-characters-who-come-to-symbolize-the-opposite-of-how-they-were-portrayed/544304/119 "2010-06-26T03:57:14Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > Homer Simpson once compared his family to _The Waltons_ saying “we’re all just lying back waiting for the depression to end”- the pun works better verbally. Pretty sure it was Bart, not Homer, who said this. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2010, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literary-characters-who-come-to-symbolize-the-opposite-of-how-they-were-portrayed/544304/120 "2010-06-26T04:37:26Z")
Ebenezer Scrooge might be half an example. Everyone always remembers him from the way he was at the beginning of _A Christmas Carol_ not the way he became during the course of the story. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literary-characters-who-come-to-symbolize-the-opposite-of-how-they-were-portrayed/544304.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literary-characters-who-come-to-symbolize-the-opposite-of-how-they-were-portrayed/544304.md?page=7)