Oh, MG
Subscribe
Cover photo

Was I Right To Remove Donald Trump From My Podcast Series on the Little Mermaid?

One of the things you learn in postmortems is that your reasons for cutting something often weren’t very good.

Malcolm Gladwell

Aug 28, 2021
38

One of my writer friends, David Epstein, read the first few of these newsletters, and told me that he likes them best when it sounds like I'm “thinking out loud.” Since I consider David to be nearly infallible (and if you haven’t read David’s books, you should: here and here), I thought I would take his advice, and do some more thinking out loud.

So here’s my question. One of the things that inevitably happens in any podcast is that some number of riffs and arguments and anecdotes that made their way into early drafts of a given show’s script get dropped in the final version. And then (particularly if you are a perfectionist Virgo like me) you spend a lot of time wondering: Should we have dropped that bit? Or—more precisely—were our reasons for dropping it good reasons?I think that kind of after-the-fact reasons-analysis can be really useful, because one of the things you find out in postmortems is that your reasons often aren’t very good.

OK. So here’s my example. And I want you to judge this one for yourself: Were we correct in cutting it?

Let me set up the context a bit first. The disputed bit came from the second of our three-part series about Disney’s The Little Mermaid on Revisionist History. Part two, as you may recall, was largely devoted to the theories of a brilliant literary scholar named Angus Fletcher.

Fletcher argues that fairy tales come in two forms. The oldest, most traditional kinds are what he calls “fairy tale twist” stories, which have a narrative structure based on a number of distinctive elements. Here’s how Fletcher puts it:

His example of this kind of fairy tale twist story is an ancient tale called “Adamantina and the Doll.” Adamantina is tasked by her sensible older sister to take their last scraps of money and go to the market and buy food, because the family is starving. Instead, Adamantina foolishly spends all the family’s money on a doll. She comes home, and her sensible sister chastises her. “You idiot! Now we’ll starve.” But what happens? The doll ends up being a magic doll.

The other kind of fairy tale is the kind you grew up on, especially if you watched a lot of Disney movies: poetic justice fairy tales. Poetic justice stories are narratives in which good things happen to good people—in which virtue is rewarded. Cinderella is the perfect example. She’s poor and abused by her evil stepsisters and all but forgotten. But she wins the prince in the end because she is selfless and pure.

Fletcher’s point is that people who make stories for children have, for hundreds of years, assumed that they prefer poetic justice stories—that they like Cinderella because purity and selflessness are rewarded. But his research shows the opposite. Children actually prefer the fairy tale twist. Why? Because when they see virtue rewarded, they immediately look at their own experiences—including all the times they weren’t rewarded—and conclude: “I must not be a good person.” Poetic justice makes us all feel bad. Fairy tale twists give us hope that anyone can reach the top.

OK. So here’s the section we took out of the final draft, word for word:

Here are our reasons for taking it out:

  1. We felt no one wanted still more on Donald Trump.

  2. We thought it would rub people who voted for Donald Trump the wrong way.

  3. We worried that it was too much of a digression from our main point, which was children and Disney.

I still think Reason #3 makes sense. And I think Reason #1 makes sense. We had Trump fatigue! Reason #2, in retrospect, strikes me as unconvincing. It’s not condescending to say to Trump supporters that they were attracted to him in part because of his flaws. Every time I talk to a Trump supporter, this is the one of the first things they bring up! Trump’s great genius was his relatability, and that stemmed in large part from the fact that he didn’t seem like some perfectly turned-out product of the meritocracy. That’s what made him seem real. And that’s a hugely important lesson for all engaged in the business of politics. Personal stories are appealing and powerful not to the extent that they follow a predictable path. If the star athlete, valedictorian, Rhodes scholar, Supreme-Court Justice, part-time model wins higher office, that’s not a story. That’s an algorithm. And the products of algorithms do not win our hearts. What we respond to in narratives of all kinds is unpredictability—flaws that end up offering a means of redemption. Regardless of which side of the political spectrum you fall on, that’s something to remember.

Next time I leave it in!

Subscribe for free to Oh, MG
By subscribing, you agree to share your email address with Malcolm Gladwell to receive their original content, including promotions. Unsubscribe at any time. Meta will also use your information subject to the Bulletin Terms and Policies
Like
Comment · 38
Share

More from Oh, MG
See all

Tucker Carlson Is a Sideshow

It’s entirely possible that Carlson influenced the Buffalo shooter. But we might be overstating the Fox News host’s reach.
May 17
40
64

The Magic of Revisionist History “Table Reads” Is Coming to the Live Stage

This is the first live show of this kind we’ve ever done, and I wanted to explain why we’re doing it.
Apr 30
5
3

The Canadian Soccer Team Argument For Open Borders

In the 1970s and '80s, Canada let in lots of immigrants, many of whom happened to be from countries that care a lot about soccer.
Apr 27
10
31
Comments
Log in with Facebook to comment

38 Comments

  • Paul Nicklen Photography
    Writes Born Wild
    Thank you for bringing us behind the scenes and sharing the level of thought and consideration that goes into your work – it certainly shows in the final product. 🙏💙
    • 37w
  • Tammy Gedak
    While I was listening I did think to myself that we just lived through an Adamantina story...but I think you were right to leave it out because it would have knocked you off focus and taken over the story you wanted to tell. Of course this topic would …
    See more
    • 37w
  • Jon Friend
    I think you did well by leaving this out. discussing concepts of fairytales with relatively benign real world examples is helpful. But your removed text that I read above almost belittles the extraordinary evil of the Trump presidency. Think about this…
    See more
    2
    • 37w
    • Edited
    1 Reply
  • Jordan Parr
    Actually, this should have been Part 4: Twisted Trump. Yes, we are sick of him and most of us want him to go away. but it's also important to know how we got him. Maybe next season...
    6
    • 37w
  • Tara Leigh Slade
    I agree that this Trump digression is better left out, and I think all of your 3 reasons to do so were perfectly sound. Then again, I thoroughly enjoyed your alternate version in this newsletter format. So refreshing. David is absolutely right; it's n…
    See more
    • 37w
  • Dan Porter
    As a 2020 Trump voter, I have no problem with the idea that he played the part of “fool” in 2016. But painting Hillary Clinton as the virtuous pure in heart heroine would have been a turn off.
    • 37w
  • Meredith Hurt
    Leaving it out was good…as we didn’t *need* to have the analogy spelled out. I feel your listeners think about your Podcasts and apply to real world events. why put in extra „let me explain how this applies to you“ content?
    • 37w
  • Tom Sowa
    Totally agree you didn’t need Trump in the discussion. HOWEVER .... the whole Mermaid effort was overwrought. Pt 3, the Rewriter. Oh man, that was a bad idea. Swing and a miss...
    • 35w
    2 Replies
  • Patrice Makovic
    I agree with the decision to not include him, because of Trump fatigue but also because of it distracting, pulling away from the story. Trump, at this point, is a trigger for most, eliciting strong emotion. But I also love that you have written this as…
    See more
    • 37w
    • Edited
  • Henrik Dissing
    Reason #3 makes sense, but both because Trump doesn't really fit in (as he is perceived very differently whether you are pro-Trump or against), but also because Hillary doesn't fit in either. This is not only due to the same pro/con thing as with Trump…
    See more
    • 37w
View 25 more comments
Share quoteSelect how you’d like to share below
Share on Facebook
Share to Twitter
Send in Whatsapp
Share on Linkedin
Privacy  ·  Terms  ·  Cookies  ·  © Meta 2022
Discover fresh voices. Tune into new conversations. Browse all publications