This chapter begins with the Army’s position in the 1993 debate over allowing gay personnel to serve openly in the US military. The chapter argues that the generals’ arguments for maintaining the ban on gay people in the military centred on the notion that the military was an exceptional institution within US society, with claims about the need for combat cohesion and the maintenance of a ‘band of brothers’ paramount in their approach to the issue. When it came to the question of women’s service in the military, the debate played out on very similar lines. As with gay soldiers, critics argued that the presence of women would negatively affect the cohesion of these close-knit outfits. Not only that, but a series of sexual assault scandals prompted right-wing critics of the military to contend that the Army should discontinue gender-integrated recruit training and further restrict the role of women in the Army. This went in tandem with complaints that recruit training was now too soft, and that the Army should look to the Marine Corps for an example for how to recruit and train warriors.

This chapter examines the fidelity discourse as applied to Greek drama and how it has affected the ways in which adaptations have tended to be detrimentally regarded. The chapter challenges the premise that we have access to the original versions of these plays, and suggests ways in which we can approach adaptation as a positive act of creativity that has enabled the work to survive, rather than a kind of debasement of the canon. The chapter also shows how the fidelity discourse exerts a negative influence on the adaptation of Greek drama, by using examples drawn from the author's own work on adaptations with the Aquila Theatre public programming aimed at the veteran community in the United States. By briefly describing these performance projects, the chapter hopes to show how an informed approach to adaptation can produce new ways in which to increase engagement with and knowledge of ancient dramatic works.