It's not the "who," it's the "why"!

"Who made the changes that cause Caxton’s Morte to diverge from the Winchester manuscript is less important than the fact that the changes are made. Such alterations are more important for what they say about late medieval English literary culture than for what they might tell us about Caxton’s taste in literature, or Malory’s second thoughts on his massive opus."   

This statement really gets to the heart and soul of the study of popular culture.  If we are to believe that art is a mirror of the society that creates and consumes the art, the study must be on the why, not necessarily on the who.  As an example, I do not find the differences in King Arthur as striking from the original text nor as interesting in the Malory version, however, I do find the changes in the cast of supporting characters as the more interesting "why" question.  I am certainly not saying King Arthur is not changed, I just find the changing status of woman and their relationships with men as really striking in the version we studied this week!  Again, it begs the question of "why"?  Although I am just now learning and researching this time period, many of the changes can be contributed to the War of the Roses, changing societal beliefs about the role of woman and men, and (perhaps?) an editor thinking he can make the story a bit better if he "just made these little changes" to circulate even more copies of his printed text.  Wouldn't this last example be a wonderful example of popular culture and myths bending to the will of the people and the consuming society?