6441Re: [MEFAwards] Movie-verse versus Bookverse (Re: Question concerning Dwim's list)
- Dec 7, 2005
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marta Layton" <melayton@...>
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 11:20 PM
Subject: Re: [MEFAwards] Movie-verse versus Bookverse (Re: Question
concerning Dwim's list)
So that's at least part of the problem: we're using the terms
differently. If I don't see a story labelled as movieverse and I see
an event that is in the movies but not in the books, I think of it as
an authors' mistakes. I don't mean movie-inspired pieces per se, I just
want to expect it. So for me as reader, I appreciate having this
material labelled. And this is for the authors' good as much as
anything else. My reading of an unlabelled movieverse story will
probably be less forgiving than my reading of one for which I had fair
expectations. It might be the difference between an 8 point and a 10
::Now, I have to say, I write what I think of as essentially book-verse
stories. Yet I often draw on visual elements and bits of characterizations
that were inspired by the films, as long as they don't contradict the book.
For example, JRRT never tells us the color of Frodo's or Pippin's eyes--so I
don't feel there's anything amiss in using the color of the actors who
played them. And we are certainly never given a description of the hobbits'
articles of dress, so mentioning Merry's yellow weskit or Pippin's scarf
would certainly not fall into putting the story in movie-verse, to me.
On the other hand, sometimes people read into a story something that's not
there. In my very first story, I had a less than flattering protrayal of
Denethor, my own interpretation of his character for over 30 years, from the
time I read the book the first time. Yet I had a reviewer who assumed I was
writing "movie-verser Denethor".
So I would say that a definition of "movie-verse" or "book-verse" is very
subjective, and rightfully left to the author to decide.
For the purpose of categorisation, I'm less sure. I think the first
question we need to answer is whether movieverse stories should be
their own category, and if so why. If we answer that I think it will be
a lot easier to see what to do with blends.
::We had a movie-verse category, or was it sub-category? last year, and I
think it seemed to work all right. I am afraid I would put this whole
question to the old "if it ain't broke..." question.
> Now when I think "Bookverse" I don't include anything from Tolkien's
> or HoME, or even Unfinished Tales. If I were better acquainted with
> Silmarillion, I'd definitely include that in my thinking, but mostly
> I think
> of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings (and in their "most
> corrected" form,
> at that) as being the basic canon of the Bookverse.
> HoME, the Letters, etc., are in my noggin as "drafts and background
Ah, the joys of being in such a complex canon! I'm for including the
drafts of Tolkien's posthumously published works just to avoid
controversy, because while the details might be different, the *medium*
is at least the same, and Tolkien himself had some hand in choosing the
details. Even if they weren't finished.
::I fall somewhere in between. I think of The Silm as more or less canon to
the events which take place during those years. I think of UT and Letters
as "semi-canon"--useful for factoids that are not included in the finished
works, and then I think of the rest as "quasi-canon", again useful for
certain factoids, but not quite so much so, as the aforementioned works.
All of them are to be treated with a certain amount of respect as revealing
some of JRRT's own mind on certain matters, but I don't see them as "canon",
except for The Silm.
And Rabidsamfan, at the risk of dividing the fandom into factions...
you write mostly hobbit fic, right? While there is certainly
information about hobbits in the Letters and HOME, but I think that
most of the *events* at least are set out in LOTR and TH. I honestly
can't imagine writing Gondor without knowing a lot more about the
history of Numenor than we see in the appendices. This is even more
true for the elves; I personally think the most interesting part about
them are the allusions to the "deeper matters" that are only told in
full in the Silm, or UT. In my mind, if it doesn't contradict the
published books it's fair game.
That's just my personal opinion, though. The main reason I'm allowing
C. Tolkien's stuff is it side-steps a controversy on what just is
canon. People have been arguing over that for decades, and I doubt
we'll settle them in a manner that everyone will agree with.
::You are quite right in noting that we hobbit writers have a lot more
published material to draw on. There's nothing wrong or divisive in
pointing that out.
Your statement in saying "if it doesn't contradict the published books it's
fair game" is interesting, however, in the light of what you had to say
about seeing movie-verse elements in a book-verse story. 8-)
::At any rate, I do think that the question of movie-verse versus book-verse
as a category is being made more important than it really needs to be. It
should be a question on the form, but like RSF, I don't think it needs to be
the first one, or even a main one. It's just a small part of what needs to
be decided. And the author can make that call.
::My two cents.
> So what if we skip that question for now, and save it for later. Now
> have two primary questions on the form (and again, they're not in the
> I'd divide things.)... Hmm. I can see that what I really need to
> do is
> explain how I would do it if I were in charge of the universe.
> Okay. Might take me a day or so, depending on the insomnia. I'll go
> up Dwim's most current form of the form and see if I can make a
> contribution. Not that I expect it to be used, mind you, but so you
> can see
> how I'm thinking.
By all means! I've thrown out my opinion, and I look forward to seeing
how you'd handle these questions. And whenever you have the time to ldo
that, of course.
Yahoo! Groups Links
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>