6445Movie-verse versus Bookverse (Re: Question concerning Dwim's list)
- Dec 7, 2005--- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "dwimmer_laik" <dwimmer_laik@y...>
>How about the scene where Isildur, Elendil and Gil-Galad take on
> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, "rhapsody_the_bard"
> <rhapsody74@g...> wrote:
>> --- In MEFAwards@yahoogroups.com, Marta Layton <melayton@g...> >>wrote:
>> Okay, I've been trying to follow this conversation the past days,
>> but I am not sure if I understand completely why this is brought up
>> for discussion.. It might have been the flu though ;)
>>> 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 point review.
>> Well, reading this I wonder... what if an author does thorough book
>> research, but you (as a reader) think it is a movie thing (maybe
>> because it feels a bit alike, or PJ dived more into the books than
>> you assumed). What then?
> Can you cite an example where this is the case? I'm not sure what
> you're talking about here, other than a purely hypothetical
Sauron... well in the movie you don't see Gil-Galad fighting that
much, so what if the story appears to be a re-telling of the tale on
how Elendil fought Sauron (besides the whole discussion what truly
happened there and what/who brought Sauron down on his knees). A
reader can form an image in his/her head that it is movieverse, while
the author in question might have thoroughly researched it.
> Having done the research does not guarantee a goodWell that is a nice pat on the back for those authors who do spend
> interpretation, it just makes it less likely to be bad.
loads of amounts on doing very thorough research but are questioned
for canonical interpretation.
><< every single detail of what Tolkien wrote or stated, we all miss
>> I think you need to be aware of this as well. We all can't know
>> things when we read (or form our own idea about it)...Well that is your interpretation of my words. I surely didn't mention
> You say "form our own idea about it" like this is both a bad thing
> and an avoidable thing.
it that way. But when I read how Marta for example might give a person
less points because of it.. I am very much for own interpretation
because it is, for me, a good way to see a different perspective where
I never thought of before. For example, I might write a very arrogant
Boromir (with some good citations to back it up), but she adores him
and she doesn't agree with my intepretation of Boromir at all.. am I
rewarded with 2 points less then?
> Nothing literary is read about which one forms onnly the idea thatIt all remains pretty subjective what is a good or bad interpretation.
> the author had of it. Yes, there are bad interpretations, but a good
> interpretation is still an interpretation and constitutes "my own
> idea about it." In the case you mention, it's going to be in the
> author's benefit where I'm concerned to give me reasons to think
> s/he is basing his/her work on the movieverse. If not, I'm going to
> think it's a bad bookverse interpretation, just as I think PJ's
> screen adaptation of Denethor is a bad interpretation, though not
> necessarily an unresearched one.
I rather not think that way.
>Oh I can see that. Sure. But what is pure canon then? I often wonder
> > It is a great source for plotbunnies though, but I can imagine
> > that when someone explores a HOME thing that covers an event in
> < the Silmarillion that is contradicting... that would be very
> >interesting to see how you guys want to see that as categorisation
> > because technically: it isn't AU, you can quote canon on that.
> You seem to be treating this one filter as if everything depended on
> it. I recommend checking the example form I filled out for a Trotter
> and Bingo story. You can say "My story is bookverse" and still
> choose *AU* as a category if it's based on material that ws clearly
> discarded by Tolkien, or depending on how you view underused
> sections of the drafts (LACE) in their relation to other drafts (The
> Silm is *also* not work JRRT approved or finished--it is heavily
> edited by C.Tolkien and Gavriel, iirc--so Silm as canon is itself a
> fan creation, inaugurated by the need to have some point of
> reference that was relatively stable for the pre-Third Age stories,
> that acknowledged that Tolkien had done some work there so it wasn't
> a free for all).
that. I can write for example a different version of the Lay of
Leithian and still keep it *not* AU. And there are many versions of
this Lay in HOME. My point being is: are you gonna 'categorise' all
stories that have a main plot element derived from HOME in the AU...
with this reasoning?
> you can do that, and say in your author's notes or summary, "I'mI am not following this. How can a story based on HOME be seen as
> relying on material from HoME that Tolkien discarded." The forms can
> accommodate this level of sophistication--I think the concern, that
> including the drafts as bookverse is misleading, is not taking into
> account the full range of data and the manipulability of that data
> that the form demands and can support.
misleading? I most certainly misread this, can you explain it a bit
> <snip>Does it truly Dwim? I really wonder about that.
>> Even the UT contains contradicting material... just don't try to
>> dive too much into exploring Celeborn for example... it gave drive
>> you insane ;) And I am not starting about LACE, which is never ever
>> mentioned in the Silmarillion to begin with.
> See above, especially the point about the Silm, which to me says a
> lot to me about your conception of canon--it's still not complex
> enough despite the objections you're trying to bring to bear on
> behalf of that very point.
> We are *all* going to make assumptions, we cn't help it. It's howThe moment you read a book, you form your own idea about it. At that
> those assumptions are used in crafting the story so tht it is
> convincing based on the most reasonable conception of canon
> (itself a position one can argue for and should) you can find for
> your story.
moment, the manner how you process it, it will be an assumption and
your opinion is actually subjective. You can find people who share
those assumptions or not, that doesn't make it purely objective
> Maybe it's because I hang out at HASA normally, but this is theWell maybe that is a reason why I am no longer active there. I don't
> standard we use. If it's citable, it's fair game--you don't get to
> dock the person just because s/he used some obscure, discarded
> portion of Tolkien's drafts. But just because it's *citable* doesn't
> make it a good story yet--our conception of canon *is* complex
> because the interrelations of JRRT's writings is complex and
> ultimately in some cases 'undecidable'; it is therefore not enough
> to just point to the source material. If you use something clearly
> discarded (Trotter, for example), be prepared to make your case for
> why this story needs to be written--do it not by the footnotes
> (which still need to be there so the reader can find out what's
> given in the draft(s) you're working with), but by telling me a good
> story. That's the bottom line.
feel the need to justify my drive to pursue a bunny coming from HOME
or UT for that matter. Neither do I think that anyone should do that.
But that is my personal opinion, for me, taking an element and run
with it doesn't make a story less to me.
> Right now, possibly because I, too, have caught the dreaded diseaseWell I am just recovering from it (the dreaded disease) and I am
> of the month, I'm not able to see what you're talking about in your
> objections very clearly--not in a concrete way that convinces me
> this is more than a set of exceptional cases (w.r.t. the 'what if it
> really is bookverse and you only think it's movieverse' position at
> least). I need concrete stuff! My head is too filled with goop for
> anything less to enter it, unfortunately. :-S
asking basically *why* this is discussed because I still can't follow
the reasoning why. To me the main category movieverse worked
brilliantly and I am wondering why movieverse is up for discussion.
See above: I do clearly ask for clarification because I really can't
follow the discussion. It feels like many things are getting mingled
and it's highly confusing (especially when your mind is foggy).
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>