Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

6448Re: [MEFAwards] Movie-verse versus Bookverse (Re: Question concerning Dwim's list)

Expand Messages
  • Marta Layton
    Dec 7, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Rhapsody,

      > 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 ;)

      Here's my understanding - also possibly wrong ;-) Last year we had a
      movieverse category. It was in genres, but several people have
      suggested it get moved to books/times. I agree, it fits there better.
      Anyway, RSF requested a category for bookverse/movieverse blends, and
      so this whole issue kind of got brought up because she and I seem to
      have very differing definitions of what qualifies as "movieverse". So
      much so that what she considers a blend, I consider pure movieverse in
      most cases.

      > > 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? I think you need to be aware of this as well. We
      > all can't know every single detail of what Tolkien wrote or stated, we
      > all miss things when we read (or form our own idea about it)...

      I think readers will always make mistakes. Not too long ago, I had a
      story declined for the HASA public archives, and one of the comments
      mentioned that Sam never felt the pull of the sea. (There's a quote at
      the end of "The Grey Havens" that suggests at least to me that he
      probably did.) WHile this wasn't a movieverse/bookverse question, it
      was a case of the reader not remembering the appropriate portion of the
      books and thinking I had made an error. It ended up costing me, but in
      a way it was my fault. I could have very easily quoted the paragraph
      from "The Grey Havens" in a footnote.

      I'm rambling, I know. My point is that mistakes like this will always
      happen. If an author thinks the majority of her readers won't remember
      something about the canon source for the stories, he or she can save
      his or her readers some frustration by putting in a quick quotation.

      I think I might have not been clear yesterday. When I said I might
      write a shorter review for an unlabelled movieverse story than a
      labelled one, I didn't mean that I was actively penalising the author.
      Rather, because of the way I read stories, I enjoy it a lot less if it
      doesn't fit into other things I know about Middle-earth. If I know from
      the get-go that a story is movieverse, I will have one series of events
      in mind, and the movie will (hopefully!) fit into them and add a little
      bit to that version of Middle-earth. If I don't know it's movieverse,
      I'll be imagining Bergil running through Minas Tirith and Imrahil
      leading his knights in a glorious charge somewhere just beyond the
      edges of the story -- and if the Dead show up, it will upset my whole
      vision of what's going on. It's no one's *fault*, really, just the way
      things work with me.

      > > 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.
      > Well, this is something I have a hard time understanding currently...
      > I mean didn't we had a movieverse category? And didn't it work quite
      > well?

      We did have that category, and it did work pretty well IMO. I ask this
      question because I think if we can figure out why movieverse should be
      a category, it may help us decide if blends also deserve thier own

      > >> Now when I think "Bookverse" I don't include anything from
      > >> Tolkien's letters or HoME, or even Unfinished Tales.  If I were
      > >> better acquainted with the 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 material".
      > >
      > > 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.
      > Well the thing is here, especially with HOME is that Tolkien drafted
      > so many versions of one event, that it is quite often contradicting.
      > 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.

      I have to admit, I haven't read much beyond the Silm and the third age
      and essays sections of UT. I know there are contradictions, but they
      don't seem to be on the same scale as what you find in the first and
      second age stuff. I'm honestly not sure how to resolve that for the
      purpose of this award. I do think most authors who are on the fringe
      between AU and in keepinbg with some version note this somewhere in
      their stories. I remember seeing comments like "This story is compliant
      with LOTR but not HOME 12" or something similar.

      So I think I'm running out of suggestions here. Hopefully other people
      can help untangle this mess. :-S

    • Show all 30 messages in this topic