Re: [mythsoc] Re: spotty review
- At 01:57 AM 2/10/2004 +0000, Marc wrote:
>> Marc, I can't imagine large quantities of _readers_ enjoying a storyYour change from my usage of _focusing_ on such a character to your usage
>> focusing on such a loathsome (and, more importantly, tiresome)
>> character. Yet they do.
>What can I say. As someone who grew up in a post-romantic world, I'm
>not particularly bothered by works that are dark, horrible, and/or
>have loathsome characters.
of _having_ such a character is noted. LOTR has loathsome characters. Nor
did I say anything about books that are dark (The Silmarillion is dark) or
horrible. These characteristics are not what made Donaldson difficult to
read: rather, they were among his strong points. Nor is it clear what
world you think I grew up in. Over what I read this rewording and
insertion as insinuating about my judgment and tastes, I wish to keep
civility, ergo silebo.
>In any case, I wasn't saying that no onePeter Jackson is not a Hollywood director, obviously.
>would like movies based on Donaldson. I think you could make very
>powerful movies out of them. However, they would not appeal to what
>Hollywood perceives as a core audience for fantasy movies: children
>If you're referring to the rape scene, the only reason IWhich would be very easy to do, and the Philippa Boyenses of the world are
>> didn't throw the book at the wall at that point was because I was
>> sitting outdoors at the time.
>> With all that in mind: a film could easily cut that scene. A
>Not easily. Its pretty crucial to much of what goes on later in the
>series, particularly a lot of the character dynamics and
>motivations. You would have to do quite a bit of plot substitution
>to make that work.
probably champing at the bit to try.
>> As for unsympathetic heroes: one infamous review of Jackson praisedBut of course the critic was saying that this _doesn't_ happen in the movie.
>> popularizing a book "whose hero eventually loses the sympathy of
>That is funny! Though, understandable if you were basing it on the
>movies, where Sam pretty much becomes the real hero.
>> As I said, it's early days yet. In any case, my point was not thatPerhaps true, but it quite misses my point. As for whether such films will
>> will, but that they could. One obstacle towards purchasing rights
>> post-Tolkien fantasies now is cost: in the wake of Jackson's
>> author will want a bundle. Developing their own property in that
>> using a public-domain story, may be more probable.
>There are probably plenty like Tolkien who have already sold the
>movie rights for a song and are available to be made. For that
>matter, I don't see anyone beating down the door to make movies based
>on fantasy novels, so I don't know that any fantasy writer should
>expect it would be a gold mine.
be made: for the third time, it's early days yet.
>> Here's one coming up that I just saw the trailer for: WolfgangThat rather proves my point. It is more than worth noting that Peter
>> _Troy_. It could be done either as a fantasy, because the source
>> is one by our standards, or as a non-fantasy historical, because
>> on historical events and because the fantasy elements aren't
>It is actually being done as historical. Also, the King Arthur
>movie which someone else brought up is being billed as a realistic,
>I've heard about a number of other movies of
>epic scope in the pipeline all of which are being done from more of a
>pseudo-historical realism point-of-view.
Jackson emphasized that he considered himself as making LOTR as a
pseudo-historical film, not a fantasy. Obviously he did not omit fantastic
elements entirely, but he did strongly de-emphasize them. These films,
therefore, are in his tradition: big-budget historicized reworkings of
tales known as fantasies. (It is a curious fact that, though "authentic
historical" Arthurian fiction has been prominent for decades, the idea of
doing it is constantly being rediscovered.)
- David Bratman
- --- In email@example.com, "marcfcs" <marcfcs@a...> wrote:
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, David Bratman <dbratman@e...> wrote:has,
> > But neither of these describe Thomas Covenant. He is not
> uninteresting, he
> > is positively annoying. Nor is he merely detestable, but a
> > person one is supposed to identify with (to an extent) as a
> > character, without - at least as far as I read, three long weary
> books of
> > it - having a turning point or apotheosis of sympathy as Lear
> > getting his due comeuppance as Richard III does.
> Two points: 1) I don't think you are supposed to identify with
> Covenant. I think Donaldson goes out of his way to block you from
> identifying with him(though as I said before, I know nothing about
> his motivations beyond what is in the books, so I could be
> 2) I don't have a problem with Covenant not getting his
> or having a turning point and learning some deep lesson aboutlife.
> The universe is an imperfect place. I don't mind if fictionexpectations
> reflects that sometimes. I like it when a work subverts
> and does not unfold in a traditional way. It doesn't bother me ifan
> anti-hero character doesn't have a heart of gold and doesn't growone
> later (and isn't punished for that in some act of cosmic justice bykind
> the author).
> > The problem with this moment is not the sentiment - for surely an
> > king no more intends to outlive his son and heir than a modern
> Oprah guest
> > does - but the phrasing and style with which it is said.
> The phrasing is the worst part and the one that is most relevant to
> me for enjoying the movie. However, the sentiment is wrong as well
> as an adaptation of Tolkien since this clearly goes against the
> of "men of the north" heroic ethos that Tolkien gives to Rohan.that
> Lamenting the death of a son is 1 thing. Saying no father should
> outlive their children is not the right sentiment for a culture
> honors noble death more than survival at any costs. This changesa
> culture that Tolkien meant to be a little alien to his audience andexplained
> makes it more like modern people in medieval clothing. Can anyone
> imagine Beowulf or Sigurd saying such a thing, however you want to
> phrase it? Not that Tolkien doesn't modernize those types of
> characters a little, but not that much.
> Finally, as far as the whole post-Romantic thing goes, I've
> my point and you clearly understand it now. We could probablyargue
> endlessly about the exact usage of the specific words I chose and Idiscussion
> doubt it would be of interest to anyone else reading this
> group. So, lets just let it drop.Hi I'm (dmsherwood53@...) & I'm breaking into a conversation
where the protagonists have agrred to let it drop wvery uncivilised
If your still listening coupla points:
I agree theris a post-romantic sensibility.
I think this and its opposite the romantic sensibility ties deeply
intowhat a person is; wants to be; fears being; all thaT shimola
I think ROMANCES using the term v widely tie into this more deeply
than ordinary books tho its part of why anybody cares a damn about any
art at all.
Its a mistake to talk about a romance as tho it was a bad attempt to
do what an ant-romance was doing and vice-versa-which was mostly what
you guys were doing- altho take this to extremes and we all end us
reading our own diaries and never confrunting another POV (Which
Lewis thought the reason why there are booksat all)
PS Have you readthe NEW WEIRD fiction goes much further into anti-
romantic vision than Donaldson eg a;lmost any CHINA MEILVILLE's books