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

Congrats and phrasing

Expand Messages
  • Sue Bridgwater
    Having no real wish to get drawn into discussions on the movies (sorry), I will simply agree that of course turning to a book from a film or tv adaptation can
    Message 1 of 9 , Aug 16 6:34 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Having no real wish to get drawn into discussions on the movies (sorry), I will simply agree that of course turning to a book from a film or tv adaptation can often be the 'reading trigger'.  38 years in public librarianship showed me that over and over again, and sometimes with people much older than the ones I was originally discussing in my congrats x 2 post. 




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • David Bratman
      ... It can. It seems only fair to point out, however, that it can also be the opposite. As a child, I saw the films Mary Poppins and Oliver! Enthused by
      Message 2 of 9 , Aug 16 7:01 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Sue Bridgwater <suebridgwater@...> wrote:

        >I will simply agree that of course turning to a book from a film
        >or tv adaptation can often be the 'reading trigger'.

        It can. It seems only fair to point out, however, that it can also be the opposite.

        As a child, I saw the films "Mary Poppins" and "Oliver!" Enthused by both, I sought out the books by Travers and Dickens on which they were based. In each case, the books were so different that I got a case of mental whiplash so severe I've never gotten over it, and have never gotten to like either author. I feel fortunate that I read Jane Austen, for instance, before the 1990s rash of Austen adaptations, which give a quite misleading impression of her tone.

        Knowing my own likes and dislikes in fantasy, I can say confidently that if I had never read "The Lord of the Rings" and went to see the Jackson films, and was assured by credentialed Tolkien experts that they faithfully captured the spirit of the book - a few Tolkien experts actually maintain this untenable position, falsely claiming that they represent the consensus of Tolkien scholarship which they emphatically do not - I would never have bothered to read the book, because if the book were like the films it would have no appeal to me. And the major literary experience of my life would have been denied me.

        Critics are free to claim that I am an utterly unique individual and this scenario could never have happened to anybody else. But they don't know that, and we never will know, because if there is anybody like me having that experience, we'll never know it, because they aren't reading Tolkien. And since the argument is on the same lines as the one actually postulated, that I am the only person in the world who can't get a film out of my head when re-reading the book it's based on, it's almost certainly as nonsensical as that one was.
      • Doug Kane
        David Bratman wrote:
        Message 3 of 9 , Aug 16 7:48 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          David Bratman wrote:

          << Knowing my own likes and dislikes in fantasy, I can say confidently that
          if I had never read "The Lord of the Rings" and went to see the Jackson
          films, and was assured by credentialed Tolkien experts that they faithfully
          captured the spirit of the book - a few Tolkien experts actually maintain
          this untenable position, falsely claiming that they represent the consensus
          of Tolkien scholarship which they emphatically do not - I would never have
          bothered to read the book, because if the book were like the films it would
          have no appeal to me. And the major literary experience of my life would
          have been denied me. >>

          It is seldom that I see things written about the Jackson films that surprise
          me, but this one did. I know that there is some debate among "Tolkien
          experts" about the value of the films and how well they capture the spirit
          of the book, but I don't think I have ever heard it claimed that there is a
          consensus of Tolkien scholarship holding that the the films did faithfully
          capture the spirit of the book. Hmmmm? I can understand if you would not
          want to name names, but could you say whether those making such a claim of
          consensus really were "credentialed Tolkien experts" (of course, we could
          have another whole discussion as to exactly what constituted a 'credentialed
          Tolkien expert').

          <http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=45737/grpspId=1705020227/msgId=2
          0774/stime=1250431308/nc1=1/nc2=2/nc3=3>




          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • David Emerson
          ... Images of security guards at the entrances of Mythcon events saying to each person entering, Your credentials please? emerdavid
          Message 4 of 9 , Aug 16 8:01 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            >(of course, we could
            >have another whole discussion as to exactly what constituted a 'credentialed
            >Tolkien expert').

            Images of security guards at the entrances of Mythcon events saying to each person entering, "Your credentials please?"

            emerdavid

            ________________________________________
            PeoplePC Online
            A better way to Internet
            http://www.peoplepc.com
          • bernip
            It s a good thing they don t or they d never let people like me in! Berni ... From: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mythsoc@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David
            Message 5 of 9 , Aug 16 8:51 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              It's a good thing they don't or they'd never let people like me in!

              Berni

              -----Original Message-----
              From: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mythsoc@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
              David Emerson


              >(of course, we could
              >have another whole discussion as to exactly what constituted a
              >'credentialed Tolkien expert').

              Images of security guards at the entrances of Mythcon events saying to each
              person entering, "Your credentials please?"

              emerdavid
            • scribbler@scribblerworks.us
              LOL David! And of course, that would defeat one of the special things about Mythcon - letting new, young, rising scholars try out their wings! I would hate to
              Message 6 of 9 , Aug 16 8:57 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                LOL David!

                And of course, that would defeat one of the special things about Mythcon -
                letting new, young, rising scholars try out their wings! I would hate to
                see that, since it's one of the things I really like about Mythcon: to
                have the true experts presenting their latest insights right next to
                someone just starting out and presenting because they've come to love
                something.

                But it would indeed be interesting to know who made the claim that
                "credentialed Tolkien experts" approved the films and who those experts
                were (and what they actually said -- because I'm betting at most they were
                things like "Not really true to the books, but an okay movie").


                >>(of course, we could
                >>have another whole discussion as to exactly what constituted a
                >> 'credentialed
                >>Tolkien expert').
                >
                > Images of security guards at the entrances of Mythcon events saying to
                > each person entering, "Your credentials please?"
                >
                > emerdavid
                >
                > ________________________________________
                > PeoplePC Online
                > A better way to Internet
                > http://www.peoplepc.com
                >
              • Grace Monk
                You are not the only one, David. Certainly not. I see pictures in my brain; it is with effort that I ignore them or eradicate them. Even something as basically
                Message 7 of 9 , Aug 16 11:05 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  You are not the only one, David. Certainly not. I see pictures in my
                  brain; it is with effort that I ignore them or eradicate them. Even
                  something as basically innocuous as the film of "The Deep End of the
                  Ocean" means I see those actors now when I think of the book. I have
                  now given myself permission to refuse to see films based on books I
                  love. I saw Jackson's orc show, which I hated and continue to hate
                  with the burning fury of a thousand white hot suns, out of a sense of
                  intellectual necessity. (If I intend to argue something, I must know
                  exactly what I'm arguing about.) But that's it. No Narnia for me, no
                  Jane Austen, no future Hobbit projects, nothing that takes something I
                  adored in a book and makes it into a film -- I am free to ignore them.

                  Incidently, my whiplash experience was at about age 10, when I saw the
                  Gene Wilder-starring version of "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory." I
                  was enraged and thought that surely such hacksawing of a story HAD to
                  be against the law. Sadly, it isn't. But come the revolution...

                  Grace Monk

                  On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 10:01 AM, David Bratman<dbratman@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > Sue Bridgwater <suebridgwater@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >>I will simply agree that of course turning to a book from a film
                  >>or tv adaptation can often be the 'reading trigger'.
                  >
                  > It can. It seems only fair to point out, however, that it can also be the
                  > opposite.
                  >
                  > As a child, I saw the films "Mary Poppins" and "Oliver!" Enthused by both, I
                  > sought out the books by Travers and Dickens on which they were based. In
                  > each case, the books were so different that I got a case of mental whiplash
                  > so severe I've never gotten over it, and have never gotten to like either
                  > author. I feel fortunate that I read Jane Austen, for instance, before the
                  > 1990s rash of Austen adaptations, which give a quite misleading impression
                  > of her tone.
                  >
                  > Knowing my own likes and dislikes in fantasy, I can say confidently that if
                  > I had never read "The Lord of the Rings" and went to see the Jackson films,
                  > and was assured by credentialed Tolkien experts that they faithfully
                  > captured the spirit of the book - a few Tolkien experts actually maintain
                  > this untenable position, falsely claiming that they represent the consensus
                  > of Tolkien scholarship which they emphatically do not - I would never have
                  > bothered to read the book, because if the book were like the films it would
                  > have no appeal to me. And the major literary experience of my life would
                  > have been denied me.
                  >
                  > Critics are free to claim that I am an utterly unique individual and this
                  > scenario could never have happened to anybody else. But they don't know
                  > that, and we never will know, because if there is anybody like me having
                  > that experience, we'll never know it, because they aren't reading Tolkien.
                  > And since the argument is on the same lines as the one actually postulated,
                  > that I am the only person in the world who can't get a film out of my head
                  > when re-reading the book it's based on, it's almost certainly as nonsensical
                  > as that one was.
                  >
                  >
                • Lynn Maudlin
                  I m intrigued (and horrified), David, that you can t get a film out of your head when re-reading the source material - *yikes!* -- Lynn --
                  Message 8 of 9 , Aug 16 7:52 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I'm intrigued (and horrified), David, that you can't get a film out of your head when re-reading the source material - *yikes!*

                    -- Lynn --


                    --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, David Bratman <dbratman@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Sue Bridgwater <suebridgwater@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > >I will simply agree that of course turning to a book from a film
                    > >or tv adaptation can often be the 'reading trigger'.
                    >
                    > It can. It seems only fair to point out, however, that it can also be the opposite.
                    >
                    > As a child, I saw the films "Mary Poppins" and "Oliver!" Enthused by both, I sought out the books by Travers and Dickens on which they were based. In each case, the books were so different that I got a case of mental whiplash so severe I've never gotten over it, and have never gotten to like either author. I feel fortunate that I read Jane Austen, for instance, before the 1990s rash of Austen adaptations, which give a quite misleading impression of her tone.
                    >
                    > Knowing my own likes and dislikes in fantasy, I can say confidently that if I had never read "The Lord of the Rings" and went to see the Jackson films, and was assured by credentialed Tolkien experts that they faithfully captured the spirit of the book - a few Tolkien experts actually maintain this untenable position, falsely claiming that they represent the consensus of Tolkien scholarship which they emphatically do not - I would never have bothered to read the book, because if the book were like the films it would have no appeal to me. And the major literary experience of my life would have been denied me.
                    >
                    > Critics are free to claim that I am an utterly unique individual and this scenario could never have happened to anybody else. But they don't know that, and we never will know, because if there is anybody like me having that experience, we'll never know it, because they aren't reading Tolkien. And since the argument is on the same lines as the one actually postulated, that I am the only person in the world who can't get a film out of my head when re-reading the book it's based on, it's almost certainly as nonsensical as that one was.
                    >
                  • Lynn Maudlin
                    HAPPILY Mythcon requires no credentials! Serious scholars and simply enthusiastic fans are ALL welcome... and that s a good thing! -- Lynn --
                    Message 9 of 9 , Aug 16 7:54 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      HAPPILY Mythcon requires no credentials! Serious scholars and simply enthusiastic fans are ALL welcome... and that's a good thing!

                      -- Lynn --


                      --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, David Emerson <emerdavid@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > >(of course, we could
                      > >have another whole discussion as to exactly what constituted a 'credentialed
                      > >Tolkien expert').
                      >
                      > Images of security guards at the entrances of Mythcon events saying to each person entering, "Your credentials please?"
                      >
                      > emerdavid
                      >
                      > ________________________________________
                      > PeoplePC Online
                      > A better way to Internet
                      > http://www.peoplepc.com
                      >
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.