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

Re: [mythsoc] Congrats and phrasing

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 9 , Aug 16, 2009
    • 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 2 of 9 , Aug 16, 2009
      • 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 3 of 9 , Aug 16, 2009
        • 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.