Ahira's Hangar

David Zindell's Neverness, A Requiem for Homo Sapiens and all things Science Fiction and Fantasy
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 5:59 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Books VS Film
PostPosted: Sun Jun 15, 2003 5:15 pm 
Offline
Pilot

Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2003 1:14 am
Posts: 92
I posted this at Amon Hen a few weeks back and have gotten zeros responses pro or con. Thought I'd see if anyone agrees or disagrees here...

Clicking on my Soapbox icon...

In the Extended DVD of FOTR Tolkien's son makes what seems to me an absurd statement. He claims you must know all the background detail of a world in order to write a story in it. You must, he says, know its thorough history and how everything fits together.

Well--bull.

Many very fine authors do nothing of the kind. Stephen King, Orson Scott Card and Ursula K. LeGuin, for example, have written about "discovering" all kinds of things about their fantasy worlds along the way. In other words, much of Earthsea or Gilead isn't planned at all, but grows out of the process of writing. Of course there are plenty of other writers--R.K.Rowling for one--who do work out all those details in advance.

What this illustrates, imo, is a difference between literary and dramatic media. Novels can have as their central character the world in which the story takes place. The single most obvious example of this is probably LOTR, set in a Middle Earth that Tolkien literally spent a lifetime creating. And bravo to him, btw! But because LOTR's hero is its world (and we spend so much time finding out about it, travelling so much, getting told all kinds of history, legends, etc.) the people of the tale remain secondary. Frodo, Gandalf, Aragorn, etc. are not fully developed characters, at least not by the standards of any other good novel I've ever read. In fact, I can only think of two really fleshed-out people in the whole trilogy--Gollum and Eowyn. Everybody else kinda hovers on the edge of life, never quite getting there.

This is not a criticism of Tolkien. Complaining he didn't do that is like bitching about how you can't dance to Beethoven's Fifth Symphony. The character Tolkien felt grabbed by was Middle Earth, and that was his story's focus.

Films and plays, however, are different. These are enacted by human actors, constrained by time and budget in a way literary works simply aren't. Also--not a criticism.

In dramatic media, it is the people who must have the scope, the conflict, the tension and drama which in purely literary works can apply pretty much to the world. For the film versions of LOTR, all the conflicts of Middle Earth need to end up enacted by the individual people. Rather than a broad, breathtaking, but also rather leisurely exploration of a cosmos, we get a moment-by-moment interaction between individual characters.

Hence...Frodo is younger and much more anguished by his choices, Aragorn is less sure of himself as well as not quite ready to be king, Faramir must be persuaded to let the Hobbits go, etc. Not incidently, in the film you can do what I've never managed no matter how many times I've read the book--tell the difference between Merry and Pippin!

Who's right? Both. And neither. The two media have their own inherent opportunities and limitations. Novelizations of films are nearly always mediocre, not because the story isn't good but because changing the nature of the story is often too much to ask given the time and plot restraints (although original works based on the "worlds" of films or tv shows are often well above average). Adaptation of one to the other (especially novels to films) cannot help but inspire ire in those who want to simply recreate the experience of reading a book by going to the movie theatre. Well, that simply won't happen. For all practical purposes, it cannot, any more than a drive along the coast can be identical to heading up the same coast by sailboat.

A scene-by-scene breakdown of LOTR, for example, into dramatic form would last something like fifty hours. It would also be excrutiatingly dull, as literary dialogue almost never sounds right when spoken aloud and diversions into the history of Ithilien or the traditions of ancient Moria would constantly stop the dramatic flow. Likewise taking the scripts of LOTR and trying to turn them into a book would likely be like sitting down to a hearty meal of hot chili and getting watered beef broth instead.

All of which is a long-winded way of saying that novels/short stories are different from films/plays. Using identical standards for both is an exercise in frustration and angst, to no good effect.

Unclicking that icon now... "GOD created Man in his own image. Man, being a gentleman, returned the courtesy." -Voltaire<i></i>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Books VS Film
PostPosted: Sun Jun 15, 2003 5:57 pm 
Offline
Master Pilot
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 4:51 am
Posts: 222
Well, Zahir! I imagine you're not getting any responses because there's nothing to add ! Nor do I see anything to disagree with! Great post! Well said! <i></i>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Books VS Film
PostPosted: Sun Jun 15, 2003 6:25 pm 
Offline
Master Pilot

Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 2:23 am
Posts: 3363
Yes u confirm u own points--I'm sure a writter like Donaldson spent a good amount of time developing or hypothesizing the history of the Land pre-Covenant--and had certain inhabitants ready 2 go, such as the Lords, Giants, Ramen, etc...but then the journey, itself, took over. Some authors do do alot of homework prior 2 writting, but Tolkien was a clear exception writting thesis upon thesis of research... And now Danlo looked in that direction, too. He remembered that snowy owls mate in the darkest part of deep winter, and so along with this beautiful white bird perched in a tree a hundred feet away, he turned to face the sea as he watched and waited.

Ahira, Ahira, he called out silently to the sky. Ahira, Ahira<i></i>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Books VS Film
PostPosted: Mon Jun 16, 2003 6:33 pm 
Offline
Pilot

Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2003 1:14 am
Posts: 92
Thankee much!

Interestingly, at the ASOIAF board, this essay got lots of response. Some of it quite thoughtful (like--what did Christopher Tolkien really mean in that quote), and some of it frankly just a retread of arguments against the film.

One person actually claimed that moving the Shelob episode to ROTK was some kind of desecration. I don't know why...

Then there's the whole Aragorn falling off the cliff controversy. Myself, I just don't see the problem--it works. Okay, it wasn't in the book but so what? It doesn't violate anything. *sigh*

But thankee again for your comments! Mucho appreciated! "GOD created Man in his own image. Man, being a gentleman, returned the courtesy." -Voltaire<i></i>


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group