XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: fwbrown@bellsouth.net   
      
   In rec.arts.books.tolkien Paul S. Person    
   wrote:   
   > On Tue, 27 May 2014 21:22:08 +0000 (UTC), Wayne Brown   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Sat, 24 May 2014 02:49:51 in article    
   Sandman  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>> That's the problem with you guys - you think there are only one way to do   
   >>> things the "right" way. That really bothers me, this elitism.   
   >>   
   >>For me it's very simple; the only "right" way to do a story is the way   
   >>the author did it.  Books in general are superior to films in general,   
   >>and the author is always right.   
   >   
   > To the extent that 'the only "right" way to do a story is the way the   
   > author did it' can be equated to "tells the same story", I agree with   
   > you; to the extent that it confuses adaptation with transciption, I do   
   > not.   
      
   Suppose you took two people of similar tastes and writing styles, neither   
   of whom were familiar with the story, and had one read the book and the   
   other watch the film.  Then you ask each to give you a written description   
   of the story.  Ideally, from my viewpoint, it would be nearly impossible   
   to tell the descriptions apart.   
      
   Or to look at it another way:  Take a group of people who all the read the   
   same book, but had different reactions to it.  A particular person may   
   have laughed at parts that made someone else sad, and made someone else   
   angry.  Now show them the film, and each should have the same reactions,   
   i.e. be amused or saddened or angered by the same things in the film as   
   in the book.  In other words, the film should create the same reactions,   
   convey the same message, in effect, give the same *experience* as reading   
   the book, even though that experience may vary from one person to another.   
      
   Part of my "suspension of disbelief" when reading or watching a work of   
   fiction is to approach it as if the events depicted "really happened," and   
   I always give the written version the greatest "authority" in recounting   
   the story.  So if the film differs in significant details my reaction is,   
   "But that's not the way it really happened!"  I have the same problem   
   with non-fiction too.  I greatly enjoyed the film "A Beautiful Mind"   
   until I read the book and found out that John Nash did not have visual   
   hallucinations; he merely heard voices.  Now when I re-watch the film   
   my pleasure in it is severely diminished because it's not an accurate   
   depiction of what really happened.   
      
   I know, a lot of people value entertainment over getting information.  But   
   for me, receiving accurate information often *is* the best entertainment.   
   Even in the LOTR books my favorite parts are the ones where people are   
   sitting around talking about the Elder Days and the history of the Elves   
   and so forth, not to mention all the stuff in the Appendices about the   
   languages and scripts.  (I could have done with a lot more of that in   
   the films and a lot less time spent on the battles!)  I'm not really   
   interested in role-playing games, but if I were, I wouldn't want to be a   
   warrior or a wizard or anything like that.  I'd want to be someone like   
   Rumil of Tirion, the lore-master in the Silmarillion who invented writing.   
      
   --   
   F. Wayne Brown    
      
   Þæs ofereode, ðisses swa mæg.  ("That passed away, this also can.")   
      from "Deor," in the Exeter Book (folios 100r-100v)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)