commas and ampersands

Colin and I don't fight all that much. At all, really. We argue occasionally and disagree about some things, but neither of us are fighters. We don't name-call, throw accusations, or have big tempers, and we're really good at talking it out, being respectful, and not walking away from an argument before it's resolved.

But even when it comes to arguing and disagreeing, it's pretty rare that it's about the big, important things. We're pretty much on the same page when it comes to major life decisions, finances, ideas about marriage and family, faith, and all those big-picture things, but every once in a while, we get into the most ridiculous arguments about the most random things. We're both stubborn enough that we'll stick to a position and not budge, but it's definitely fun to make the other one try. And really, those kinds of "arguments" are the best kind. A lot of the time, they actually end up being kind of fun, and if nothing else, it's good practice in debating and being persuasive.

Last month, we were driving down to High River for Thanksgiving dinner, and Anne of Green Gables came up in conversation as we drove by a "lake of shining waters." Colin made a comment about not having seen the movies or read the books in quite a while; I commented that I hadn't read the books in a while, but while I think that Megan Follows is the one and only Anne, I'm not a big fan of the movies, particularly The Continuing Story. That movie bothers me on so many levels, mainly because the books are set 30 years earlier, and the film plays with the timeline in a way that's unacceptable to me. World War 1 was the war that affected Anne's children. Rilla of Ingleside is the book set during that time period, and the main character is Anne and Gilbert's youngest daughter. The orphaned baby was taken in by Rilla, and it was Anne's sons who fought, not Gilbert.

Anyway, I made all these points about the books, and the thesis of my argument was the fact that it's impossible for a viewer of a movie (based on a book) to fully appreciate the movie without having read the book.

And then the argument started. :)

For the next hour, Colin stood by his point that the viewer can have a complete, full entertainment experience by only watching the movie. I stood by my statement that a reader can have a full experience of the author's original intent by reading the book but not watching the movie, but not vice versa.

The funny thing is, I don't think we entirely disagreed with each other. I think that a movie-watcher can have a complete entertainment experience with the movie alone; I just don't think that it's possible to experience the fullest world of the story the way the author intended. Watching the Anne movies may be an entertainment experience in and of itself, but it's not the story experience that L.M. Montgomery intended. In this case, it's not even the same story, but even if it was, I still say that the story and experience is incomplete.

I used the example of the Harry Potter books, too. Aaron refuses to read the books, and I stand by my claim that he's robbing himself of J.K. Rowling's full story. The movies are an adaptation of a written story, and without reading the story, the visual story is incomplete. She may have put her stamp of approval on the screenplays, but by the very nature of an adaptation, there are things that had to be cut and sacrificed; therefore, the representation of the world she created is not complete, no matter how accurate the pieces may be.

Colin held to the position that it's possible to fully enjoy a movie based on the book without having read the book. He stood by the fact that he separates the book and the movie; for instance, in the case of Anne of Green Gables, he's fully aware that the movie is not the story of the book, but he looks at them as two separate pieces of entertainment that are only partially related to each other.

Because film and literature are two distinctly different art forms, they can't be judged the same way. A story told on film and the same story told on paper are two different artistic experiences--the story on film fleshes out the visual narrative in a way that the story on paper is unable to. In that way, he argued, it could even be said that the film completes the story of the book in a way that makes the reading of the book an incomplete rendering of the artist's original vision.

He also used the Harry Potter example to differentiate between casual and obsessed fans. He claims that someone could be an obsessed fan of the movies without ever having read the books; I claim that someone who is truly a fan of the Harry Potter world would never claim to be so without having read the books. A person (like Aaron) can be a fan of the movies, independent of the books, but I would argue that he can't claim to be a fan of HarryPotterTheGlobalPhenomenon while steadfastly refusing to partake in the original manifestation of the characters and plotlines.

Colin said that's discriminatory towards people who don't enjoy reading; I say so be it. Being a "fan" in the most obsessed sense of the word (and I'm not talking about being a casual fan/appreciator of the work) includes being familiar with all its facets. I enjoyed Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, but I'm fully aware that my knowledge of the source material is spotty at best, and because of that, I couldn't consider myself a "true" fan, no matter how much I enjoyed the movies.


Now, a few caveats: I'm not saying that books are necessarily a superior form of entertainment to movies. Movies, both originals and adaptations, are an art form in and of themselves. I would never say that film is a lesser art form than literature or theatre. Each one is a different storytelling medium, and I'm not making a judgment of value on their relative worth.

I'm also not saying that an adaptation can't be entertaining without having read the book. There are many, many movies that I've watched without having read the books, and I can appreciate the filmmaking and acting and story, but I'm also fully aware that I'm not getting the full experience. I can enjoy it for what it is, but I know that "what it is" is less than 100% of the author's intention.



And just to top it off? My proudest moment in that whole argument was the fact that Colin got so frustrated that he actually growled at me. Ha! In the middle of a sentence, he actually growled in his throat, and it cracked me up so much that I had to pause the discussion and laugh really hard before I could resume.


So, friends, what do you think? What is the relationship between a book and its film adaptation? Is it possible to enjoy one without a working knowledge of the other?

I just finished reading Atonement, which I picked up at Target and read after watching the movie.

( Cut for spoilers for both the movie and the book, although if you've seen the movie, there's not much else to be spoiled for in the book, but there is mention of one particular scene in the book that's different than the movie )

So now I'm curious: has anyone else read the book? What were your impressions?

When I was in English 30, I read The Wars, by Timothy Findley, and actually kind of hated it. I don't remember why, exactly, and I don't remember much about the book itself, but it's rare for a book to elicit such a vehemently negative reaction from me.

Colin heard about a reading of the play, and we found out that Theatre Calgary has the rights to the book and is developing an original script from it, which is going to open their 2007-08 season. They've been workshopping it this week, and last night held a staged reading, which we went to see, and I was kind of surprised at how much I liked it. I wouldn't have not gone to the reading, but I was curious to see whether I'd dislike the play as much as I did the book--or if I'd remember why I disliked the book so much.

I don't remember why I disliked the book, because I still don't remember too much of the book, but I wish I was going to be around to see the play. It looks like it's going to be great, and there was a lot of depth and a lot of good in it, even in just a workshopped reading.

It made me laugh, though, that they gave us questionnaires at the end to help with the rest of the workshop/dramaturgy process, and the questions weren't things like, "Did you like this show?" but questions like, "Was Robert Ross a hero? Why or why not?" and "Why did Robert say, 'No, not yet' at the end?" It really made me feel like I was in English 30 again, doing an assignment on the book. Very amusing.

***

On a completely unrelated note, I just read Al Lowe's recap of "Bon Voyage," and while I've never been the hugest fan of her recaps (I preferred pamie's GG recaps, but even they were inferior to some of the other recappers' work), but I felt incredibly gypped by her recap of the finale. I felt like we missed something by not having had her recap from the beginning. There were too many callbacks to the pilot and other early episodes that she missed, and while she gave it an appropriately emotional send-off, it just wasn't quite enough, you know? I wanted more links and more references to Gilmore history.

Just wanted to poke everyone again and remind you (and any Calgarian relatives and friends that you happen to know) that my mom, sister, and I are doing our big book sale fundraiser for The Weekend to End Breast Cancer this weekend. The sale starts today and runs through Sunday, so if you get a chance, come down and see us!

IN CALGARY? READ BOOKS??
HUGE CHARITY USED BOOK SALE APRIL 13-15

Our team will help sponsor a used book sale to benefit our Weekend to End Breast Cancer Walk and the Alberta Cancer Foundation on the weekend of April 13-15. Pick up books at great prices to support this worthwhile effort, and tell all your book-loving friends! There are thousands to choose from—all types and good prices!

DATE & TIME: Friday, April 13; 9 to 9--Come by after work!
Saturday, April 14; 9 to 9--Out and about? Stop by!
Sunday, April 15; 10 to 4

PLACE: ACC Centre
130- 3510 29 St. N.E. (turn north off 32nd Ave. at Staples)
Watch for the “Charity Book Sale” signs along the streets

If you're taking transit, the 72, 73, 19, and 119 go along 32nd Avenue--get off by the Staples and walk about a block north on 29th Street. If you're taking the train and want to walk from the station, take the train to either Rundle or Whitehorn--32nd Avenue is about halfway in between those, so you can walk west on 32nd, and then north (right) on 29th Street. If my directions are confusing you, here's the system-wide transit map.

This is an ongoing book sale for charity; donations of books are always needed to replenish the supply, so clean out your bookshelves and leave a comment on this entry if you'd like to let us know they're coming, or just bring them along!

Today does feel long. It didn't until about half an hour ago, but now, the two hours until I leave work seem incredibly long. It's probably because I'm not taking a lunch break today so that I can leave an hour early, miss the traffic, and get up to the church earlier to get ready for our Q to Q tonight.

I'm still playing around, procrastinating on... finishing my last TWoP card, working on my fic, and editing lady_m2835's last chapter. I really just need to get to work on all three of those (and I also have some MI.net stuff to write, but I can't do that at work, since I'll need the episode in front of me), but instead, I've been finding more icons and mood themes.

I'm finding myself in a very, very Narnia-ish mood today. I want to watch the movie again--I want to get the four-disc special edition--and I really feel like reading all seven books back-to-back.

Heather and I have been working on a script for our Christmas Eve services, using some of the dialogue from "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe," and I've been mulling it over all week, and will likely continue to do so, since I'll be acting in the scene in the services. Last night, I had some interesting continuity things hit me--things that I hadn't noticed before, even in reading the series at least 10 times. I won't go into it all now, but in any case, my Narnia love is being renewed, as it is every time I read the books. They're among my favorite children's literature ever--in fact, I'd say that although Madeleine L'Engle is my favorite author, Narnia is my favorite kids' lit series, even more than Little House on the Prairie or Anne of Green Gables, both of which were absolute favorites of mine as a child.

In any case, I love the Narnia books more every time I read them. The theology is so rich, yet it meant so much to me as a child--every time I read them, I discover something new in it, and it's so brilliantly and intricately layered that it takes some time and maturity to get all the levels that Lewis intended, and I'm sure I'm nowhere near finding all of them yet.

Anyway. I'm trying to do some Christmas shopping, and I wanted to get a bunch of my stuff off Amazon, because it'll still get here in time, and there's free shipping, but I can't, because amazon.ca doesn't have all the different stores and products. Maybe it's worth it to pay shipping from amazon.com, just for the convenience and actually getting some of my shopping done. Grrr. Does anyone know of any Canadian websites--preferably sites that will offer free shipping--that are kind of a catch-all for everything, like amazon.com (but apparently not .ca) is?