(no subject)
Sep. 3rd, 2017 08:26 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. Cloudy day, after non-stop pouring rain last night and this morning, and I've spend most of it reading a subversive 1980s romance novel, also watching my favorite season of "The Great British Bake-Off", which is S6 (S3 on PBS) where Nadia won. I love all the people on this one. They are incredibly interesting and diverse. Not all the seasons are this diverse.
Ah the sun just came out, with the clouds rolling back, white and puffy, revealing blue sky at twilight. Only to disappear again behind gray clouds, as it set. The view out my living room window is of rooftops, trees, sky and back yards overtaken by weed. With crickets and cicadas chirping in competition with jet planes and cars whooshing by in the distance.
2. Trying to make up my mind about a two-seater sofa (aka love seat) and armchair at Pottery Barn, neither are part of their Labor Day Promotional sale, but alas what I want.
3. Tried to watch Ann with an E which is a new adaptation, and a relatively grim one of "Anne of Green Gables". Half-way through the first episode, I was angry and talking back to the tv set.
The Huffington Post has a rather clear-eyed review of it... HERE. Wherein the review critiques the series for handling issues in a modern way, that would not have been discussed or handled in that matter 100 years ago.
This brings up an interesting issue or challenge regarding current adaptations, in some respects "politically correct" re-interpretations of old and classical works of fiction. Ignoring the historical context in which the work was written, and the sentiments of the people of the time. I'm not sure it's a good idea to run roughshod or in some cases remove those sentiments or incorrectness, no matter how offensive.
Not that in some cases it hasn't worked to do a modern adaptation, or lent a certain clarity to the work, previously lacking...for example, the works of Shakespeare, Dickens and Austen have had modern interpretations, as have the Brontes and Bram Stoker which have worked rather well.
But, in the case of Anne of Green Gables and William Golding's Lord of the Flies, I'm not so certain. Just as I'm not so certain Victor Hugo's Les Miserables, or say Middlemarch and Tess of the D'Urbvilles work in a modern setting. Nor does All Quiet on the Western Front. Some works have a distinct and important historical context. It's embedded within the work of art.
Also, Anne of Green Gables had a lightness to it, that this adaptations yanks away for prestige purposes or a desire for hyper-realism. I'm not a huge fan of hyper-realism in fiction, paintings, music or anything else. It grates on me for some reason. I prefer an element of fictional whimsy. In short, I prefer metaphor over literal.
Hmm.
There was apparently a kerfuffle recently on twitter and various social media forums and onzines regarding the adaptation or rather reinterpretation of William Golding's Lord of the Flies as all women. What the kerfuffle was about -- as far as I could tell, I admittedly didn't immerse myself into it...(seriously, who would want to?) --- was which gender should be directing, producing and writing the adaptation. Basically they were fighting over the fact that it was being written and adapted by men for a cast of all women. Making me wonder if they'd still be fighting over it if it were being adapted by women. Also what would the fight be if it was just a new adaptation casting all men, but written by women?
There was a sub-tangent to the kerfuffle which I found rather...amusing, and bewildering, that the adaptation would be realistic because women wouldn't behave the same way and wouldn't kill each other or be bullies. Okay, they may not behave exactly the same way, mainly because men and women are socialized to behave differently in these situations through no fault of their own, but I'm willing to bet you'd have cliques form and some type of violence erupt depending on the group dynamic.
They've actually done sociological studies on this, and various reality series have examined it.
I sort of wanted to send these folks DVDs of Survivor, The Bachelor, Project Runway, and The 100.
Honestly, what planet on these people living on?
As to whether men or women are better equipped to write about women? OR for that matter men?
Eh. It depends on the writer not the gender. I know I've read women writers who are not as comfortable writing for female characters as male characters. (See JK Rowling, ). And male writers who preferred writing female characters to male characters...who they appear to struggle with for some reason. I've also seen women writers unable to write male characters and vice versa.
Truth is you can technically write for any character regardless of race, gender, class, etc if you possess an imagination and the ability to read about and interact with people who aren't like you.
If you can't, you might want to rethink writing fiction and write technical statements of work instead or advertising copy. Just saying. Although people don't. So never mind. And I'd rather have people write and express themselves than repress and be miserable.
At any rate, this somewhat strident and overtly sanctimonious not to mention self-righteous attitude towards art and the creators of art is and has been for some time grating on my ever-living nerve.
Folks? If you feel people are being discriminated against based on race, gender, etc, try to fight for systematic institutional changes, run for office, try not to discriminate in your day to day lives, but don't rail on the internet about some book or movie. Just ignore it. The more you rant anr rail about it, the more people will find out about it. In short, you are giving them free advertising by drawing attention to it.
I know it's frustrating and sometimes railing at a tv show or book seems to be the only thing you can do...but, I don't think it's all that productive except if you want to censor or stop the production of the tv show or book (which I am against, because hello, censorship), if anything it appears to be counter-productive and is giving the wrong people, ie the people you are disagreeing with, a voice.
Frak all that...after flitting around through Netflix and Amazon, I finally settled on Mozart in the Jungle on Amazon, thinking, I'll just watch one episode to see if I like it. And well, seven episodes later (this happens a lot on streaming devices), I realized I love this. It's so comforting.
And it makes me really happy. The music is just...really uplifting and beautiful.
Have you seen this? Shapinglight rec'd it recently as a happy show. So I pondered. And yes, a happy show. Like Great British Bake-Off, except with beautiful music and occasional dance performances.
Ah the sun just came out, with the clouds rolling back, white and puffy, revealing blue sky at twilight. Only to disappear again behind gray clouds, as it set. The view out my living room window is of rooftops, trees, sky and back yards overtaken by weed. With crickets and cicadas chirping in competition with jet planes and cars whooshing by in the distance.
2. Trying to make up my mind about a two-seater sofa (aka love seat) and armchair at Pottery Barn, neither are part of their Labor Day Promotional sale, but alas what I want.
3. Tried to watch Ann with an E which is a new adaptation, and a relatively grim one of "Anne of Green Gables". Half-way through the first episode, I was angry and talking back to the tv set.
The Huffington Post has a rather clear-eyed review of it... HERE. Wherein the review critiques the series for handling issues in a modern way, that would not have been discussed or handled in that matter 100 years ago.
This brings up an interesting issue or challenge regarding current adaptations, in some respects "politically correct" re-interpretations of old and classical works of fiction. Ignoring the historical context in which the work was written, and the sentiments of the people of the time. I'm not sure it's a good idea to run roughshod or in some cases remove those sentiments or incorrectness, no matter how offensive.
Not that in some cases it hasn't worked to do a modern adaptation, or lent a certain clarity to the work, previously lacking...for example, the works of Shakespeare, Dickens and Austen have had modern interpretations, as have the Brontes and Bram Stoker which have worked rather well.
But, in the case of Anne of Green Gables and William Golding's Lord of the Flies, I'm not so certain. Just as I'm not so certain Victor Hugo's Les Miserables, or say Middlemarch and Tess of the D'Urbvilles work in a modern setting. Nor does All Quiet on the Western Front. Some works have a distinct and important historical context. It's embedded within the work of art.
Also, Anne of Green Gables had a lightness to it, that this adaptations yanks away for prestige purposes or a desire for hyper-realism. I'm not a huge fan of hyper-realism in fiction, paintings, music or anything else. It grates on me for some reason. I prefer an element of fictional whimsy. In short, I prefer metaphor over literal.
Hmm.
There was apparently a kerfuffle recently on twitter and various social media forums and onzines regarding the adaptation or rather reinterpretation of William Golding's Lord of the Flies as all women. What the kerfuffle was about -- as far as I could tell, I admittedly didn't immerse myself into it...(seriously, who would want to?) --- was which gender should be directing, producing and writing the adaptation. Basically they were fighting over the fact that it was being written and adapted by men for a cast of all women. Making me wonder if they'd still be fighting over it if it were being adapted by women. Also what would the fight be if it was just a new adaptation casting all men, but written by women?
There was a sub-tangent to the kerfuffle which I found rather...amusing, and bewildering, that the adaptation would be realistic because women wouldn't behave the same way and wouldn't kill each other or be bullies. Okay, they may not behave exactly the same way, mainly because men and women are socialized to behave differently in these situations through no fault of their own, but I'm willing to bet you'd have cliques form and some type of violence erupt depending on the group dynamic.
They've actually done sociological studies on this, and various reality series have examined it.
I sort of wanted to send these folks DVDs of Survivor, The Bachelor, Project Runway, and The 100.
Honestly, what planet on these people living on?
As to whether men or women are better equipped to write about women? OR for that matter men?
Eh. It depends on the writer not the gender. I know I've read women writers who are not as comfortable writing for female characters as male characters. (See JK Rowling, ). And male writers who preferred writing female characters to male characters...who they appear to struggle with for some reason. I've also seen women writers unable to write male characters and vice versa.
Truth is you can technically write for any character regardless of race, gender, class, etc if you possess an imagination and the ability to read about and interact with people who aren't like you.
If you can't, you might want to rethink writing fiction and write technical statements of work instead or advertising copy. Just saying. Although people don't. So never mind. And I'd rather have people write and express themselves than repress and be miserable.
At any rate, this somewhat strident and overtly sanctimonious not to mention self-righteous attitude towards art and the creators of art is and has been for some time grating on my ever-living nerve.
Folks? If you feel people are being discriminated against based on race, gender, etc, try to fight for systematic institutional changes, run for office, try not to discriminate in your day to day lives, but don't rail on the internet about some book or movie. Just ignore it. The more you rant anr rail about it, the more people will find out about it. In short, you are giving them free advertising by drawing attention to it.
I know it's frustrating and sometimes railing at a tv show or book seems to be the only thing you can do...but, I don't think it's all that productive except if you want to censor or stop the production of the tv show or book (which I am against, because hello, censorship), if anything it appears to be counter-productive and is giving the wrong people, ie the people you are disagreeing with, a voice.
Frak all that...after flitting around through Netflix and Amazon, I finally settled on Mozart in the Jungle on Amazon, thinking, I'll just watch one episode to see if I like it. And well, seven episodes later (this happens a lot on streaming devices), I realized I love this. It's so comforting.
And it makes me really happy. The music is just...really uplifting and beautiful.
Have you seen this? Shapinglight rec'd it recently as a happy show. So I pondered. And yes, a happy show. Like Great British Bake-Off, except with beautiful music and occasional dance performances.
no subject
Date: 2017-09-04 11:31 pm (UTC)Okay, so, I'm pretty sure that Anne of Green Gables was a children's/YA series. I was certainly young when I read it, I know that. Elementary school young, ten at most. And I know the current fashion in kidlit is to have adults torture children routinely (which is why I don't read it) but really. This is too much. This goes too far. I wouldn't watch this trash even if it was free. I wouldn't watch if you paid me. I sure as heck wouldn't pay good money to have one of my favorite childhood stories ruined.
Sorry. But I really loved those books. And I'm mad.
no subject
Date: 2017-09-05 02:00 am (UTC)I'd seen the original series, and adored it, when it aired in the 1980s and 90s. My mother read the books -- and she said the books aren't grim at all, they are like the original series.
(Note didn't pay money to watch, it's on Netflix Streaming -- which basically has about 100 other shows I've watched. So no loss there.)