Post #5 Literary Books & Movies.

                The texts I decided to use as my starting point were the numerous film reviews of the Da Vinci Code by credible film critics on Rotten Tomatoes. The book, published in 2003, was made into a movie and was released in 2006, which was negatively received by critics and audiences alike. The main criticism being that the film did not live up to the expectations of the audiences, and that the book was better. Having read the book and watched the movie, I too was disappointed by the movie.

                The funny thing is that the reason I started reading the book was because I heard that they were going to make a movie based on it. I think the main problem with film adaptions of books is that, in most cases while having already read the book, the audience would most probably compare the film adaption to their own perception of the book and would feel let down because certain aspects of the film do not resemble the book, like how the characters would behave or even look like, this is a problem I believe most filmmakers face, as they try to not deviate from the original material. Another is the time constraint. Filmmakers struggle to fit an entire book into a 90-120 minute movie which leads to certain parts or characters to be omitted. Also the director’s interpretation of the book might be significantly different to that of the reader’s which leads to different approaches to the movie.  

                In my case, having read the book because it was going to be a movie, I believe that film adaptions in a way increases the publicity a certain book receives. It exposes the audiences who have not heard of the book, because of their age or interest at the time the book was published, to want to engage in the material. For audiences who have read the book, they would be curious as to how the book would turn out to be like as a movie, which also help drive the sales of movie tickets. I think, regardless of the quality of the book or the movie that film adaptions of books would certainly increase the awareness and publicity of both the book and the movie.

                In the past, where films where made without the use of advanced CGI and technology, it would have been almost impossible to create movies with real-life actors which depict large battlefields, like those in Lord of The Rings. But now with advances in technology, books illustrating large scale battles or scenery could be made into films, to feed the imagination of the readers and audiences. On the other hand, books could emphasize and elaborate on the emotions and inner workings of the character’s minds which to me is what engages the reader and allows the reader to relate to certain characters, it is also something actors sometimes struggle to replicate in movies.  Do you believe that it is possible for a film adaption of a book to be completely “loyal” to the original material? 

blog five

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2011/07/how-the-harry-potter-movies-succeeded-where-the-books-failed/241884/

For my blog this week I looked at what writer David Thier said about the Harry potter novels relative to the books. Thier said, and I tend to agree that the movies captured a certain dark essence that I don’t think the books were able to capture vividly enough with the limitations of text. To quote from the article, “Rowling’s writing had that endlessly obsessive quality required of a true world builder, but her storytelling couldn’t stack up to her setting. With every book from three on, she talked about how the stories were getting “darker.” But while “darker” things happened—some characters died, terrible monsters appeared, and schoolyard quarrels evolved into wars of racial purification—the tone could never quite catch up to the circumstances.”  I totally agree with this statement, and think that in many cases, the film adaptations really help you realize the truer meanings of texts. That is not to say there are not many limitations to film as well. One reviewer of the article talked about how, how come if the films are so much better, how come they have to keep explaining to their friends what is going on. That is probably the most noted limitation of film adaptations: the director often has to cut out a lot of things to fit a reasonable time frame, of which literature is not really bound by these restrictions. What are your opinions on film adaptations (do you tend to like the books or movies better)? In my opinion, in order to get the total experience, you need to read both the book and watch the movie. Otherwise, you are only getting the best out of one element. Watching the film and reading the text tends to overall enrich the experience and you tend to gain the most from the works. In most cases, it is hard to make a definitive distinction on which one is better. Both forms of media certainly have their merits and their downfalls as mentioned earlier and that is why it is better to couple the two to get the best out of both worlds. I feel like a book fan is much more likely to read the book than a film fan to read a book. Me for example: I hate reading and after seeing the hunger games for example, I was like wow, that is a great movie, yet I felt absolutely no desire to read the book afterwards simply because I hate reading. Would you agree with this assertion? This is the reason as far as I can tell why it is most often the case that there are film adaptations of books created as opposed to the other way around. I feel like a majority of people would much rather send their time going to see a film for two hours than sitting and reading for 10 hours. Creating an adaptation of another medium is a very fine art that if not done very well and very carefully, can really bring down the original medium, and this happens a lot. It is really vital to find a director who understand the authors direction, or vice versa.

Books and Movies

The text I am analyzing supports the position of books nearly always being better than their movie counterparts, and the link is provided here: http://www.wordandfilm.com/2011/06/why-books-are-almost-always-better-than-movies-plus-a-giveaway/

In a world that is often run by who has the most money, it comes as no surprise that most celebrated books are turned into movies. Often times, it is simply good business to turn a book with a significant fan base onto the big screen because it translates into sales. However, this does not mean that the transition from book to movie is always smooth. In my experience, books are nearly always better than their movie counterparts, and the article I am reviewing explains a key points on why that is. First off, as it states, a movie must condense a book (usually meant to be read in days, if not weeks) into a few hours. This means that most of the books intricate details are cut out, which in my view help make the book so great in the first place, so that hurts the movie’s quality. In addition to that, it must cut out all long speeches, which are often an essential part of a book to understand a character. In Harry Potter, for example, most of Dumbledore’s epic speeches are cut of the movie and undercut his value as a character.

            However, a movie interpretation does have a few advantages over its book counterpart. One of those advantages is to be able to visually represent the book, in a way that a book never could. In a movie, you actually get to see the book play out in front of you, rather than simply imagine it in your head, and that is a powerful tool. Even with that being true, in my opinion most movie adaptations simply don’t do a good enough job of living up to the expectations of the fans. In fact, most of the movie adaptations of books I have seen disappoint when the movie comes out because it didn’t live up to the scene in my head. I find that this is a common occurrence coming out of the theater, where people will say, “That was NOT how I imagined it happening.” In essence, that ability to visualize a book on the big screen can become a disadvantage as well if it doesn’t live up to expectations.

            I believe that a fan of a book is more likely to watch a movie than a fan of a movie is likely to read the book, however I have seen it happen both ways. The influence of either book or movie (whether it is extremely popular and gets a lot of advertising or plays to little fanfare) can have an effect on the crossover. It does say something about society that most people will refuse to read a book even after watching a movie that they enjoyed. This is because people in our society enjoy instant gratification, and seeing as most books take longer than a few hours to complete, they won’t read them. The reason most people say is that they don’t have time to devote to reading a book, but I don’t buy it. If something is important to you, you will find the time to do it. However, our society simply doesn’t value long-term gratification as a whole. Personally, I love reading books (movie adaptations or not) and will continue to do so because I believe they are more enriching as a whole. Movies can be great as well, but I believe they offer different types of gratification. Have you ever seen a movie and then read the book?

Post #5 - Dinosaurs!

Have you ever seen Jurassic Park? I’m sure most of you have. Now have you read the book? I’m sure most of you haven’t. It’s not so much that they’re different, just that the movie could not incorporate the entire book, as is so with almost all book-to-movie adaptations.

Why do books become movies? I think they answer to that question is pretty easy. It’s to make money. Ok, maybe not always, maybe sometimes because a director loved a book so much he wanted to visualize it for everyone. But generally, after a book has gained phenomenal publicity, a director sees his chance to make something great for good money. That sounds very negative, but I don’t mean it in a bad way, nor am I stereotyping all directors into one category. What do you guys think?

Movies, in general, have the ability to create a physical manifestation of what we created in our imaginations when reading the book. Frankly, even if how you imagined something to be isn’t portrayed that way on screen, it can still make you feel different about that book/movie. A book, however, does something much more interesting. A book gives the details, a book allows for your mind to create the scenes any way you want. Obviously, you can tell I’m partial to books. But I always want to see a movie adaptation of pretty much anything I read, just because I think it’d be good no matter what. If I enjoyed the story of the book, I’ll enjoy it as a movie, even if not as much.

As mentioned at the beginning, the movie vs. book I want to bring up is Jurassic Park. More specifically, I want to take a look at this interview/article written by Steve Biodrowski in 1993 about Michael Crichton’s involvement with the production/screenplay of the movie adaption.

Click HERE to see the review! 

This specific circumstance set itself apart from other book/movie productions. The author was involved in the writing of the screenplay, but not because he wanted to “protect his work”. He didn’t even want to help with the screenplay. With previous experience with screenplays, he knew that, regardless of what he could do, only 10-20% of the book could be incorporated into a movie production. He only helped because Steven Spielberg needed the screenplay written fast. Crichton commented that the hardest part of this process was that he had already written multiple drafts for the book (including when he originally wanted it to be a screenplay), and rewriting a new one was very difficult. Personally, I loved the book, but I also loved the movie. After reading this review, I can understand more why certain parts of the book were left out. If any of you have read the book and seen the movie, what are your opinions?

Just because a movie adaptation of a book exists, I do not think that lessens the original value of a book. I think that can definitely popularize a book very easily, but that doesn’t mean the book isn’t as awesome as it was before the movie (assuming you read it before). If anything, movie adaptations make the book slightly more interesting, and if nothing else, show you one way of seeing the book.

Blog #4 Literary Reviewer Culture

                The book reviews I examined reviewed were reviews about Ken Kesey’s One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest, it was an easy choice as I had already read the book and would not have had to deal with “spoilers”, which could have been the case if I had chosen another book.  One particular review that caught my eye was a review by Matthew M. Yau. Upon researching further, I found out that he was an avid reviewer on amazon and had reviewed multiple books. In his review of One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest, he analyzes the plot and comments on the symbolism behind certain events and characters. It was particularly interesting because of the way he arranged his review where he examined different aspects of the novel in separate paragraphs.

                I believe such reviews serve not only to inform prospective buyers of the books but to also get buyers of the book who have not read it, a sort of idea as to how the book could be interpreted. Another purpose of such reviews is to create a platform for fellow readers to discuss the book. A reviewer might want to post a review because he/she would want to impose their own views on impressionable would-be buyers/readers.  I think book reviews regardless of whether they are positive or negative by credible literary personalities also help generate free publicity for the book, positive reviews might help draw readers who appreciate good writing, it could also be argued that negative reviews could also attract buyers or generate interest in the book because readers would want to find out how bad the book really is and maybe in certain cases it could be so bad that it is good.  Reviews by the public have a certain ability to capture the voice of a particular era; it offers future readers a lens in which to examine the book which is through the eyes of society in that particular era. For example, a book published in the 60’s and reviewed in the same time period, could be reviewed differently in a different era. By reading both reviews a reader would be able to pick and choose the lens in which he reads the novel, and I believe this gives book reviews a certain value culturally.

                Personally I do read reviews posted on book covers and sleeves because they allow me to anticipate what the novel has to offer. Certain reviews serve as warning signs when the book cover does not properly illustrate its contents, especially when I am not the kind of reader who appreciates non-fiction works. Although I have not written a book review, I do share my opinions on books among my friends which serve almost the same purpose as a book review.

                On the question of whether book reviews require one to be well versed in English composition, I would think that it would be helpful in trying to get your point across but certainly it would not be a necessity. I think all writing should be appreciated fairly, but because of how easy it is for members of the public to post reviews on Amazon or other major book distributor websites, such writing is usually ignored or not given the respect it deserves. 

Link to One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest review :
http://www.amazon.com/Flew-Over-Cuckoos-Penguin-Classics/dp/0141181222/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1337915171&sr=8-1

Post 4

A stunning and thoroughly satisfying conclusion, July 21, 2007

By 

Jonathan Appleseed

This review is from: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Book 7) (Hardcover)

This is arguably the most "hyped" book in history, and if J.K. Rowling had to sneak down to the kitchen for a glass of red wine to calm her nerves while writing The Goblet of Fire (as she said she did), one wonders what assuaged her while writing Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. The collective breath of tens of millions of readers has been held for two years...and now...was it worth the wait? Did Ms. Rowling live up to the hype? (For that, amongst hundreds of questions, is really the only question that matters.)

The answer, most assuredly, is YES.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is told in a strikingly different style than the previous six books - even different from The Half Blood Prince, and, I daresay, it's a better written, better edited, tighter narrative. And while the action is lively and well paced throughout, Rowling found a way to answer most of our questions while introducing new and complex ideas. What fascinated me was this: Some people were right, with regard to who is good, who is bad, who will live, who will die - but almost nobody got the "why" part correct. I truthfully expected an exciting but rather predictable ending, but instead was thrown for a loop. We've known that Rowling is fiendishly clever for years - but I didn't think she was *this* clever.

Not since turning the final page of The Return of the King twenty-eight years ago have I felt such a keen sense of loss. My love affair (indeed, everyone's love affair, I imagine) with all things Harry began somewhere in the first three chapters of The Sorcerer's Stone, and has lasted, on this side of the Atlantic, three months shy of nine years. For all that time we have waited and wondered - was Dumbledore right to trust Snape? Will Ron and Hermione get together? What's to become of Ginny and Harry? What really happened on that tower, when Dumbledore was blasted backwards, that "blast" atypical of the Avada Kedavra curse as we've seen it when used throughout the series. So many more questions than those listed here, and so many devilishly well-hidden hints. The answers, as I hinted above, will shock and awe you.

When first we met Harry Potter, he was "The Boy Who Lived", with an address of "The Cupboard Under the Stairs". Who could help but bleed sympathy for Harry, treated abysmally - abused, really - by the only blood relatives he had, and forced to live under said stairs by those awful Muggles, the Dursleys? It was a sensationally brilliant introduction, one that ensured that our heartstrings would be plucked and enchanted to sing. He was The Boy Who Lived.

Since reading that first book, we have enjoyed Rowling's spry sense of humor - portraits that spoke, stairways that moved at any given moment, Hagrid jinxing Dudley so that a pigs tail grew from his behind, Fred and George's fantastic creations, etc, etc., etc., and more etc's. There was a sense of wonder and magic in Rowling's writing, so thoroughly captivating that the recommended age group of 9-12 in no way resembled the book's actual audience. It was common to see adults walking about with hardcover copies of the latest book, sans dust jacket (to hide the fact that they were reading a "kids" book, I suppose). It was also common to hear of eight year olds sitting down with a seven-hundred-plus page book! By themselves! If I hadn't seen it with my own eyes, I wouldn't have believed it.

As for Harry, we admired him. He wasn't afraid to stand up for what he felt was right, even if he found himself in detention for it. He was brutally honest, and immensely courageous and loyal. Harry came to embody, at times, who we would like to be. He wasn't perfect, of course. He suspected Snape of being the one who was after the Sorcerer's Stone, and in The Chamber of Secrets, he thought that Malfoy was the heir of Slytherin. This didn't diminish Harry in our eyes - it made him more human, more real, and even, perhaps, more enviable.

Endless fan sites have been erected. For an adult to go to any of them, and find that thirteen year olds are having an easier time parsing out the books plots, subplots, and mysteries, was (for me at least) humbling, but yet also a testament to Rowling herself, and her remarkable creation. She encouraged an entire generation of young readers to read and to think for themselves.

But the time has come to say good-bye, for this is truly the end.

So good-bye, Harry. Good-bye Hermione, Ron, Professor Dumbledore, *Professor* Snape, Professor McGonagall, Professor Hagrid, Ginny, Fred, George, Neville, Dobby (and all the house elves), even Lord Voldemort and his Death Eaters. We will miss all of you, every character we encountered, from Muggle to Mudblood to hippogriff and owl, and everything about the world you all so vibrantly inhabit. And to Ms. Rowling: know that you have brought immeasurable joy to millions and millions of Muggles worldwide, and know that we cannot possibly thank you enough. What a tremendous gift you were given. Thank you for sharing it with us.

This is an example of a very comprehensive, yet very common book review that you will see on sites such as amazon.com. This reader takes on a very serious demeanor as he reviews J.K Rowling’s Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. It almost seems as if he is trying to live out some lost dream to be a book reviewer for some big publisher. All of this aside, the impact that these sorts of public book reviews (and public reviews on any sort of media) can have a major impact on how well the book sells and can influence to an extent the opinion that others may have on the book. This, for many people will play a pivotal role in determining whether or not they will even bother to read a book. I mean, if it’s the next Harry Potter book, and you are a big Harry Potter fan, you are going to read it regardless of what the reviews say, but for an independent novel that you may not know that much about, these reviews given by who are often times complete strangers can hold significant weight as to whether or not you will read the novel. I know for me personally, although I never read books besides Harry Potter that are not assigned to me, for other forms of media or other types of products, I will do a lot of research and read a vast amount of different views to get a collective perspective on my possible future purchase. Do the reviews and opinions of others hold much weight with you when considering the purchase of literature or similar media? I wholeheartedly admit that there is a slight problem with just taking other peoples word for it that a piece of literature is as they state it, but I find myself doing it anyway, because it is such a readily available source of opinion, and I don’t want to waste my time with something that I will regret after the fact. I feel if you are willing to take the time that reading the first chapter will give you a pretty good idea as to what the rest of the novel will be like and will give you a pretty good gauge as to whether or not you will enjoy the piece of literature. Do you agree with this statement?. Even this though has its flaws, since some books are slow to start, but nothing is perfect. I think sites such as amazon encourage book reviews as they do because it serves to offer there site some credibility. You are way more willing to buy from a site where it is evident that millions of others shop at as opposed to some homemade website with no reviews that is very suspect as to the legitimateness of the website. I personally have never posted a book review and I can say with confidence that I never will. I have no desire to voice my opinion on such matters and so I won’t. Another fault in book reviews is that I feel that the people who are likely to write one are the people who either would give one or five star ratings. There is not much middle of the road reviews who will bother to proclaim how average something was.

Post #4 - GoodReads

Though it doesn’t distribute or sells books, I want to take a look at a website that very recently I’ve grown very attached to, GoodReads. This website’s sole purpose is for readers to recommend and review books to each other based on preferences, genres, other books you like, etc. In general, as you read more and more of the review set forth by different people, you realize that they all have one thing in common; many of them practiced in terms of reading and reviewing. That may sound like a very obvious or general statement, but think of it this way; so many of these reviewers are able to so easily dissect a book’s meaning and compare it to other books because they’ve read and reviewed so many books before. It’s also very common to see the other extreme, reviewers who are reviewing a book for the first time and have no idea how to do so that will be helpful. For example, if I’m reading reviews for a certain book, and one reviewer posts, “Great book, loved it!” that doesn’t really help me at all. It tells me that she loved the book, great. Hell, for all I know, that book could have been great because she liked the character’s dog. So in terms of the reviewer’s voice you get one of the two extremes, either a great review or a completely useless review.

I personally don’t look at book reviews that often. In my opinion, they’re very subjective and are really only helpful to those who have similar reading tastes. My reading tastes are sometimes odd; books that others thought were great and deserved to be classics, I thought were crap, and some books that others thought were childish and stupid, I enjoyed a lot. Personally, I keep my eyes off the reviews and generally the ratings too; I choose my books on the summaries and as everyone does (anyone who says otherwise is full of BS), the cover.

On GoodReads, I don’t really share what I’ve read or purchased. If what I’m reading happens to be posted on Facebook by GoodReads saying that I’m reading that book, I don’t take it down. There’s no particular reason, I just see no need to. The only thing that could come of it is that those who’ve read the book would give me their opinion, and generally I really couldn’t care less, I prefer to read the book myself before I hear opinions from others.

I think book reviews impose a very helpful cultural value for society. Some people read based only on what other people have read, rated, and reviewed. Though that may not be how I choose to read my books, this is a very helpful way for some people to build a community of reading multiple books, and sometimes even a great way for the reviewers to connect with the author, by giving them their opinion as if they were in conversation with them as a friend. What are your guys’ opinions? Do you read a lot, and if you do, do you use book reviews to help you in decided whether or not you read the book?

Blog 4-Literature Reviews

Personally, when I go and research a new book, I will often look at the customer reviews to see what other people have to say about it. After all, these should be people who have read the book and be informed on it, and I want to see whether it will be worth my time. However, I am now realizing that there is a big flaw to this approach. Not only am I seeking the approval of strangers, but I am also basing whether or not I will read a book off of these reviews. If a book was critically acclaimed by the general public, or given “5 stars” I am more likely to see the book as a quality work and read it. However, if it has “3 stars” or fewer, I will often wonder why that is and be less inclined to read the book. I think this approach is a flawed one because we are essentially basing our opinions of literature on strangers we don’t know, who may or may not be educated on what good literature contains, and in the process conforming to what society favors. A book may have a bad rating on Amazon, Barnes and Noble, or any other online review service, but still be quality literature. The reasons it has a bad rating may be because it talks about a subject that society doesn’t like to talk about, or has a different view on touchy subjects like politics, religion, etc. That doesn’t mean that book isn’t worth reading or worth your time, simply because it isn’t rated highly by society or because it doesn’t conform to popular culture. Have you ever turned away from a book simply because it was given a poor rating online?  

However, reviews do provide a good sense of whether an author has a strong fan base, and a strong fan base usually means that the author is a good one. For instance, JK Rowling has an average review of 4.5/5 stars on Amazon, and she is known for a strong fan base (with me as a part of that).  They also serve the purpose of giving the public a forum to share thoughts on the book, what they liked and disliked, and see what others thought on the book, perhaps leading to discussion and a sense of community. On the other hand, Amazon and sites like it take advantage of reviews to encourage sales. If it’s a “5 star” book, it can be advertised as a “must read” because others liked it, and that will probably encourage sales. Most people who read a book won’t write a review on it, as there are about 3000 reviews for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, and I know that particular novel sold millions of copies. That says a lot about who we are as a society, as most people choose not to post a review, because it demonstrates that most of us simply don’t want to write one. For me personally, after I read a book, I might tell my friends or family about it if they ask, but I don’t have interest in writing an online review. I want others to form their own opinions on the book first without seeing what I have to say about it, as I believe that is how we grow as people. Any piece of literature doesn’t have as large an impact if you know what to expect, and I don’t want to ruin that for anyone. Have you ever written a review?