Just watched Narnia (Possible spoilers)

[shilsen]

Your reasons are convincing, Kahuna Burger. Allow me to change my opinion to one more moderate: I'll trust the auther's view over that of someone else, especially a pompous chap who disregards the author's statements (not referring to anyone in particular here).

I still feel that if the author is trying to say something in particular, and the reader doesn't get it, it's a failure of the reader or the author, and not equally valid to the author's intent.

A small addendum - remember that an author's stated opinions about his own work are not necessarily true.

 

[KenM]

JMS for instance was known to spin a elaborate line of BS on how B5 turned out exactly as he had planned the five year arc when practical concerns threw monkey wrenches in things on several occasions. He also either gave out misinformation or changd his mind on background details.

I read an interview with him a little while ago where he said he was very happy that about 85% of his orginal plan stuck.

 

[Storm Raven]

JMS for instance was known to spin a elaborate line of BS on how B5 turned out exactly as he had planned the five year arc when practical concerns threw monkey wrenches in things on several occasions. He also either gave out misinformation or changd his mind on background details.

I don't think that is what JMS has said. What he has said is that he told the story he intended to tell with B5. The specific actors and the names of some of the characters may have changed, but the story itself came through intact in the way he had wanted it to. There is a difference there. In point of fact, if you listen to the DVD commentary on several episodes, he discusses some of the changes that were made in the details of the story. Those details, however, didn't really change the story overall.

 

[Hypersmurf]

There are many little omissions. There is no stone knife, no scene of the witch hiding as a boulder, Rumblebuffin in not introduced properly nor does he knock down the gates, Aslan doesn't play with the girls, and I do miss the scene of the animals celebrating Christmas.

[sblock]Yeah - the Christmas feast (He has, he has, he has!) is one of my favourite scenes.

Several of my favourite lines got lost as well - when we're first about to encounter Tumnus, I leaned over to my girlfriend and said "Goodness gracious me!"... and Tumnus didn't say it! And "Yes - it is more magic!"

Someone mentioned a watered-down Aslan. I have to agree - he didn't feel like he had the stern side as well as the kindly side to a great enough degree. And the witch's reaction after she asks how she can be sure he'll keep his promise, and he roars... in the book, she flees in terror. In the film, she flinches a little, and then her ogres pick up her litter, and she makes a dignified exit.

On the other hand, there were some additions I enjoyed. Much of the beavers' dialogue (love Ray Winstone!)... especially Mr Beaver's first line Philip the horse. Rhinos! Griffin bombers.

Weakest new addition - after the ice encounter, where the ice-body-board surfaces, and Lucy has vanished... only to reappear mere seconds later. Cliche, unnecessary, added nothing to the film or the story. Bleh.

Despite any negative comments in the above, however, I thoroughly enjoyed the film. 8/10. Might go see it again before it finished its run.[/sblock]

-Hyp.

 

[johnsemlak]

You can disagree with me until you're blue in the face, but the entire literary establishment is behind me on this one.

Have you consulted the entire literary establishment on this? I doubt it. Academic issues, like political issues, tend to have multiple camps.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

A small addendum - remember that an author's stated opinions about his own work are not necessarily true.

I didn't consider it necessary to say that

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I read an interview with him a little while ago where he said he was very happy that about 85% of his orginal plan stuck.

I'm mostly thinking of the stuff coming out of the message boards which he would occasionally post to during the show's run. I'm open to the idea that he may have relaxed since the successful conclusion to the series. And the bit where at one point he responded to a fan's question saying that Valen had never fathered any children, then later had Delenn be a decendant of Valen. Its not a JMS bash-fest, just the one solid example I could think of where a writer was not completely honest in his official pronouncements on his work.

 

[Queen_Dopplepopolis]

I went into the movie about as excited as every child in the audience. I've been giddy with excitement to see this film for a year and it did not disappoint. As a Christian, I felt the allegory was as strong as it could have been while still making it a film that a non-Christian would enjoy - in fact, I even picked up on some things that I hadn't in the book.

For example, the breaking of the stone table with the deep magic written on it as the breaking of the stone tablets that the Old Law was written on. I also picked up on the women following Aslan as the women followed Christ.

Highlight of the night: The Universe, while on the way to the parking garage, gasps and says, "Hey! Peter's name is Peter!" *chuckles*

However - I do appreciate the fact that you can watch the movie without feeling beaten over the head with the story of Christ... I feel that's sort of a necessary thing.

This morning, I was reading EW's review and was astonished to see that they were complaining about the special effects... something along the lines of "you can see all the digital seems" and "all of the fauns look like they have just stepped out of the make up chair." Maybe it was my child-like sense of awe and wonder, but I never for even a second thought "wow - these special effects could use some work," and that's usually something I do pick up on rather quickly.

Lucy - cutest little girl I have ever seen. Throughout the entire movie, I just wanted to squeeze her - she's SO adorable.

In the end, my largest complaint is that we lost the narrator. In all of the books, he has some of the best lines and, because he was lost, many of his lines were missing.

I go 9.5/10 - loved it, can't wait to own it...

 

[Firebeetle]

Go read "Invisible Man"

Regarding the whole allegory thing...

If an author is trying to get a message through in his book, he's trying to communicate with you. If you get something out of the book other than what he wanted you too, you misinterpreted it. If the message the author was trying to get to you is, "hey look, I wrote a cool story!" and you get something else out of it, like an allegory or a book of sexual innuendo and symbolism, you interpreted it wrong. It's just like any other form of communication, if you don't get the message the sender is trying to give you, either the sender failed to communicate well or you failed to interpret it well. Either way, the message is the same, even if that message is, "here is my cool story, why not read it and buy more of my books?"

The idea that everything has a purpose and symbolism is foolhardy. The idea that you know more about what an author wrote than he or she does is arrogant. The fact that a majority of the establishment may agree matters not one whit.

IMHO and all that, of course. Feel free to disagree.

Go read Ralph Ellison's "Invisible Man", frequently one of the top ten reads of the 20th Century (so you're not wasting your time.) It would be impossible to read that book without making dozens, if not hundreds, of interpretations when you have no clue regarding the author's intentions. Furthermore, it is OK to say whatever you have to say about the book. You don't have to get the author's permission to do so (difficult, since he's dead.) There are people who read it over and over and see different things every time. There are reams and reams of well thought out literary criticism (which is not personal interpretation, the same critic can look at the same book using different types of literary criticism and will come up with very different results.) That's the damn point of literature, reading and interpretation. Author's intent is important, but does not deny any amount of allegory, symbolism, theme, or other factor of literary criticism. Misinterpretation would be an outrageous or unsupported opinion.

If this, John Q. and Jezter, makes me a pompous ass so be it. It's far better than being ignorant and dogmatic. When you question the entire literary establishment's right to apply allegory to literature, I would argue I am not the one being pompous. Further, if I am being an ass for laughing heartily, then was are you being when you are "amused", a butt cheek?

Ralph Ellison is the inspiration (at least in part) for the Forrester character in "Finding Forrester" BTW. Sure, Forrester is a scotsman and Ellison was black, but the ALLEGORY is still there.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

When you question the entire literary establishment's right to apply allegory to literature, I would argue I am not the one being pompous.

I do not question the entire literary establishment's right to apply allegory to literature. I question the idea that author's intent is irrelevant (or less-relevant than a reader's) and that a critic or any other reader knows more about said intent than the author. I question the idea that the "entire establishment" believing something makes it true (this one is obviously false). I question the idea that all interpretations are equally valid.

Without knowing the author's intent, the long discussion and alternate interpretations are all you have, and I find it great fun to debate and consider such things with my friends, fellow students, and teachers. However, the point stands that if the author was trying to say something, and you don't get it, one of you has failed, and whatever different thing you got is not the real message of the book. It's just like Ozymandias, IMO; a mistranslation of...Ramses II, right? And Ozymandias is a fine name and one I particularly like, but it's not the right name. It was misinterpreted.

EDIT: It might be worth noting that a great deal of my scorn for some of these ideas is from an article I had to write about in my first year of college. The author of the article was writing about a story, the name of which I don't recall, which was about a family who met an escaped criminal who ended up killing them all. At the end of the story, the grandmother says something about the killer being her own son; the author of the story later stated that this encounter started the killer towards eventual salvation. The writer of the article was openly scornful of the author's statements about her story, and claimed that what the author said happened after the story didn't, and basically that the author was an ignoramus who didn't know what she was writing. It really made me angry, and I think that my view of the "establishment's" practice is to some degree tainted by my association of it with fools like that and their idiotic scorn for authors.