(no subject)
Jul. 26th, 2005 12:59 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
heidiOkay, how many of you feel that Dumbledore's characterization in PS/SS: The Movie would have been vastly improved if Steve Kloves or Chris Columbus had deigned to include four words from the book:
For me, those four words were among the elements in Book 1 that hooked me into reading the book way back in October of 1999, and they were part of Dumbledore for me. Well, that and his reaction to the twins' singing the school song, but for the sake of not adding minutes to the movie, let's just keep it to those four words.
Instead, they spent eighty seconds or so showing Hedwig flying through the snow. Wheee, lovely.
Stupid, stupid, stupid. And one of the reasons why, as![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
alice_and_lain and cjestes can tell you, I stood up when the credits began and began stamping my feet on the floor in frustration and anger about the way the movie had been changed so much from the book* and the way the changes all felt stupid, or dangerous (Harry actively using his hands to injure/kill Quirrel, not just to protect himself and the stone).
We shouldn't have to use our imaginations to fill in the gaps about Dumbledore twinkling in the movie, and we shouldn't have to use our imaginations to fill the gaps in how Hermione finally decides she is either (a) finally actually interested in Ron as a boyfriend, or (b) finally actually willing to pursue Ron such as to have him become her boyfriend (and can we all FINALLY agree that before HBP, she was either not interested in him as a boyfriend, or had not undertaken to deem him her boyfriend? Good.).
The thing is, there are possible reasons for why she would do (a)-or-(b). The near-fatal injuries at the Ministry, or the risk of death in the woods with the centaurs would be enough to push anyone to change her perspectives on things, and I know from being-near-near-death-experiences. When I was 19, my then-best-friend and I were parking her car across the street from the townhouse just off campus where I lived, and these two guys in a van pulled up behind her, looked right at me, and grabbed her bookbag which was slung across her chest, dragging her 40 or so feet and running over her, possibly twice.
She was in and out of a coma for two days, ended up with pins in her hips and spent about two months in the hospital in traction; she's more or less fine now, fifteen years on, but watching her nearly die, and being five feet away from having been the victim myself, was enough to turn me, at 19 (ie about two years older than OotP/HBP Hermione) away from the career I'd planned to have (journalism) into law, in large part because I had been among the pack of people who'd descended like vultures after someone was seriously injured or killed in some horrific something, and I knew I couldn't do that anymore, not after having been The Witness and the only one the press could go to for said eyewitness account. And yes, that's a life-decision change. And it's entirely possible that what happened at the Ministry inspired Hermione to make a life-decision change. It seems to me to be the Moste Potente Reasone...
However, I am sure that some of you have other thoughts that explain why she did (a)-or-(b). And it's great to take your theory and fanficize it or fanart it or vid it.
But why couldn't JKR just write it? One line... just one line from Hermione when she's talking about Boys To Invite To Invite Jealousy would've done it, like one line from Dumbledore in Movie #1 would've changed his characterization to all those (and I know some of you are among them) who saw the film before reading the books (and along those lines, what did you think of Dumbledore when you saw the film versus read the books, if you did the movie first?).
I'm not a lazy reader - I can ponder a scene or a character for years, now, can't I? - but in this case, we shouldn't have to. If there was a reason, then that reason should've been in the book. If there was no reason, no inspirational moment of impact, no justification for Hermione to change her thoughts about Ron or at least her responses to him, then yes, that aspect of the book makes no sense. And what's frustrating me is that it would be *so* easy for it to make sense and be a natural progression of Hermione's character. Just. One. Line.
ETA: I wrote the above while about 24 hours behind in reading LJ, and on my first page spotted a link to this post byamanuensis1. Word, is all I can say. Incorporate all that into here; I wish I'd said it.
* Yes, I know that PoA was also changed from the book, but other than the neglect of the Department of Backstory and the stupid use of Sirius's "cleverest witch" line to Hermione, which makes no sense in the context of the film, it didn't bug me as much because the changes weren't of the degree of stupidity of the Flight of Hedwig, sigh, sigh, sigh.
Nitwit. Blubber. Oddment. Tweak.
For me, those four words were among the elements in Book 1 that hooked me into reading the book way back in October of 1999, and they were part of Dumbledore for me. Well, that and his reaction to the twins' singing the school song, but for the sake of not adding minutes to the movie, let's just keep it to those four words.
Instead, they spent eighty seconds or so showing Hedwig flying through the snow. Wheee, lovely.
Stupid, stupid, stupid. And one of the reasons why, as
alice_and_lain and cjestes can tell you, I stood up when the credits began and began stamping my feet on the floor in frustration and anger about the way the movie had been changed so much from the book* and the way the changes all felt stupid, or dangerous (Harry actively using his hands to injure/kill Quirrel, not just to protect himself and the stone). We shouldn't have to use our imaginations to fill in the gaps about Dumbledore twinkling in the movie, and we shouldn't have to use our imaginations to fill the gaps in how Hermione finally decides she is either (a) finally actually interested in Ron as a boyfriend, or (b) finally actually willing to pursue Ron such as to have him become her boyfriend (and can we all FINALLY agree that before HBP, she was either not interested in him as a boyfriend, or had not undertaken to deem him her boyfriend? Good.).
The thing is, there are possible reasons for why she would do (a)-or-(b). The near-fatal injuries at the Ministry, or the risk of death in the woods with the centaurs would be enough to push anyone to change her perspectives on things, and I know from being-near-near-death-experiences. When I was 19, my then-best-friend and I were parking her car across the street from the townhouse just off campus where I lived, and these two guys in a van pulled up behind her, looked right at me, and grabbed her bookbag which was slung across her chest, dragging her 40 or so feet and running over her, possibly twice.
She was in and out of a coma for two days, ended up with pins in her hips and spent about two months in the hospital in traction; she's more or less fine now, fifteen years on, but watching her nearly die, and being five feet away from having been the victim myself, was enough to turn me, at 19 (ie about two years older than OotP/HBP Hermione) away from the career I'd planned to have (journalism) into law, in large part because I had been among the pack of people who'd descended like vultures after someone was seriously injured or killed in some horrific something, and I knew I couldn't do that anymore, not after having been The Witness and the only one the press could go to for said eyewitness account. And yes, that's a life-decision change. And it's entirely possible that what happened at the Ministry inspired Hermione to make a life-decision change. It seems to me to be the Moste Potente Reasone...
However, I am sure that some of you have other thoughts that explain why she did (a)-or-(b). And it's great to take your theory and fanficize it or fanart it or vid it.
But why couldn't JKR just write it? One line... just one line from Hermione when she's talking about Boys To Invite To Invite Jealousy would've done it, like one line from Dumbledore in Movie #1 would've changed his characterization to all those (and I know some of you are among them) who saw the film before reading the books (and along those lines, what did you think of Dumbledore when you saw the film versus read the books, if you did the movie first?).
I'm not a lazy reader - I can ponder a scene or a character for years, now, can't I? - but in this case, we shouldn't have to. If there was a reason, then that reason should've been in the book. If there was no reason, no inspirational moment of impact, no justification for Hermione to change her thoughts about Ron or at least her responses to him, then yes, that aspect of the book makes no sense. And what's frustrating me is that it would be *so* easy for it to make sense and be a natural progression of Hermione's character. Just. One. Line.
ETA: I wrote the above while about 24 hours behind in reading LJ, and on my first page spotted a link to this post by
amanuensis1. Word, is all I can say. Incorporate all that into here; I wish I'd said it. * Yes, I know that PoA was also changed from the book, but other than the neglect of the Department of Backstory and the stupid use of Sirius's "cleverest witch" line to Hermione, which makes no sense in the context of the film, it didn't bug me as much because the changes weren't of the degree of stupidity of the Flight of Hedwig, sigh, sigh, sigh.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Why'd you erase it?
Date: 2005-07-26 09:03 pm (UTC)We used to have one till I lead the Sugar Quill revolt and Zsenya banned me. No, I'm just kidding, of course.
But quite seriously, if you really think that your exchanges with PV are being scrutinized, you're wrong.
I know we haven't got along that well in the past, and to tell the truth, you probably are unaware of why. But it wasn't to do with shipping. I think I fandom wanked you for the petition to shut down the Deathmarch, which you probably didn't care for too much. And then I was *extremely* put out when you offered a rebuttal to my friend Alec's essay without naming him or linking to it, and further when you posted on my LJ in response to my essay on Weasley-hate with the comment that the only reason you were posting was that I'd based the essay off a comment Ataniell made to you.
But it wasn't about the shipping.
I really do regret the misunderstandings and bitterness that went into this, as I'm attempting to be a nicer person lately, which is why I'm actually telling you what the problems were, instead of just snarking back.
Re: Why'd you erase it?
Date: 2005-07-26 09:38 pm (UTC)The funny thing is that I have no idea who Alec is and what the rebuttal was, nor do I remember your Livejournal post. I am serious, I am very sure that the latter happened and that I posted my rebuttal as some kind of rebuttal to the general idea of things, which were probably exemplified in that essay, but probably not unique to it (I am guessing wildly here) - but I don't remember either incident.
I don't have issues with you. My memory is obviously not up to par for this kind of thing.
Re: Why'd you erase it?
Date: 2005-07-26 10:13 pm (UTC)And, no, I'm not surprised you don't remember the other things, which is actually why I brought them up, since I suddenly realized you might not have a clue.
Alec is
To us it came off as dreadfully unfair, responding to an essay without giving your readers the chance to see what he had to say for himself. You did mention his LJ name, but without any indication that it even *was* an LJ name. No one who didn't already know his essay could have accessed it.
So... err.. maybe I should have told you this earlier.
Re: Why'd you erase it?
Date: 2005-07-26 10:56 pm (UTC)I don't viewed Bowling for Hogwarts as a rebuttal to Expecto Patronum though more of an expansion on its theme or more of a reduction of it. The premise was unusual for me and something I originally criticised Pharnabazus for - that he treated the WW like it was an actually existent society, not a fictional one ruled by one person's authorial intent (who I didn't trust to come up with something like EP). BFH uses that premise, which I originally criticised, treating the world like it's real and drawing logical conclusions on what makes the world tick. That's not a rebuttal, that's...
I will fail to explain this, but let me try. I believe that neither the world of Pharnabazus' EP nor the world of Bowling for Hogwarts are authorially intented. I don't think that prior to publishing EP no one but Pharnabazus read HP as the world of EP. I don't think that prior to me thinking up BFH no one read HP as the world BFH describes. In some way I view both theories not as opposing point of views but fanfiction in essay form. And just as I don't see a Snarry fic as opposite of Dobby/Winky fic, I don't view BFH as rebuttal for EP. It's not an argument, it's a fancy. It's like the Crouch Novenna (another total basic, although less so than EP) which retrospectively explains a whole character in such depth that looks like it goes far, far beyond the authorial intent (and even the essay writer know, or at least suspect it) and as such is closer to fanfiction than to speculation and analysis of HP as a literary work. If I wrote a Crouch essay that would reject the contents of the Novenna while going as far beyond the authorial intent as the Novenna itself, I would never view it as rebuttal, but rather as an A Lot to Be Upset About to Underwater Light.
I am sure Pharnabazus might feel very different about the issue, but that's how I see it from my point of view.