mirrorrorrim
Minstrel
A couple months ago, I was talking to a group of co-workers about The Lord of the Rings. One of them had just finished listening to the books on CD, and she made the point of how much better she thought the movies were. I was surprised to find that most everyone in the group agreed with her. Many had started reading the books, but just handn't been able to bring themselves to finish them. These people praised Peter Jackson for taking out all of the boring, superflous elements of Tolkien's story, while keeping the powerful core.
I remained silent during the exchange, but in my mind I strongly disagreed with them on the relative value of the two stories. I love The Lord of the Rings movies. I saw all three several times in theaters, and many more times since they've been released on DVD and Blu Ray. I feel Peter Jackson created as good an adaptation as I could imagine. But for all that, there are so many wonderful facets of the book that he necessarily had to leave out–Fatty Bolger, Glorfindel, Tom Bombadil and Goldberry, the Scouring of the Shire, all the songs, and so many other things that, small and large, made Middle Earth such a vibrant, living world. It surprised me that no one else in my group felt the same.
Since then, I've often pondered on that conversation. With all Peter Jackson cut out, the core of the story is still present. Does that mean all the rest really is unnecessary? With Tolkien, it's my instant reaction to say no, but looking at it objectively, that's probably largely due to the fact that I knew and loved his writing for so long before the films were released. When I read other classics, such as Les Miserables, I can't help but feel that tens and even hundreds of pages are completely irrelevent to the story, and that the book would probably be better if they were cut out. I'm pretty sure most modern editors would agree, and unless Tolkien were self-published, I don't doubt that large sections of his novels would have died on the cutting-room floor. In fact, once his works all become public domain in 2050 or so, I won't be at all surprised if we see an abridged version, much like we have with many of the older classics.
In a movie, the director has between one and four hours to tell the audience his story. It doesn't matter if he shot six hours or six hundred hours of film–he can only keep as much as will fit within that accepted window. Because of this, not a single shot is wasted, and every scene fits as an important component of the director's overall vision. If something doesn't serve a purpose, no matter how nice or creative or nostalgic it might be, then it just isn't included. As audiences, that's what we've come to expect.
Has this also translated itself into the way we read books? Is that why my co-workers so preferred the films to the books? And if it is, then what does that mean for fantasy writing? How have we as writers needed to alter our work in order to satisfy a world that has been raised on films for more than two generations? How, if at all, do we need to alter it further? And are there other aspects of films, besides those mentioned, that have changed what people expect when they read a book?
Honestly, I'm a little worried, as one who loves Tolkien's style, that I might write something that follows his pacing too closely, and that is unpalatable to the modern reader.
Thanks in advance for your responses.
I remained silent during the exchange, but in my mind I strongly disagreed with them on the relative value of the two stories. I love The Lord of the Rings movies. I saw all three several times in theaters, and many more times since they've been released on DVD and Blu Ray. I feel Peter Jackson created as good an adaptation as I could imagine. But for all that, there are so many wonderful facets of the book that he necessarily had to leave out–Fatty Bolger, Glorfindel, Tom Bombadil and Goldberry, the Scouring of the Shire, all the songs, and so many other things that, small and large, made Middle Earth such a vibrant, living world. It surprised me that no one else in my group felt the same.
Since then, I've often pondered on that conversation. With all Peter Jackson cut out, the core of the story is still present. Does that mean all the rest really is unnecessary? With Tolkien, it's my instant reaction to say no, but looking at it objectively, that's probably largely due to the fact that I knew and loved his writing for so long before the films were released. When I read other classics, such as Les Miserables, I can't help but feel that tens and even hundreds of pages are completely irrelevent to the story, and that the book would probably be better if they were cut out. I'm pretty sure most modern editors would agree, and unless Tolkien were self-published, I don't doubt that large sections of his novels would have died on the cutting-room floor. In fact, once his works all become public domain in 2050 or so, I won't be at all surprised if we see an abridged version, much like we have with many of the older classics.
In a movie, the director has between one and four hours to tell the audience his story. It doesn't matter if he shot six hours or six hundred hours of film–he can only keep as much as will fit within that accepted window. Because of this, not a single shot is wasted, and every scene fits as an important component of the director's overall vision. If something doesn't serve a purpose, no matter how nice or creative or nostalgic it might be, then it just isn't included. As audiences, that's what we've come to expect.
Has this also translated itself into the way we read books? Is that why my co-workers so preferred the films to the books? And if it is, then what does that mean for fantasy writing? How have we as writers needed to alter our work in order to satisfy a world that has been raised on films for more than two generations? How, if at all, do we need to alter it further? And are there other aspects of films, besides those mentioned, that have changed what people expect when they read a book?
Honestly, I'm a little worried, as one who loves Tolkien's style, that I might write something that follows his pacing too closely, and that is unpalatable to the modern reader.
Thanks in advance for your responses.