God: Hosea.
Hosea: Yes, Lord?
God: You know that prostitute Gomer?
Hosea: Yes. I mean, no. I mean, I've heard of her, but I don't know her, know her. She's not really my type. I mean, she's beautiful and all, um, not that I've really been looking at her or anything. But she's not exactly what I'd call "prophet's wife material." I mean, she's a...wait. Why exactly are you asking me about a prostitute?
God: Oh, I want you to marry her.
Hosea: Say what?
God: Marry her, Hosea.
Hosea: You...want me to marry Gomer? You want me to marry a prostitute.
God: Yes.
Hosea: Um, all right, but I don't understand. Sounds kind of ridiculous.
God: Just trust me, kid.
*********************************************
God: Jonah.
Jonah: Yes, Lord?
God: You know Nineveh?
Jonah: Oh, boy, do I ever. Those people are wicked. And not in the Ron Weasley way.
God: Don't be cute. Harry Potter hasn't been invented yet, but if it were, you'd be one of the ones who thinks it's evil without ever having read it. Oh, and I want you to go preach to Nineveh.
Jonah: Oh, yes, Lord! I've been warming up my FIRE AND BRIMSTONE VOICE! MUWAHAHAHA! Do you like?
God: I've heard better. Actually, I want you to call Nineveh to repentance.
Jonah: Say what?
God: Tell them I'm willing to forgive them if they repent.
Jonah: Are we talking about the same Nineveh, because that's ridiculous. Ridonkulous even.
God: Just trust me, kid.
Jonah: How 'bout I go the other way and hop a ship for Tarshish instead and get eaten by a ginormous fish, because that sounds like loads of fun. After I throw myself a pity party and pray, you can have that fish spit me out right on Nineveh's doorstep. Yeah, that would be great. Then I'll preach to Nineveh,throw a fit over a worm and a vine, and never have my own personal story resolved.
God: I love you, kid, but you have issues.
*********************************************
God: Son?
Jesus: Yes, Father?
God: You know what I'm going to say.
Jesus: Yes, I do. This whole Trinity thing is pretty awesome.
God: It is, isn't it. Anyway, You know what has to be done.
Jesus: Yes. I do. I know You will not take this cup from me.
God: And You understand why.
Jesus: I've always understood why. Love. We love these rebellious, sinful, stiff-necked people.
God: Oh, yes, we love them so, my Son.
Jesus: I trust you, but it doesn't make sense, does it, Father? It doesn't make sense for the Holy God to love the people in this fallen world so much that we would die for them. Yet I know that we do. I know that we will do whatever it takes to redeem them.
God: Love is ridiculous, Son.
Jesus: I know, Father. I know.
God: Trust me.
Jesus: I do, Father. And I will obey.
*********************************************
God: Ruth.
Me: Yes, Lord.
God: Why are you crying?
Me: The past is coming to haunt me again. I'm reminded of the years of trusting and waiting. I'm reminded of those well-meaning friends who deeply hurt me when they called me ridiculous. I can't stop listening to these reminders.
God: Well, remind yourself of what is true.
Me: True or False: I'm worthless. True.
God: Yes, but always remember that my worth confounds your worthlessness. I love you, I want you, I have a purpose for you, and that's far better than vainly trying to attain worth in your own effort.
Me: True or False: I take myself too seriously. Also true.
God: You care too much about what others think of you, and they don't truly have any power over you. I'm the One who is defending you. Trust me.
Me: True or False: I'm ridiculous. It's true, isn't it?
God: Yes, my dear child, you are absolutely crazy ridiculous. It doesn't make any worldly sense for you to keep waiting and trusting, doing what I've given you to do, when you have seen no results and been hurt in the effort. But if you were striving in your own power instead of Mine, you wouldn't have the strength to keep going. Take courage in that. And remember, I love you ridiculously. If anyone hates you, remember that they hated me first.
Me: True or False: Satan is behind this attack on me right now. I think that's false.
God: You're right. He's just in the forefront. He planned this attack on you and carried it out, but he didn't suspect that I've been behind it all along, working to bring good out of what he intended for evil. He really should suspect it, too. I've been bringing good out of what he intended for evil ever since he got Eve to eat the fruit. I'm in control. That's why you can trust me, even if what you're doing seems ridiculous.
Me: Thank you, Father.
God: Rest now. Wait. And just trust me, kid.
Showing posts with label harry potter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label harry potter. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Thoughts on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2
Spoilers ahead. Don't read any further if you haven't watched the movie (and preferably also read the book). Also, this is not a movie where I sap on about how much I'm going to miss Harry Potter. You can find THAT post here.
About a decade ago, I got into Harry Potter. And I remember going to that first movie (which also came out about a decade ago) thinking, "What will it be like when the seventh movie is over? The kids will be all grown up." Yes, the kids are all grown up. And there were actually eight movies.
I'm glad there were eight movies. They took their time adapting the last book. I'm not sure they could have done an adequate job of telling the story in one movie. Well, maybe. But I like what they did. Plus, it dragged Harry Potter out a little longer. And now...it's over.
Overall, I really enjoyed this movie. I loved it. I loved the Gringotts scene--of course with the Dragon! I'd been looking forward to seeing the Dragon escape the bank since the book came out. There are some things that are awesome in print, but seeing it on screen is a whole new experience.
I also loved loved loved the Hogwarts battle scenes--especially getting to see McGonagall take on Snape and Molly Weasley take on Bellatrix (even if Bellatrix's death was a little hokey and CGI'd). The only time the battle scenes got tedious were near the end--after Harry had already gone to meet Voldemort in the Forbidden Forest, "died," and come back to life. To me, that was kind of the big major climax. Yes, Voldemort actually dying was also a big major climax, but it wasn't as important as Harry's sacrificial acts, of his meeting and speaking with Dumbledore at "King's Cross."
In fact, I think the whole "death of Voldemort" thing was really overplayed. Sometimes books don't transfer well into movies and need a little help. Sure, okay. Nothing wrong with spicing things up a little visually. But they took it too far. I'm sure the filmmakers were going for more drama, more suspense. They took it past the dramatic and suspenseful and made it just plain boring. I was having to bite my tongue to keep from screaming, "OH JUST SHOW NEVILLE SLICING OFF NAGINI'S HEAD ALREADY SO WE CAN GET ON WITH THIS!" Because, honestly, watching Neville slice off Nagini's head was one of the things I was most looking forward to seeing. I heart Neville so much.
But, no no, there was this big, long, drawn-out battle between Harry and Voldemort where the latter chased the former through Hogwarts for no apparent reason. It was boring. I was ready for Voldemort to just die, since we all knew that was coming. And when Voldemort did die, I was a little underwhelmed. I don't like comparing books and movies too much, but in this case, I really think the filmmakers missed something important. In the book, Voldemort didn't crumble into pixie dust or whatever that was that he did in the film. No. Harry's signature defensive "Expelliarmus" spell caused Voldemort's killing curse to rebound, and he just kind of fell down dead. Anticlimactically. He just died. No fanfare. No big dramatic death scene.
I really liked the fact that in the book, Voldemort, the greatest dark wizard ever, who went to great, tremendously evil lengths to preserve his own life, died a ridiculously simple, lackluster death. And I guess the filmmakers thought it too simple, so they spiced it up with some more silly fake CGI. But that wasn't too big of a deal--just something that irked me slightly.
I'm also slightly irked by the "King's Cross" scene. For one thing, the whole backstory on Dumbledore was not revealed. Anyone who hasn't read the books still doesn't know a thing about Ariana other than some vague idea from Aberforth that Albus gave her "everything except his time." It reminded me slightly of the film "Harry Potter and the Prizoner of Azkaban" where they left out a lot of important background information about the Marauder's Map and Harry's dad, Sirius, Lupin, and Peter Pettigrew. And I'm not sure if the filmmakers just didn't see Dumbledore's family history as being pertinent information to the story they wanted to convey, or if they didn't think there was time for it, or if perhaps they wanted the movie-going audience to still see Dumbledore as a bright shiny character without any personal demons. Maybe it was a combination of all those things.
But what really bothers me more than it probably should was something movie Dumbledore said in "King's Cross" that wasn't in the book at all. Something like (definitely paraphrasing here--only saw the movie once): "I once said that help would always be given at Hogwarts to those who ask for it. I'd like to amend that. Help will always be given at Hogwarts to those who deserve it."
Dumbledore didn't say that in the book. I'm pretty sure the Dumbledore of the book WOULD NOT EVER say that. I don't know exactly what the filmmakers were trying to convey by that. I think it was perhaps a halfhearted attempt to show that Voldemort didn't deserve help or that Snape really did deserve help...or something (I really need to see the film again and hear the line in its proper context). But see, one of the major themes near the end of the book (and probably running through all the books) was that there might still be some hope for Voldemort if he showed a little remorse.
Rowling revealed that there are intentional Christian themes in Harry Potter, especially in the seventh book. I don't want to go too deep into something she might not have meant to be this deep, but being the Christian reader/writer that I am, I can't help but wonder. Metaphorically, is that idea of remorse akin or even figuratively equal to salvation? I don't know how far Rowling wanted to carry that out.
But it doesn't really matter how deep she meant that idea to go. The fact remains, she did seem to want to communicate that Voldemort was not beyond help and hope if he would simply show remorse. And the Dumbledore of the books was always ready to see the best in others--and to offer second chances. He HAD a personal history that was less than perfect. He knew first hand that HE didn't deserve help. He was ready to offer help to others whether they deserved it or not. And that's probably why he was able to see that there was hope for Voldemort...if Voldemort was willing to let go of his pride and confidence in himself...and ask for help.
And it bugs me that the filmmakers completely missed that. They fudged it over. Maybe it's because I want to see Christian themes (dragging them out kicking and screaming), or maybe they really are there in the book, or maybe it's a little of both. But the fact is, redemption and salvation don't depend on how much someone deserves it. No one deserves it. But if we ask for it, it's given. Ask, and it shall be given. Seek, and you shall find. Knock, and the door will be opened unto you. So no. Dumbledore would not have said anything about help being given to those who deserve it.
But that's the biggest issue I have with an otherwise wonderful movie. I shed lots of tears--starting with Snape's death (everything about Snape in this movie was stinking amazing) and pretty much not ending until I got bored watching Voldemort chase Harry through Hogwarts. Some things could have been done in a less cheesy manner (Ron and Hermione's kiss just made me giggle in a not good way). The epilogue was cute and touching, but I was underwhelmed with the "aging makeup/CGI," (sidenote--the makeup/CGI anti-aging on Snape was fantastic!) but it was a good way to end a great series--just looking into the faces of Ron, Hermione, and Harry Potter.
Even without the bad aging CGI, those kids really have grown up.
About a decade ago, I got into Harry Potter. And I remember going to that first movie (which also came out about a decade ago) thinking, "What will it be like when the seventh movie is over? The kids will be all grown up." Yes, the kids are all grown up. And there were actually eight movies.
I'm glad there were eight movies. They took their time adapting the last book. I'm not sure they could have done an adequate job of telling the story in one movie. Well, maybe. But I like what they did. Plus, it dragged Harry Potter out a little longer. And now...it's over.
Overall, I really enjoyed this movie. I loved it. I loved the Gringotts scene--of course with the Dragon! I'd been looking forward to seeing the Dragon escape the bank since the book came out. There are some things that are awesome in print, but seeing it on screen is a whole new experience.
I also loved loved loved the Hogwarts battle scenes--especially getting to see McGonagall take on Snape and Molly Weasley take on Bellatrix (even if Bellatrix's death was a little hokey and CGI'd). The only time the battle scenes got tedious were near the end--after Harry had already gone to meet Voldemort in the Forbidden Forest, "died," and come back to life. To me, that was kind of the big major climax. Yes, Voldemort actually dying was also a big major climax, but it wasn't as important as Harry's sacrificial acts, of his meeting and speaking with Dumbledore at "King's Cross."
In fact, I think the whole "death of Voldemort" thing was really overplayed. Sometimes books don't transfer well into movies and need a little help. Sure, okay. Nothing wrong with spicing things up a little visually. But they took it too far. I'm sure the filmmakers were going for more drama, more suspense. They took it past the dramatic and suspenseful and made it just plain boring. I was having to bite my tongue to keep from screaming, "OH JUST SHOW NEVILLE SLICING OFF NAGINI'S HEAD ALREADY SO WE CAN GET ON WITH THIS!" Because, honestly, watching Neville slice off Nagini's head was one of the things I was most looking forward to seeing. I heart Neville so much.
But, no no, there was this big, long, drawn-out battle between Harry and Voldemort where the latter chased the former through Hogwarts for no apparent reason. It was boring. I was ready for Voldemort to just die, since we all knew that was coming. And when Voldemort did die, I was a little underwhelmed. I don't like comparing books and movies too much, but in this case, I really think the filmmakers missed something important. In the book, Voldemort didn't crumble into pixie dust or whatever that was that he did in the film. No. Harry's signature defensive "Expelliarmus" spell caused Voldemort's killing curse to rebound, and he just kind of fell down dead. Anticlimactically. He just died. No fanfare. No big dramatic death scene.
I really liked the fact that in the book, Voldemort, the greatest dark wizard ever, who went to great, tremendously evil lengths to preserve his own life, died a ridiculously simple, lackluster death. And I guess the filmmakers thought it too simple, so they spiced it up with some more silly fake CGI. But that wasn't too big of a deal--just something that irked me slightly.
I'm also slightly irked by the "King's Cross" scene. For one thing, the whole backstory on Dumbledore was not revealed. Anyone who hasn't read the books still doesn't know a thing about Ariana other than some vague idea from Aberforth that Albus gave her "everything except his time." It reminded me slightly of the film "Harry Potter and the Prizoner of Azkaban" where they left out a lot of important background information about the Marauder's Map and Harry's dad, Sirius, Lupin, and Peter Pettigrew. And I'm not sure if the filmmakers just didn't see Dumbledore's family history as being pertinent information to the story they wanted to convey, or if they didn't think there was time for it, or if perhaps they wanted the movie-going audience to still see Dumbledore as a bright shiny character without any personal demons. Maybe it was a combination of all those things.
But what really bothers me more than it probably should was something movie Dumbledore said in "King's Cross" that wasn't in the book at all. Something like (definitely paraphrasing here--only saw the movie once): "I once said that help would always be given at Hogwarts to those who ask for it. I'd like to amend that. Help will always be given at Hogwarts to those who deserve it."
Dumbledore didn't say that in the book. I'm pretty sure the Dumbledore of the book WOULD NOT EVER say that. I don't know exactly what the filmmakers were trying to convey by that. I think it was perhaps a halfhearted attempt to show that Voldemort didn't deserve help or that Snape really did deserve help...or something (I really need to see the film again and hear the line in its proper context). But see, one of the major themes near the end of the book (and probably running through all the books) was that there might still be some hope for Voldemort if he showed a little remorse.
Rowling revealed that there are intentional Christian themes in Harry Potter, especially in the seventh book. I don't want to go too deep into something she might not have meant to be this deep, but being the Christian reader/writer that I am, I can't help but wonder. Metaphorically, is that idea of remorse akin or even figuratively equal to salvation? I don't know how far Rowling wanted to carry that out.
But it doesn't really matter how deep she meant that idea to go. The fact remains, she did seem to want to communicate that Voldemort was not beyond help and hope if he would simply show remorse. And the Dumbledore of the books was always ready to see the best in others--and to offer second chances. He HAD a personal history that was less than perfect. He knew first hand that HE didn't deserve help. He was ready to offer help to others whether they deserved it or not. And that's probably why he was able to see that there was hope for Voldemort...if Voldemort was willing to let go of his pride and confidence in himself...and ask for help.
And it bugs me that the filmmakers completely missed that. They fudged it over. Maybe it's because I want to see Christian themes (dragging them out kicking and screaming), or maybe they really are there in the book, or maybe it's a little of both. But the fact is, redemption and salvation don't depend on how much someone deserves it. No one deserves it. But if we ask for it, it's given. Ask, and it shall be given. Seek, and you shall find. Knock, and the door will be opened unto you. So no. Dumbledore would not have said anything about help being given to those who deserve it.
But that's the biggest issue I have with an otherwise wonderful movie. I shed lots of tears--starting with Snape's death (everything about Snape in this movie was stinking amazing) and pretty much not ending until I got bored watching Voldemort chase Harry through Hogwarts. Some things could have been done in a less cheesy manner (Ron and Hermione's kiss just made me giggle in a not good way). The epilogue was cute and touching, but I was underwhelmed with the "aging makeup/CGI," (sidenote--the makeup/CGI anti-aging on Snape was fantastic!) but it was a good way to end a great series--just looking into the faces of Ron, Hermione, and Harry Potter.
Even without the bad aging CGI, those kids really have grown up.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Fiction Friday: The End
A some misguided people thought the world was going to end on May 21, 2011. I think more people really believe that today, July 15, 2011, is the true end of the world as we know it. I have a few words to say in honor of this historic day, and those words are:
Nitwit! Blubber! Oddment! Tweak!
(That's a reference from Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, if you didn't know. And if you don't know anything about Harry Potter and would eventually like to read the books someday, don't read any further. This blog is for the family of readers who, like me, have been forever changed by a book series by J. K. Rowling.)
I have yet to see the second part of the seventh (and last??) installment of the Harry Potter films. I probably won't see it for a couple of weeks because that's about how long it will take for the hype to die down so I can see it in peace. But I'm pretty sure I know how it ends, unless the filmmakers decided to go crazy. I've known how Harry Potter ends since the day after the last book came out.
But I'm getting way ahead of myself...
I was 21 when I read the first Harry Potter book. It was September. That means that Harry Potter has been part of my life for almost a full decade. A decade. Wow.
As a Christian, I definitely heard all the warnings that Harry Potter was evil and promoted witchcraft. As a Christian who tries to think before she makes judgments, I knew that I was going to have to eventually read a Harry Potter book before I decided if it were really evil or not. For some reason, I just hadn't gotten around to reading it yet. Then my parents--my Christian parents--intervened. While most good Christian parents were trying to shield their children (and young adults--which is what I was at the time--AND STILL AM) from Harry Potter, mine thrust the books into my hands and said, "YOU HAVE TO READ THESE."
At the time, the first four books were out, and, at my parents' insistence, I read them all. In about three days. I don't know if I slept. I don't know if I ate. I just know that I lived and breathed Harry Potter for three days. And I decided they weren't evil. Later, when I did some research, I discovered that J. K. Rowling actually claims to be a Christian--and that there's Christian imagery throughout the series, including actual Scripture references in the last book. But I don't want to get into that right now...
J. K. Rowling's style is so descriptive that I can remember my first cognitive and emotional reactions to so many of the elements of her books. I remember the mystery of Dumbledore deluminating the lights up and down Privet Drive. I sympathized with the orphaned boy who lived under the stairs. I wondered about his scar. I delighted in the letters that chased his "family" all the way out to an abandoned shack in the middle of an island. I remember the shudder of fear that came the first time I ever read the name Voldemort. I remember the wonder and FUN of my first views of Diagon Alley. I remember the silliness of the idea of Platform 9 3/4 and the enjoyment of the Hogwarts Express. I remember my immediate love of Hagrid and Dumbledore, my immediate loathing of Draco Malfoy and Snape. I remember the simple sweetness of Harry, Ron, and Hermione's friendship (along with one of the greatest lines in literature: "There are some things you can't share without ending up liking each other, and knocking out a twelve-foot mountain troll is one of them"). I remember the delight of escaping into the mind of eleven year olds who were experiencing the wonders of living and going to school in a magical castle. I remember the spookiness of the Forbidden Forest. I remember the thrill of "watching" my first Quidditch match. I remember the yearning I felt for poor Harry when he saw his parents in the Mirror of Erised.
But mostly I remember the total and utter shock of learning that Snape was not evil.
Rowling created a fun, magical world full of interesting, believable characters who do silly, sweet, heroic things. And she knows how to make a good twist ending.
In book six, Rowling fooled a lot of people into thinking Snape was evil again. She didn't fool me on that note, though she did fool me several other times. I was shocked to find it was Ginny Weasley (under the influence of the horcrux diary--which also surprised me later to learn it was a horcrux) that opened the Chamber of Secrets. I was shocked to discover that Sirius Black was really an awesome dude all along. I was shocked to discover that Mad-Eye Moony was an impostor--and I was devastated when Cedric Diggory died.
I was a little older (had to wait for them to come out) when I read the last three books. Maybe that's why they didn't shock me as much. Don't get me wrong, I was very shocked when Dumbledore died. I had to read over that sentence about five times before it sunk in. But even then, I knew that Rowling was trying to trick us again. I knew that Snape had to be good. The reason I knew this was because I knew Dumbledore. I didn't learn about his past until book seven, but I knew him. I knew him so well because Rowling wrote him so well.
And I knew that Dumbledore was not a man who would ever EVER plead for his own life. I knew that when he said, "Severus, please," he was asking Snape to kill him.
And I think I shed some tears when Snape died. I loved to hate him, but I also just loved him. He was a brilliant character. So was Dumbledore. So were Draco, and Dobby, and Hagrid, and Ron, and Hermione, and Neville, and Luna...and I could go on and on. These characters have been part of my life for a decade.
And now I feel like I'm sayng goodbye. Only I really already know how it ends. Seeing it on the big screen is just like an afterthought to the goodbye I said a few years ago when book seven came out. And I stood in line at Walmart. And got a free Gryffindor arm band. Though I'd probably be in Hufflepuff.
But the great thing about great books is that you never really have to say goodbye. They're there to read over and over and over again, revisiting old friends and discovering things that you'd either missed the first time or just plain forgotten.
So, I'm not saying goodbye. I'm saying, till we meet again, Harry James Potter. Thanks for being awesome.
Nitwit! Blubber! Oddment! Tweak!
(That's a reference from Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, if you didn't know. And if you don't know anything about Harry Potter and would eventually like to read the books someday, don't read any further. This blog is for the family of readers who, like me, have been forever changed by a book series by J. K. Rowling.)
I have yet to see the second part of the seventh (and last??) installment of the Harry Potter films. I probably won't see it for a couple of weeks because that's about how long it will take for the hype to die down so I can see it in peace. But I'm pretty sure I know how it ends, unless the filmmakers decided to go crazy. I've known how Harry Potter ends since the day after the last book came out.
But I'm getting way ahead of myself...
I was 21 when I read the first Harry Potter book. It was September. That means that Harry Potter has been part of my life for almost a full decade. A decade. Wow.
As a Christian, I definitely heard all the warnings that Harry Potter was evil and promoted witchcraft. As a Christian who tries to think before she makes judgments, I knew that I was going to have to eventually read a Harry Potter book before I decided if it were really evil or not. For some reason, I just hadn't gotten around to reading it yet. Then my parents--my Christian parents--intervened. While most good Christian parents were trying to shield their children (and young adults--which is what I was at the time--AND STILL AM) from Harry Potter, mine thrust the books into my hands and said, "YOU HAVE TO READ THESE."
At the time, the first four books were out, and, at my parents' insistence, I read them all. In about three days. I don't know if I slept. I don't know if I ate. I just know that I lived and breathed Harry Potter for three days. And I decided they weren't evil. Later, when I did some research, I discovered that J. K. Rowling actually claims to be a Christian--and that there's Christian imagery throughout the series, including actual Scripture references in the last book. But I don't want to get into that right now...
J. K. Rowling's style is so descriptive that I can remember my first cognitive and emotional reactions to so many of the elements of her books. I remember the mystery of Dumbledore deluminating the lights up and down Privet Drive. I sympathized with the orphaned boy who lived under the stairs. I wondered about his scar. I delighted in the letters that chased his "family" all the way out to an abandoned shack in the middle of an island. I remember the shudder of fear that came the first time I ever read the name Voldemort. I remember the wonder and FUN of my first views of Diagon Alley. I remember the silliness of the idea of Platform 9 3/4 and the enjoyment of the Hogwarts Express. I remember my immediate love of Hagrid and Dumbledore, my immediate loathing of Draco Malfoy and Snape. I remember the simple sweetness of Harry, Ron, and Hermione's friendship (along with one of the greatest lines in literature: "There are some things you can't share without ending up liking each other, and knocking out a twelve-foot mountain troll is one of them"). I remember the delight of escaping into the mind of eleven year olds who were experiencing the wonders of living and going to school in a magical castle. I remember the spookiness of the Forbidden Forest. I remember the thrill of "watching" my first Quidditch match. I remember the yearning I felt for poor Harry when he saw his parents in the Mirror of Erised.
But mostly I remember the total and utter shock of learning that Snape was not evil.
Rowling created a fun, magical world full of interesting, believable characters who do silly, sweet, heroic things. And she knows how to make a good twist ending.
In book six, Rowling fooled a lot of people into thinking Snape was evil again. She didn't fool me on that note, though she did fool me several other times. I was shocked to find it was Ginny Weasley (under the influence of the horcrux diary--which also surprised me later to learn it was a horcrux) that opened the Chamber of Secrets. I was shocked to discover that Sirius Black was really an awesome dude all along. I was shocked to discover that Mad-Eye Moony was an impostor--and I was devastated when Cedric Diggory died.
I was a little older (had to wait for them to come out) when I read the last three books. Maybe that's why they didn't shock me as much. Don't get me wrong, I was very shocked when Dumbledore died. I had to read over that sentence about five times before it sunk in. But even then, I knew that Rowling was trying to trick us again. I knew that Snape had to be good. The reason I knew this was because I knew Dumbledore. I didn't learn about his past until book seven, but I knew him. I knew him so well because Rowling wrote him so well.
And I knew that Dumbledore was not a man who would ever EVER plead for his own life. I knew that when he said, "Severus, please," he was asking Snape to kill him.
And I think I shed some tears when Snape died. I loved to hate him, but I also just loved him. He was a brilliant character. So was Dumbledore. So were Draco, and Dobby, and Hagrid, and Ron, and Hermione, and Neville, and Luna...and I could go on and on. These characters have been part of my life for a decade.
And now I feel like I'm sayng goodbye. Only I really already know how it ends. Seeing it on the big screen is just like an afterthought to the goodbye I said a few years ago when book seven came out. And I stood in line at Walmart. And got a free Gryffindor arm band. Though I'd probably be in Hufflepuff.
But the great thing about great books is that you never really have to say goodbye. They're there to read over and over and over again, revisiting old friends and discovering things that you'd either missed the first time or just plain forgotten.
So, I'm not saying goodbye. I'm saying, till we meet again, Harry James Potter. Thanks for being awesome.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Film Adapations of Books
I saw The Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader for the second time today. I hadn't seen it since the day it came out in theaters. I only saw it today because they were showing it for free at the local theater as part of their free "Summer Kid's Movie Series" program, which is an ingenious way the local movie theater can make a lot of money by selling overpriced popcorn and soda. I felt silly coming to a "kids' movie" without any kids, and since kidnapping is still illegal, I tagged along with the family I nanny for...on my day off.
Now, I've already written a blog about my thoughts on the third Narnia movie, and I really don't want to go into it again. But the movie made me think about how some film adaptations of books are really well done, and how some of them really stink.
Some people confuse me for one of those people who expect film adaptations to be almost identical to the book. This just isn't the case. I took a class called Lit and Film in college, which was one of the most interesting classes I've ever had. And I agree with what the professor said--that a good film adaptation is one that properly captures the essence of a book. That doesn't mean a good film adaptation has to cover every intricate detail of a book in exactly the same way the book handled it. Sometimes things have to be changed for time (a 500 page book doesn't always fit well into a 90 minute movie) or because what works in print might not work well on screen. I know some people who like to nitpick over minor details that don't change the basic themes of the story. I'm not one of those people.
I am, however, one of those people who will get upset if I think a film did a bad job of translating a book on screen--particularly if I LOVED the book. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader wasn't horrible, but I do have some major problems with it because I think the filmmakers missed the point of the book (FYI, I LOVED the book).
There are a lot of film adaptations that I really don't like because I feel that the filmmakers didn't really grasp the main themes of the books they were trying to adapt. At the top of this list is Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (the third one). Not only did the filmmakers try to cram the theme of "time" into the movie, when the book really didn't have that overarching theme, but they left out all sorts of important themes and details that made the story understandable. If I hadn't read the book and were just relying on the film, I'd have no idea what was going on. And this was a common complaint I heard from people who hadn't read the book. They didn't understand the movie.
A Wrinkle in Time is another film adaptation that leaves a lot to be desired. It was a made for tv movie, but that doesn't give it the right to suck as much as it did. The movie got several small details wrong--which might have been redeemable if they had been done well. But almost nothing about this movie was done well. The vast majority of the actors were miscast (so even the good actors like Alfre Woodard gave dreadful performances). The writing was choppy and incoherent. It makes me a little angry because A Wrinkle in Time is my favorite book, but the film version made it look dreadful. So all of those people who like to see the movie first to see if they might like the book are now under the impression that it's a dreadful book. If you're one of these people, I urge you to go read the book. I promise it is SO much better than the movie. I'm hoping that eventually someone picks up the whole Time Quartet series and does some major motion pictures that don't stink. I do have to say, the music wasn't bad. And the kid they got to play Charles Wallace was cute. And Mrs Who was actually pretty likable. Other than that...meh. I've also heard that the Disney made-for-tv version of A Ring of Endless Light (another Madeleine L'Engle book) was also dreadful. Maybe I'll see it for myself one day.
I don't want to spend much more time griping about film adaptations I don't like, but here is a list of others that really bother me (I still might watch these movies from time to time, as I often still watch A Wrinkle in Time, if only because I like to relive parts of the story when I don't have time to read the book):
Tuck Everlasting
The Black Cauldron
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (the 2005 movie version--which was not redeemable even with Zooey Deschanel as Trillian AND Alan Rickman as Marvin. The cheesy 1980 BBC version, however, is epic!)
Twilight
First Knight
The Little Mermaid (Okay, I like the songs. And Sebastian. But Disney turned the self-sacrificing (and unnamed) Hans Christian Anderson protagonist into a selfish spoiled brat named Ariel)
Eragon
The Flight of Dragons (based off the book The Dragon and the George)
There are a lot of film adaptations of books that I really don't like, but there are probably a lot more that I do like. The Princess Bride is my favorite film, and it's one of my favorite books. I think one of the reasons I'm such a big fan of both the film and the book is that William Goldman wrote both of them (the book and the screenplay). Not every detail was the same. There were lots of omissions and changes in the film version, but the film was a hilarious and touching story that paid true homage to the book.
Some of the film adaptations I like are very different from the books, but they're still enjoyable AND they retain the basic thematic essences of the books. Pollyanna is one of these. Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (in case you're confused, I mean the Gene Wilder one) is another. I do like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (the Johnny Depp version), and it IS closer to the book thanthe Gene Wilder version "Willy Wonka," but I don't like it as much. The Neverending Story is another film I love that doesn't follow the book very well, and it makes me sad that they tried to make it more like the book by making an absolutely horrendous sequel. And another sequel--which thankfully, I have not seen.
Here's a list of film adaptations I really like:
Jurassic Park
Jurassic Park: The Lost World
October Sky (based on a memior originally published as Rocket Boys--it's an anagram)
All of the Harry Potter films except for Prisoner of Azkaban (I just can't forgive it)
Ramona and Beezus (I would love to see more Ramona movies!)
The Hobbit (the Rankin Bass cartoon version, since the live action one hasn't come out yet)
The Return of the King (again, the Rankin Bass version)
The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (the Peter Jackson ones)
The Bridge to Terebithia (both the 80s version and the more recent version of this)
Winnie the Pooh (even after Disney mutilated A. A. Milne, I still like it)
The Phantom Tollbooth
2001: A Space Odyssey (the book was written at the same time as the film, but I think it still counts)
The BBC versions of The Chronicles of Narnia (they only did up to the Silver Chair...which makes me sad)
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
A Christmas Carol (while almost any version--including Mickey's Christmas Carol and Scrooged--is likable, my favorite version is the Patrick Stewart one)
10 Things I Hate About You (based on Taming of the Shrew. True story.)
Alice in Wonderland (again, pretty much any version of this would do--including the Johnny Depp version which was very unlike the original Lewis Caroll story. I like what they did with it)
Anne of Green Gables/Anne of Avonlea
Hook (which was based off Peter Pan, which was a book)
Matilda
Holes
The Little Prince
The Secret of NIMH (Based on the book Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH--they changed a lot, but the movie was still amazing!)
The Face on the Milk Carton (made for tv and really cheesy, but it's not too bad)
The Jungle Book
I'm sure I could name more, but...that would take longer than I want to spend on typing a blog.
There are rare occurrences when I actually prefer the film version of a story to the book. The Wizard of Oz is one of these. Perhaps if I had read the book before seeing the Judy Garland/Ray Bolger rainbow-riffic classic movie from 1939 (the same year my daddy was born--which makes me extra sentimental about it), I might feel differently. But I tried to read the book as a grown up. I found it dreadful and unimaginative. I get that it was a political commentary and all that, but that didn't increase my enjoyment of it. I much preferred the musical film version.
Another musical movie I preferred to the book was Phantom of the Opera. The book wasn't the worst thing I've ever read, but it couldn't compete with the haunting genius of Andrew Lloyd Weber.
I also preferred the happy ending Disney version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame to Victor Hugo's classic where everybody dies (hopefully didn't ruin that for you). The incredible songs, again, didn't hurt either.
I have to admit I also liked the 90's version of The Three Musketeers way better than the book. Rebecca De Mornay. Keifer Sutherland. Chris O'Donnell. Tim Curry. Oliver Platt. Oh, and Charlie Sheen LONG BEFORE he went crazy. Ah, what a great flick! I had a cassette tape of the song "All For Love." Yep. I was awesome.
Right now I'm anxiously awaiting a couple of film adaptations. I've read that they're probably going to do "Magician's Nephew" (Chronicles of Narnia) before "Silver Chair" (and that "MN" isn't coming out until 2014). So I'm not holding my breath for those. I wouldn't be surprised if they got dumped. Which is sad. But after seeing what they did with "Dawn Treader," I'm not sure I want them messing with Puddleglum.
But I'm getting a little excited (along with a lot of people) about The Hunger Games, which is set to come out in March of next year. I'm thinking that The Hunger Games is the new Harry Potter, at least in terms of waiting for the next movie to come out. Oh...and I'm waiting for the final HP movie, too...but it will be here VERY soon!
Other books I'd love to see made into good major motion pictures are:
A Wrinkle in Time and the other books in the Time Quartet (as I said before)
A Ring of Endless Light and the other Austin Family books by Madeleine L'Engle (actually starting with Meet the Austins)
The Chronicles of Prydain (The Black Cauldron was based on the first two books, but it fell sadly, sadly short. I would love to see the whole series done in epic live action LOTR style.)
The Bunnicula Series
The Space Trilogy by C. S. Lewis
Again, there are probably others, but this blog is long enough.
How about you? Are there film adaptations you LOVE? Are there film adaptations you HATE? Are there movies you like better than the books? Are there any books/series you would LOVE to see made into movies?
Now, I've already written a blog about my thoughts on the third Narnia movie, and I really don't want to go into it again. But the movie made me think about how some film adaptations of books are really well done, and how some of them really stink.
Some people confuse me for one of those people who expect film adaptations to be almost identical to the book. This just isn't the case. I took a class called Lit and Film in college, which was one of the most interesting classes I've ever had. And I agree with what the professor said--that a good film adaptation is one that properly captures the essence of a book. That doesn't mean a good film adaptation has to cover every intricate detail of a book in exactly the same way the book handled it. Sometimes things have to be changed for time (a 500 page book doesn't always fit well into a 90 minute movie) or because what works in print might not work well on screen. I know some people who like to nitpick over minor details that don't change the basic themes of the story. I'm not one of those people.
I am, however, one of those people who will get upset if I think a film did a bad job of translating a book on screen--particularly if I LOVED the book. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader wasn't horrible, but I do have some major problems with it because I think the filmmakers missed the point of the book (FYI, I LOVED the book).
There are a lot of film adaptations that I really don't like because I feel that the filmmakers didn't really grasp the main themes of the books they were trying to adapt. At the top of this list is Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (the third one). Not only did the filmmakers try to cram the theme of "time" into the movie, when the book really didn't have that overarching theme, but they left out all sorts of important themes and details that made the story understandable. If I hadn't read the book and were just relying on the film, I'd have no idea what was going on. And this was a common complaint I heard from people who hadn't read the book. They didn't understand the movie.
A Wrinkle in Time is another film adaptation that leaves a lot to be desired. It was a made for tv movie, but that doesn't give it the right to suck as much as it did. The movie got several small details wrong--which might have been redeemable if they had been done well. But almost nothing about this movie was done well. The vast majority of the actors were miscast (so even the good actors like Alfre Woodard gave dreadful performances). The writing was choppy and incoherent. It makes me a little angry because A Wrinkle in Time is my favorite book, but the film version made it look dreadful. So all of those people who like to see the movie first to see if they might like the book are now under the impression that it's a dreadful book. If you're one of these people, I urge you to go read the book. I promise it is SO much better than the movie. I'm hoping that eventually someone picks up the whole Time Quartet series and does some major motion pictures that don't stink. I do have to say, the music wasn't bad. And the kid they got to play Charles Wallace was cute. And Mrs Who was actually pretty likable. Other than that...meh. I've also heard that the Disney made-for-tv version of A Ring of Endless Light (another Madeleine L'Engle book) was also dreadful. Maybe I'll see it for myself one day.
I don't want to spend much more time griping about film adaptations I don't like, but here is a list of others that really bother me (I still might watch these movies from time to time, as I often still watch A Wrinkle in Time, if only because I like to relive parts of the story when I don't have time to read the book):
Tuck Everlasting
The Black Cauldron
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (the 2005 movie version--which was not redeemable even with Zooey Deschanel as Trillian AND Alan Rickman as Marvin. The cheesy 1980 BBC version, however, is epic!)
Twilight
First Knight
The Little Mermaid (Okay, I like the songs. And Sebastian. But Disney turned the self-sacrificing (and unnamed) Hans Christian Anderson protagonist into a selfish spoiled brat named Ariel)
Eragon
The Flight of Dragons (based off the book The Dragon and the George)
There are a lot of film adaptations of books that I really don't like, but there are probably a lot more that I do like. The Princess Bride is my favorite film, and it's one of my favorite books. I think one of the reasons I'm such a big fan of both the film and the book is that William Goldman wrote both of them (the book and the screenplay). Not every detail was the same. There were lots of omissions and changes in the film version, but the film was a hilarious and touching story that paid true homage to the book.
Some of the film adaptations I like are very different from the books, but they're still enjoyable AND they retain the basic thematic essences of the books. Pollyanna is one of these. Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (in case you're confused, I mean the Gene Wilder one) is another. I do like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (the Johnny Depp version), and it IS closer to the book than
Here's a list of film adaptations I really like:
Jurassic Park
Jurassic Park: The Lost World
October Sky (based on a memior originally published as Rocket Boys--it's an anagram)
All of the Harry Potter films except for Prisoner of Azkaban (I just can't forgive it)
Ramona and Beezus (I would love to see more Ramona movies!)
The Hobbit (the Rankin Bass cartoon version, since the live action one hasn't come out yet)
The Return of the King (again, the Rankin Bass version)
The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (the Peter Jackson ones)
The Bridge to Terebithia (both the 80s version and the more recent version of this)
Winnie the Pooh (even after Disney mutilated A. A. Milne, I still like it)
The Phantom Tollbooth
2001: A Space Odyssey (the book was written at the same time as the film, but I think it still counts)
The BBC versions of The Chronicles of Narnia (they only did up to the Silver Chair...which makes me sad)
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
A Christmas Carol (while almost any version--including Mickey's Christmas Carol and Scrooged--is likable, my favorite version is the Patrick Stewart one)
10 Things I Hate About You (based on Taming of the Shrew. True story.)
Alice in Wonderland (again, pretty much any version of this would do--including the Johnny Depp version which was very unlike the original Lewis Caroll story. I like what they did with it)
Anne of Green Gables/Anne of Avonlea
Hook (which was based off Peter Pan, which was a book)
Matilda
Holes
The Little Prince
The Secret of NIMH (Based on the book Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH--they changed a lot, but the movie was still amazing!)
The Face on the Milk Carton (made for tv and really cheesy, but it's not too bad)
The Jungle Book
I'm sure I could name more, but...that would take longer than I want to spend on typing a blog.
There are rare occurrences when I actually prefer the film version of a story to the book. The Wizard of Oz is one of these. Perhaps if I had read the book before seeing the Judy Garland/Ray Bolger rainbow-riffic classic movie from 1939 (the same year my daddy was born--which makes me extra sentimental about it), I might feel differently. But I tried to read the book as a grown up. I found it dreadful and unimaginative. I get that it was a political commentary and all that, but that didn't increase my enjoyment of it. I much preferred the musical film version.
Another musical movie I preferred to the book was Phantom of the Opera. The book wasn't the worst thing I've ever read, but it couldn't compete with the haunting genius of Andrew Lloyd Weber.
I also preferred the happy ending Disney version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame to Victor Hugo's classic where everybody dies (hopefully didn't ruin that for you). The incredible songs, again, didn't hurt either.
I have to admit I also liked the 90's version of The Three Musketeers way better than the book. Rebecca De Mornay. Keifer Sutherland. Chris O'Donnell. Tim Curry. Oliver Platt. Oh, and Charlie Sheen LONG BEFORE he went crazy. Ah, what a great flick! I had a cassette tape of the song "All For Love." Yep. I was awesome.
Right now I'm anxiously awaiting a couple of film adaptations. I've read that they're probably going to do "Magician's Nephew" (Chronicles of Narnia) before "Silver Chair" (and that "MN" isn't coming out until 2014). So I'm not holding my breath for those. I wouldn't be surprised if they got dumped. Which is sad. But after seeing what they did with "Dawn Treader," I'm not sure I want them messing with Puddleglum.
But I'm getting a little excited (along with a lot of people) about The Hunger Games, which is set to come out in March of next year. I'm thinking that The Hunger Games is the new Harry Potter, at least in terms of waiting for the next movie to come out. Oh...and I'm waiting for the final HP movie, too...but it will be here VERY soon!
Other books I'd love to see made into good major motion pictures are:
A Wrinkle in Time and the other books in the Time Quartet (as I said before)
A Ring of Endless Light and the other Austin Family books by Madeleine L'Engle (actually starting with Meet the Austins)
The Chronicles of Prydain (The Black Cauldron was based on the first two books, but it fell sadly, sadly short. I would love to see the whole series done in epic live action LOTR style.)
The Bunnicula Series
The Space Trilogy by C. S. Lewis
Again, there are probably others, but this blog is long enough.
How about you? Are there film adaptations you LOVE? Are there film adaptations you HATE? Are there movies you like better than the books? Are there any books/series you would LOVE to see made into movies?
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Characters Welcome
I really like those USA television promos with the little "Characters Welcome" slogan. USA gets it. Good television shows don't do well because every single script is perfect. Even the best shows have bad episodes (except maybe Psych. Never saw a bad episode of Psych--but even that is because Shawn and Gus make me snortle). While good plots are very important, what really keeps people watching is the characters.
Plots are important, but I think characters are even more important. If you have a wonderful plot with amazing twists and turns, I'm probably not going to care too much about it unless you also have some amazing characters to experience that plot. I'm not going to relate to anything in the story unless I can relate to the characters. That relating can mean I understand where they're coming from and what they're dealing with because I've been there, or it can mean I want to know WHY they're acting the way they do in a certain situation, or it can mean I want to be more like them. However I relate to a character, I'm going to keep reading to figure out what's going to happen because I've made an emotional investment in the characters.
I'm looking back on some of my favorite fictional characters. At the top of the list is Meg Murray from "A Wrinkle in Time" and the other books in that series. I get her. In a lot of ways, I am her. I'm that awkward kid who gets frustrated with herself and others way too easily. I'm constantly struggling with the idea that I am not good enough, trying to balance it with the idea that I've been made in the image of God. Madeleine L'Engle struck gold when she found Meg. I know a lot of people who have said that they're just like her. If she can overcome the odds she had to face, then so can we. That's good writing.
Then there's my second favorite fictional character, Samwise Gamgee from LOTR. To me, this little hobbit is the embodiment of loyalty. He wouldn't leave Frodo. When he couldn't carry Frodo's burden, he carried him. I relate to Sam because I think I am a lot like him, but I want to be even more like him. I want to be that fiercely loyal friend. My emotional investment to him caused me to weep like a baby when I got to the end of the books and realized he would have to be separated from Frodo. It makes me a little teary eyed to think of it even now.
My third favorite fictional character is also someone I wish I could be more like. Lucy Pevensie from "The Chronicles of Narnia." I wish I could be as childlike as she is. Every time she has to leave Aslan, especially at the end of "Voyage of the Dawn Treader," I also get weepy.
Another of my favorite characters is Taran from "The Chronicles of Prydain." He's a boy and he's a little harder to understand than some of the other characters I love. I do understand him some. I do want to be like him in some ways (good characterization is usually pretty multifaceted). I also wonder what he's going to do next because I don't always understand why he acts the way he does. I want to see if he attains his dreams. I want to see if he gets the girl. I want to see what he learns through his journies.
It's the same sort of feeling I get when I read Harry Potter. I don't get why Harry acts the way he does. I don't know why he gets himself into certain predicaments, but it's interesting to see how he gets out of them. I want to see what happens to him. J. K. Rowling is very good at weaving elements through stories. Something that seems insignificant somewhere might be the very thing that ties everything else together. I like her writing, but it wouldn't be very good if she didn't also have all these amazing and interesting characters.
I've been thinking about my own characters. There's a few that are very much like me, and these have been the easiest for me to write. But right now I'm starting a new story and I think the main character is a lot like me, only I'm having a lot of trouble with her. I think the reason is because she's a lot like who I was when I was a teenager, only perhaps a little more down to earth (she has had more disappointment in life than I had ever had at that point in my life). She's closed. She doesn't let people in easily. I'm trying to write her, but she doesn't want to let me in enough to let me see how to write her. She has the potential to be someone amazing, and I want to show her that. Right now, though, she's uncomfortably awkward (I've finally become very comfortable with my awkwardness--read my socially awkward blog). She has one friend. She doesn't trust people. She's angry and bitter and extremely moody. She has a lot of good qualities, too, of course, but it's harder to see them because she doesn't like to show them.
I adore her, but she doesn't want to let me write her.
I know that sounds weird. I can't help the way I relate to my characters. Ever since a character named "Rain" entered my life and demanded that I write her the way she IS instead of the way I wanted her to be, I've been treating my characters with a lot more respect. If I expect them to live, then they're more likely to live.
But Rain didn't take over (and quite literally possess me for two weeks) immediately. I dreamt her up and thought she was someone quite weak and unimportant until one day she just spoke up and proclaimed her strength and vitality. Maybe it's the same thing with this other character. Maybe I need to give her some time.
I hope it doesn't take too long. I've got a plot (weak as it is at the moment), but without her and another character (who I am also having just a little bit of trouble with), the plot is pretty much useless. I want people to invest in her and my other characters. I want to make people care about what happens to her. At the moment, I don't think she WANTS other people to care. So that's where the conflict is. Sigh.
I think it's time to write letters to my characters again.
Plots are important, but I think characters are even more important. If you have a wonderful plot with amazing twists and turns, I'm probably not going to care too much about it unless you also have some amazing characters to experience that plot. I'm not going to relate to anything in the story unless I can relate to the characters. That relating can mean I understand where they're coming from and what they're dealing with because I've been there, or it can mean I want to know WHY they're acting the way they do in a certain situation, or it can mean I want to be more like them. However I relate to a character, I'm going to keep reading to figure out what's going to happen because I've made an emotional investment in the characters.
I'm looking back on some of my favorite fictional characters. At the top of the list is Meg Murray from "A Wrinkle in Time" and the other books in that series. I get her. In a lot of ways, I am her. I'm that awkward kid who gets frustrated with herself and others way too easily. I'm constantly struggling with the idea that I am not good enough, trying to balance it with the idea that I've been made in the image of God. Madeleine L'Engle struck gold when she found Meg. I know a lot of people who have said that they're just like her. If she can overcome the odds she had to face, then so can we. That's good writing.
Then there's my second favorite fictional character, Samwise Gamgee from LOTR. To me, this little hobbit is the embodiment of loyalty. He wouldn't leave Frodo. When he couldn't carry Frodo's burden, he carried him. I relate to Sam because I think I am a lot like him, but I want to be even more like him. I want to be that fiercely loyal friend. My emotional investment to him caused me to weep like a baby when I got to the end of the books and realized he would have to be separated from Frodo. It makes me a little teary eyed to think of it even now.
My third favorite fictional character is also someone I wish I could be more like. Lucy Pevensie from "The Chronicles of Narnia." I wish I could be as childlike as she is. Every time she has to leave Aslan, especially at the end of "Voyage of the Dawn Treader," I also get weepy.
Another of my favorite characters is Taran from "The Chronicles of Prydain." He's a boy and he's a little harder to understand than some of the other characters I love. I do understand him some. I do want to be like him in some ways (good characterization is usually pretty multifaceted). I also wonder what he's going to do next because I don't always understand why he acts the way he does. I want to see if he attains his dreams. I want to see if he gets the girl. I want to see what he learns through his journies.
It's the same sort of feeling I get when I read Harry Potter. I don't get why Harry acts the way he does. I don't know why he gets himself into certain predicaments, but it's interesting to see how he gets out of them. I want to see what happens to him. J. K. Rowling is very good at weaving elements through stories. Something that seems insignificant somewhere might be the very thing that ties everything else together. I like her writing, but it wouldn't be very good if she didn't also have all these amazing and interesting characters.
I've been thinking about my own characters. There's a few that are very much like me, and these have been the easiest for me to write. But right now I'm starting a new story and I think the main character is a lot like me, only I'm having a lot of trouble with her. I think the reason is because she's a lot like who I was when I was a teenager, only perhaps a little more down to earth (she has had more disappointment in life than I had ever had at that point in my life). She's closed. She doesn't let people in easily. I'm trying to write her, but she doesn't want to let me in enough to let me see how to write her. She has the potential to be someone amazing, and I want to show her that. Right now, though, she's uncomfortably awkward (I've finally become very comfortable with my awkwardness--read my socially awkward blog). She has one friend. She doesn't trust people. She's angry and bitter and extremely moody. She has a lot of good qualities, too, of course, but it's harder to see them because she doesn't like to show them.
I adore her, but she doesn't want to let me write her.
I know that sounds weird. I can't help the way I relate to my characters. Ever since a character named "Rain" entered my life and demanded that I write her the way she IS instead of the way I wanted her to be, I've been treating my characters with a lot more respect. If I expect them to live, then they're more likely to live.
But Rain didn't take over (and quite literally possess me for two weeks) immediately. I dreamt her up and thought she was someone quite weak and unimportant until one day she just spoke up and proclaimed her strength and vitality. Maybe it's the same thing with this other character. Maybe I need to give her some time.
I hope it doesn't take too long. I've got a plot (weak as it is at the moment), but without her and another character (who I am also having just a little bit of trouble with), the plot is pretty much useless. I want people to invest in her and my other characters. I want to make people care about what happens to her. At the moment, I don't think she WANTS other people to care. So that's where the conflict is. Sigh.
I think it's time to write letters to my characters again.
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Good Characterization is...Well, Good.
I finally got out from the rock I've been living under for the past week and saw Harry Potter 7 (Part 1). Of course I've read the books, and I've also seen from what others have posted online that certain characters died. I knew I was going to cry. I did cry, but the death scenes did not affect me as greatly as another scene.
I knew this scene was going to be important. I was looking forward to it. If you haven't read the book, stop reading this now. If you have read the book or have already seen the movie or both, keep reading. There are a few minor spoilers. If you haven't seen the movie but have already read the book, then no worries. I won't give anything away you don't already know just from reading...at least nothing important. :-P
One of the climactic scenes in the book/movie was when Harry followed the doe patronus out into the forest and found Godric Gryffindor's sword in the pond. He was an idiot and went into the water with the horcrux locket around his neck; the locket proceeded to try to kill him. Ron, who had previously deserted Harry and Hermione, was there to rescue Harry and use Gryffindor's sword to stab the You-Know-Who out of that horcrux.
But before Ron's triumphant moment, he had to face some demons. It was one of Ron's finest moments. I loved this scene in the book, but seeing it on screen was just amazing. It took it to a whole other level for me, emotionally. I connected to Ron in a way I never have before.
When Harry opened the locket, the voice of the horcrux tortured Ron. Ron who had always felt like he was competing with his brothers, who always felt unwanted compared to his sister, who always felt like he was in Harry's shadow, was being tortured by all his insecurities. And the part that really really got me was when the fake Hermione looked down at Ron and said, "You're nothing. Nothing."
I started crying there in the theater. I got it. I got who Ron really was, and how important it was for Ron to defeat that horcrux. He had to prove to it and to himself that he was NOT nothing. Even in the midst of a totally inappropriate scene (why did fake Hermione and fake Harry have to be naked while they were kissing??--sorry if I gave something away there, but I think it's better you know beforehand), I was weeping.
And then Ron stabbed that horcrux, and I wanted to stand up and cheer. I didn't, because I was already feeling awkward for crying over a scene that probably wouldn't make most people cry. Then Ron said something funny to lighten the mood, and my tears melted into laughter.
But wow. I just have to hand it to J. K. Rowling that she's a fantastic writer. She handles plot so well, but she's even better at characterization. I just reread that scene from the book, and the movie was almost word-for-word what was Rowling had written. It was just so powerful to actually see her words portrayed. I'm pretty sure I was affected so deeply by Ron's defining moment because I'm a writer.
In a way, Ron really reminds me of one of the characters I wrote for my first series. He's an underdog. Things don't go right for him. He is always facing insecurities. This particular character is more like myself than any other character I've written. Because I'm insecure. There are times when I feel unloved. To actually write that into a character and make him/her believable is an incredible experience.
I don't know if I'm as good at it as Rowling. Probably not.
One thing I'm fairly sure about is that J.K. Rowling probably knows how it feels to be Ron. That's how she was able to write him so well. And I'm glad he got to stab that horcrux. I'm glad he got to prove to himself that he was NOT nothing. It's those incredible moments that us writers live for--the moment when our characters become something more than what they were.
And as always, good writing spawns good writing. Creativity spawns creativity.
I'm back in the game.
...oh, and Weasley is our king!
I knew this scene was going to be important. I was looking forward to it. If you haven't read the book, stop reading this now. If you have read the book or have already seen the movie or both, keep reading. There are a few minor spoilers. If you haven't seen the movie but have already read the book, then no worries. I won't give anything away you don't already know just from reading...at least nothing important. :-P
One of the climactic scenes in the book/movie was when Harry followed the doe patronus out into the forest and found Godric Gryffindor's sword in the pond. He was an idiot and went into the water with the horcrux locket around his neck; the locket proceeded to try to kill him. Ron, who had previously deserted Harry and Hermione, was there to rescue Harry and use Gryffindor's sword to stab the You-Know-Who out of that horcrux.
But before Ron's triumphant moment, he had to face some demons. It was one of Ron's finest moments. I loved this scene in the book, but seeing it on screen was just amazing. It took it to a whole other level for me, emotionally. I connected to Ron in a way I never have before.
When Harry opened the locket, the voice of the horcrux tortured Ron. Ron who had always felt like he was competing with his brothers, who always felt unwanted compared to his sister, who always felt like he was in Harry's shadow, was being tortured by all his insecurities. And the part that really really got me was when the fake Hermione looked down at Ron and said, "You're nothing. Nothing."
I started crying there in the theater. I got it. I got who Ron really was, and how important it was for Ron to defeat that horcrux. He had to prove to it and to himself that he was NOT nothing. Even in the midst of a totally inappropriate scene (why did fake Hermione and fake Harry have to be naked while they were kissing??--sorry if I gave something away there, but I think it's better you know beforehand), I was weeping.
And then Ron stabbed that horcrux, and I wanted to stand up and cheer. I didn't, because I was already feeling awkward for crying over a scene that probably wouldn't make most people cry. Then Ron said something funny to lighten the mood, and my tears melted into laughter.
But wow. I just have to hand it to J. K. Rowling that she's a fantastic writer. She handles plot so well, but she's even better at characterization. I just reread that scene from the book, and the movie was almost word-for-word what was Rowling had written. It was just so powerful to actually see her words portrayed. I'm pretty sure I was affected so deeply by Ron's defining moment because I'm a writer.
In a way, Ron really reminds me of one of the characters I wrote for my first series. He's an underdog. Things don't go right for him. He is always facing insecurities. This particular character is more like myself than any other character I've written. Because I'm insecure. There are times when I feel unloved. To actually write that into a character and make him/her believable is an incredible experience.
I don't know if I'm as good at it as Rowling. Probably not.
One thing I'm fairly sure about is that J.K. Rowling probably knows how it feels to be Ron. That's how she was able to write him so well. And I'm glad he got to stab that horcrux. I'm glad he got to prove to himself that he was NOT nothing. It's those incredible moments that us writers live for--the moment when our characters become something more than what they were.
And as always, good writing spawns good writing. Creativity spawns creativity.
I'm back in the game.
...oh, and Weasley is our king!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)