books

Living in Books More Than Anywhere Else – Neil Gaiman’s The Ocean at the End of the Lane.

/ Joshua S. MacDougall / Leave a comment

     On Wednesday, June 19th, 2013 I received my copy of Neil Gaiman’s new book, The Ocean at the End of the Lane at Symphony Space in New York, right after hearing Erin Morgenstern (author of The Night Circus, which I have never read but may pick up in the future) do a little interview with the author himself, followed by two readings from the novel and a little Q&A.

     I met the author, as in, I approached the author afterward to sign my copy of the new book, sign my copy of American Gods, and thank him for all the writing advice he gives on his blog, to which he responded something very humble along the lines of least I could do, just doing my part to help, I like to help anyway I can. I was honestly so tired and my feet and back were so ache filled that I can’t remember exactly what he said.
     Immediately on the train ride home I began reading the novel, and then proceeded to finish it over the next two mornings.
     The Ocean at the End of the Lane is definitely a Neil Gaiman novel, and by that I mean it is a great novel. Every time I read a Neil Gaiman novel I think to myself This is THE Neil Gaiman novel. Really everyone of his novels is THE Neil Gaiman novel and so is this one. If you don’t like Neil Gaiman novels I am not sure this one will convince you otherwise. I’ll try to avoid spoilers but be warned I want to talk about this book so I may not try very hard.
     When I think of writing about this novel it’s not actually about the novel itself, but what it makes me remember about childhood. On stage at Symphony Space Neil Gaiman referred to the “indignities of being a child” and “being able to enjoy the small things” and that is this novel evoke, memories of childhood. I remember telling a teacher I was being picked on in 1st grade to the response of having to “deal with it”, when my father used to take me to McDonalds after religion class for the Halloween toys they had in their Happy Meals, of my sister telling me that voting in the Kids Presidential Election by calling into Nickelodeon didn’t actually help elect the President of the United States, of how delicious it was when I’d eat two slice of pizza with Garlic Salt on it while my family ate Chinese food because all I would eat as a kid was Pizza and Steak for dinner.
     It shouldn’t be a surprise that the book evokes memory, as it is about memory. The unnamed narrator is retelling a story of his childhood, filled with books, making new friends, fears of getting in trouble, delicious food, magic, monsters, and whimsy that only Neil Gaiman wizard-like use of language can summon. This is definitely an adult novel, but not necessarily only for adults. It’s themes definitely carries with it something a child would not understand, nor would a teenager maybe fully appreciate it. 
     I shouldn’t say that, what I mean is, as a teenager I probably wouldn’t appreciate it. You know how it is, petty problems, thinking you’re invincible. I don’t think teenage me would quite know what to do with this book.
     A fear I had as a kid that Neil Gaiman writes so well is the fear of getting into trouble, of not being believed because you were a kid, of being told you’re lying when you’re telling the truth. When I was young I was good as much as I possibly could because I always thought I would be yelled at. Something about yelling as a kid filled me with fright and I don’t even think I was yelled at that much. What I would see is my sister being yelled, being the rebellious teenager she was, by my mother and thinking there is no way I ever want that to happen to me. I used to defend my sister on car rides with my parents in hope that she would get yelled at less as well, thinking it had to be the worst thing that could happen to you. When teachers yelled at me, I became a mess, thinking oh no, they’re going to tell my parents which will lead to more yelling.
     There’s nothing more stressful for a kid then when you tell the truth and no one will listen, and the narrator of The Ocean… goes through that as well as I did. I remember my cousin cursing when he was three years old, which at five I was always taught was very bad to do so of course I told my parents. He immediately said that I was in fact the one cursing and that I was just trying to get him in trouble before he could get me in trouble. I could still see the look on my mom and aunt’s eyes deciding on who to believe even though I was the one telling the truth. Like me, but not like me, the narrator tries to tell his parents the truth about what is happening around him only to find himself in deeper and more dire trouble as the novel progresses.
     There’s quote in the novel about myths, it goes like this…

“I liked myths. They weren’t adult stories and they weren’t children’s stories. They were better than that. They just *were*.” 

 and like myths, all the magic in the book doesn’t need to be explained, it just is and it works perfectly. You just accept it for what it is, you become convinced that there is indeed an ocean at the end of the lane where the narrator lived growing up. 
     Enjoying the small things in the book isn’t just about food, it’s about a certain part of your bedroom made just for you, that small crack of light in your open door that let you read past your bedtime, that secret way through your backyard that you think only you are aware of, but also it’s about food.
     Now, this is coming from a guy who has no complaints about George R.R. Martin’s description of food in his A Song of Ice and Fire series but the food in The Ocean… is quite different from a kids perspective. There’s such a joy with every little thing the narrator eats that you sometimes forget as an adult. You’re not thinking about calories, fat content, or worry you’re eating too much or too little. It’s just a matter of being hungry, and then enjoying the food you’re given whether it’s good or not. 
     This is definitely THE Neil Gaiman book, and so are the rest of them. If you don’t like Neil Gaiman books then this isn’t the book for you. If you’ve never read a Neil Gaiman book and can remember what it is like to be a child or want to remember then I highly suggest picking this book up. If you’re not interested then…


More like a grocer than a burglar – The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Part I

/ Joshua S. MacDougall / Leave a comment

     Last year’s adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit was met with mixed reviews ranging from people who were either expecting the book, or people who were expecting The Lord of the Rings films. I, on the other hand, loved it. I saw it three times in the theater and about eight times repeatedly on blu-ray. The movie is a strange case for movie adaptations because it takes a lot of liberties with the story of the book, but it manages to keep in little aspects of the book that you’d think would be cut day one for a movie script. What else it manages to do is keep to key themes Tolkien often included in his books.

      Let’s get the negative out of the way first.

Three changes from the books I disliked.

Grocer vs. Burglar – I want to note the distinction really quickly that I used “dislike” instead of “hate”, two very different meanings. In the film when the line “He looks more like a grocer than a burglar” is delivered by Thorin, everyone has a nice laugh and Bilbo looks at Thorin and then to Gandalf in confusion, as he has yet to be informed he’s to be hired for burglarious activities. The entire dinner scene after Thorin’s arrival has Bilbo basically trying to get out of whatever adventure Gandalf is planning. 
     Switching the line from Gloin after hearing the details of the adventure to when Thorin makes his entrance not only takes away a good line from one of the secondary dwares of the film but makes the line seem more cliche movie-like. By that I mean, “hey Thorin’s the main dwarf so he gets the best lines as soon as he makes his entrance.” My bigger problem though is Bilbo’s reaction, and this might be one of those changes that without the inner monologue the screenwriter’s felt it would be hard to convey. In the book, we see Bilbo’s inner conflict with the two sides of him, the bookish Baggins side and the adventurous Took side. In the film there’s is no conflict at all until the argument between Gandalf and Bilbo in his sitting room where the family line is mentioned. We don’t get any visual confirmation of Bilbo’s inner conflict until the brief scene of Bilbo awake in his bedroom listening to the dwarves singing Thorin’s song. I have no doubt that Martin Freeman would have been able to give a performance to show this inner conflict beforehand as someone else said “Martin Freeman might be the best hobbit who ever hobbited.“

Azog’s Hand – I honestly don’t mind Azog the Defiler not being killed off and his son taking his place. This might confuse moviegoers who didn’t see the difference between Saruman’s orcs and Sauron’s orcs with how they created, given the scene with the Uruk-hai basically being born from mud and slime of the ground, the question of how orcs reproduce would come into question. The scene I bring into question is the flashback to the Battle of Moria, in which Thorin Oakenshield earns his nickname. It’s all fine and good until Thorin cuts off Azog’s hand. I get what they’re trying to do, link the evil of Azog to the evil of Sauron, raising the unexpected villain up to the level of the Dark Lord and foreboding the darkness settling in on Middle-Earth. The problem is, it seems rehashed more than repeating thematic and not only does it not raise up Azog as a villain, but lessens the scene in the Fellowship prologue with Isildur and Sauron, putting Sauron on the same level as an orc.

Bilbo’s Sword – This one stems from my study of Corey Olsen, The Tolkien Professor’s criticism of The Hobbit but has been so ingrained into my understanding of the book now that I can’t shy away from it. In the book, Bilbo’s discover the knife he would later call Sting on his own in the Troll’s cave along with Gandalf taking Glamdring and Thorin taking Orcrist while in the film Gandalf discovers Sting on his own, handing it to Bilbo with a bit of exposition and how it’ll glow blue. Gandalf’s explanation takes away from the development of Bilbo later on in what Corey Olsen and I believe is the turning point for Bilbo.

But in slapping all his pockets and feeling all round himself for matches his hand came on the hilt of his little sword – the little dagger that he got from the trolls, and that he had quite forgotten; nor fortunately had the goblins noticed it; as he wore it inside his breeches. Now he drew it out. It shone pale and dim before his eyes. “So it is an elvish blade, too,” he thought; “and goblins are not very near, and yet not far enough.” But somehow he was comforted. It was rather splendid to be wearing a blade made in Gondolin for the goblin-wars of which so many songs had sung; and also he had noticed that such weapons made a great impression on goblins that came upon them suddenly.

The scene in the film yet again establishes Bilbo as a humble hobbit and not an adventurer or someone who intends to use a sword, setting up the scene in which he shows Gollum mercy, but it takes this turning point away from Bilbo in the film. It’s after he realizes his sword is the stuff of legends that he decides there’s no going back. It’s an important moment for him, on his own, without Gandalf or the dwarves to help him when he encounters Gollum. Sting is just as important to Bilbo’s development as is the One Ring and the film sort of fails to establish this.

Additions to the film I enjoyed.

Radagast the Brown – Even though he does a terrible job of drawing off the Wargs and Orcs the addition of Radagast the Brown imbeds An Unexpected Journey with a theme very familiar to Tolkien’s work that the Lord of the Rings film trilogy failed to realize at times. The theme of nature and the natural world being affected by the dark power infected Dol Guldur as well as the theme Gandalf mentions to Galadriel later in the film.

Saruman believes it is only great power that can hold evil in check, but that is not what I have found. I found it is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay. Small acts of kindness and love.

His addition also brings a lighter tone to the film that I believe is refreshing.

Dol Guldur, The Necromancer, The Witch-king of Angmar and the Morgul Blade –  While everyone was complaining that they turned the Hobbit into three films, I got excited because this meant everything only mentioned in the appendix of The Lord of the Rings would come to fruition in these movies. In the book Gandalf just disappears for a bit, says he took care of the Necromancer and wanders back into story. Now in these films we have Sauron in his Necromancer body bringing back the Nazgul, including the Witch-king of Angmar who I believe was underused in the Lord of the Rings trilogy and Gandalf and the White Council basically on their own side-quest that will have grave repercussions for The Lord of the Rings. I really hope we get to see the Necromancer in the two films, as we know Benedict Cumberbatch did some acting for it.

Everything changed about the dwarves (so far)- Until the very end of the Hobbit, after Smaug has been taken down the dwarves are kind of goofy, falling over each other, getting captured by trolls, orcs, and elves. None of them are very distinctive at all except with a line or two here and there until later on when Thorin becomes infected with dragon-sickness. In the films, they’re much more unique with drastically different physical appearances, personalities, speech patterns and motivations though sometimes subtle. In the film you can see Balin and Bofur taking a liking to Bilbo, and how Fili and Kili are young warriors trying to prove themselves to their Uncle Thorin, with a bit of youthful mischief still in them. You can see Ori as the baby of the group, a bit more naive than the rest of them and Balin is the eldest, wise grandpa dwarf, friendly but a bit cynical and cantankerous.
     Then there is Thorin Oakenshield, the tragic king of the likes of Hamlet or Macbeth as compared to Aragorn’s King Arthur. Thorin is kingly but filled with anger and mistrust, unable to discern friend from foe, easily holding grudges against those who have wronged him. His progression from dismissing Bilbo to embracing him was great for this story and I am even more excited to see his development in the next two movies.
     Keep reading for Part 2 in which I discuss what I am glad they left out from the books and what I was surprised to find they put in.

Movies will never be books, and TV too.

/ Joshua S. MacDougall / 2 Comments

 

If you’re reading this, it is safe to say you are living in the 21st Century. I don’t imagine this blog will find its way in any century besides this one. Therefore, you most likely have some experience with novels, television shows, and movies.

     Anyone who has ever had a favorite book or merely just a book they were the slightest bit fond of has an understanding of the adaptation whether it’s for television or the theater.
     Adapting novels to a visual medium isn’t anything new and it isn’t limited to movies and television but what I am focusing on here is the adaptation in the age of information.
     It seems like people often believe Hollywood has not experienced economic turmoil with the rest of us over the last thirteen years. You read about these ridiculously high numbers going to the cast’s salary, the budget, and at the box office and it’s more money than most people have ever had in their life. However, like the rest of, film studios have had to adjust to rising cost of, well, everything along with dealing with people’s expectations of what a movie should look like.
     Along with dealing with this they’ve had their struggle adjusting to the digital age. The way in which we are able to watch film and television has drastically changed in the last thirteen years as evidenced by the Netflix or other service streaming on your television, desktop, laptop, smartphone, or tablet.
     This is no way a defense for the film industry as I’m sure they’re lobbying for the next version of CISPA and SOPA, a tactic to control the chaotic frontiers of the internet out of fear of piracy instead of adjusting to change. It does, however, help explain the rise of the franchise.
     The first year of the 21st Century saw two film franchises begin based on very popular books. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone and The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Rings were both highly ambitious adaptations setting precedents with their production, presentation and box office sales.
Alongside this, the superhero franchises are just beginning their rise with the likes of X-Men and Spider-Man. The success of these films displayed you could establish franchises in genre fiction that wasn’t there before, as well as adapting what previous generations of Hollywood filmmakers deemed “unfilmable.”
So we have…

  • Hit series of films based on a book and comic books in Harry Potter, The Lord of the Rings, X-Men, and Spider-Man.
  • New technology in special effects including but not limited to CGI
  • Economic turmoil increasing the cost of production of movies.
  • Ease of access to information through innovation in higher speed internet and the rise of desktop computers, laptops, smartphones, and tablets.

All of this blended together leads to what we’ve seen in Hollywood the last thirteen years and beyond. Books and comic books to an extent have an established audience and likewise so do sequels. Why take a risk on an original script when adapting a series of books proven to sell on the New York Times Bestseller Lists is a much lower risk?
So here we are, watching our favorite books become movies step by step. With a few taps of the keyboard and a few clicks we know who bought the films rights, who is writing the script, who is directing, who is cast as the main character, what the costumes will look, what changes the story were made. Change is the keyword here, a common fear amongst everyone, not just exclusive to book adaptations either.
Here’s the thing fellow bibliophiles and regular readers, Movies will never be books and TV too. You all know the inner monologue is the first things to go when it comes to the adaptation, but it isn’t the last.  With books, there is no limit to the imagination but with film and television there is nothing but limits that often are stretched much further than deemed possible by the filmmakers themselves.
Money, is, of course, the number one limit to the adaptation of a book. Everything has a financial limit and this often leads to sacrifices. Sacrifices that have a cost to the storytelling as well. There might be the technology to pull off that epic battle scene in your favorite novel, there might be the perfect actor who fits exactly what the protagonist looks like and sounds like, and there might be the perfect director who loves the script, loves the novel and always imagined bringing its world to life. None of these factors are free, though, there’s a reason writing novels isn’t called the novel business but making films is called the movie business.
None of these people are going to be free and sometimes sacrifices are going to have to be made in order to get one of these factors over another. You may have to settle for the second choice actor in the film in order to get the special effects budget you need or, on the other hand, you get the actor you wanted but that battle scene needs to be scaled down.
There are so many factors that could go wrong on a movie. In filmmaking you are lucky to get your movie made, for it to be any good, and then for it to be successful which is what an adaptation of a series needs in order to make books two through the final book.
These all difficult and daunting tasks that don’t necessarily happen for the majority of movies. Scripts get multiple writings and revisions by writers who are usually not the author of the original novel, all of with their own takes, voices, and perspectives that they are trying to convey through someone else’s story. There’s no guarantee that these writers are passionate about the novel they are transferring to film. The same goes for the director, the actors, the producers, and the studio distributing it.
My advice to readers? Let go. You can’t think of film or television version of the novel as the visualization of the novel. Corey Olsen, also known as The Tolkien Professor broke it down fairly for readers when discussing The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey on an episode of his podcast, Tolkien Chat 12: Adaptation and the Hobbit Movies when discussing film adaptations that you can apply to TV as well.

I’ve often said a movie is different from a book. The first thing you have to keep in mind when you are going to see a film adaptation of a book is you’re not going to see a book on screen and it’s not fair to evaluate the thing you are seeing as if it were simply a transposition of the book on screen. It’s not a translation. It’s an adaptation. It’s a retelling. This is another version of the story. This is not Tolkien. This is Peter Jackson’s retelling of Tolkien’s story on screen and those are two different thing. You have a different person telling the story and you have a different medium in which the story is being told.

Believe me, I understand. One of my favorite books is the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy and the film version failed to capture the satirical intelligence of Douglas Adams writing but these are not sacred text and as long as they keep making money Hollywood will continue adapting books to film. Your favorite book will still be there even if you don’t like the retelling of it in the film. The book was better,