Reading the book after watching the film
Chuck Riggs
For better of worse I watched my favourite film, "Gone with the Wind",
half a dozen times before finally reading the book. Now that I'm
engrossed in the novel, I'm not only seeing Scarlett and the other
characters in a new light, I realize how many essential details from
the story the film left out.
My mind's eye view of Tara and the characters was enhanced from having
seen the film first, but the film locked in what everyone looked like
and sounded like, rather than letting my imagination roam more freely
as I read. That is also true for my visualization of Tara.
I am left not really knowing which is best to experience first, the
book or the film. If I'd begun reading GWTH before seeing the film, I
might have put it aside, making the mistake it was, essentially, a
women's novel.
Comments?
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
James Silverton
> For better of worse I watched my favourite film, "Gone with
> the Wind", half a dozen times before finally reading the book.
> Now that I'm engrossed in the novel, I'm not only seeing
> Scarlett and the other characters in a new light, I realize
> how many essential details from the story the film left out.
> My mind's eye view of Tara and the characters was enhanced
> from having seen the film first, but the film locked in what
> everyone looked like and sounded like, rather than letting my
> imagination roam more freely as I read. That is also true for
> my visualization of Tara. I am left not really knowing which
> is best to experience first, the book or the film. If I'd
> begun reading GWTH before seeing the film, I might have put it
> aside, making the mistake it was, essentially, a women's
> novel.
I can't comment much on "Gone With the Wind" since neither the book nor
the film are among my favorites. One character, a noble Southerner,
played by a rather wimpy British actor called Leslie Howard, does stick
in my memory. It is inevitable that much of a book will have to be
ignored in a screen play. I have to admit that I did read the book some
years after seeing the movie and it was better than I had expected.
In the mode of making admissions, there are a number of classical
English novels that I have only read after seeing the movie or
television dramatisations. Most of Dickens' novels are in that category,
tho' I came to realise how much I had missed when I actually got around
to reading the books. With "David Copperfield", I managed to pass a high
school exam by seeing the movie a week before. The book had been
assigned as home reading but I never actually read it until college and
was surprised to find out how much I enjoyed it and other novels by
Dickens. The same applies to Jane Austen.
I read "War and Peace" one week when I was marooned in a hotel in a
small town with nothing much better to do at nights and none of the
later dramatisations seem to reach the standard of the novel. I do
remember that the copy of "War and Peace" came with a book marker that
was extremely useful since it had the names of the characters both in
their French and Russian forms. I will also admit that I seem to recall
the faces of the movie actors whenever I think about the characters.
There are some books, like those of Trollope, that I have quite enjoyed
as TV dramatisations but which I have never successfully finished, tho'
I did speed read until the end.
--
James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland
Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
LFS
> For better of worse I watched my favourite film, "Gone with the Wind",
> half a dozen times before finally reading the book. Now that I'm
> engrossed in the novel, I'm not only seeing Scarlett and the other
> characters in a new light, I realize how many essential details from
> the story the film left out.
> My mind's eye view of Tara and the characters was enhanced from having
> seen the film first, but the film locked in what everyone looked like
> and sounded like, rather than letting my imagination roam more freely
> as I read. That is also true for my visualization of Tara.
> I am left not really knowing which is best to experience first, the
> book or the film. If I'd begun reading GWTH before seeing the film, I
> might have put it aside, making the mistake it was, essentially, a
> women's novel.
>
> Comments?
I now make a point of avoiding films of books I have particularly
enjoyed as I have in the past been very disappointed by seeing how much
of the book had been changed. There have been a couple of occasions
where I've read the book after seeing the film and have felt similarly
irritated but this has happened much less frequently.
I've read GWTW but I haven't seen the film.
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
Cece
>
> - Show quoted text -
There's a story that, after the movie was released, someone
congratulated the director on how closely he'd followed the book in
making the movie. The director stared blankly, "Book? I shot the
script."
Very few movies copy books exactly. Much of that is because movies
have to be too short to cover everything; much is because Hollywood
doesn't truly like the books and loves to change the plot and
characters. There are a few movies that represent the books well,
like The Fourth Protocol; this is very unusual in that the author was
also the screenwriter. The movie flowed so well that I did not
realize how much had been left out until I reread the book. Another
movie that did very well at the book was Truffaut's Fahrenhei 451 --
although wifey-poo's spaciness did not come across as drugged, just
emptiness between the ears.
Nasti J
> I am left not really knowing which is best to experience first, the
> book or the film. ...
Some "journalist" with space to fill has published a column about this
very topic in today's SF Gate (online companion to the Chronicle):
http://www.sfgate.com/columns/11things/
I don't agree with his opinions on the 3 I've both seen and read
(Jaws, Godfather, and
Shining), so I tend to think he may probably be wrong about the rest,
as well. I liked both versions of each very much; I just think of
them different versions of the same story.
njg
James Hogg
I don't think you've missed much.
Seeing a film before you've read the novel is probably the better order
to choose if you want to avoid disappointment. No matter how successful
a film is in itself, it usually loses so much of the novel. The loss of
the wonderful language of "The Shipping News" was far more serious than
the simplification of the plot or the casting of Kevin Spacey in the
role of the unattractive hero.
Short stories fare better in that respect. I can think offhand of three that
became good films: Robert Graves' "The Shout", Daphne du Maurier's
"Don't Look Now", and Joyce's "The Dead". In the latter masterpiece I
don't think they had to add or remove a line of dialogue. It was all in
the story, and the film was a wonderful swan song for John Huston.
One thing is certain, a film is never improved by novelisation.
--
James
James Hogg
I agree that "The Godfather" was far superior as a film.
--
James
Joe Fineman
> Very few movies copy books exactly. Much of that is because movies
> have to be too short to cover everything; much is because Hollywood
> doesn't truly like the books and loves to change the plot and
> characters.
In particular, it seems to be the rule that a movie will use *none* of
the dialog in the book.
When I was little, if a read a book (about people) that I liked, I
sometimes said to myself "They ought to make a movie of that" -- not
because I thought the story had particular cinematic potential, but so
that the message would get thru to people who didn't read books. I
have preserved & improved that snobbery over the years.
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: I'll scratch your back if the person whose back you scratch :||
||: scratches mine. :||
LFS
Oddly, that was one instance where I read the book first and wasn't very
disappointed. I loved the book (Proulx can do no wrong as far as I'm
concerned) and the film *looked* just the way I'd imagined it. I thought
Spacey did a good job. We saw him last week in "Inherit the Wind" - a
fantastic production, although he seemed to be playing the part as an
imitation of Walter Matthau which was entertaining but slightly odd. And
the play - which came first - seemed different from the film, as I
remember it.
>
> Short stories fare better in that respect. I can think offhand of three
> that
> became good films: Robert Graves' "The Shout", Daphne du Maurier's
> "Don't Look Now", and Joyce's "The Dead". In the latter masterpiece I
> don't think they had to add or remove a line of dialogue. It was all in
> the story, and the film was a wonderful swan song for John Huston.
>
> One thing is certain, a film is never improved by novelisation.
>
But many modern novels seem to be written in a way which indicates that
the authors have an eye to a film being made of them.
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
>LFS wrote:
>> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>>> For better of worse I watched my favourite film, "Gone with the
>>> Wind", half a dozen times before finally reading the book. Now that
>>> I'm engrossed in the novel, I'm not only seeing Scarlett and the
>>> other characters in a new light, I realize how many essential
>>> details from the story the film left out. My mind's eye view of
>>> Tara and the characters was enhanced from having seen the film
>>> first, but the film locked in what everyone looked like and sounded
>>> like, rather than letting my imagination roam more freely as I
>>> read. That is also true for my visualization of Tara. I am left not
>>> really knowing which is best to experience first, the book or the
>>> film. If I'd begun reading GWTH before seeing the film, I might
>>> have put it aside, making the mistake it was, essentially, a
>>> women's novel.
>>>
>>> Comments?
>>
>> I now make a point of avoiding films of books I have particularly
>> enjoyed as I have in the past been very disappointed by seeing how
>> much of the book had been changed. There have been a couple of
>> occasions where I've read the book after seeing the film and have
>> felt similarly irritated but this has happened much less frequently.
>>
>> I've read GWTW but I haven't seen the film.
>
>I don't think you've missed much.
If you are unable to appreciate works of art, keep your opinions to
yourself.
<snip>
JimboCat
> Cece <ceceliaarmstr...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > Very few movies copy books exactly. Much of that is because movies
> > have to be too short to cover everything; much is because Hollywood
> > doesn't truly like the books and loves to change the plot and
> > characters.
>
> In particular, it seems to be the rule that a movie will use *none* of
> the dialog in the book.
When the Peter Jackson "Lord of the Rings" movies came out, the
newsgroup rec.arts.books.tolkien was, understandably, flooded with new
posters ranging from trolls to movie-lovers to old-time Tolkienistas
with a renewed interest in the books. Lots of interesting discussion
took place, but I just want to address your point above.
In these movies, a fairly large amount of dialog from the book was
retained. But much of it was shifted from its original context, even
to the point of being spoken by a different character.
Hardly anybody thought this really worked, as far as I can recall.
Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
"Tolkien's moral theme is very simple: Acts with evil intent come back
to harm the doer in unexpected ways. Acts with good intents, even
mistakes and unwise acts, come back to help the doer in unexpected
ways." -- Phlip
John Varela
wrote:
> Seeing a film before you've read the novel is probably the better order
> to choose if you want to avoid disappointment. No matter how successful
> a film is in itself, it usually loses so much of the novel. The loss of
> the wonderful language of "The Shipping News" was far more serious than
> the simplification of the plot or the casting of Kevin Spacey in the
> role of the unattractive hero.
>
> Short stories fare better in that respect. I can think offhand of three that
> became good films: Robert Graves' "The Shout", Daphne du Maurier's
> "Don't Look Now", and Joyce's "The Dead". In the latter masterpiece I
> don't think they had to add or remove a line of dialogue. It was all in
> the story, and the film was a wonderful swan song for John Huston.
the point of the book -- that when the group got in repeated trouble
on the road to Oz they were saved by Scarecrow's cleverness, Lion's
courage, or Tin Woodman's kindness -- is lost in the movie, but on
the whole the tightening of the plot is a big improvement.
--
John Varela
Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email
John Dean
> For better of worse I watched my favourite film, "Gone with the Wind",
> half a dozen times before finally reading the book. Now that I'm
> engrossed in the novel, I'm not only seeing Scarlett and the other
> characters in a new light, I realize how many essential details from
> the story the film left out.
> My mind's eye view of Tara and the characters was enhanced from having
> seen the film first, but the film locked in what everyone looked like
> and sounded like, rather than letting my imagination roam more freely
> as I read. That is also true for my visualization of Tara.
> I am left not really knowing which is best to experience first, the
> book or the film. If I'd begun reading GWTH before seeing the film, I
> might have put it aside, making the mistake it was, essentially, a
> women's novel.
>
> Comments?
'Comments?'? 'COMMENTS?'? After all these years you out yourself as Bun Mui?
I'm shocked.
Shocked.
Anyway, it's near impossible to capture a novel on film. I enjoy books for
what they are and films for what *they* are. Sometimes, usually in a longer
film or mini-series, you get close to what the original author was about -
LOTR, Brideshead (Irons / Andrews version) are examples.
Field of Dreams was a pretty fair adaptation of Shoeless Joe with one major
change of character.
Sometimes you even get a novel tie-in written after the movie which doesn't
even reflect what the film was about.
Two different media and should be taken as such. IOW don't expect the movie
/ TV adaptation to do justice to the book.
It's hard to know which to do first - I'd just take it as it comes. You see
an interesting book and you know there's a film somewhere? Grab the book,
worry about borrowing the DVD later.
'Goodfellas' captures a lot of the original book. 'Donnie Brasco' bears
little resemblance to the original book. Both good books, both good movies.
Read 'em, watch 'em, any order you like.
A film comes on TV that you know is a version of a well-regarded book? Watch
it, go to the library tomorrow.
Incidentally, I remember reading a story about Katherine Anne Porter whose
novel "Ship of Fools" was turned into a movie in the 60s. The film barely
reflected the book and she upbraided the producer and wondered why he had
bothered to buy the film rights. He explained that he had made the movie he
wanted and he bought the film rights to boost the film on the back of a
popular best-selling novel. IOW, he only really wanted the title. At which
she told him *she* had taken the title from a 15th century poem, it had been
out of copyright for five centuries and he could have had it for nothing.
--
John Dean
Oxford
Roland Hutchinson
He could have had the title for nothing in any event, as titles aren't
protected.
Apart from the original, Wikipedia lists five novels, two short stories,
eighteen songs (including covers?), two albums, and one each of websites,
dice games, bands, movies, and television productions, and paintings with
the name. The novel and the movie predate all but the painting by
Hieronymous Bosch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Fools_(disambiguation)
--
Roland Hutchinson
He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba,"
... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy.
--Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ )
Amethyst Deceiver
wrote:
>
>For better of worse I watched my favourite film, "Gone with the Wind",
>half a dozen times before finally reading the book. Now that I'm
>engrossed in the novel, I'm not only seeing Scarlett and the other
>characters in a new light, I realize how many essential details from
>the story the film left out.
>My mind's eye view of Tara and the characters was enhanced from having
>seen the film first, but the film locked in what everyone looked like
>and sounded like, rather than letting my imagination roam more freely
>as I read. That is also true for my visualization of Tara.
>I am left not really knowing which is best to experience first, the
>book or the film. If I'd begun reading GWTH before seeing the film, I
>might have put it aside, making the mistake it was, essentially, a
>women's novel.
I watched the film about 20 years ago because it was on and nothing
else was, and I'd heard so much about it I thought it would be a good
idea to watch. It was, well, a way to spend a wet afternoon, but I
wouldn't bother again. Scarlett annoyed me.
Then 15 years ago I read the book. Scarlett went beyond annoying. I
could quite happily have slapped her. It was a well-written novel but
I had absolutely no sympathy for the main characters.
Chuck Riggs
I'm left not knowing or much caring which is "better" to experience
first, the book or the film. My other favourite pair, "The Grapes of
Wrath" are both excellent, each in their own way. Now I've added to
that pair, "Gone With the Wind", even though I'm only a quarter or
less through the book.
Some pairs left less good impressions on me. Moby Dick was a
wonderfully acted, exciting film, for example, whereas the book was
deadly dull, IMO, with its endless length, boring detail and arcane
whaling terminology.
While on the subject of "Gone With the Wind", let me make another plug
for the Kindle: it is a wonderful, almost perfect, way to read a book.
Chuck Riggs
Scarlett was meant to be annoying.
As for the novel and the book, perhaps no one could enjoy either if
they didn't have a love, or at least a feeling, for the South.
Amethyst Deceiver
wrote:
I suspect most of my friends couldn't give a tinker's cuss about the
South. But a lot of them enjoy GWTW. Regardless of the historical
setting they like the romance.
Jonathan Morton
news:4a92357a-2b42-4592...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>Very few movies copy books exactly. Much of that is because movies
>have to be too short to cover everything; much is because Hollywood
>doesn't truly like the books and loves to change the plot and
>characters. There are a few movies that represent the books well,
>like The Fourth Protocol; this is very unusual in that the author was
>also the screenwriter.
Another Frederick Forsyth book - The Day of the Jackal - is also an example
of an excellent film adaptation that is very faithful to the book. I don't
think that FF did write the screenplay for that - though I am sure he liked
the result. It's not great literature, but a much under-rated film.
Regards
Jonathan
Arcadian Rises
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:15:40 +0000, Amethyst Deceiver
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:52:55 +0000, Chuck Riggs <chri...@eircom.net>
> >wrote:
>
> >>For better of worse I watched my favourite film, "Gone with the Wind",
> >>half a dozen times before finally reading the book. Now that I'm
> >>engrossed in the novel, I'm not only seeing Scarlett and the other
> >>characters in a new light, I realize how many essential details from
> >>the story the film left out.
> >>My mind's eye view of Tara and the characters was enhanced from having
> >>seen the film first, but the film locked in what everyone looked like
> >>and sounded like, rather than letting my imagination roam more freely
> >>as I read. That is also true for my visualization of Tara.
> >>I am left not really knowing which is best to experience first, the
> >>book or the film. If I'd begun reading GWTH before seeing the film, I
> >>might have put it aside, making the mistake it was, essentially, a
> >>women's novel.
>
> >I watched the film about 20 years ago because it was on and nothing
> >else was, and I'd heard so much about it I thought it would be a good
> >idea to watch. It was, well, a way to spend a wet afternoon, but I
> >wouldn't bother again. Scarlett annoyed me.
>
> >Then 15 years ago I read the book. Scarlett went beyond annoying. I
> >could quite happily have slapped her. It was a well-written novel but
> >I had absolutely no sympathy for the main characters.
>
> Scarlett was meant to be annoying.
> As for the novel and the book, perhaps no one could enjoy either if
> they didn't have a love, or at least a feeling, for the South.
I read the book at an early age when I didn't know anything about the
southern charm. I identified myself with Scarlett, but I fall in love
with Rhett and when I watched the movie I fall in love again with
Rhett and Clark Gable.
I read the book again, as a much more informed reader, and I enjoyed
it again, perhaps even more, when I discovered new things that were
incomprehensible to me before. I watch the movie whenever I get a
chance, the same way I listen to a well known piece of music that
never bores me. I sincerely pity those who cannot enjoy GWTW.
OTOH, I am one of those people who cannot enjoy _anything_ written by
Henry James, and I know there a people out there who are big fans of
his writings. Perhaps the old Latin proverb is absolutely right: "De
gustibus non disputandum" - I also see no point in convincing someone
to like what I do, or the other way around, and I am not going to
judge people by their tastes; I know a very smart CEO who is addicted
to a daytime soap opera and he's never hidden his "vice".
Robin Bignall
Le Carre wrote the screenplay for "A Murder of Quality", and that was
good.
--
Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England
erilar
If I've really enjoyed the film, I probably wouldn't read the book
unless I was assured it was quite different. My problem is the
opposite version; if I've read and really enjoyed the book, I'm quite
reluctant to see a film of it because it is usually a massive step down,
at least not unless several years have intervened. If I didn't care for
the book in the first place, why would I want to see it as a film?
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
Robert Bannister
> While on the subject of "Gone With the Wind", let me make another plug
> for the Kindle: it is a wonderful, almost perfect, way to read a book.
Can you scribble comments in the margin?
--
Rob Bannister
Leslie Danks
What happens if the cat pisses on it?
--
Les (BrE)
Peter Moylan
including a proof of Fermat's last theorem; and it's at least moderately
immune to cat-piss.
On the negative side: if they discover that they have violated
copyright, they'll delete both your marginal comments and the cat piss.
This seems a bit unfair, given that neither your payments nor that of
the cat have contributed to the illegality.
Discovered recently: a claim that copyright does nothing for the
original author, and a great deal for multinational corporations who
don't create anything but who can afford expensive lawyers. This evening
I was told that all members of our choir must destroy all copies of our
version of "Waltzing Matilda", on the grounds that the song now belongs
to an American corporation. Banjo Paterson, roll in your grave.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Chuck Riggs
<dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
>Just wandering in and commenting on the subject line. . .
>
>If I've really enjoyed the film, I probably wouldn't read the book
>unless I was assured it was quite different. My problem is the
>opposite version; if I've read and really enjoyed the book, I'm quite
>reluctant to see a film of it because it is usually a massive step down,
>at least not unless several years have intervened. If I didn't care for
>the book in the first place, why would I want to see it as a film?
If I had picked up "Gone With the Wind", with all its talk of lace and
finery, I would have leafed through it, concluded it was a girly book
not fit for a man and put it back on the library shelf. Had I never
returned to it I would have missed a great book, IMO, which I'm
reading now only because the film was so entertaining.
Chuck Riggs
You can type them, attaching them to words in the text. Finding them
takes some practice, but that is because I have only used the feature
a few times.
Chuck Riggs
<ne...@lindsayendell.org.uk> wrote:
I'm sure you and they couldn't. No, since you'll never be a Southern
Belle, there would be no point even trying.
Chuck Riggs
Cheryl
> I watched the film about 20 years ago because it was on and nothing
> else was, and I'd heard so much about it I thought it would be a good
> idea to watch. It was, well, a way to spend a wet afternoon, but I
> wouldn't bother again. Scarlett annoyed me.
>
> Then 15 years ago I read the book. Scarlett went beyond annoying. I
> could quite happily have slapped her. It was a well-written novel but
> I had absolutely no sympathy for the main characters.
I saw the movie when I was in my mid-teens and was promptly inspired to
read the book, which I enjoyed. I don't have sympathy for the main
characters, but I admired Scarlett immensely. She had her faults, God
knows, lots of them, and made lots of mistakes, but she never ever gave
up. I got the sense that no matter what tragedies she had, she did or
however badly it turned out, she'd kept fighting to survive, and drag
anyone she could along with her. By contrast, I thought Melanie and,
Wilkes, was it?, were just too passive and goody-goody entirely. Rhett
was a classic Bad Boy - gorgeous and unreliable and wicked - except of
course, he wasn't entirely unreliable, and part of the tragedy is the
way Scarlett never saw that.
I didn't know much about the southern US or southern belles - I just
liked the characters. Well, Scarlett and Rhett, I guess, the others
weren't up to much.
--
Cheryl
Cece
My mother took me to GWTW when I was 12 or 13 (about a year after
Gable died), and I read the book when I was 15. In Indiana (where my
mother was born too -- and she remembered and loved one a great-uncle
who was a Union Army veteran). But my Indiana history classes had
mentioned that the Union did not handle Reconstruction well, that it
made even more enemies the way it did things.
Ashley Wilkes was a nebbish. Melanie Wilkes came to mind when, a few
years later, I read about Mary Lou Wingate (Bristol's daughter and
Wingate's pride; never well since the last child died... and my memory
just died! What comes next, before "the velvet sheathing the steel
demurely"?).
Amethyst Deceiver
wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:59:23 +0000, Amethyst Deceiver
><ne...@lindsayendell.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:06:09 +0000, Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net>
>>wrote:
>>>Scarlett was meant to be annoying.
>>>As for the novel and the book, perhaps no one could enjoy either if
>>>they didn't have a love, or at least a feeling, for the South.
>>
>>I suspect most of my friends couldn't give a tinker's cuss about the
>>South.
>
>I'm sure you and they couldn't. No, since you'll never be a Southern
>Belle, there would be no point even trying.
I really wouldn't want to be. I quite enjoy not having to wear
corsets, for a start.
the Omrud
One of the significant features of "True Blood", set in the deep South,
is a distinct lack of corsets.
--
David
Robin Bignall
<ne...@lindsayendell.org.uk> wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:53:19 +0000, Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:59:23 +0000, Amethyst Deceiver
>><ne...@lindsayendell.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:06:09 +0000, Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net>
>>>wrote:
>
>>>>Scarlett was meant to be annoying.
>>>>As for the novel and the book, perhaps no one could enjoy either if
>>>>they didn't have a love, or at least a feeling, for the South.
>>>
>>>I suspect most of my friends couldn't give a tinker's cuss about the
>>>South.
>>
>>I'm sure you and they couldn't. No, since you'll never be a Southern
>>Belle, there would be no point even trying.
>
>I really wouldn't want to be. I quite enjoy not having to wear
>corsets, for a start.
The more forward ones might have unlaced them after a few juleps,
particularly if Rhett was around.
Chuck Riggs
<ne...@lindsayendell.org.uk> wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:53:19 +0000, Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:59:23 +0000, Amethyst Deceiver
>><ne...@lindsayendell.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:06:09 +0000, Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net>
>>>wrote:
>
>>>>Scarlett was meant to be annoying.
>>>>As for the novel and the book, perhaps no one could enjoy either if
>>>>they didn't have a love, or at least a feeling, for the South.
>>>
>>>I suspect most of my friends couldn't give a tinker's cuss about the
>>>South.
>>
>>I'm sure you and they couldn't. No, since you'll never be a Southern
>>Belle, there would be no point even trying.
>
>I really wouldn't want to be. I quite enjoy not having to wear
>corsets, for a start.
The liberated Southern belle of our day doesn't have to go through
what Scarlet did.
As for your callous "tinker's dam" comment, the old South was, in many
ways, a glorious age that was doomed as soon as the South seceded from
the Union. Perhaps it was doomed anyway, for it was built on an almost
endless supply of cheap slave labour to bring in the cotton crop, an
inhuman practice on many farms. Not on Scarlett's family's, of course,
but on many.
Chuck Riggs
The mint juleps helped, but I can guarantee you it didn't take a man
as handsome as Rhett for pretty Southern girls to be cooperative. What
we boys in Virginia heard in reference to the deep South was "They'll
trip you, then be underneath you before you hit the ground". As I
traveled down the coast towards Georgia during the adventurous years
of my youth, I found that to be a slight exaggeration, but the girls
were friendly enough, especially the girls in the cities.
Chuck Riggs
Scarlett is the Job figure of the story in that, as you said, she
never gives up. I have to admire her for that, just as I admired Job
when I first read his account in the Bible.
I'll never forget the scene in the film where Scarlett threatens the
sky itself, and perhaps God, with her tiny fist, if things don't go
her way.
Chuck Riggs
Ashley was a Milquetoast, but Scarlett apparently didn't have many
suitable men to chose from. Soon after Rhett Butler appeared on her
horizon, she knew what to do.
Hatunen
<chr...@eircom.net> wrote:
>The liberated Southern belle of our day doesn't have to go through
>what Scarlet did.
>As for your callous "tinker's dam" comment, the old South was, in many
>ways, a glorious age that was doomed as soon as the South seceded from
>the Union.
A glorious age if you were a slaveholding southern planter or a
cotton or slave dealer.
>Perhaps it was doomed anyway, for it was built on an almost
>endless supply of cheap slave labour to bring in the cotton crop, an
>inhuman practice on many farms.
Or, in some areas, the tobacco crop.
>Not on Scarlett's family's, of course,
>but on many.
In the movie we see mostly Tara's house slaves. No clue as to
what the lot of the field slaves was.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
John Varela
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:41:46 +0000, Chuck Riggs
> <chr...@eircom.net> wrote:
>
> >The liberated Southern belle of our day doesn't have to go through
> >what Scarlet did.
> >As for your callous "tinker's dam" comment, the old South was, in many
> >ways, a glorious age that was doomed as soon as the South seceded from
> >the Union.
>
> A glorious age if you were a slaveholding southern planter or a
> cotton or slave dealer.
>
> >Perhaps it was doomed anyway, for it was built on an almost
> >endless supply of cheap slave labour to bring in the cotton crop, an
> >inhuman practice on many farms.
>
> Or, in some areas, the tobacco crop.
Sugar cane was the man-killer, especially in the West Indies.
--
John Varela
Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email
Robert Bannister
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:23:39 +0800, Robert Bannister
> <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>>
>>> While on the subject of "Gone With the Wind", let me make another plug
>>> for the Kindle: it is a wonderful, almost perfect, way to read a book.
>> Can you scribble comments in the margin?
>
> You can type them, attaching them to words in the text. Finding them
> takes some practice, but that is because I have only used the feature
> a few times.
No good, then. It's something I only do when I've been drinking.
--
Rob Bannister
Chuck Riggs
<rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>Chuck Riggs wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:23:39 +0800, Robert Bannister
>> <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>>>
>>>> While on the subject of "Gone With the Wind", let me make another plug
>>>> for the Kindle: it is a wonderful, almost perfect, way to read a book.
>>> Can you scribble comments in the margin?
>>
>> You can type them, attaching them to words in the text. Finding them
>> takes some practice, but that is because I have only used the feature
>> a few times.
(It turned out to be easy.)
>No good, then. It's something I only do when I've been drinking.
If you're at all like I was, you'd buy a bunch of books you didn't
want in the morning, when playing with your Kindle after drinking.
Chuck Riggs
>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:41:46 +0000, Chuck Riggs
><chr...@eircom.net> wrote:
>
>>The liberated Southern belle of our day doesn't have to go through
>>what Scarlet did.
>>As for your callous "tinker's dam" comment, the old South was, in many
>>ways, a glorious age that was doomed as soon as the South seceded from
>>the Union.
>
>A glorious age if you were a slaveholding southern planter or a
>cotton or slave dealer.
Note my "in many ways", and I wasn't thinking of the lot of amoral
slave dealers, which should have been obvious to even a casual
observer.
<snip>
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:51:11 UTC, Hatunen <hat...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:41:46 +0000, Chuck Riggs
>> <chr...@eircom.net> wrote:
>>
>> >The liberated Southern belle of our day doesn't have to go through
>> >what Scarlet did.
>> >As for your callous "tinker's dam" comment, the old South was, in many
>> >ways, a glorious age that was doomed as soon as the South seceded from
>> >the Union.
>>
>> A glorious age if you were a slaveholding southern planter or a
>> cotton or slave dealer.
>>
>> >Perhaps it was doomed anyway, for it was built on an almost
>> >endless supply of cheap slave labour to bring in the cotton crop, an
>> >inhuman practice on many farms.
>>
>> Or, in some areas, the tobacco crop.
>
>Sugar cane was the man-killer, especially in the West Indies.
I'm sure it was, but tobacco was the bigger cash crop, especially in
Virginia, wasn't it?
John Varela
wrote:
Certainly that was true early on. I don't think there ever was much
cotton-growing in Virginia, nor tobacco grown south of North
Carolina. That surely has to do with climate.
We have a neighbor who is originally from Mississippi. A couple of
summers ago he grew a few cotton plants near his front door. Nobody
knew what they were.
Amethyst Deceiver
This is quite true. A distinct lack of quite a lot of underwear, at
times.
the Omrud
I think clothes must be very expensive around there, as many of the
young ladies don't seem to be able to afford a lot. And they take them
off as often as possible, so as to save on wear.
--
David
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
When I think about substantial tobacco farms, Roanoke and Raleigh come
to mind for some reason. I've seen it growing, which is an impressive
sight, but I don't remember exactly where.
>We have a neighbor who is originally from Mississippi. A couple of
>summers ago he grew a few cotton plants near his front door. Nobody
>knew what they were.
I understand there is typically very little cotton on each plant.
Highly labour-intensive at picking time, for that reason.
Amethyst Deceiver
<usenet...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote:
They seem to have grown out of many of them too. As do the men.