wuthering heights
nmstevens
complete piece of crap, that both Heathcliff and Katherine were about
the most boneheaded pair of completely unsymathetic idiots to ever
grace the screen and that they should, in fact, have renamed this
movie, "A Tale of Two Twits".
Well, I recently got TCM and it was on again so I figured that I'd
give it another chance.
I still think it's a piece of crap. This won a place in the AFI list
of a hundred best movies?
I don't get it. Katherine is an annoying vacillating fool. Heathcliffe
is a glowering dolt. Who do you sympathize with? Who do you want to
win -- other than the storm which I hoped would kill both of them.
What the hell is the appeal of this boneheaded thing?
NMS
Dena Jo
> I don't get it. Katherine is an annoying vacillating fool. Heathcliffe
> is a glowering dolt. Who do you sympathize with? Who do you want to
> win -- other than the storm which I hoped would kill both of them.
> What the hell is the appeal of this boneheaded thing?
I never understood it either. The book was always too dark for me, with no
one to root for.
--
Dena Jo
(Email: For now, denajo2 at either cs
or yahoo, with the usual extension)
D C
----------
In article <a8f80314.03031...@posting.google.com>,
nmst...@msn.com (nmstevens) wrote:
> I saw this movie awhile ago and thought, at the time, that it was a
> complete piece of crap, that both Heathcliff and Katherine were about
> the most boneheaded pair of completely unsymathetic idiots to ever
> grace the screen and that they should, in fact, have renamed this
> movie, "A Tale of Two Twits".
>
The film is pretty dire IMHO.
I feel I should like the novel itself, as an issue of principle, but that
whole congregation of nineteenth century women romantic novelists leaves me
a bit cold. The miracle with regard to the Bronte clan, Jane Austen et al is
that they write at all. All the aforementioned had stunted lives noteworthy
for tragedy and privation, and writing was seen anyway as a somewhat
disgraceful occupation for women to follow.
Jane Eyre was a good novel.
Brian Christgau
news:a8f80314.03031...@posting.google.com...
> I saw this movie awhile ago and thought, at the time, that it was a
> complete piece of crap, that both Heathcliff and Katherine were about
> the most boneheaded pair of completely unsymathetic idiots to ever
> grace the screen and that they should, in fact, have renamed this
> movie, "A Tale of Two Twits".
Well, which one are you talking about? The William Wyler one with
Olivier, I assume? Certainly not the complete catastrophy with Timothy
Dalton? Personally, I think the best and most faithful version was the one
made for TNT a few years ago starring Ralph Fienes (who was the perfect
Heathcliff, IMHO). As for the Wyler version, well, it's certainly not Lean's
"Great Expectations". (That glorious kook Luis Bunuel also took a crack at
the story, though I've never seen the result.)
> I don't get it. Katherine is an annoying vacillating fool. Heathcliffe
> is a glowering dolt. Who do you sympathize with? Who do you want to
> win -- other than the storm which I hoped would kill both of them.
> What the hell is the appeal of this boneheaded thing?
Ah, I ask myself questions like that all the time. Why are there certain
books, movies or songs that I love in spite of the fact that I know they're
sappy, simple-minded and poorly constructed? The answer is because they're
either entertaining in spite of themselves (what with their wild plots and
colorful, larger-than-life characters) or because there's something in them
that strikes a deep, almost subconscious chord.
Personally, I'm an absolute sucker for old Gothic romance and
"Sentimentalist" novels like "Wuthering Heights", Goethe's "The Sorrows of
Young Werther" and "Great Expectations" (though it seems unfair to lump what
is arguably Dickens' best novel in with those other two). Of course, these
sorts of things tend to be overly dramatic and have contrived plots, but
that's part of what makes them fun! (The problem with "Werther" is that by
the time the hero works up the gumption to put a musketball in his temple
he's already driven you so fucking batty with his incessant whining that you
practically cheer instead of cry for him.)
But I digress. To answer your question, I think the appeal of "Wuthering
Heights" is that it delivers brooding, fiery characters and a pervasive
mood of gloom and impending doom. Like so many novels of its type, it has a
very adolescent view of "true love" and "destiny". It's High Romance at its
loftiest. If you don't "get" writers like Byron and Shelley, you're not like
to get this sort of stuff either. I happen to have a little bit of a sweet
tooth for it (though not nearly as much as I do for old Pulp writers like
Robert E. Howard).
The reason people still read the novel and why there's a new film
version every ten years or so is, I think, chiefly due to Heathcliff. On the
surface he's this rugged, brooding, sexy, Byronic hero (the kind that later
became the grist of so many tacky romance novels and soap operas), but
underneath he represents Cocteau's observation that, "Love can make man a
beast". If anything, I think "Wuthering Heights" is about that thin line
between love and hate. Some screen versions capture this better than others.
Actually, now that I think of it, one of my very first screenplays was
inspired in part by "Wuthering Heights". It was a Gothic Rock N' Roll
Musical called "Grave Desires", written just for fun and exercise. *L* Yeah,
let's just say that one is staying in my filing cabinet where it belongs.
Cheers,
B
P.S. I hope this made some sense folks, as I'm rather doped up on
painkillers at the moment and -uh - presently feeling no pain. };)
Hat
news:a8f80314.03031...@posting.google.com:
> Well, I recently got TCM and it was on again so I figured that I'd
> give it another chance.
I recently *found* TCM. It`s (turner classic movies) free-to-air on
channel 327 for those who have Sky Digital and never had cause to venture
into the 300s.
--
'I think the script keeps changing, Felix,' I say. 'I don't think this is
what I signed on for'. -Glamorama.
D C
----------
In article <b50ag8$d2$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net>, "Brian Christgau"
<ra...@NOFRIGINSPAMpipeline.com> wrote:
> Personally, I'm an absolute sucker for old Gothic romance and
> "Sentimentalist" novels like "Wuthering Heights", Goethe's "The Sorrows of
> Young Werther" and "Great Expectations" (though it seems unfair to lump what
> is arguably Dickens' best novel in with those other two).
I read this and wonder on what basis 'Great Expectations' is 'arguably
Dickens' best novel.' What would those arguments be?
I imagine at your school 'Gothic' meant any old book from Europe that did
not have a detective in it. Mary Shelley wrote a Gothic novel, so note the
emphasis on the supernatural. Great Expectations does not fit into a
'sentimentalist' bracket, any more than Wuthering Heights is Gothic.
Great Expectations is gritty social realism from someone who had walked the
waterfront, not romance from a clever lady dreaming from behind closed
doors. When you bring in Goethe you should here be mentioning 'Wilhelm
Meister' (17941796) and a style that became prevalent in England with such
books as Daniel Defoe's 'Robinson Crusoe.'
>Actually, now that I think of it, one of my very first screenplays was
>inspired in part by "Wuthering Heights". It was a Gothic Rock N' Roll
>Musical called "Grave Desires", written just for fun and exercise. *L* Yeah,
>t's just say that one is staying in my filing cabinet where it belongs.
Thanks. You are not as daft as you sound.
Paula
>nmst...@msn.com (nmstevens) wrote:
>
>> I don't get it. Katherine is an annoying vacillating fool. Heathcliffe
>> is a glowering dolt. Who do you sympathize with? Who do you want to
>> win -- other than the storm which I hoped would kill both of them.
>> What the hell is the appeal of this boneheaded thing?
>
>I never understood it either. The book was always too dark for me, with no
>one to root for.
I LOVED the book. Of course I WAS 15 when I read it - I'm not sure
what I'd think about it now. I've always thought the film versions
short-changed the book by leaving out a good two-thirds of the story.
Man, that is one LONG book.
Paula
Brian Christgau
news:3e73c...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> I read this and wonder on what basis 'Great Expectations' is 'arguably
> Dickens' best novel.' What would those arguments be?
Well, clearly, it comes down to a matter of personal opinion. Most
scholars, critics and fans would probably pick "David Copperfield", but for
my money (and John Irving's, for that matter) "Great Expectations" is the
one book of his that has always stayed closest to my heart.
> I imagine at your school 'Gothic' meant any old book from Europe that did
> not have a detective in it.
Actually, no.
In his essay "Supernatural Horror in Literature", H.P. Lovecraft offers
a quick description of Gothic literature's most generic traits: "This novel
dramatic paraphernalia consisted first of all of the Gothic castle, with its
awesome antiquity, vast distances and ramblings, deserted or ruined wings,
damp corridors, unwholesome hidden catacombs, and galaxy of ghosts and
appalling legends, as a nucleus of suspense and daemonic fright. In
addition, it included the tyrannical and malevolent nobleman as villain; the
saintly, long-persecuted, and generally insipid heroine who undergoes the
major terrors and serves as a point of view and focus for the readers
sympathies; the valorous and immaculate hero, always of high birth but often
in humble disguise... and the infinite array of stage properties which
includes strange lights, damp trapdoors, extinguished lamps, mouldy hidden
manuscripts, creaking hinges, shaking arras, and the like."
The very first "Gothic" novel was "The Castle of Otranto", written by a
rather odd chap named Horace Walpole. Although it has the distinction of
being the first of its kind, Otranto is actually a rather tedious,
ridiculously overblown novel, written in a prose style that is WAY to
playful and upbeat to create any real sense of dread and menace. Walpole
belted this puppy out in a white heat... and it shows. In the end, "Otranto"
is really only of interest to scholars and Goth-o-philes who are interested
in the minutia of the origins of Gothic culture.
"The Castle of Otranto" gave us all of the trappings and cliches that
defined the Gothic - a literature that speaks in the language of the
subconscious - as we know it: the foreboding castle (a symbol of confining
narcissism), damp catacombs (generally interpreted by psychologists as
representing the subconscious mind itself), trap doors, secret passages,
creaking hinges, cobwebs and exstinguished lamps. It also introduced the
major Gothic themes: the idea of inherited evil (the son paying for the sins
of the father), characters whose physical appearance corresponds with their
spiritual state, and, most important of all, the identity of the castle or
house with its owner.
Mary Shelley wrote a Gothic novel, so note the
> emphasis on the supernatural.
Not all Gothic stories have superantural elements. You might consider
Poe's "The Fall of the House of Usher" and "The Cask of Amontillado",
amongst others, before making such an assumption. Also, don't forget that
"Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus" is also widely recognized as the
first Science Fiction novel.
Great Expectations does not fit into a
> 'sentimentalist' bracket, any more than Wuthering Heights is Gothic.
"Great Expectations" and "Wuthering Heights" aren't true "Gothics" per
se, so much as they are novels with strong *Gothic elements*. The scenes of
ghostly haunting in "Heights"are certainly Gothic in origin and tone.
Heathcliff himself is clearly Byronic, likely inspired by the title
character in "Manfred". And how about Ms. Havisham? Now *there* is a Gothic
character if ever there was one, what with her filthy old wedding dress,
that spider infested wedding cake and that mansion as a symbol for her
confining narcissism.
> Great Expectations is gritty social realism from someone who had walked
the
> waterfront, not romance from a clever lady dreaming from behind closed
> doors.
Oh, yeah, and like most of Dickens' novels its plot is utterly
believable and doesn't stretch credulity even just a little. };)
When you bring in Goethe you should here be mentioning 'Wilhelm
> Meister' (17941796) and a style that became prevalent in England with
such
> books as Daniel Defoe's 'Robinson Crusoe.'
Well, when discussing the Gothic I should also be mentioning John
Polidori, William Beckford, Anne Radcliffe and Mathew Gregory "Monk" Lewis
and countless others, but that would take up quite a bit of time and space,
don't you think? Just because I omit something in a discussion doesn't mean
I don't know about it, dude.
> >Actually, now that I think of it, one of my very first screenplays was
> >inspired in part by "Wuthering Heights". It was a Gothic Rock N' Roll
> >Musical called "Grave Desires", written just for fun and exercise. *L*
Yeah,
> >t's just say that one is staying in my filing cabinet where it belongs.
>
> Thanks. You are not as daft as you sound.
And if, in your youth, you never experienced the wild joy of writing
something strange, ill conceived and utterly preposterous, I truly pity you
my friend.
Cheers,
B
Michael Dines
> The very first "Gothic" novel was "The Castle of Otranto", written by a
> rather odd chap named Horace Walpole.
Ahem. That's not a very respectful way to refer to the youngest son of
Britain's first Prime Minister (as I suspect you know).
I'm sure no one in your own country would dare to be so impertinent
about the fruit of the loins of your elected leader.
D C
----------
In article <b52jad$369$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net>, "Brian Christgau"
<ra...@NOFRIGINSPAMpipeline.com> wrote:
> "D C" <dcnew...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3e73c...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>> I read this and wonder on what basis 'Great Expectations' is 'arguably
>> Dickens' best novel.' What would those arguments be?
>
> Well, clearly, it comes down to a matter of personal opinion. Most
> scholars, critics and fans would probably pick "David Copperfield", but for
> my money (and John Irving's, for that matter) "Great Expectations" is the
> one book of his that has always stayed closest to my heart.
Sure, but the "arguably best" implies arguments exist that are very solid
and pretty irrefutable.
>
snip
>
>
> "Great Expectations" and "Wuthering Heights" aren't true "Gothics" per
> se, so much as they are novels with strong *Gothic elements*. The scenes of
> ghostly haunting in "Heights"are certainly Gothic in origin and tone.
> Heathcliff himself is clearly Byronic, likely inspired by the title
> character in "Manfred". And how about Ms. Havisham? Now *there* is a Gothic
> character if ever there was one, what with her filthy old wedding dress,
> that spider infested wedding cake and that mansion as a symbol for her
> confining narcissism.
Expectations is a piece of melodrama with aspects of social realism.
Wuthering Heights is a romantic/poetic novel. Miss Haversham is simply too
real to be a Gothic figure. Too real, too silly, too helpless, too comic. I
am surprised you like this book but don't seem to see that.
>> Great Expectations is gritty social realism from someone who had walked
> the
>> waterfront, not romance from a clever lady dreaming from behind closed
>> doors.
>
> Oh, yeah, and like most of Dickens' novels its plot is utterly
> believable and doesn't stretch credulity even just a little. };)
Dickens was a deeply keen appraiser of huamn folly and social realism,
and as such actually influenced the law and destiny of the UK. Not many
writers can
claim that. Certainly not Emily Bronte.
>
> When you bring in Goethe you should here be mentioning 'Wilhelm
>> Meister' (17941796) and a style that became prevalent in England with
> such
>> books as Daniel Defoe's 'Robinson Crusoe.'
>
> Well, when discussing the Gothic I should also be mentioning John
> Polidori, William Beckford, Anne Radcliffe and Mathew Gregory "Monk" Lewis
> and countless others, but that would take up quite a bit of time and space,
> don't you think? Just because I omit something in a discussion doesn't mean
> I don't know about it, dude.
I was not discussing the Gothic, but what is not Gothic.
>
>> >Actually, now that I think of it, one of my very first screenplays was
>> >inspired in part by "Wuthering Heights". It was a Gothic Rock N' Roll
>> >Musical called "Grave Desires", written just for fun and exercise. *L*
> Yeah,
>> >t's just say that one is staying in my filing cabinet where it belongs.
>>
>> Thanks. You are not as daft as you sound.
>
> And if, in your youth, you never experienced the wild joy of writing
> something strange, ill conceived and utterly preposterous, I truly pity you
> my friend.
>
Thanks but I am the wrong target for your pity!
D C
----------
In article
<1frxlvl.19x...@213-48-251-246.cro.cvx.blueyonder.co.uk>,
michaeldines@NO_SPICED_HAMblueyonder.co.uk (Michael Dines) wrote:
Neither would I, I think they are great girls.
AS to Christgau - off to the Tower!
Mysti Rubert
- an open mind
- a compassionate spirit
- an ability to research topics of interest to him or her
If millions of billions of people love a work, be it Wuthering Heights
or a snappy song-and-dance
from Bollywood, it's likely there's SOMETHING GOING ON. Your exercise is
to compare and
contrast the events in WH with this lyric from the Tina Turner song:
"what's love got to do with it?"
If you are genuinely curious about W.H., here are some places to start:
http://www.thecinemalaser.com/dvd_reviews/wuthering-heights-dvd.htm
(this supplies just a few simple sentences that answer the question
"whazzup widat film?")
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/6064/bronte.html
for a very biased but fairly clear summary of Bronte and WH.
there are of course dozens of scholarly examinations of the book, and
probably the film, in print. Have fun!!!!
It's good to look at films that don't have the typical American
redemption theme.
We've survived on a more or less steady diet of it since HUAC shut down
film noir
(okay, maybe postwar affluence really shut it down), and these films are
still hard to
get funded because the 24 year old MBA's in charge still believe you
can't fill a theatre
with a dark theme or depressing ending. Okay, not all of them do. but
too many of them.
Brief period of respite in 70s seems like a distant memory now, with the
occasional
bright spot (Grifters, for example).
So go on, live a little. Open that mind and do some research when an
interesting question
like this comes up. Pulp Fiction drove me up the wall, but I did go out
and explore what
people liked about it (besides the style and veneer of hipness which was
obvious even to me!),
for example. Still trying to figure out what fans saw in the last
couple of Star Wars movies :)
Mysti
Brian Christgau
news:3e752...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> ----------
> In article <b52jad$369$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net>, "Brian Christgau"
> <ra...@NOFRIGINSPAMpipeline.com> wrote:
> Sure, but the "arguably best" implies arguments exist that are very solid
> and pretty irrefutable.
Uh, pardon me, but had it occured to you that "arguably" might imply
that the statement is, uh, open to argument? Most Dickens fans wouldn't pick
"Great Expectations" as his el primo grande achievement, but there are
enough people in my camp to make my opinion far from rare. On a personal
level, I think it has a plot, characters and emotional resonance that are
second to none in all his work. But, as I stated, that's a matter of purely
subjective opinion. I have no problem with those who would disagree and even
I haven't read *everything* Dickens has written.
> Expectations is a piece of melodrama with aspects of social realism.
> Wuthering Heights is a romantic/poetic novel. Miss Haversham is simply
too
> real to be a Gothic figure. Too real, too silly, too helpless, too comic.
I
> am surprised you like this book but don't seem to see that.
Too real? Oh, sure I know lots of women who were jilted on their wedding
day who lock themselves in their houses, wandering about in their wedding
dress for decades, plotting revenge on the male sex. Too silly? I'd say that
she's more frightening and bizarre than silly. She's about as comic as
Madeline Usher.
> Dickens was a deeply keen appraiser of huamn folly and social realism,
> and as such actually influenced the law and destiny of the UK. Not many
> writers can
> claim that. Certainly not Emily Bronte.
On that, I couldn't possibly agree with you more.
> I was not discussing the Gothic, but what is not Gothic.
But how can you rightly have a discussion about what's not Gothic
without first defining what *is* Gothic?
Cheers,
B
D C
----------
In article <b55orb$c9k$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net>, "Brian Christgau"
<ra...@NOFRIGINSPAMpipeline.com> wrote:
> "D C" <poss...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:3e752...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>> ----------
>> In article <b52jad$369$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net>, "Brian Christgau"
>> <ra...@NOFRIGINSPAMpipeline.com> wrote:
>> Sure, but the "arguably best" implies arguments exist that are very solid
>> and pretty irrefutable.
>
> Uh, pardon me, but had it occured to you that "arguably" might imply
> that the statement is, uh, open to argument? Most Dickens fans wouldn't pick
> "Great Expectations" as his el primo grande achievement, but there are
> enough people in my camp to make my opinion far from rare. On a personal
> level, I think it has a plot, characters and emotional resonance that are
> second to none in all his work. But, as I stated, that's a matter of purely
> subjective opinion. I have no problem with those who would disagree and even
> I haven't read *everything* Dickens has written.
Well, this is the type argument that goes nowhere. I think of the Beethoven
symphonies the third is the best. You could argue this was the point where
classical and modern fused in the symphony, apart from all else. You could
soundly argue that bananafish is Salinger's best true short story.
Uktimately, of course this is all pointless. Apart from lending perspective
to the understanding of the range and significance of an artist.
I see Copperfield as a perfect novel. Tender, informed by life, optimistic.
But what does it matter?
>
>> Expectations is a piece of melodrama with aspects of social realism.
>> Wuthering Heights is a romantic/poetic novel. Miss Haversham is simply
> too
>> real to be a Gothic figure. Too real, too silly, too helpless, too comic.
> I
>> am surprised you like this book but don't seem to see that.
>
> Too real? Oh, sure I know lots of women who were jilted on their wedding
> day who lock themselves in their houses, wandering about in their wedding
> dress for decades, plotting revenge on the male sex. Too silly? I'd say that
> she's more frightening and bizarre than silly. She's about as comic as
> Madeline Usher.
I know what you mean but applying 'Gothic' to this is I feel hugely
highflown. Dickens was an acute social observer (read the journalism to see
that) and his characters were sometimes coloured caricatures but the drawing
was invariably from life. Miss Haversham? My friend, the world is full of
people like that. And so are psychiatric wards.
>
>> Dickens was a deeply keen appraiser of huamn folly and social realism,
>> and as such actually influenced the law and destiny of the UK. Not many
>> writers can
>> claim that. Certainly not Emily Bronte.
>
> On that, I couldn't possibly agree with you more.
Thanks.
>
>> I was not discussing the Gothic, but what is not Gothic.
>
> But how can you rightly have a discussion about what's not Gothic
> without first defining what *is* Gothic?
I think Gothic is effects to achieve an impact, (invariably involving
the supernatural or rooted in odd dark surroundings) whereas in *imaginative
writing* the impact is realised in terms of effects which is the opposite.
Best,
>
> Cheers,
>
> B
>
>
D C
----------
In article <3E75EB70...@oracle.com>, Mysti Rubert
<mysti....@oracle.com> wrote:
> I think some of the most valuable assets a writer can have include:
>
> - an open mind
> - a compassionate spirit
> - an ability to research topics of interest to him or her
>
> If millions of billions of people love a work, be it Wuthering Heights
> or a snappy song-and-dance
> from Bollywood, it's likely there's SOMETHING GOING ON. Your exercise is
> to compare and
> contrast the events in WH with this lyric from the Tina Turner song:
>
Neal wasn't being a literary critic - he offered a personal opinion
on a film, that seemed mannered and pretentious (at least to
two psters here.)
Stating the obvious with a massive non sequiter is not helping.
Mysti Rubert
another writer to open his eyes and actually examine material instead of merely
dismissing it based on personal reaction. Who cares what I personally think
of Pulp Fiction or Wuthering Heights except my fiance, my cat, and my shrink?
When I read a post here, I expect my fellow writers to do more than knee jerk.
To dismiss something as "crap" without explaining why, or looking for the value of a work even if it isn't personally valuable to the writer, is what writers do to keep learning, expanding, growing. Dismissing any work as "crap" is immediately satisfying but not useful to oneself or other writers. Now, if the crap thrower had thought
about the work long enough to say WHY it failed to move him, that would be
useful information, fodder for discussion.
For example, why Pulp Fiction failed to move me was I did see any action
or reaction that helped me give a flying fig about the characters or their dilemmas,
the dialog was sufficiently arch to make me feel the hand of the writer at almost
all times, and the themes felt familiar, shopworn, not like homage so much as
bad xeroxes of the original. Now, there was also plenty to admire about the
piece, interesting story structure, lovely dark look at American culture, impassioned
performances from actors who can do hackwork, but none did here, and some
very interesting visuals/colors.
Another example re: Wuthering Heights: the vision of class trapping humans in
tragic situations was powerful. Pacing was "old-fashioned" slow for me, visuals
in black and white sometimes quite stunning, Olivier was by turns sympathetic,
terrifying, pathetic....that's all I remember, I'll have to see it again to give it a
real go.
This may be useful information to other writers, a basis for discussion, such as
"Mysti, you clown, that movie wasn't about class warfare! it was about the
way two passionate people in love can still end tragically because of their
inability to throw off their own fears" or whatever. That's useful and interesting.
"that movie was crap" sounds so much like Eric Cartman that it hurts.
I'm sure the original poster has lots of interesting opinions, and is not at all
like Eric Cartman, and I look forward to posts that include fodder for discussion.
Mysti
Otto Mation (Caroline Freisen)
Mysti, Sweetie Pie, I think you're digging too hard! But of course,
this is all a matter of opinion. For me, being a writer is creating
new worlds. And like "god," I don't need any help, thank you, but
once the creation is complete, then a little feedback from very
specific people whose knowledge and opinions I respect is not out of
the question.
For me, the most valuable feedback on my scripts comes from the
studios, production companies, and producers they are submitted to. I
don't particularly value the critiques of other writers, unless I know
them well and know their ability to be creatively open minded, because
in most cases other writers will only try to get me to write their
way. Writing is a lot like religion: There's a whole lot of
proselytizing going on!
There is also a great advantage that comes to writing through age,
though Hollywood seems totally blind to this aspect. Age provides a
rich range of experience and accrued knowledge to draw upon. Age also
gives you the confidence and experience to say to someone (producer,
director, whomever), "No, that character wouldn't do that because
..." But age also (hopefully) brings wisdom and open mindedness and
therefore the ability to consider the merits, if they exist, of a
suggestion to do something another way.
And all of this experience also brings ease with the fact that not all
approaches work for all people. All this said, here's a thought for
you to consider or reject outright... You might try looking more into
yourself and your talent for writing than in checking out what other
people think or do... Writing *is* a solitary pursuit. '-)
Caroline
Dr. Jai Maharaj
ot...@elp.rr.comnospamplease posted:
>
> Mysti, Sweetie Pie, I think you're digging too hard!
I agree with that assessment about what she's doing.
> But of course,
> this is all a matter of opinion. For me, being a writer is creating
> new worlds. And like "god," I don't need any help, thank you, but
> once the creation is complete, then a little feedback from very
> specific people whose knowledge and opinions I respect is not out of
> the question.
Since nearly everything can be improved or modified, it is never
complete. Relevant feedback by successful writers and potential
buyers at certain stages of the work is certainly helpful.
> For me, the most valuable feedback on my scripts comes from the
> studios, production companies, and producers they are submitted to.
Yes, they are the ones who matter as far as commercial
projects are concerned. Many people render advice in these
fora but how many of them are buyers or writers who have sold?
> I
> don't particularly value the critiques of other writers, unless I know
> them well and know their ability to be creatively open minded, because
> in most cases other writers will only try to get me to write their
> way. Writing is a lot like religion: There's a whole lot of
> proselytizing going on!
Well, Islam and Christianity are the main culprits
as far as that's concerned. They try to *force* conversion
by murder and deceipt.
> There is also a great advantage that comes to writing through age,
> though Hollywood seems totally blind to this aspect. Age provides a
> rich range of experience and accrued knowledge to draw upon. Age also
> gives you the confidence and experience to say to someone (producer,
> director, whomever), "No, that character wouldn't do that because
> ...." But age also (hopefully) brings wisdom and open mindedness and
> therefore the ability to consider the merits, if they exist, of a
> suggestion to do something another way.
Excellent points about age and experience. But, you know what --
the penudulum is swinging the other way now. I think that the
main reason for this is that the younger generation in a certain
age group is now trying to grow up.
> And all of this experience also brings ease with the fact that not all
> approaches work for all people. All this said, here's a thought for
> you to consider or reject outright... You might try looking more into
> yourself and your talent for writing than in checking out what other
> people think or do... Writing *is* a solitary pursuit. '-)
> Caroline
As within, so without.
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
nmstevens
> I'm not being a literary critic, I'm being a thinking, working writer, encouraging
> another writer to open his eyes and actually examine material instead of merely
> dismissing it based on personal reaction. Who cares what I personally think
> of Pulp Fiction or Wuthering Heights except my fiance, my cat, and my shrink?
>
> When I read a post here, I expect my fellow writers to do more than knee jerk.
>
> To dismiss something as "crap" without explaining why, or looking for the value of a work even if it isn't personally valuable to the writer, is what writers do to keep learning, expanding, growing. Dismissing any work as "crap" is immediately satisfying but not useful to oneself or other writers. Now, if the crap thrower had thought
> about the work long enough to say WHY it failed to move him, that would be
> useful information, fodder for discussion.
Well, it's nice to know that you presume that I dismissed "Wuthering
Heights" without looking for the value of the work -- and I did,
albeit briefly, explain why I considered it to be crap -- namely that
the two people at the heart of it, with whom we are supposed to feel
something like empathy, if not outright attraction, struck me as
utterly unsympathetic twits who, it seems to me, were their own worst
enemies throughout the whole thing and (especially in the case of
Heathcliff) -- really behaved shamefully and despicably.
And while one can certainly identify, even with a horrible person, if
he finds himself in a deep enough hole, it's much harder when the hole
in question is largely dug by the person who's stuck at the bottom of
it.
That being said - I don't fundamentally disagree with the principle
you suggest -- namely that one ought to look at any successful film,
whether you personally like it or not, to try to understand what is
reaching an audience.
Just recently Bill Martell took me to task when I ripped the crap out
of "Signs" -- another movie that I thought was an intolerable,
embarassing piece of crap -- and made essentially the same point --
it's obviously working for a lot of people and, as a writer, I should
try to understand why.
The funny thing is -- some time ago (back around the time that
"Titanic" came out) -- I made exactly the same point on this NG --
that any movie that's hugely successful must be working for an
audience in some fashion, and that the more we understand what works
for an audience, the more tools we have, as writers, to make our
screenplays work for audiences (albeit a rather different audience,
but the principle is the same).
And usually -- I'll try to do this. With something like "Titanic" that
is so awful in so many ways, I think that I can identify what works in
it -- the arch doomed romance -- the rich girl whose soul (in essence)
is saved by this guy's sacrifice -- the incredible spectacle of the
sinking itself. And so you can you sort of say, yeah, the dialogue was
horrible, the characters were horrid -- but somehow or other, it sort
of works.
But with "Signs" -- and also with "Wuthering Heights" -- I just don't
get it. I can't see why anyone would watch these things and not find
them to be unwatchable junk.
I don't understand their success. I don't understand their reputation.
Is a puzzlement to me.
NMS
D C
----------
In article <3E7B3C2B...@oracle.com>, Mysti Rubert
<mysti....@spamoracle.com> wrote:
> I'm not being a literary critic, I'm being a thinking, working writer,
encouraging
> another writer to open his eyes and actually examine material instead of
merely
> dismissing it based on personal reaction. Who cares what I personally think
> of Pulp Fiction or Wuthering Heights except my fiance, my cat, and my shrink?
>
> When I read a post here, I expect my fellow writers to do more than knee jerk.
As this appears a response to a post of mine, I will ask you this question.
Why are you so defensive about your views? The value of your opinions
are not predicated upon whether of not other people post for them.
If you are one of these zanies who thinks being right is have two people
on a newsgroup say you are, then I am the wrong target for your opinions.
Your comments about the pacing in Wuthering Heignts - one of its good points
- would seem facile to say the least.
If you wish to offer a critique of a work you like, you may well find you
get a full and sensible answer.
Lwaving everyone else to do the hard work, like a smug sixteen year old
is a common Usenet vice. I personally don't have time to write an essay
in every coffee break.
But -----
Open group - post on.
D C
----------
In article <writing-20n8...@news.mantra.com>, use...@mantra.com
(Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:
>> I
>> don't particularly value the critiques of other writers, unless I know
>> them well and know their ability to be creatively open minded, because
>> in most cases other writers will only try to get me to write their
>> way. Writing is a lot like religion: There's a whole lot of
>> proselytizing going on!
>
> Well, Islam and Christianity are the main culprits
> as far as that's concerned. They try to *force* conversion
> by murder and deceipt.
I would personally appreciate it if you did not use a writing group for
anti-Christian propaganda.
I know nothing of Islam.
But I do know about Christianity. Unlike you, I went to a Church junior
school, and a High School where Christianity was the received religion.
At no point at all was pressure of any type put upon me to see the light,
through pressure of an abusive nature was put upon me to be many things I
was not. Actual Christianity is quite the opposite of what you suggest.
I kindly suggest you search for reality.
Certainly many dreadful people have used the Christian religion as their
justification, as no doubt many evil Hindus have used their religion in a
similar manner.
I will not comment further in response to your inappropriate and misleading
observations on this subject.
Mysti Rubert
from other writers, trained to analyze a work, as opposed to
wanting me to rewrite it their way.
There's nothing wrong with being an "instinctive" or "primitive" writer, but
there's nothing especially useful about instinctive or primitive responses :)
I've taught a few of writers in detective fiction, literary fiction, and comic books
to analyze their own work, and to improve areas that needed improving without destroying their own voice or vision, especially in thorny areas like dialog and traditionally difficult areas like structure (or, if you like, pacing).
Like someone said on this list long ago, I wouldn't try to build a chair
without knowing how many legs it needed.
Mysti
Mysti Rubert
Best of luck,
Mysti