101 Best Screenplays
trike
groups....
The Writer's Guild of Amerca has voted on the 101 Best Screenplays, and
a surprising number of them are Fantasy and Science Fiction.
http://www.wga.org/subpage_newsevents.aspx?id=1684
http://www.wga.org/subpage_newsevents.aspx?id=1807
The highest one is IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE at number 20. Although some
have argued that DR. STRANGELOVE (#12) is SF, I don't consider it to
be. Some days I'm undecided about #55 APOCALYPSE NOW, and THE PRINCESS
BRIDE (#84) technically isn't a Fantasy, but sure feels like one.
Since SUNSET BLVD. is narrated by a dead man, it might be a Fantasy,
but I'd have to see it again to make that call. Since most musicals
are reality-challenged, SINGIN' IN THE RAIN is a Fantasy, but I'm
leaving it off the list because that genre gets special dispensation
from most people. likewise, 8-1/2 (87)and ADAPTATION (77) are similar
films about filmmaking that aren't Fantasies but sure feel like them.
We'll call all these "near misses."
Even with all the exceptions and near-misses excluded, it's still
better than 10%.
20. IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE
24. ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND
25. THE WIZARD OF OZ
27. GROUNDHOG DAY
42. RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK
50. THE SIXTH SENSE
56. BACK TO THE FUTURE
67. E.T. THE EXTRATERRESTRIAL
68. STAR WARS
74. BEING JOHN MALKOVICH
81. BEING THERE
88. FIELD OF DREAMS
Doug
Gene Ward Smith
trike wrote:
> 81. BEING THERE
Being There isn't sf.
Rich Horton
wrote:
> THE PRINCESS
>BRIDE (#84) technically isn't a Fantasy, but sure feels like one.
I really don't think the mere presence of a frame story disqualifies
it from being fantasy. I think it's an anambiguous case: it is a
fantasy film, and a very good one.
Rich Horton
wrote:
>On 7 Apr 2006 22:44:27 -0700, "trike" <dougtr...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> THE PRINCESS
>>BRIDE (#84) technically isn't a Fantasy, but sure feels like one.
>
>I really don't think the mere presence of a frame story disqualifies
>it from being fantasy. I think it's an anambiguous
I meant to type unambiguous, of course. I suppose "anambiguous" means
something like the concept of ambiguity wouldn't even apply
Howard Brazee
wrote:
> THE PRINCESS
>BRIDE (#84) technically isn't a Fantasy, but sure feels like one.
You mean taking pills to recover someone from being "mostly dead" was
a real part of medieval life?
Howard Brazee
<genewa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 81. BEING THERE
>
>Being There isn't sf.
The very last scene might qualify.
Paul Arthur
Yes, as was sucking the life force out of someone with a water-powered
vacuum.
Paul Arthur MacIain
--
Where do you think you're going today?
Sean O'Hara
> Since this is both written and movies, I figured I'd post in both
> groups....
>
> The Writer's Guild of Amerca has voted on the 101 Best Screenplays, and
> a surprising number of them are Fantasy and Science Fiction.
>
This list is being torn apart in movie discussion groups for, (1)
the inclusion of films like Casablanca that are famous for having
scripts in flux all the way up to the last day of shooting, (2)
including two non-English films, which means that foreign films are
admissible, but not including more than two, which implies that all
the best scripts were written in America, (3) leaving out a number
of great scripts like Laura, Out of the Past, and The Thin man, but
(4) including a helluva lot of crap, such as:
> 68. STAR WARS
The script is horrible, and renowned for the fact that the actors
could hardly say the lines. The fact that the final movie was so
good is *despite* the screenplay, not because of it. But Empire
Strikes Back, which actually is well written, is omitted.
--
Sean O'Hara | http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com
The most effective step that you can take to help protect yourself
from malicious hyperlinks is not to click them. Rather, type the URL
of your intended destination in the address bar yourself.
-Microsoft
trike
Watch the end again.
Doug
trike
Well, no. (Can't tell if you're serious or not.) The story of Wesley
and Buttercup is being told to the Boy by his Grandfather, so it's not
supposed to have "actually" happened. The framing device of the bulk
of the film being a read-aloud story keeps it from being an actual
fantasy.
I've argued before that THE WIZARD OF OZ likewise isn't technically a
Fantasy because the color parts of that film take place in Dorothy's
dream, but the inclusion of the song "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" blurs
the line enough that it becomes more of a judgement call. Not so with
BRIDE, as the fantastic elements are pretty straightforwardly the
cinematic equivalent of a book's illustrations, or a
story-within-a-story. Either way, not a Fantasy, but if you like
Fantasies, you'll probably enjoy PRINCESS BRIDE.
Yes, I'm splitting hairs, but that's where all the fun is.
Doug
trike
Sean O'Hara wrote:
> In the Year of the Dog, the Great and Powerful trike declared:
> > Since this is both written and movies, I figured I'd post in both
> > groups....
> >
> > The Writer's Guild of Amerca has voted on the 101 Best Screenplays, and
> > a surprising number of them are Fantasy and Science Fiction.
> >
>
> This list is being torn apart in movie discussion groups for, (1)
> the inclusion of films like Casablanca that are famous for having
> scripts in flux all the way up to the last day of shooting, (2)
> including two non-English films, which means that foreign films are
> admissible, but not including more than two, which implies that all
> the best scripts were written in America, (3) leaving out a number
> of great scripts like Laura, Out of the Past, and The Thin man, but
> (4) including a helluva lot of crap, such as:
>
>
> > 68. STAR WARS
>
> The script is horrible, and renowned for the fact that the actors
> could hardly say the lines. The fact that the final movie was so
> good is *despite* the screenplay, not because of it. But Empire
> Strikes Back, which actually is well written, is omitted.
Although I disagree about these particular films (I think TESB is
wretched while STAR WARS is a hoot), I do agree that many of those
scripts shouldn't have made the list, or that others should be there
instead. (ET makes it but CLOSE ENCOUNTERS doesn't... say wha? TO
KILL A MOCKINGBIRD? Surely you jest. THE MALTESE FALCON was a
breakthrough for Bogie and Huston, but it's not one of the greatest
screenplays ever written, especialy that messy third act.)
I think if they vote again in 10 years that list will look completely
different. THE PRODUCERS is probably on there because of the Broadway
play, and SIDEWAYS, while a good little film that I would recommend,
isn't as well written as many others I could name, such as SCENT OF A
WOMAN. L.A. CONFIDENTIAL doesn't belong on that list in any wise. If
you want to substitute a cop movie that's full of ambiguity and flawed
characters, take a look at FORT APACHE, THE BRONX.
I wouldn't exclude a screenplay just because it was written on the fly,
the ink barely dry on the page before the scene was shot. Sometimes
that's a great way to catch lightning in a bottle, and there's
something to be said for not overthinking improvisation. Not just
CASABLANCA but also NORTH BY NORTHWEST was written this way, and those
are both pretty great scripts/movies.
Doug
Paul Arthur
>
> Howard Brazee wrote:
>> On 7 Apr 2006 22:44:27 -0700, "trike" <dougtr...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > THE PRINCESS
>> >BRIDE (#84) technically isn't a Fantasy, but sure feels like one.
>>
>> You mean taking pills to recover someone from being "mostly dead" was
>> a real part of medieval life?
>
> Well, no. (Can't tell if you're serious or not.) The story of Wesley
> and Buttercup is being told to the Boy by his Grandfather, so it's not
> supposed to have "actually" happened. The framing device of the bulk
> of the film being a read-aloud story keeps it from being an actual
> fantasy.
Well, no. The story of the grandfather reading to the boy is being told
to us by the filmmaker, so it's not supposed to have "actually"
happened. The framing device of having the story appear on screen keeps
it from being an actual read-aloud story.
> I've argued before that THE WIZARD OF OZ likewise isn't technically a
> Fantasy because the color parts of that film take place in Dorothy's
> dream, but the inclusion of the song "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" blurs
> the line enough that it becomes more of a judgement call. Not so with
> BRIDE, as the fantastic elements are pretty straightforwardly the
> cinematic equivalent of a book's illustrations, or a
> story-within-a-story. Either way, not a Fantasy, but if you like
> Fantasies, you'll probably enjoy PRINCESS BRIDE.
Well, no. You can't change something from being a fantasy to being
realistic by adding a framing story. The addition of a framing story to
Shakespear's _A Midsummer Night's Dream_ which explains it as a dream
that someone is having does not change the fact that people do not fall
in love due to a mischievous fairy applying a flower to their eyes.
I think what you're overlooking here is which story the film is actually
about, and which story is capable of standing on its own. If you cut
out all of the interaction betweeen the narrator and his grandson, the
story of Wesley and Buttercup is perfectly capable of standing on its
own as filmed; the converse is not true.
Paul Arthur MacIain
--
The best things in life are free, but the
expensive ones are still worth a look.
Jack Bohn
>This list is being torn apart in movie discussion groups for, (1)
>the inclusion of films like Casablanca that are famous for having
>scripts in flux all the way up to the last day of shooting,
As a guy who only gets things done at the last minute, I have to
ask, what's wrong with that? As long as it was the
scriptwriting, and not the actors tap-dancing out of it, or the
director just shooting a giant 'splosion, it's still good
writing.
This raises the thought (and forgive me if it's an old one, it's
the first time *I've* had it) That the screenplay is only a part
needed to make the movie. Might looking for the best screenplay
be a bit like judging the best sketch and studies for a painting,
or the best outline made for a novel, or choosing which building
had had the best blueprints? Keeping it in the movies, is there
much discussion about the 101 Best Storyboards?
>(2) including two non-English films, which means that foreign films are
>admissible, but not including more than two, which implies that all
>the best scripts were written in America,
As little as I know about scripts, I know less about foreign
scripts. Still, this brings up the idea:
Movies with the best scripts: Hamlet, Othello, Macbeth, Much Ado
About Nothing, As You Like it...
>(4) including a helluva lot of crap, such as:
>
>
>> 68. STAR WARS
>
>The script is horrible, and renowned for the fact that the actors
>could hardly say the lines.
You can still hear their trouble with "I hope the old man put the
tractor beam out of commission, or this is gonna be a really
short trip, okay, hit it."
But lines like that, and "I recognized your vile stench the
moment I was brought on board," are to the point of the script,
and it's to whatever directorial talent Lucas had that he caught
them a well-delivered as they were; one might as well fault Guys
and Dolls for not using the past tense.
> The fact that the final movie was so
>good is *despite* the screenplay, not because of it.
Definitely his contributions to the art of filmmaking are more
his techniques of making a first draft of a movie *as a movie*
than any literary approach.
--
-Jack
r.r...@thevine.net
wrote:
Interesting. If I understand your position, the framing story stops
the movie from being a fantasy. While other people's opinion is that
the movie is a fantasy, framing story not withstanding. I'd say that
this is a difference of opinion on what the important part of the
movie is. Is it the story of Wesley and Buttercup, which just happens
to be being told to a young boy by his grandfather, or is the movie
about the experience of a young boy being told a story by his
grandfather? I lean toward the first for the movie, but I think the
book leans toward the second. And yet, most people accept that the
book is Fantasy.
Rebecca
Howard Brazee
<flower...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Well, no. The story of the grandfather reading to the boy is being told
>to us by the filmmaker, so it's not supposed to have "actually"
>happened. The framing device of having the story appear on screen keeps
>it from being an actual read-aloud story.
Well, I suppose _The Time Machine_ also is just the author telling us
what The Traveler told him.
Howard Brazee
>Interesting. If I understand your position, the framing story stops
>the movie from being a fantasy. While other people's opinion is that
>the movie is a fantasy, framing story not withstanding. I'd say that
>this is a difference of opinion on what the important part of the
>movie is. Is it the story of Wesley and Buttercup, which just happens
>to be being told to a young boy by his grandfather, or is the movie
>about the experience of a young boy being told a story by his
>grandfather? I lean toward the first for the movie, but I think the
>book leans toward the second. And yet, most people accept that the
>book is Fantasy.
What is the movie _Big Fish_?
dre...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>The Writer's Guild of Amerca has voted on the 101 Best Screenplays, and
>a surprising number of them are Fantasy and Science Fiction.
Hardly surprising, considering 50% of movies have some form of
fantastic element in them.
{Pepo}
<sean...@gmail.com> writes
>In the Year of the Dog, the Great and Powerful trike declared:
>> Since this is both written and movies, I figured I'd post in both
>> groups....
>> The Writer's Guild of Amerca has voted on the 101 Best Screenplays,
>>and
>> a surprising number of them are Fantasy and Science Fiction.
>>
>
>This list is being torn apart in movie discussion groups for, (1) the
>inclusion of films like Casablanca that are famous for having scripts
>in flux all the way up to the last day of shooting, (2) including two
>non-English films, which means that foreign films are admissible, but
>not including more than two, which implies that all the best scripts
>were written in America,
I've got to agree.
A trawl through the list revealed, as far as I could see, 94 US films, 5
UK and 2 other - a little top-heavy even by American standards.
--
Pepo
r.r...@thevine.net
wrote:
I'd put it in the "Tall Tale" category... real life richly embroidered
and elaborated.
Rebecca
Howard Brazee
>>What is the movie _Big Fish_?
>
>I'd put it in the "Tall Tale" category... real life richly embroidered
>and elaborated.
Another choice - written by a SF author but which may fall in the
_Wizard of Oz_ category - _Mirror Mask_.
westprog
"Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:4sli32heej2pc6as2...@4ax.com...
AFAIAC, if there is a disclaimer saying that the characters are not based on
living people, then it isn't a fantasy. In fact, I don't think fantasy even
exists if the restrictions are applied strictly enough. It's either made up
or true, and neither counts.
J/
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...] THE PRINCESS
> BRIDE (#84) technically isn't a Fantasy, but sure feels like one.
Can you tell my why you don't think it falls into the classification
of fantasy?
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Free the Memes.
trike
Paul Arthur wrote:
> On 2006-04-09, trike <dougtr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Howard Brazee wrote:
> >> On 7 Apr 2006 22:44:27 -0700, "trike" <dougtr...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > THE PRINCESS
> >> >BRIDE (#84) technically isn't a Fantasy, but sure feels like one.
> >>
> >> You mean taking pills to recover someone from being "mostly dead" was
> >> a real part of medieval life?
> >
> > Well, no. (Can't tell if you're serious or not.) The story of Wesley
> > and Buttercup is being told to the Boy by his Grandfather, so it's not
> > supposed to have "actually" happened. The framing device of the bulk
> > of the film being a read-aloud story keeps it from being an actual
> > fantasy.
>
> Well, no. The story of the grandfather reading to the boy is being told
> to us by the filmmaker, so it's not supposed to have "actually"
> happened. The framing device of having the story appear on screen keeps
> it from being an actual read-aloud story.
I reject all attempts at rationalizing that kind of post-modernist
nonsense. The basic premise for genre-typing is that we are voyeurs,
watching a story unfold. (Or, in the case of books, reading that
story.) A film or novel is not a "framing device." "Framing device"
is a very specific term about the _contents_ of a work, not the
physical form the work takes. Therefore, something like THE PRINCESS
BRIDE, featuring a story-within-a-story does *not* automatically become
a story-within-a-story-within-a-story just because it's in a book or on
film.
> > I've argued before that THE WIZARD OF OZ likewise isn't technically a
> > Fantasy because the color parts of that film take place in Dorothy's
> > dream, but the inclusion of the song "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" blurs
> > the line enough that it becomes more of a judgement call. Not so with
> > BRIDE, as the fantastic elements are pretty straightforwardly the
> > cinematic equivalent of a book's illustrations, or a
> > story-within-a-story. Either way, not a Fantasy, but if you like
> > Fantasies, you'll probably enjoy PRINCESS BRIDE.
>
> Well, no. You can't change something from being a fantasy to being
> realistic by adding a framing story. The addition of a framing story to
> Shakespear's _A Midsummer Night's Dream_ which explains it as a dream
> that someone is having does not change the fact that people do not fall
> in love due to a mischievous fairy applying a flower to their eyes.
A framing device makes all the difference in determining a work's
genre. As a story-within-a-story, that's exactly why it's not
technically a Fantasy. It has all the attributes of a Fantasy, but if
it's a Fantasy tale told to someone and if the larger story, the
framing device, is reality-based, then it's not Fantasy. If you like
Fantasy and it has all the elements of Fantasy, then you'll probably
like it, but we're talking about where to put the demarcation. It's
saying, "On this side of the line is Fantasy, on that side is Drama."
That doesn't mean that one is better than the other, it's just a way to
define the genres.
> I think what you're overlooking here is which story the film is actually
> about, and which story is capable of standing on its own. If you cut
> out all of the interaction betweeen the narrator and his grandson, the
> story of Wesley and Buttercup is perfectly capable of standing on its
> own as filmed; the converse is not true.
That's a result of the story's construction, which has nothing at all
to do with genre typing. THE PRINCESS BRIDE isn't about Westley and
Buttercup's romance, it's about discovering that someone you weren't
really all that fond of really is a good person. Which means that the
story-within-a-story supports the author's thesis, because the
characters in the fantasy discover that, as well.
Regardless of whether one aspect or another can be taken out of context
and fulfill all the requirements of a full-fledged story, the point is
that both the Kid and Buttercup go on the same internal journey of
discovery. The fact that the Kid also learns more about himself by
being exposed to a story he wouldn't otherwise read is icing on the
cake and Goldman's sly way of saying that telling stories, no matter
what their format, is good for us.
Doug
trike
r.r...@thevine.net wrote:
>
> Interesting. If I understand your position, the framing story stops
> the movie from being a fantasy. While other people's opinion is that
> the movie is a fantasy, framing story not withstanding. I'd say that
> this is a difference of opinion on what the important part of the
> movie is. Is it the story of Wesley and Buttercup, which just happens
> to be being told to a young boy by his grandfather, or is the movie
> about the experience of a young boy being told a story by his
> grandfather? I lean toward the first for the movie, but I think the
> book leans toward the second. And yet, most people accept that the
> book is Fantasy.
The emotional journeys that the Kid and Buttercup undertake parallel
one another; in the beginning, neither one appreciates the person who
loves them (Westley for Buttercup, the Grandfather for the Kid), but in
the end they both do. The tale of Westley and Buttercup's romance is
just the way Goldman gets to that point.
While Buttercup realizes fairly early on that Westley loves her when he
says "As you wish," and she realizes that she also loves him, the Kid
hasn't yet made that leap with his grandfather. They bond over the
storytelling and the kid realizes his grandpa isn't such a bad guy
after all. So when the kid asks him to come back to tomorrow and read
the story to him again -- when in the beginning of the film he didn't
want to see his grandfather -- he's come around to the realization that
his grandfather loves him and he loves his grandfather. Goldman
cements this by having the grandfather say, "As you wish."
That's why ultimately THE PRINCESS BRIDE isn't a Fantasy. Sure, the
bulk of the screen time is taken up with a fantastical tale, but really
it's about appreciating the people in your life. So really it's about
the story of the Kid and the Grandfather, not Westley and Buttercup.
The fantasy story inside that, full of humor, romance and derring-do,
is just the proverbial spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down.
Doug
trike
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:
> On 7 Apr 2006 22:44:27 -0700, trike <dougtr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...] THE PRINCESS
> > BRIDE (#84) technically isn't a Fantasy, but sure feels like one.
>
> Can you tell my why you don't think it falls into the classification
> of fantasy?
Hopefully I covered this in my other responses.
Doug
trike
I'm not quite following what you're sayng here, but if you're going to
bring up the notion that "all fiction is fantasy," then you might as
well not engage in genre typing at all, because that's not the way it
works.
Doug
r.r...@thevine.net
wrote:
>
>r.r...@thevine.net wrote:
>>
>> Interesting. If I understand your position, the framing story stops
>> the movie from being a fantasy. While other people's opinion is that
>> the movie is a fantasy, framing story not withstanding. I'd say that
>> this is a difference of opinion on what the important part of the
>> movie is. Is it the story of Wesley and Buttercup, which just happens
>> to be being told to a young boy by his grandfather, or is the movie
>> about the experience of a young boy being told a story by his
>> grandfather? I lean toward the first for the movie, but I think the
>> book leans toward the second. And yet, most people accept that the
>> book is Fantasy.
>
>The emotional journeys that the Kid and Buttercup undertake parallel
>one another; in the beginning, neither one appreciates the person who
>loves them (Westley for Buttercup, the Grandfather for the Kid), but in
>the end they both do. The tale of Westley and Buttercup's romance is
>just the way Goldman gets to that point.
>
I can only say that you and I have different opinions about the Kid
and his Grandfather. I never got the impression that the Kid didn't
like the Grandfather, just that, like many kids today, he'd rather be
playing video games than anything so boring as reading a story. So,
to me, the framing story had nothing to do with paralleling Wesley and
Buttercup, and more about learning that things that you think you
don't like can be OK if you actually try them.
Rebecca
junior-kun
trike wrote:
>
> > > I've argued before that THE WIZARD OF OZ likewise isn't technically a
> > > Fantasy because the color parts of that film take place in Dorothy's
> > > dream, but the inclusion of the song "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" blurs
> > > the line enough that it becomes more of a judgement call. Not so with
> > > BRIDE, as the fantastic elements are pretty straightforwardly the
> > > cinematic equivalent of a book's illustrations, or a
> > > story-within-a-story. Either way, not a Fantasy, but if you like
> > > Fantasies, you'll probably enjoy PRINCESS BRIDE.
> >
> > Well, no. You can't change something from being a fantasy to being
> > realistic by adding a framing story. The addition of a framing story to
> > Shakespear's _A Midsummer Night's Dream_ which explains it as a dream
> > that someone is having does not change the fact that people do not fall
> > in love due to a mischievous fairy applying a flower to their eyes.
>
> A framing device makes all the difference in determining a work's
> genre. As a story-within-a-story, that's exactly why it's not
> technically a Fantasy. It has all the attributes of a Fantasy, but if
> it's a Fantasy tale told to someone and if the larger story, the
> framing device, is reality-based, then it's not Fantasy. If you like
> Fantasy and it has all the elements of Fantasy, then you'll probably
> like it, but we're talking about where to put the demarcation
I disagree with you point of demarcation, I think you have a silly and
pointless definition of genre.
What if the end of Princess Bride implied that the story might possibly
be real? (Neil Gaiman did a story with this device) Does the genre of
the work now exist in a quantom state?
Are you familiar with the tv show, St. Elsewhere? In the very end of
the last episode they revealed that the entire show only existed in the
imagination of an autistic boy.
I suppose, under your standard, a six season hospital drama show
suddenly became a non- genre show at the last two minutes! In fact, it
is now inappropriate to call St. Elsewhere a hospital show, even though
every single episode revolves around a doctors and patients at a
hospital, and the creators who came up with the end bit weren't the
ones who were working on the show at the beginning.
But, if the show had been cancelled at the end of season 5, or the end
sequence had been cut, it would have remained a genre show! Amazing.
My test would be whether the work has substantial genre elements, which
Princess Bride and St. Elsewhere certainly do. No invocation of
postmodernism is needed.
junior-kun
Why not just use J.K. Rowling's definition of fantasy, while your at
it? Harry Potter is not fantasy, because fantasy is crap.
John F. Eldredge
wrote:
These days, such a disclaimer is likely to show up on any work of
fiction, at the insistence of the studio's/publisher's legal
department. Are you saying that all fiction is fantasy?
As far as "r.rice"'s statement, if a story has a real-world wrapper of
someone telling a story, with the "inner story" having magic, I would
certainly class that inner part as a fantasy. In some stories, the
"fictional characters" from the inner story then find their way into
the outer story's world, making it a fantasy as well.
--
John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
PGP key available from http://pgp.mit.edu
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better
than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
r.r...@thevine.net
I remember being amused when noticing, inside the cover of _Judgment
on Janus_, the standard "All characters are fictitious, and any
resemblance to anyone living or dead is strictly coincidental"
statement. Given that the characters were 6-foot tall, bald,
green-skinned aliens, I thought that was a little redundant, but
better safe than sorry nowadays.
Rebecca
Howard Brazee
>I remember being amused when noticing, inside the cover of _Judgment
>on Janus_, the standard "All characters are fictitious, and any
>resemblance to anyone living or dead is strictly coincidental"
>statement. Given that the characters were 6-foot tall, bald,
>green-skinned aliens, I thought that was a little redundant, but
>better safe than sorry nowadays.
That's funny.
I wonder what that statement really does anyway. There's a sign in
the dressing room at the YMCA saying that they aren't responsible for
lost and stolen items. I think that means "please don't sue us". I
suppose that statement says the same thing (unless it is a joke).
And then there's _Fargo_.
Mr. Limpet
I think it means a) we don't have a "Lost-n-Found" bin and b) if you do
manage to get something stolen, do not expect our staff to aid you in its
recovery.
> And then there's _Fargo_.
And then there's _Maude_.
(Sorry, I just love that song)
J. Clarke
Well, now, if one had not been exposed to H. Ross Perot then one would think
that the Ferengi bore little resemblance to any person living or dead. So
one must be careful with such things--there has to be some big bald guy who
is usually seasick out there somewhere.
> Rebecca
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
westprog
"trike" <dougtr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144935471....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
No, it isn't. If we were to exclude stories from the fantasy genre because
of the presence of a framing device, then we'd exclude a lot. The Worm
Ouroborous starts with a dream sequence. The Lord Of The Rings is supposedly
a transcription of an ancient book (exactly as the Princess Bride is
pretending to be). Is The Rime Of The Ancient Mariner changed by the fact
that it is narrated to the wedding guest? Is Dracula invalidated as
supernatural horror because of the epistolatory sequences? Do we disregard
the Sherlock Holmes stories as part of the detective story genre because
they are framed as an account by Dr Watson? All those horror stories
presented as notes found in an empty house?
There are a lot of ways of presenting a story. They don't change the nature
of the story told. They are just a way to lend an air of verisimilitude. It
used to be a lot more common to present a story with some kind of backup to
explain why we were reading it in the first place. Now we can mostly take
our fiction straight.
J/
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>> I'm not quite following what you're sayng here, but if you're going to
>> bring up the notion that "all fiction is fantasy," then you might as
>> well not engage in genre typing at all, because that's not the way it
>> works.
>
>No, it isn't. If we were to exclude stories from the fantasy genre because
>of the presence of a framing device, then we'd exclude a lot.
Also - there *is* a fantasy in _The Princess Bride_. What should we
call it if we're forbidden to call it _The Princess Bride_?
Howard Brazee
<jclarke...@snet.net.invalid> wrote:
>Well, now, if one had not been exposed to H. Ross Perot then one would think
>that the Ferengi bore little resemblance to any person living or dead. So
>one must be careful with such things--there has to be some big bald guy who
>is usually seasick out there somewhere.
There's a movie created by S.P. Somtow, which I believe was only shown
once in a movie theater during a MileHiCon. I saw _Ill Met by
Moonlight_ in the theater. In it I discovered that having the head
of an ass is very similar to having a head of a Ferengi.
(I also have the video)
westprog
_"The Princess Bride"_ I suppose.
J/
David Tate
> > bring up the notion that "all fiction is fantasy," then you might as
> > well not engage in genre typing at all, because that's not the way it
> > works.
>
> No, it isn't. If we were to exclude stories from the fantasy genre because
> of the presence of a framing device, then we'd exclude a lot. The Worm
> Ouroborous starts with a dream sequence. The Lord Of The Rings is supposedly
> a transcription of an ancient book (exactly as the Princess Bride is
> pretending to be).
Without taking sides in the larger debate, this is not accurate. The
story within the story of _The Princess Bride_ is presented as an
allegorical fiction by a fictional author. That's a very different
thing from an alleged historical chronicle by the authors of the Red
Book of the Westmarch.
> Is The Rime Of The Ancient Mariner changed by the fact
> that it is narrated to the wedding guest?
That depends on whether the wedding guest claims to be telling you what
actually happened to him, or claims to be telling you a fairy tale.
Framing stories that present their contents as dream sequences or
fictions seem (to me) fundamentally different from framing stories in
which the teller of the tale claims that it actually happened.
> There are a lot of ways of presenting a story. They don't change the nature
> of the story told.
I think that's false, almost any way you interpret it.
> They are just a way to lend an air of verisimilitude.
Except when they aren't -- like (e.g.) in _The Princess Bride_, where
the framing story explicity establishes the events of the inner story
as allegorical fiction by some guy named Morganstern.
I think you're losing several important distinctions when you lump all
"framing devices" into one homogeneous category. There are framing
devices that are meant to defuse disbelief, and there are framing
devices that are not.
David Tate
trike
westprog wrote:
>
>
> No, it isn't. If we were to exclude stories from the fantasy genre because
> of the presence of a framing device, then we'd exclude a lot. The Worm
> Ouroborous starts with a dream sequence. The Lord Of The Rings is supposedly
> a transcription of an ancient book (exactly as the Princess Bride is
> pretending to be). Is The Rime Of The Ancient Mariner changed by the fact
> that it is narrated to the wedding guest? Is Dracula invalidated as
> supernatural horror because of the epistolatory sequences? Do we disregard
> the Sherlock Holmes stories as part of the detective story genre because
> they are framed as an account by Dr Watson? All those horror stories
> presented as notes found in an empty house?
I can't tell if you're merely being snarky or you really don't
understand the basic point, so I'll just say it as simply as possible:
It's not the mere *existence* of the framing device, it's the *kind* of
framing device that's important.
Doug
trike
r.r...@thevine.net wrote:
>
> >
> I can only say that you and I have different opinions about the Kid
> and his Grandfather. I never got the impression that the Kid didn't
> like the Grandfather,
I can only suggest that you watch it again.
Doug
George Peatty
>> There are a lot of ways of presenting a story. They don't change the nature
>> of the story told.
>I think that's false, almost any way you interpret it.
Interesting debate. This to me reduces the question to its essence. I go
with the OP
__
This space left blank
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
trike
junior-kun wrote:
>
>
> I disagree with you point of demarcation, I think you have a silly and
> pointless definition of genre.
While I think the all-embracing, lump-everything-together definition
that you propose is useless.
Let's take this away from entertainment and use something else as an
analogy. Let's use birds. What are the similarities between a
penguin, an ostrich, a chicken and a dove? What are the differences?
You would say, "They're all birds." I would agree... and think that's
the dullest definition possible, because it's uselessly all-inclusive.
Doug
Luna
"trike" <dougtr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Not just the kind of framing story, but the intent and focus of the
whole thing.
Is The Princess Bride a story about Buttercup and Wesley, and the way
that story is told is through the device of a man reading it to his
grandson? Or, is The Princess Bride a story about a child's
relationship with his grandfather, shown by the way they interact while
sharing a fairy tale?
My opinion is that it could be read both ways, with equal validity. I
was a child when the movie first came out, and I viewed it as a cool
fairy tale interrupted by boring scenes of an old man and an annoying
kid. I half expected the kid to somehow find out that the fantasy land
was real, a la The Neverending Story.
After reading the book as an adult, my opinion changed. Now I find the
grandfather/grandson relationship much more interesting than the fairy
tale, even though the fairy tale part is still entertaining. Now I get
the jokes more and see the fantasy part as more a clever, funny, farce
than a fully realized genuine fantasy novel. But this doesn't mean I
dismiss my earlier interpretation as being wrong, just a different
perspective.
Howard Brazee
<luna...@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote:
>Is The Princess Bride a story about Buttercup and Wesley, and the way
>that story is told is through the device of a man reading it to his
>grandson? Or, is The Princess Bride a story about a child's
>relationship with his grandfather, shown by the way they interact while
>sharing a fairy tale?
There are two stories.
junior-kun
trike wrote:
> junior-kun wrote:
> >
> >
> > I disagree with you point of demarcation, I think you have a silly and
> > pointless definition of genre.
>
> While I think the all-embracing, lump-everything-together definition
> that you propose is useless.
I can't imagine why you'd consider my definition to be useless. You
yourself conceded that the story you wouldn't classify as fantasy would
probably appeal to the fantasy reader. My defintion, that substantial
fantasy elements means that its a fantasy work, is far more practical
to the reader looking for a book. You also don't get the absurd
results that your definition has. Under your definition, a fantasy
epic running for thousands of pages and multiple volumes can become non
genre because of the last page. ("Then he was awakened by the sound of
an alarm clock. It was all a dream. Time to go to work.")
J. Clarke
> On 14 Apr 2006 15:51:42 -0700, "David Tate" <dt...@ida.org> wrote:
>
>>> There are a lot of ways of presenting a story. They don't change the
>>> nature of the story told.
>
>>I think that's false, almost any way you interpret it.
>
> Interesting debate. This to me reduces the question to its essence. I go
> with the OP
If the existence of a framing story makes something "not fantasy" then if
Peter Jackson had put a framing story around Lord of the Rings that would
have made the story that pretty much defines modern fantasy not fantasy.
> __
>
> This space left blank
--
David Tate
> George Peatty wrote:
>
> > On 14 Apr 2006 15:51:42 -0700, "David Tate" <dt...@ida.org> wrote:
> >
> >>> There are a lot of ways of presenting a story. They don't change the
> >>> nature of the story told.
> >
> >>I think that's false, almost any way you interpret it.
> >
> > Interesting debate. This to me reduces the question to its essence. I go
> > with the OP
>
> If the existence of a framing story makes something "not fantasy" then if
> Peter Jackson had put a framing story around Lord of the Rings that would
> have made the story that pretty much defines modern fantasy not fantasy.
Which part of "I think you're losing several important distinctions
when you lump all
'framing devices' into one homogeneous category" did you not
understand?
Nobody is claiming that "the existence of a framing story", no matter
what kind, implies anything about whether a work is fantasy or not.
That's a strawman.
(And while we're at it, I think you meant Tolkien, not Peter Jackson.
Unless you're claiming that it's the *film* of LOTR that pretty much
defines modern fantasy, in which case I think your horse has just
trampled your cart to flinders.)
David Tate
junior-kun
J. Clarke wrote:
> George Peatty wrote:
>
> > On 14 Apr 2006 15:51:42 -0700, "David Tate" <dt...@ida.org> wrote:
> >
> >>> There are a lot of ways of presenting a story. They don't change the
> >>> nature of the story told.
> >
> >>I think that's false, almost any way you interpret it.
> >
> > Interesting debate. This to me reduces the question to its essence. I go
> > with the OP
>
> If the existence of a framing story makes something "not fantasy" then if
> Peter Jackson had put a framing story around Lord of the Rings that would
> have made the story that pretty much defines modern fantasy not fantasy.
>
It wouldn't be so unlikely for Peter Jackson to do this. Imagine if he
had started with a shot of a bound, leather edition of the Lord of the
Rings book. A hand opens the book, and a narrator begins reading the
first line of Tolkien's work. We then dissolve into the world of the
story.
This is a fairly common device, it's basically how the first Superman
movie started. (Did the Narnia film start this way? I don't remember.)
trike
J. Clarke wrote:
> George Peatty wrote:
>
> > On 14 Apr 2006 15:51:42 -0700, "David Tate" <dt...@ida.org> wrote:
> >
> >>> There are a lot of ways of presenting a story. They don't change the
> >>> nature of the story told.
> >
> >>I think that's false, almost any way you interpret it.
> >
> > Interesting debate. This to me reduces the question to its essence. I go
> > with the OP
>
> If the existence of a framing story makes something "not fantasy" then if
> Peter Jackson had put a framing story around Lord of the Rings that would
> have made the story that pretty much defines modern fantasy not fantasy.
See, this is why discussions on the internet have such a bad
reputation. Even though it has been *specifically* and *repeatedly*
said that this is *not* the case, you're insisting that it is the case.
"Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away?" -- Ripley, ALIENS
Doug
westprog
"David Tate" <dt...@ida.org> wrote in message
news:1145055102.3...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> westprog wrote:
> > "trike" <dougtr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > I'm not quite following what you're sayng here, but if you're going to
> > > bring up the notion that "all fiction is fantasy," then you might as
> > > well not engage in genre typing at all, because that's not the way it
> > > works.
> > No, it isn't. If we were to exclude stories from the fantasy genre
because
> > of the presence of a framing device, then we'd exclude a lot. The Worm
> > Ouroborous starts with a dream sequence. The Lord Of The Rings is
supposedly
> > a transcription of an ancient book (exactly as the Princess Bride is
> > pretending to be).
> Without taking sides in the larger debate, this is not accurate. The
> story within the story of _The Princess Bride_ is presented as an
> allegorical fiction by a fictional author. That's a very different
> thing from an alleged historical chronicle by the authors of the Red
> Book of the Westmarch.
Yes, the frame is bigger. It's still a frame though - and it's a way to
present the story. The story is still there to be taken at face value.
> > Is The Rime Of The Ancient Mariner changed by the fact
> > that it is narrated to the wedding guest?
> That depends on whether the wedding guest claims to be telling you what
> actually happened to him, or claims to be telling you a fairy tale.
> Framing stories that present their contents as dream sequences or
> fictions seem (to me) fundamentally different from framing stories in
> which the teller of the tale claims that it actually happened.
> > There are a lot of ways of presenting a story. They don't change the
nature
> > of the story told.
> I think that's false, almost any way you interpret it.
> > They are just a way to lend an air of verisimilitude.
> Except when they aren't -- like (e.g.) in _The Princess Bride_, where
> the framing story explicity establishes the events of the inner story
> as allegorical fiction by some guy named Morganstern.
And The Taming Of The Shrew is a play performed to entertain Christopher
Sly. Does that mean we treat it entirely differently? No.
The Mousetrap in Hamlet is a play within a play that we don't take on its
own merits. It's intended to be a fictional narrative within the "real"
world of Hamlet.
> I think you're losing several important distinctions when you lump all
> "framing devices" into one homogeneous category. There are framing
> devices that are meant to defuse disbelief, and there are framing
> devices that are not.
The framing device of The Princess Bride is different in the book and the
film, naturally, because of the nature of the two media. But in the film, we
are given two fictional settings, with actors performing fictional roles.
One of the settings is fantasy. The other isn't, and comments on the
fantasy. We know that none of it is real - there is no grandfather, there is
no author called Morganstern - everything is made up. As with any other
fantasy story.
J/
westprog
Cleverly interlaced. One of them (which takes up most of the time) is a
fantasy.
J/
westprog
"J. Clarke" <jclarke...@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:e1qef...@news3.newsguy.com...
> George Peatty wrote:
>
> > On 14 Apr 2006 15:51:42 -0700, "David Tate" <dt...@ida.org> wrote:
> >
> >>> There are a lot of ways of presenting a story. They don't change the
> >>> nature of the story told.
> >
> >>I think that's false, almost any way you interpret it.
> >
> > Interesting debate. This to me reduces the question to its essence. I
go
> > with the OP
>
> If the existence of a framing story makes something "not fantasy" then if
> Peter Jackson had put a framing story around Lord of the Rings that would
> have made the story that pretty much defines modern fantasy not fantasy.
Tolkien did put a framing story around LOTR. It's fairly fainthearted, but
it's there. Many fantasy books use it as a convention.
J/
westprog
"junior-kun" <junio...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145083134.2...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
That kills off The Wizard Of Oz, for example.
J/
westprog
The book is doing a lot of fun things that comment on the nature of fiction.
All of the book is made up. Some layers of the book comment ironically on
other layers. The film isn't quite as clever or detailed, but it does some
of the same tricks.
So is The Princess Bride a post-modern joke, or is it a fun fantasy film?
It's both, but mostly it's a fun fantasy film.
J/
Howard Brazee
in MirrorMask didn't happen.
David Tate
> "David Tate" <dt...@ida.org> wrote in message
> news:1145055102.3...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> > westprog wrote:
> > > The Lord Of The Rings is supposedly
> > > a transcription of an ancient book (exactly as the Princess Bride is
> > > pretending to be).
>
> > Without taking sides in the larger debate, this is not accurate. The
> > story within the story of _The Princess Bride_ is presented as an
> > allegorical fiction by a fictional author. That's a very different
> > thing from an alleged historical chronicle by the authors of the Red
> > Book of the Westmarch.
>
> Yes, the frame is bigger. It's still a frame though - and it's a way to
> present the story.
Ah -- I had assumed that when you said 'exactly', you mean exactly.
Yes, both are in English, both are fiction... but I'm not sure why you
think that is telling.
> The story is still there to be taken at face value.
You think? Why do you think that? Especially when Goldman goes to
such lengths (I'm talking about the book here) to make it clear that
"The Princess Bride, by S. Morganstern" is not to be taken at face
value, and that the "good parts" version his (fictional) grandfather
told him is not, either.
> > > There are a lot of ways of presenting a story. They don't change the
> > > nature of the story told.
>
> > I think that's false, almost any way you interpret it.
>
> > > They are just a way to lend an air of verisimilitude.
>
> > Except when they aren't -- like (e.g.) in _The Princess Bride_, where
> > the framing story explicity establishes the events of the inner story
> > as allegorical fiction by some guy named Morganstern.
>
> And The Taming Of The Shrew is a play performed to entertain Christopher
> Sly. Does that mean we treat it entirely differently? No.
That's a whiplash-inducing non-sequitur. Let's see if we can bring it
back to the topic at hand:
1. You made a universal claim, that the way a story is presented is not
part of the nature of the story. A counterexample has already been
presented, in how the framing story of (the book) THE PRINCESS BRIDE
comments on, and is in turn illuminated by, both versions of the fairy
tale within the novel.
2. You can't prove a universal by citing examples. If "The Taming of
the Shrew" is an example of a story in which the framing device is
irrelevant, well, so what? I never said that framing examples are
ALWAYS important -- just that sometimes they are.
3. You said that framing stories are "just a way to lend
verisimilitude" -- another universal that is pretty clearly false. The
Christopher Sly story certainly doesn't lend any verisimilitude to the
story of Petrucchio and Katharina, and (I would argue) the outer frame
of THE PRINCESS BRIDE doesn't lend any verisimilitude to the inner
fairy tale -- nor is it intended to.
> The Mousetrap in Hamlet is a play within a play that we don't take on its
> own merits. It's intended to be a fictional narrative within the "real"
> world of Hamlet.
See above about citing examples to prove a universal.
> > I think you're losing several important distinctions when you lump all
> > "framing devices" into one homogeneous category. There are framing
> > devices that are meant to defuse disbelief, and there are framing
> > devices that are not.
>
> The framing device of The Princess Bride is different in the book and the
> film, naturally, because of the nature of the two media.
Another non-sequitur. What does that have to do with the question at
hand? For the record, I'm talking about the book.
> But in the film, we
> are given two fictional settings, with actors performing fictional roles.
> One of the settings is fantasy. The other isn't, and comments on the
> fantasy. We know that none of it is real - there is no grandfather, there is
> no author called Morganstern - everything is made up. As with any other
> fantasy story.
Certainly. How does this demonstrate, or even support, the claim that
the framing device is never relevant to the story within?
David Tate
J. Clarke
Obviously they did, yours anyway. A statement that starts with "if" and
contains several other "ifs" is hardly "insistence" on _anything_.
<gday>
trike
Which is why I've said in the past that it isn't technically a fantasy
film. The fantasy bits didn't "really" happen. I realize it opens a
colossal can of worms to say that, but anyone with an ounce of sense
knows the difference between a story that's to be taken at face value
as having "actually" happened versus one that's clearly not meant to be
taken as literally true within the confines of the larger story.
THE LORD OF THE RINGS is every bit as fanciful as THE PRINCESS BRIDE,
but the underlying conceit is that the tale of Frodo et al is supposed
to be the recounting of a real history, while Westley/Buttercup tale in
PRINCESS BRIDE is not. JARHEAD has the framing device of being a
narrated story, the memoir of a Marine, but like Watson's recounting of
Holmes' adventures, it's intended to be a real event -- for those
characters.
Genre-typing makes no judgements as to quality or whether if you liked
one film you'll like or dislike another; instead it gives more detail
for you to make that call when looking for something to watch or read.
If you like Fantasy, you'll probably like WIZARD OF OZ and PRINCESS
BRIDE, even if the stories comprising the bulk of the screentime aren't
supposed to have "really" happened. On the other hand, I know people
who do get genuinely upset if the story hasn't "really" happened. So
if you know they don't like such stories, don't direct them to see OZ
or BRIDE, or JACOB'S LADDER, THE 5,000 FINGERS OF DR. T, WISDOM or a
certain season of DALLAS. Without detailing why those films are
different from other semi-similar films, you can't decide beforehand if
you'd like to spend your time on them.
That's not useless -- it's a detailed definition that allows different
works to be placed in ever finer categories, so if you're looking for a
specific type of film (in this case, "Feels like Fantasy but is really
just a story within a larger story") then you can zero in on exactly
what you want to see or avoid what you don't. More detail is always
better than less detail, and lumping everything together under one
general heading is ultimately unhelpful. Telling someone that it's a
Comedy or Drama only goes so far.
Doug
junior-kun
Instead, its far more reasonable to create subcategories within
fantasy, not create a definition of fantasy that is so narrow as to
exclude stories that are clearly are part of the fantasy tradition.
In my classification system, what you call "Feels like fantasy but is
really a story within a story" is a fantasy work, but its also a
metafictional work. Any true modern classification system has to
account for mixed genre, which is every more prevalent among some of
the better writers these days.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>In my classification system, what you call "Feels like fantasy but is
>really a story within a story" is a fantasy work, but its also a
>metafictional work.
Frame a fantasy in a "My Grandpa told me the following story", and see
whether it is stored in the fiction or non fiction.
westprog
...
> Which is why I've said in the past that it isn't technically a fantasy
> film. The fantasy bits didn't "really" happen. I realize it opens a
> colossal can of worms to say that, but anyone with an ounce of sense
> knows the difference between a story that's to be taken at face value
> as having "actually" happened versus one that's clearly not meant to be
> taken as literally true within the confines of the larger story.
Which is where the knot unravels as soon as we look closely - because we
know that none of these stories "actually" happened. That's why I
facetiously included the disclaimer saying "No resemblance to real people".
It's all part of
> THE LORD OF THE RINGS is every bit as fanciful as THE PRINCESS BRIDE,
> but the underlying conceit is that the tale of Frodo et al is supposed
> to be the recounting of a real history, while Westley/Buttercup tale in
> PRINCESS BRIDE is not.
I don't believe it's as clear cut as that. TPB isn't clearly shown to be
fiction, in the film at any rate. In fact, what clues us in that it is
fiction is not the framing device, but the content. We know it's impossible
because magic potions to raise the dead don't work.
A fantasy story is fictional _by definition_. It describes impossible
things. If it described possible things, it wouldn't be a fantasy. So the
framing device does little to invalidate it.
> JARHEAD has the framing device of being a
> narrated story, the memoir of a Marine, but like Watson's recounting of
> Holmes' adventures, it's intended to be a real event -- for those
> characters.
> Genre-typing makes no judgements as to quality or whether if you liked
> one film you'll like or dislike another; instead it gives more detail
> for you to make that call when looking for something to watch or read.
> If you like Fantasy, you'll probably like WIZARD OF OZ and PRINCESS
> BRIDE, even if the stories comprising the bulk of the screentime aren't
> supposed to have "really" happened. On the other hand, I know people
> who do get genuinely upset if the story hasn't "really" happened. So
> if you know they don't like such stories, don't direct them to see OZ
> or BRIDE, or JACOB'S LADDER, THE 5,000 FINGERS OF DR. T, WISDOM or a
> certain season of DALLAS. Without detailing why those films are
> different from other semi-similar films, you can't decide beforehand if
> you'd like to spend your time on them.
The problem with that is - we didn't find out that that particular season of
Dallas was a dream until the next season. Anyone who stopped watching when
the bomb went off would never know it wasn't real. And in fact, it was as
real as the subsequent series.
> That's not useless -- it's a detailed definition that allows different
> works to be placed in ever finer categories, so if you're looking for a
> specific type of film (in this case, "Feels like Fantasy but is really
> just a story within a larger story") then you can zero in on exactly
> what you want to see or avoid what you don't. More detail is always
> better than less detail, and lumping everything together under one
> general heading is ultimately unhelpful. Telling someone that it's a
> Comedy or Drama only goes so far.
It might be a helpful additional layer, but for most people, it's sufficient
to note that TPB and TWOO are fantasies.
J/
westprog
> westprog wrote:
> > "David Tate" <dt...@ida.org> wrote in message
> > news:1145055102.3...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> > > westprog wrote:
> > > > The Lord Of The Rings is supposedly
> > > > a transcription of an ancient book (exactly as the Princess Bride is
> > > > pretending to be).
> >
> > > Without taking sides in the larger debate, this is not accurate. The
> > > story within the story of _The Princess Bride_ is presented as an
> > > allegorical fiction by a fictional author. That's a very different
> > > thing from an alleged historical chronicle by the authors of the Red
> > > Book of the Westmarch.
> >
> > Yes, the frame is bigger. It's still a frame though - and it's a way to
> > present the story.
>
> Ah -- I had assumed that when you said 'exactly', you mean exactly.
> Yes, both are in English, both are fiction... but I'm not sure why you
> think that is telling.
Well, both are supposedly transcriptions of an ancient book.
> > The story is still there to be taken at face value.
> You think? Why do you think that? Especially when Goldman goes to
> such lengths (I'm talking about the book here)
The book is a very, very different kettle of fish. He is playing around a
lot more. We were talking about the film. The book is layered, with
different levels of reliability. The film depicts two stories - both having
about the same level of validity. We know that boy isn't, in fact, related
to Colombo. We know it's just a set. The suspension of belief for one is not
really that different to the suspension of belief to the other.
In the same way, we know that Judy Garland doesn't live on a black and white
farm in the mid-West, where she sings accompanied by a full orchestra while
doing her chores. That's as fantastic as anything in Oz. We accept, or don't
accept, both as real, or as fake. (Incidentally, anyone interested in Oz and
metafiction should look at Geoff Ryman's Was. Or Alan Moore's Lost Girls,
which is a pornographic graphic novel version).
> to make it clear that
> "The Princess Bride, by S. Morganstern" is not to be taken at face
> value, and that the "good parts" version his (fictional) grandfather
> told him is not, either.
It's a mistake to assume that because a book is a metafiction, a film works
the same way. It rarely does. The French Lieutenant's Woman as a film works
as two interlinked stories. Films almost always do - because the nature of
the medium presents both narratives with equal validity. That one of the
narratives "claims" to be real is of far less importance than seeing Meryl
Streep actually acting the stuff out.
> > > > There are a lot of ways of presenting a story. They don't change the
> > > > nature of the story told.
> > > I think that's false, almost any way you interpret it.
> > > > They are just a way to lend an air of verisimilitude.
> > > Except when they aren't -- like (e.g.) in _The Princess Bride_, where
> > > the framing story explicity establishes the events of the inner story
> > > as allegorical fiction by some guy named Morganstern.
> > And The Taming Of The Shrew is a play performed to entertain Christopher
> > Sly. Does that mean we treat it entirely differently? No.
> That's a whiplash-inducing non-sequitur. Let's see if we can bring it
> back to the topic at hand:
OK, let's expand the claim out. The story of The Princess Bride - even in
the book - is self contained, and valid as a story. It would be possible to
just read the fantasy story, and it would work. The story, as a story, is
not changed by the framing device. Whether we choose to read it differently
is up to us.
A more complex example would be At Swim-Two-Birds, where Finn and the Pooka
are explicitly portrayed as fictional characters within the meta-narrative.
In that case, it isn't possible to read an embedded story as a story -
because there isn't the material of a story to pluck out.
> 1. You made a universal claim, that the way a story is presented is not
> part of the nature of the story. A counterexample has already been
> presented, in how the framing story of (the book) THE PRINCESS BRIDE
> comments on, and is in turn illuminated by, both versions of the fairy
> tale within the novel.
There are two stories there - the book entire, frame and fantasy - and the
embedded fantasy. Both are valid, workable storeies.
> 2. You can't prove a universal by citing examples. If "The Taming of
> the Shrew" is an example of a story in which the framing device is
> irrelevant, well, so what? I never said that framing examples are
> ALWAYS important -- just that sometimes they are.
I didn't say that they are never important. Just that a self-contained story
remains a self-contained story. Or if I didn't say that, I'm saying it now.
> 3. You said that framing stories are "just a way to lend
> verisimilitude" -- another universal that is pretty clearly false. The
> Christopher Sly story certainly doesn't lend any verisimilitude to the
> story of Petrucchio and Katharina, and (I would argue) the outer frame
> of THE PRINCESS BRIDE doesn't lend any verisimilitude to the inner
> fairy tale -- nor is it intended to.
> > The Mousetrap in Hamlet is a play within a play that we don't take on
its
> > own merits. It's intended to be a fictional narrative within the "real"
> > world of Hamlet.
>
> See above about citing examples to prove a universal.
>
> > > I think you're losing several important distinctions when you lump all
> > > "framing devices" into one homogeneous category. There are framing
> > > devices that are meant to defuse disbelief, and there are framing
> > > devices that are not.
> > The framing device of The Princess Bride is different in the book and
the
> > film, naturally, because of the nature of the two media.
> Another non-sequitur. What does that have to do with the question at
> hand? For the record, I'm talking about the book.
For the record (See subject line) we were talking about the film. The book
is a different matter. Whatever about meta-stories, we certainly shouldn't
be forced to interpret films in light of the book they are based on.
> > But in the film, we
> > are given two fictional settings, with actors performing fictional
roles.
> > One of the settings is fantasy. The other isn't, and comments on the
> > fantasy. We know that none of it is real - there is no grandfather,
there is
> > no author called Morganstern - everything is made up. As with any other
> > fantasy story.
> Certainly. How does this demonstrate, or even support, the claim that
> the framing device is never relevant to the story within?
I don't claim that the frame is irrelevant. Just that the internal story -
if self-sufficient - can be taken on its own terms. The internal story of
TPB (film) is self-sufficient - it's a fantasy - and it can be watched as
such.
J/
Jack Bohn
>In my classification system, what you call "Feels like fantasy but is
>really a story within a story" is a fantasy work, but its also a
>metafictional work. Any true modern classification system has to
>account for mixed genre, which is every more prevalent among some of
>the better writers these days.
I'm not so sure about assigning all that to metafiction, although
it would be interesting to reread Arabian Nights looking for
metafiction. A lot of "stories within stories" seems to be just
an excuse to anthologize ghost tales and such.
--
-Jack
westprog
"Jack Bohn" <jack...@bright.net> wrote in message
news:nuo642t8lpf0uls62...@4ax.com...
The problem is that so much of fantasy fiction is metafiction in some form
or another. A binary classification would be of little use.
J/
Howard Brazee
world entering a fantasy or science fiction environment.
Most of these, if they last long enough tend to forget their framing
device. The origins of the heroes as people from our world become
either mostly forgotten or mostly irrelevant.
David Tate
> "David Tate" <dt...@ida.org> wrote in message
> news:1145146445.5...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> > westprog wrote:
> > > "David Tate" <dt...@ida.org> wrote in message
> > > news:1145055102.3...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> > > > westprog wrote:
> > > > > The Lord Of The Rings is supposedly
> > > > > a transcription of an ancient book (exactly as the Princess Bride is
> > > > > pretending to be).
> > >
> > > > Without taking sides in the larger debate, this is not accurate. The
> > > > story within the story of _The Princess Bride_ is presented as an
> > > > allegorical fiction by a fictional author. That's a very different
> > > > thing from an alleged historical chronicle by the authors of the Red
> > > > Book of the Westmarch.
> > >
> > > Yes, the frame is bigger. It's still a frame though - and it's a way to
> > > present the story.
> >
> > Ah -- I had assumed that when you said 'exactly', you mean exactly.
> > Yes, both are in English, both are fiction... but I'm not sure why you
> > think that is telling.
>
> Well, both are supposedly transcriptions of an ancient book.
So a transcription of an ancient phone book is "exactly" the same as a
transcription of an ancient Edda?
> > > The story is still there to be taken at face value.
>
> > You think? Why do you think that? Especially when Goldman goes to
> > such lengths (I'm talking about the book here)
>
> The book is a very, very different kettle of fish. He is playing around a
> lot more. We were talking about the film.
I suspect that the 'we' there is not justified -- most of the
participants in this thread have long since generalized away from the
original topic of screenplays.
> The book is layered, with
> different levels of reliability. The film depicts two stories - both having
> about the same level of validity.
I'd be fascinated to know how you reached that conclusion -- or,
possibly, what you mean by 'validity' that could make it true.
> We know that boy isn't, in fact, related
> to Colombo. We know it's just a set. The suspension of belief for one is not
> really that different to the suspension of belief to the other.
Of course it is. One could easily be a depiction of events that
happened recently down the street; the other could not -- and even the
characters in the first story know that the second one is a fable.
> > to make it clear that
> > "The Princess Bride, by S. Morganstern" is not to be taken at face
> > value, and that the "good parts" version his (fictional) grandfather
> > told him is not, either.
>
> It's a mistake to assume that because a book is a metafiction, a film works
> the same way.
Then why did you introduce _The Worm Ouroboros_ and the Sherlock Holmes
stories and "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner" into the discussion, in
support of your point? That made it pretty clear that you were NOT
talking only about film, and that your comments about framing devices
were to be taken to include all "stories", not just films.
If you want to back off of that, and restrict your assertion to films,
I'll have to reconsider whether I still disagree or not.
I still don't think you're going to be able to support the sweeping
statement that:
> > > > > There are a lot of ways of presenting a story. They don't change the
> > > > > nature of the story told.
or:
> > > > > They are just a way to lend an air of verisimilitude.
> > > And The Taming Of The Shrew is a play performed to entertain Christopher
> > > Sly. Does that mean we treat it entirely differently? No.
>
> > That's a whiplash-inducing non-sequitur. Let's see if we can bring it
> > back to the topic at hand:
>
> OK, let's expand the claim out. The story of The Princess Bride - even in
> the book - is self contained, and valid as a story.
I have no idea what you mean by "valid as a story". I'm assuming that
by "self-contained", you mean that a certain subset of the words,
isolated from the rest of the book, would be intelligible as a story.
> It would be possible to just read the fantasy story, and it would work.
Possibly, but it wouldn't be the same story.
> The story, as a story, is not changed by the framing device.
> Whether we choose to read it differently is up to us.
See, this is the part that sounds like bullshit to me. Of *course* the
story is changed by the framing device; you'd have to be autistic in a
novel way to be able to read the whole thing and NOT have your
interpretation of the fairy tale influenced by the framing story. It
would be like being able to look at a Monet painting while completely
ignoring the influence of the red parts.
It occurs to me that a great example of how a framing story can
transform the inner story is the way the outer framing story of _The
Princess Bride_ changes the inner frames that are shown in the movie.
> > 1. You made a universal claim, that the way a story is presented is not
> > part of the nature of the story. A counterexample has already been
> > presented, in how the framing story of (the book) THE PRINCESS BRIDE
> > comments on, and is in turn illuminated by, both versions of the fairy
> > tale within the novel.
>
> There are two stories there - the book entire, frame and fantasy - and the
> embedded fantasy. Both are valid, workable stories.
No, there are (at least) three stories. There's what the embedded tale
would be if it weren't embedded, there's the whole thing, and there's
the embedded tale as it exists within the frame, informed and colored
by it. The first of those is irrelevant for most purposes, because
almost nobody ever reads it. (Indeed, you would probably have to read
it first, since there's no going back from exposure to the frame.)
> > 2. You can't prove a universal by citing examples. If "The Taming of
> > the Shrew" is an example of a story in which the framing device is
> > irrelevant, well, so what? I never said that framing examples are
> > ALWAYS important -- just that sometimes they are.
>
> I didn't say that they are never important. Just that a self-contained story
> remains a self-contained story. Or if I didn't say that, I'm saying it now.
I think that's a weaker claim by far than that the inner
"self-contained" story is unchanged by the frame, which is what you
claimed earlier.
David Tate
westprog
...
> > > > > > The Lord Of The Rings is supposedly
> > > > > > a transcription of an ancient book (exactly as the Princess
Bride is
> > > > > > pretending to be).
> > > > > Without taking sides in the larger debate, this is not accurate.
The
> > > > > story within the story of _The Princess Bride_ is presented as an
> > > > > allegorical fiction by a fictional author. That's a very
different
> > > > > thing from an alleged historical chronicle by the authors of the
Red
> > > > > Book of the Westmarch.
> > > > Yes, the frame is bigger. It's still a frame though - and it's a way
to
> > > > present the story.
> > > Ah -- I had assumed that when you said 'exactly', you mean exactly.
> > > Yes, both are in English, both are fiction... but I'm not sure why
you
> > > think that is telling.
> > Well, both are supposedly transcriptions of an ancient book.
> So a transcription of an ancient phone book is "exactly" the same as a
> transcription of an ancient Edda?
A transcription of one fictional book is much like another. I'm not going to
fight over "exactly", because two different things are never exactly the
same.
> > > > The story is still there to be taken at face value.
> > > You think? Why do you think that? Especially when Goldman goes to
> > > such lengths (I'm talking about the book here)
> > The book is a very, very different kettle of fish. He is playing around
a
> > lot more. We were talking about the film.
> I suspect that the 'we' there is not justified -- most of the
> participants in this thread have long since generalized away from the
> original topic of screenplays.
Well, I missed the place where TPB the book took over from TPB the film. It
was definitely TPB the film which was first claimed as "not a fantasy".
Which a number of people quibbled about.
> > The book is layered, with
> > different levels of reliability. The film depicts two stories - both
having
> > about the same level of validity.
> I'd be fascinated to know how you reached that conclusion -- or
> possibly, what you mean by 'validity' that could make it true.
When we see a film, we see actors pretending, in a fairly realistic setting.
We know that the man who plays Colombo isn't really the boy's grandfather.
We need to suspend disbelief top get into the story. We also need to suspend
disbelief about the magnificient swordsmen, giants and wizards when they
appear on screen. We start off _knowing_ it isn't true. We don't need a
character to tell us it's fictional. We know that fantasy films are
fictional because films are fictional, if they feature actors. We accept the
two stories in TPB on face value, or not, because they both need about the
same suspension of disbelief to get into the story.
> > We know that boy isn't, in fact, related
> > to Colombo. We know it's just a set. The suspension of belief for one is
not
> > really that different to the suspension of belief to the other.
> Of course it is. One could easily be a depiction of events that
> happened recently down the street; the other could not -- and even the
> characters in the first story know that the second one is a fable.
It might be a depiction of such events - but we know it isn't, because it
features actors, in an artificial setting. The characters in the first story
don't "know" anything. They are lights moving on a flat screen. They might
refer to other parts of the film. They aren't more valid.
The quirk we see in The Wizard Of Oz is that the fantasy scenes are shown as
more realistic than the "real" sequences. Real people don't have grey faces.
> > > to make it clear that
> > > "The Princess Bride, by S. Morganstern" is not to be taken at face
> > > value, and that the "good parts" version his (fictional) grandfather
> > > told him is not, either.
> > It's a mistake to assume that because a book is a metafiction, a film
works
> > the same way.
> Then why did you introduce _The Worm Ouroboros_ and the Sherlock Holmes
> stories and "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner" into the discussion, in
> support of your point? That made it pretty clear that you were NOT
> talking only about film, and that your comments about framing devices
> were to be taken to include all "stories", not just films.
They are examples of metafiction that clearly don't invalidate the story.
Such examples (apart from the very well known Wizard Of Oz) are more
difficult to find in the world of film, for me at any rate.
> If you want to back off of that, and restrict your assertion to films,
> I'll have to reconsider whether I still disagree or not.
> I still don't think you're going to be able to support the sweeping
> statement that:
> > > > > > There are a lot of ways of presenting a story. They don't change
the
> > > > > > nature of the story told.
I still believe that if a story stands by itself, it continues to stand
regardless of the presentation.
> or:
> > > > > > They are just a way to lend an air of verisimilitude.
That refers to a subclass of framing devices. Not every framing device has
that purpose.
> > > > And The Taming Of The Shrew is a play performed to entertain
Christopher
> > > > Sly. Does that mean we treat it entirely differently? No.
> >
> > > That's a whiplash-inducing non-sequitur. Let's see if we can bring it
> > > back to the topic at hand:
> > OK, let's expand the claim out. The story of The Princess Bride - even
in
> > the book - is self contained, and valid as a story.
> I have no idea what you mean by "valid as a story". I'm assuming that
> by "self-contained", you mean that a certain subset of the words,
> isolated from the rest of the book, would be intelligible as a story.
Pretty much.
> > It would be possible to just read the fantasy story, and it would work.
> Possibly, but it wouldn't be the same story.
That story would still be accessible to us. Whether or not the commentary
would change things simply by claiming that the story wasn't true, I doubt.
A commentary that told us that the characters were really different to the
way they were portrayed, or that a particular event happened differently
might effect things. Historical fiction is prone to such rereadings. What if
a historical film were preceded on TV by a debunking documentary? Would it
be the same film? Would the story still hold?
> > The story, as a story, is not changed by the framing device.
> > Whether we choose to read it differently is up to us.
> See, this is the part that sounds like bullshit to me. Of *course* the
> story is changed by the framing device; you'd have to be autistic in a
> novel way to be able to read the whole thing and NOT have your
> interpretation of the fairy tale influenced by the framing story. It
> would be like being able to look at a Monet painting while completely
> ignoring the influence of the red parts.
No, it would be like looking at a Monet painting and ignoring the frame. TPB
the book has the story mixed in with the framing device. TPB the film
doesn't.
> It occurs to me that a great example of how a framing story can
> transform the inner story is the way the outer framing story of _The
> Princess Bride_ changes the inner frames that are shown in the movie.
It might change the way the inner story is interpreted. It doesn't change
the content. Events are prefigured, and reacted to. They aren't debunked. We
aren't told to distrust the portrayal of any one event as against any other.
We are just reminded that the whole thing is just a story - which we already
knew.
> > > 1. You made a universal claim, that the way a story is presented is
not
> > > part of the nature of the story. A counterexample has already been
> > > presented, in how the framing story of (the book) THE PRINCESS BRIDE
> > > comments on, and is in turn illuminated by, both versions of the fairy
> > > tale within the novel.
> > There are two stories there - the book entire, frame and fantasy - and
the
> > embedded fantasy. Both are valid, workable stories.
> No, there are (at least) three stories. There's what the embedded tale
> would be if it weren't embedded, there's the whole thing, and there's
> the embedded tale as it exists within the frame, informed and colored
> by it. The first of those is irrelevant for most purposes, because
> almost nobody ever reads it. (Indeed, you would probably have to read
> it first, since there's no going back from exposure to the frame.)
But it isn't that difficult to read TPB inner as a straight fantasy story,
simultaneously with reading it as a metafiction. Indeed, the multiple
levels are where much of the pleasure lies in that book.
Whether or not TPB the book is a fantasy (as the film undoubtedly is) I have
no very strong opinion. I'd certainly say it contains a fantasy.
> > > 2. You can't prove a universal by citing examples. If "The Taming of
> > > the Shrew" is an example of a story in which the framing device is
> > > irrelevant, well, so what? I never said that framing examples are
> > > ALWAYS important -- just that sometimes they are.
> > I didn't say that they are never important. Just that a self-contained
story
> > remains a self-contained story. Or if I didn't say that, I'm saying it
now.
> I think that's a weaker claim by far than that the inner
> "self-contained" story is unchanged by the frame, which is what you
> claimed earlier.
I still claim that the inner story is not changed by the frame. The way we
interpret it might be changed. As it might be by seeing the film, reading
the introduction, hearing an interview with the author on the radio, looking
at the illustrations, and so on.
Whether we consider a story with a framing device as something different to
what the story would be without such a device is a matter of judgement. It's
certainly not valid to claim that stories become a new genre of metafiction
as soon as there is a wrapper around them. It might be that when the wrapper
is substantial enough, the outer and inner layers make up something
different.
J/
J/
junior-kun
Good point. You probably need a significant metafictional elements
test, just like I'd have a significant fantasy elements test. The
Sopranos had a scene with a psychic talking to a ghost in one epsiode,
with evidence that indicated it was really happening, but that doesn't
make the Sopranos, as a whole, part of the fantasy or ghost stories
genre.
trike
westprog wrote:
> "trike" <dougtr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1145208596.8...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> ...
> > Which is why I've said in the past that it isn't technically a fantasy
> > film. The fantasy bits didn't "really" happen. I realize it opens a
> > colossal can of worms to say that, but anyone with an ounce of sense
> > knows the difference between a story that's to be taken at face value
> > as having "actually" happened versus one that's clearly not meant to be
> > taken as literally true within the confines of the larger story.
>
> Which is where the knot unravels as soon as we look closely - because we
> know that none of these stories "actually" happened. That's why I
> facetiously included the disclaimer saying "No resemblance to real people".
> It's all part of
>
> > THE LORD OF THE RINGS is every bit as fanciful as THE PRINCESS BRIDE,
> > but the underlying conceit is that the tale of Frodo et al is supposed
> > to be the recounting of a real history, while Westley/Buttercup tale in
> > PRINCESS BRIDE is not.
>
> I don't believe it's as clear cut as that. TPB isn't clearly shown to be
> fiction, in the film at any rate.
I can't believe you just said that. The tale of Westley and Buttercup
is explicitly said to be a fictional story being read to the kid. How
is that in any way unclear?
And don't even start with the nonsense of, "Ah-ha! But it's a
*fictional* character reading about other fictional characters!"
That's a bunch of post-modern crap that is utterly useless when talking
about genre. That puts us back to "all fiction is fantasy."
> In fact, what clues us in that it is
> fiction is not the framing device, but the content. We know it's impossible
> because magic potions to raise the dead don't work.
Yet, despite the fact that it's not impossible for a grandfather to
read a story to his grandson, we know *that* aspect of the film/book is
also fiction. If you're going to claim that "fiction that is possible"
isn't fiction, you're going to have to up your meds.
> A fantasy story is fictional _by definition_. It describes impossible
> things. If it described possible things, it wouldn't be a fantasy. So the
> framing device does little to invalidate it.
That last sentence makes no sense whatsoever.
> > JARHEAD has the framing device of being a
> > narrated story, the memoir of a Marine, but like Watson's recounting of
> > Holmes' adventures, it's intended to be a real event -- for those
> > characters.
>
> > Genre-typing makes no judgements as to quality or whether if you liked
> > one film you'll like or dislike another; instead it gives more detail
> > for you to make that call when looking for something to watch or read.
> > If you like Fantasy, you'll probably like WIZARD OF OZ and PRINCESS
> > BRIDE, even if the stories comprising the bulk of the screentime aren't
> > supposed to have "really" happened. On the other hand, I know people
> > who do get genuinely upset if the story hasn't "really" happened. So
> > if you know they don't like such stories, don't direct them to see OZ
> > or BRIDE, or JACOB'S LADDER, THE 5,000 FINGERS OF DR. T, WISDOM or a
> > certain season of DALLAS. Without detailing why those films are
> > different from other semi-similar films, you can't decide beforehand if
> > you'd like to spend your time on them.
>
> The problem with that is - we didn't find out that that particular season of
> Dallas was a dream until the next season. Anyone who stopped watching when
> the bomb went off would never know it wasn't real. And in fact, it was as
> real as the subsequent series.
The difference between PRINCESS BRIDE, JACOB'S LADDER and the 5,000
FINGERS OF DR. T and such things as WISDOM, St. ELSEWHERE, NEWHART and
that season of DALLAS is that the former list's "story within the
story" is of a different genre than the framing device's larger story
in the latter list. That's what freaks people out. But the fact
remains that they all share one commonality: none of the bulk of the
stories "really" happened. They were all dreams or fairytales.
Of course none of it actually happened, as these are all fictional
characters. We get that. Having talking horses doesn't make something
"more" fictional -- it's all make-believe. Some of it is just closer
to reality than other versions. But the underlying idea that some of
these are purported to be true stories is different from the above
examples where that stuff isn't supposed to have actually happened.
It's the willing suspension of disbelief that there was actually a
hobbit named Frodo, or a talking horse named Mr. Ed, or a Jedi named
Obi-Wan that allows us to temporarily treat these stories as actual
accounts of real creatures and real events. You can't do that with the
interior stories of the above list because they aren't supposed to have
"actually" happened. With the tale of Westley and Buttercup it's even
more difficult to claim that story could stand on its own because the
author specifically says that this is not supposed to be a true story.
You can't separate Westley's tale from the Kid's story, because they
are meant to be intertwined.
Doug
trike
>> part of the nature of the story. A counterexample has already been
>> presented, in how the framing story of (the book) THE PRINCESS BRIDE
>> comments on, and is in turn illuminated by, both versions of the fairy
>> tale within the novel.
>
>There are two stories there - the book entire, frame and fantasy - and the
>embedded fantasy. Both are valid, workable storeies.
That's immaterial to the point. The story of Westley and Buttercup is
a fantasy, no question. But the story of the Kid and the Grandfather
isn't. It doesn't matter if they can each stand alone, what matters is
the gestalt of the two. Since Westley and Buttercup's tale is being to
told to the Kid by the Grandfather, you can't discount the parts of the
real (non-fantasy) characters in the overall tale. They are just as
much a part of it as anyone else in that story -- and even more so,
because the tale of Westley and Buttercup exists solely to provide an
entertaining allegory for the emotional journey that the Kid and
Grandfather undertake.
Doug
trike
westprog wrote:
>
>
> When we see a film, we see actors pretending, in a fairly realistic setting.
> We know that the man who plays Colombo isn't really the boy's grandfather.
> We need to suspend disbelief top get into the story. We also need to suspend
> disbelief about the magnificient swordsmen, giants and wizards when they
> appear on screen. We start off _knowing_ it isn't true. We don't need a
> character to tell us it's fictional. We know that fantasy films are
> fictional because films are fictional, if they feature actors. We accept the
> two stories in TPB on face value, or not, because they both need about the
> same suspension of disbelief to get into the story.
But that's the very reason why PRINCESS BRIDE isn't technically a
Fantasy -- the fantasy portions of the tale are one layer removed from
the audience by being a story told that is clearly different in tone
and genre from the setting of the otehr part of the film. The willing
suspension of disbelief stops at the point where the adventures of
Westley, Buttercup, Inigo and Fezzik start, because their tale is
commented on throughout.
Disregarding the framing device of the narration would indicate a
certain level of mental illness directly affecting one's ability to
distinguish reality from fiction.
Contrast, for instance, RASHOMON or COURAGE UNDER FIRE. Here we have
fictional characters relating an event they shared, yet while each of
their stories is different, they are supposed to be "real." Some are
lying, some are misremembering, and at times it's difficult to tell the
degree to which either of these is the case. Like TPB, the stories
told illuminate the characters doing the telling, but the willing
suspension of disbelief is the same no matter which layer you're
talking about. The outer layer of the storyteller or the inner layer
of the story told. Reason being, these events are separated merely by
time, rather than by kind. In TPB, the story told is separated from
the storyteller by kind.
That makes a huge difference in the engaging of the willing suspension
of disbelief.
Doug
trike
That's why there is an appreciable difference between stories like THE
PRINCESS BRIDE and ones where the characters from the two worlds
interact, clearly creating a line where one can determine if it's
Fantasy or not.
In THE LAST ACTION HERO or THE PRUPLE ROSE OF CAIRO, film characters
enter into the real world, so it's all Fantasy. Same thing for
Donaldson's _Chronicles of Thomas Covenant_, Chalker's _Dancing Gods_
or Watt-Evans _Three Worlds_. The fantasy and non-fantasy interact,
making it all Fantasy instead of two clearly delineated stories.
Doug
Joe Bernstein
<west...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[<The Princess Bride>, movie version, not that it matters *here*]
> I still claim that the inner story is not changed by the frame. The way we
> interpret [which, in the post quoted, might as well mean "experience"]
> it might be changed.
If a story is told in a forest with nobody around to interpret it,
does its frame change it?
Seriously, you seem to be positing that each story has some Platonic
ideal state independent of how people perceive it. Seems to me a
lot of translators might disagree with that.
Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein, writer j...@sfbooks.com
<http://www.panix.com/~josephb/> "She suited my mood, Sarah Mondleigh
did - it was like having a kitten in the room, like a vote for unreason."
<Glass Mountain>, Cynthia Voigt
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>That's immaterial to the point. The story of Westley and Buttercup is
>a fantasy, no question. But the story of the Kid and the Grandfather
>isn't.
If you were managing a book store, where would you put the book? (at
least before it was filmed)
trike
I'd put it in Fantasy, because I'd need to pay the rent. In business,
lowest common denominator generally wins. If I were independently
wealthy and the store was just a hobby, then it goes where it belongs:
Fiction.
(Although bear in mind that I read the book once ages ago and have seen
the movie a half-dozen times in the interim. So that may be coloring
my judgement. It's also why I restricted my comments to the movie
version.)
Doug
westprog
...
> > I don't believe it's as clear cut as that. TPB isn't clearly shown to be
> > fiction, in the film at any rate.
> I can't believe you just said that. The tale of Westley and Buttercup
> is explicitly said to be a fictional story being read to the kid. How
> is that in any way unclear?
I'll accept that for the purpose of the story - but I don't think it matters
one bit. For reasons I'll expand on below.
> And don't even start with the nonsense of, "Ah-ha! But it's a
> *fictional* character reading about other fictional characters!"
> That's a bunch of post-modern crap that is utterly useless when talking
> about genre. That puts us back to "all fiction is fantasy."
Nothing to do with "post-modern". Fiction is made up stories. Science
fiction is stories about something that might happen, but hasn't yet.
Fantasy is about stories that _can't_ happen.
> > In fact, what clues us in that it is
> > fiction is not the framing device, but the content. We know it's
impossible
> > because magic potions to raise the dead don't work.
> Yet, despite the fact that it's not impossible for a grandfather to
> read a story to his grandson, we know *that* aspect of the film/book is
> also fiction. If you're going to claim that "fiction that is possible"
> isn't fiction, you're going to have to up your meds.
No, it's the fact that the entire film is fiction, and that we know this
when we go in the door - indeed, if we hear that a film is a documentary, we
run a mile - that makes the story within a story moot.
> > A fantasy story is fictional _by definition_. It describes impossible
> > things. If it described possible things, it wouldn't be a fantasy. So
the
> > framing device does little to invalidate it.
> That last sentence makes no sense whatsoever.
It means that we _know_, from the content, that the magic potion is a made
up story. Being told in an aside at the start doesn't make a great deal of
difference. It's inherent in the story itself that it's fictional. Being
told so doesn't affect our reaction that much.
...
> > The problem with that is - we didn't find out that that particular
season of
> > Dallas was a dream until the next season. Anyone who stopped watching
when
> > the bomb went off would never know it wasn't real. And in fact, it was
as
> > real as the subsequent series.
> The difference between PRINCESS BRIDE, JACOB'S LADDER and the 5,000
> FINGERS OF DR. T and such things as WISDOM, St. ELSEWHERE, NEWHART and
> that season of DALLAS is that the former list's "story within the
> story" is of a different genre than the framing device's larger story
> in the latter list. That's what freaks people out. But the fact
> remains that they all share one commonality: none of the bulk of the
> stories "really" happened. They were all dreams or fairytales.
> Of course none of it actually happened, as these are all fictional
> characters. We get that. Having talking horses doesn't make something
> "more" fictional -- it's all make-believe. Some of it is just closer
> to reality than other versions. But the underlying idea that some of
> these are purported to be true stories is different from the above
> examples where that stuff isn't supposed to have actually happened.
No, none of them are purported to be true stories. In fact, the only way
that fantasies are presented as true stories - nominally - is with some kind
of framing device. Which is just (as I said earlier) a way to lend
verisimilitude.
The contract that the reader of fiction enters into with the author - or
director - is not to be fooled that the story is true. It is to treat it as
true for the duration of the experience. The extent to which the story is
accepted as a "real" experience depends on the story, on the presentation,
and on the subjective reaction of the reader/viewer. The viewer decides to
pretend that these marks on paper or flashing lights on a screen relate to
real people. He never fully believes it, unless he's reacting very
strangely. Indeed, for certain types of experience, he should be detached.
Too much empathy will make a slapstick comedy a tragedy.
And are we to suppose that this subtly relationship will be fundamentally
changed because as the story starts up, we get a reminder - "hey, this is
all made up"? We don't need a reminder. We know every second that it's made
up.
> It's the willing suspension of disbelief that there was actually a
> hobbit named Frodo, or a talking horse named Mr. Ed, or a Jedi named
> Obi-Wan that allows us to temporarily treat these stories as actual
> accounts of real creatures and real events. You can't do that with the
> interior stories of the above list because they aren't supposed to have
> "actually" happened. With the tale of Westley and Buttercup it's even
> more difficult to claim that story could stand on its own because the
> author specifically says that this is not supposed to be a true story.
The author of fiction (excepting the odd fraudulent case like Streiber)
always tells us that it's not a true story. That's the starting point.
That's how we always engage with the characters. The story can only stand on
its own because it isn't true. It's _never_ supposed to have actually
happened. What is clever about TPB is not that the reader's/viewer's
experience is different - it's that the author/ director points out what is
going on. It makes no more difference than the station announcer telling us
where we've just arrived.
> You can't separate Westley's tale from the Kid's story, because they
> are meant to be intertwined.
Strangely enough the frame in TPB the film is quite different from TPB the
book. The intertwining can't be that inextricable.
J/
westprog
>
> westprog wrote:
> >
> >
> > When we see a film, we see actors pretending, in a fairly realistic
setting.
> > We know that the man who plays Colombo isn't really the boy's
grandfather.
> > We need to suspend disbelief top get into the story. We also need to
suspend
> > disbelief about the magnificient swordsmen, giants and wizards when they
> > appear on screen. We start off _knowing_ it isn't true. We don't need a
> > character to tell us it's fictional. We know that fantasy films are
> > fictional because films are fictional, if they feature actors. We accept
the
> > two stories in TPB on face value, or not, because they both need about
the
> > same suspension of disbelief to get into the story.
>
> But that's the very reason why PRINCESS BRIDE isn't technically a
> Fantasy -- the fantasy portions of the tale are one layer removed from
> the audience by being a story told that is clearly different in tone
> and genre from the setting of the otehr part of the film.
But they aren't removed. They are put right up there with actors and sets
and special effects. And we react to them first hand, because we get them
first hand. If we had the narrator on screen while the fantasy section was
being shown, or had some literal visual clue, it might be different. As it
is, there is nothing in the presentation which privileges one part of the
film over the other. Whether we care more about the embedded characters or
the external ones is up to us. Personally I couldn't care less about the boy
and his grandfather. Nothing much is at stake, and they don't seem to learn
anything important.
> The willing
> suspension of disbelief stops at the point where the adventures of
> Westley, Buttercup, Inigo and Fezzik start, because their tale is
> commented on throughout.
That's a personal,subjective view. It's not how I see the film, and I don't
know anyone else who sees it that way.
> Disregarding the framing device of the narration would indicate a
> certain level of mental illness directly affecting one's ability to
> distinguish reality from fiction.
That's a bizarre interpretation. Anyone who thinks _any_ of TPB is real
would have a mental illness.
> Contrast, for instance, RASHOMON or COURAGE UNDER FIRE. Here we have
> fictional characters relating an event they shared, yet while each of
> their stories is different, they are supposed to be "real." Some are
> lying, some are misremembering, and at times it's difficult to tell the
> degree to which either of these is the case. Like TPB, the stories
> told illuminate the characters doing the telling, but the willing
> suspension of disbelief is the same no matter which layer you're
> talking about. The outer layer of the storyteller or the inner layer
> of the story told. Reason being, these events are separated merely by
> time, rather than by kind. In TPB, the story told is separated from
> the storyteller by kind.
There are no Rashomon-like alternate versions here. There is one narrative,
and there's no unreliable narrator.
> That makes a huge difference in the engaging of the willing suspension
> of disbelief.
> j/
westprog
What do they exist for in the book, then?
J/
westprog
"Joe Bernstein" <j...@sfbooks.com> wrote in message
news:e21air$jgs$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <e20e5g$1vr$1...@news.datemas.de>, westprog
> <west...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> [<The Princess Bride>, movie version, not that it matters *here*]
> > I still claim that the inner story is not changed by the frame. The way
we
> > interpret [which, in the post quoted, might as well mean "experience"]
> > it might be changed.
> If a story is told in a forest with nobody around to interpret it,
> does its frame change it?
> Seriously, you seem to be positing that each story has some Platonic
> ideal state independent of how people perceive it. Seems to me a
> lot of translators might disagree with that.
No, I'm just saying that the inner story has a fixed text, (at least until
the translator gets hold of it). It's always up to the reader how to take
the book. In the case of TPB, there's a lot of extraneous material that
surrounds the book. It would be possible, though difficult to read the
straight fantasy story and ignore the context entirely. However, I don't
think that changes the experience of the fantasy content of TPB that much.
But that's a somewhat subjective judgement. It might be that some other
people read TPB and are mainly involved in the writer's tricks that can
leave a reader feeling a bit imbalanced. The film of TPB has nothing quite
as subtle and disturbing* - it's a simple framing device, and does little to
take away from the film as a fantasy.
J/
*A bit creepy, in fact. I found Golding's description of his family a bit
close to the bone, given that we have no idea of what is true and what is
false. Did he really have a fat son? I don't know, and I think it's a bit of
a dirty trick either way.
Mike Schilling
"westprog" <west...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e2gnl4$dpi$1...@news.datemas.de...
> *A bit creepy, in fact. I found Golding's description of his family a bit
> close to the bone, given that we have no idea of what is true and what is
> false. Did he really have a fat son? I don't know, and I think it's a bit
> of
> a dirty trick either way.
The truth is that Goldman had no son at all, nor was his wife named Helen,
nor was she a psychologist. Goldman had two daughters, whom he used to
invent bedtime stories for. One night, when he asked what they wanted a
story about, one said "A princess" and the other said "A bride." You know
the rest.
Wayne Throop
: The truth is that Goldman had no son at all, nor was his wife named Helen,
: invent bedtime stories for. One night, when he asked what they wanted a
: story about, one said "A princess" and the other said "A bride." You know
: the rest.
"As you wish", said the traveler in black.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The truth is that Goldman had no son at all, nor was his wife named Helen,
>nor was she a psychologist. Goldman had two daughters, whom he used to
>invent bedtime stories for. One night, when he asked what they wanted a
>story about, one said "A princess" and the other said "A bride." You know
>the rest.
And Urban del Rey, supposedly Goldman's editor at Ballantine, was
actually a toy bull that Judy-Lynn del Rey had brought back from Spain
as a souvenir.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
David Tate
> > told to the Kid by the Grandfather, you can't discount the parts of the
> > real (non-fantasy) characters in the overall tale. They are just as
> > much a part of it as anyone else in that story -- and even more so,
> > because the tale of Westley and Buttercup exists solely to provide an
> > entertaining allegory for the emotional journey that the Kid and
> > Grandfather undertake.
>
> What do they exist for in the book, then?
An even more complicated set of themes centered around the difference
between what S. Morganstern's real book was like, the "good parts"
version the grandfather had told Goldman as a kid, Goldman being
disappointed with his son for not liking a book that was not, in fact,
the book he thought he had given him, etc.
I think it's safe to say that there are several PhD dissertations worth
of "what do they exist for in the book, then?". One of which is about
what exactly is being referred to when someone speaks of "the tale of
Westley and Buttercup in the book".
David Tate
Mike Schilling
>
> An even more complicated set of themes centered around the difference
> between what S. Morganstern's real book was like, the "good parts"
> version the grandfather had told Goldman as a kid,
Nit: in the book, it was his father.
Snakes and Babies
trike wrote:
> Paul Arthur wrote:
> > On 2006-04-09, trike <dougtr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Howard Brazee wrote:
> > >> On 7 Apr 2006 22:44:27 -0700, "trike" <dougtr...@hotmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > THE PRINCESS
> > >> >BRIDE (#84) technically isn't a Fantasy, but sure feels like one.
> > >>
> > >> You mean taking pills to recover someone from being "mostly dead" was
> > >> a real part of medieval life?
> > >
> > > Well, no. (Can't tell if you're serious or not.) The story of Wesley
> > > and Buttercup is being told to the Boy by his Grandfather, so it's not
> > > supposed to have "actually" happened. The framing device of the bulk
> > > of the film being a read-aloud story keeps it from being an actual
> > > fantasy.
> >
> > Well, no. The story of the grandfather reading to the boy is being told
> > to us by the filmmaker, so it's not supposed to have "actually"
> > happened. The framing device of having the story appear on screen keeps
> > it from being an actual read-aloud story.
>
> I reject all attempts at rationalizing that kind of post-modernist
> nonsense. The basic premise for genre-typing is that we are voyeurs,
> watching a story unfold. (Or, in the case of books, reading that
> story.) A film or novel is not a "framing device." "Framing device"
> is a very specific term about the _contents_ of a work, not the
> physical form the work takes. Therefore, something like THE PRINCESS
> BRIDE, featuring a story-within-a-story does *not* automatically become
> a story-within-a-story-within-a-story just because it's in a book or on
> film.
By your logic, A Princess of Mars is a Western... Which is very
definitely is not, with the exception of the first chapter.
How about this... Princess Bride is a fantasy because Fred Savage and
Peter Falk's characters fantasize about the other characters, bringing
the fantastical reality they experience to the same level of reality as
their own through filmic and narrative device.
trike
Snakes and Babies wrote:
>
> By your logic, A Princess of Mars is a Western... Which is very
> definitely is not, with the exception of the first chapter.
I haven't read those books, but I was under the impression that John
Carter goes to Mars, not that he's telling an imaginary story to
someone.
> How about this... Princess Bride is a fantasy because Fred Savage and
> Peter Falk's characters fantasize about the other characters, bringing
> the fantastical reality they experience to the same level of reality as
> their own through filmic and narrative device.
Bzzt. Sorry, no, as "post-modern bullshit" is already excluded -- but
thanks for playing.
Doug
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>> By your logic, A Princess of Mars is a Western... Which is very
>> definitely is not, with the exception of the first chapter.
>
>I haven't read those books, but I was under the impression that John
>Carter goes to Mars, not that he's telling an imaginary story to
>someone.
Going in a different direction - what do we call a science fiction
story which is based upon speculations which used to work before
science went and looked? This could be Wallace and Grommit landing
on a cheesy moon. Or it could be a Jules Verne space adventure.
trike
I don't know that there's a name for it, but when science surpasses
science fiction, that doesn't change the fact that it was science
fiction when it was published. I give that sort of thing a "bye" when
it comes to genre. _20,000 Leagues Under the Sea_ and _The Hunt for Red
October_ were both science fiction when they debuted, but although
technology has since eclipsed the extrapolations, I still consider them
SF. Maybe "Classic SF" or something.
As far as A GRAND DAY OUT and such work, those are pretty clearly
Fantasy with science fictional props, because we know that the stuff
going on in them is impossible. The iconography of science fiction --
robots, spaceships, ray guns -- has become a staple in fiction, and
their use isn't necessarily connected to genre. Nick Park was just
having fun with the old idea of the moon being made of cheese, using
that as impetus for his cheese-obsessed character to go there.
Similarly, ZATHURA and JUMANJI are essentially the same story, with the
former utilizing SF tropes and the latter using Fantasy ones. Although
those are both good movies that are a lot of fun, I prefer ZATHURA
because I like science fictional props. But when you come right down
to it, those are both Fantasy films, just with different flavoring.
Doug
westprog
"Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GdW2g.5223$Lm5....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "David Tate" <dt...@ida.org> wrote in message
> news:1145832178....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > An even more complicated set of themes centered around the difference
> > between what S. Morganstern's real book was like, the "good parts"
> > version the grandfather had told Goldman as a kid,
> Nit: in the book, it was his father.
I think that there are massive, massive differences between the very simple
framing device in the film, and the "introduction" in the book. The boy in
the film is IIRC just a generic boy - he isn't identified with William
Goldman.
Now, if the book is totally dependent on the framing device for its
interpretation, what are we to make of the same story with an entirely
different frame? IMO most people take the Wesley/Buttercup story at face
value, and view the grandfather and the boy as a way into the story.
> > Goldman being
> > disappointed with his son for not liking a book that was not, in fact,
> > the book he thought he had given him, etc.
> > I think it's safe to say that there are several PhD dissertations worth
> > of "what do they exist for in the book, then?". One of which is about
> > what exactly is being referred to when someone speaks of "the tale of
> > Westley and Buttercup in the book".
J/
Mike Schilling
>
> "Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:GdW2g.5223$Lm5....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> "David Tate" <dt...@ida.org> wrote in message
>> news:1145832178....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>> > An even more complicated set of themes centered around the difference
>> > between what S. Morganstern's real book was like, the "good parts"
>> > version the grandfather had told Goldman as a kid,
>
>> Nit: in the book, it was his father.
>
> I think that there are massive, massive differences between the very
> simple
> framing device in the film, and the "introduction" in the book. The boy in
> the film is IIRC just a generic boy - he isn't identified with William
> Goldman.
Nor is there a "good parts" distinction in the movie -- there the
grandfather is, as far as we can tell, reading the entire book. So I'm
pretty sure Dave was talking specifically about the book.
David Tate
> "Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:GdW2g.5223$Lm5....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "David Tate" <dt...@ida.org> wrote in message
> > news:1145832178....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > An even more complicated set of themes centered around the difference
> > > between what S. Morganstern's real book was like, the "good parts"
> > > version the grandfather had told Goldman as a kid,
>
> > Nit: in the book, it was his father.
Yep. Thanks for the correction.
> I think that there are massive, massive differences between the very simple
> framing device in the film, and the "introduction" in the book.
Obviously. I'm not sure why you think this is important here, though
-- nobody seems to be arguing for any overriding similiarity between
the book and the movie.
> Now, if the book is totally dependent on the framing device for its
> interpretation, what are we to make of the same story with an entirely
> different frame?
Something different. Why is that so controversial?
> IMO most people take the Wesley/Buttercup story at face value, and view
> the grandfather and the boy as a way into the story.
Whereas I can, if I try very hard, just barely imagine what it would be
like for some exceptionally focused (if not downright autistic) viewer
of the film to successfully ignore everything the framing story does to
color the tale the grandfather reads to the boy. And even then, I
don't think it makes any sense at all to try to describe such an
undertaking as "taking the Westley/Buttercup story at face value".
What is "face value" for a fairy tale?
I suspect that either you are wrong about how much most people are
aware of the interaction between frame and framed, or that most people
(including yourself) are more influenced by the frame than they
realize. Or both.
David Tate
westprog
...
> > > > An even more complicated set of themes centered around the
> > > > difference
> > > > between what S. Morganstern's real book was like, the "good parts"
> > > > version the grandfather had told Goldman as a kid,
> > > Nit: in the book, it was his father.
> Yep. Thanks for the correction.
WG states that he's never read the story he was told. That, I think, is part
of what he's trying to say. Though his message is gratifyingly obscure, and
capable of many interpretations - which is generally a good thing.
> > I think that there are massive, massive differences between the very
> > simple framing device in the film, and the "introduction" in the book.
> Obviously. I'm not sure why you think this is important here, though
> -- nobody seems to be arguing for any overriding similiarity between
> the book and the movie.
No, but the discussion seems to be veering around between the two. (I might
be as guilty as anyone over this). I assumed that the grandfather reference
meant the film. AFAIK, this started with the film - hence the subject line.
> > Now, if the book is totally dependent on the framing device for its
> > interpretation, what are we to make of the same story with an entirely
> > different frame?
> Something different. Why is that so controversial?
Because if the idea of the WB story is to illuminate the frame, surely the
same (or very similar) WB presented with two very different frames - with
the same author/screenwriter, who presumably had something in mind. If we
had had the same framing story, with a quite different internal one, then
we'd say that the frame had priority.
> > IMO most people take the Wesley/Buttercup story at face value, and view
> > the grandfather and the boy as a way into the story.
> Whereas I can, if I try very hard, just barely imagine what it would be
> like for some exceptionally focused (if not downright autistic) viewer
> of the film to successfully ignore everything the framing story does to
> color the tale the grandfather reads to the boy. And even then, I
> don't think it makes any sense at all to try to describe such an
> undertaking as "taking the Westley/Buttercup story at face value".
[This paragraph inserted before the realisation that the Grandfather
reference is in fact the Father, and the book, not the film]
In this case, it means that if the scenes showing the grandfather reading
the story were removed, and replaced with a simple narration to set the
scene, the result would be much the same for the viewer. Obviously that
would mean that they couldn't react to the grandfather/boy scenes, or how
the two parts affected each other. What I don't think it would do would be
drastically change the reaction to the story.
> What is "face value" for a fairy tale?
The fact that the WB story is a fairytale is precisely why we can take it at
face value. Face value is that it's a made up story. So when WG tells us
that it's a made up story, he's telling us something we already know. It's
the other information that he's playing around with. (Book now. Not the same
in the film at all.) There is a lot of autobiographical material, some of
which is undoubtedly true, some of which is certainly false, and much of
which would be difficult to find out - some of which is perhaps impossible
to find out. The WG autobiographical sections are quite disconcerting. But
the WB sections are in fact quite straightforward, as fantasy goes. There
are plenty of books which contain unreliable narrators, and stories within
stories - say, for example, The Book Of The New Sun. The WB sections don't
read, to me, like one of those. It's a fairy story - something that someone
made up.
The ending, of course, is unusually in leaving things hanging. It's at this
point that we are likely to snap out of the fantasy world and cut the thin
thread suspending our disbelief. We realise that there is no ending for the
story that hasn't been written.
> I suspect that either you are wrong about how much most people are
> aware of the interaction between frame and framed, or that most people
> (including yourself) are more influenced by the frame than they
> realize. Or both.
But all stories have a frame - and frames within frames. There's no such
thing as a standalone story that reads the same for everyone, regardless. We
are always influenced by the genre the book is assigned to, the cover art
and illustrations, our preconceptions about characters named Buttercup,
whether or not we know that a particular mythical country is mythical - and
so on. That's why I don't regard the existence of a framing device for a
fictional story as making the internal story something quite different. The
whole of TPB - book - is probably something different - or at least, it
contains something more than a simple fairy tale.
J/
Jack Bohn
>(Book now. Not the same
>in the film at all.) There is a lot of autobiographical material, some of
>which is undoubtedly true, some of which is certainly false, and much of
>which would be difficult to find out - some of which is perhaps impossible
>to find out.
That reminds me, at one point in the book WG was complaining that
something he wrote was going to be edited out... I think a scene
he composed that wasn't in the Morganstern version. He offered
to send it out free to anybody who asked. So, did anybody ask?
--
-Jack
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>> Going in a different direction - what do we call a science fiction
>> story which is based upon speculations which used to work before
>> science went and looked? This could be Wallace and Grommit landing
>> on a cheesy moon. Or it could be a Jules Verne space adventure.
>
>I don't know that there's a name for it, but when science surpasses
>science fiction, that doesn't change the fact that it was science
>fiction when it was published.
But not when that Verne novel was filmed.
Zelazny won a couple of Hugos based upon Mars and Venus that were
recently shown to be impossible.
Mike Schilling
"Jack Bohn" <jack...@bright.net> wrote in message
news:hnpq42tocb3a0e447...@4ax.com...
IIRC, you got a form letter from the publisher saying "We're still in
litigation".
Michael S. Schiffer
>...
> That reminds me, at one point in the book WG was complaining
> that something he wrote was going to be edited out... I think a
> scene he composed that wasn't in the Morganstern version. He
> offered to send it out free to anybody who asked. So, did
> anybody ask?
Of course they did. (Did you really need to ask? :-) ) What they
received is available at
<http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/89q4nb/reunion.982.html>
Mike
--
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS
msch...@condor.depaul.edu
David Tate
> "David Tate" <dt...@ida.org> wrote in message
> news:1145907685.9...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Now, if the book is totally dependent on the framing device for its
> > > interpretation, what are we to make of the same story with an entirely
> > > different frame?
>
> > Something different. Why is that so controversial?
>
> Because if the idea of the WB story is to illuminate the frame,
Well, that's *part* of the point. Goldman's a good writer; he's
allowed to do more than one thing at a time.
> surely the
> same (or very similar) WB presented with two very different frames - with
> the same author/screenwriter, who presumably had something in mind.
This sentence no verb. I've tried to guess what you were intended to
say, but nothing seems obvious and I don't want to put words in your
mouth.
> If we had had the same framing story, with a quite different internal one, then
> we'd say that the frame had priority.
It's not a question of 'priority', as far as I can tell. It's just a
question of what the writer is trying to write about, and how he goes
about it. In the book, Goldman writes about a lot of things that he
doesn't pursue in the screenplay, and he uses the internal fairy tale
in a different way. In the screenplay, knowing the limitations of the
medium, he tells a simpler story and uses the fairy tale in a more
straightforward way. That's part of the genius of the screenplay --
that he adapted and revised various parts of the book to do something
quite utterly different from the book, but more suited to film and
equally successful.
> > > IMO most people take the Wesley/Buttercup story at face value, and view
> > > the grandfather and the boy as a way into the story.
>
> > Whereas I can, if I try very hard, just barely imagine what it would be
> > like for some exceptionally focused (if not downright autistic) viewer
> > of the film to successfully ignore everything the framing story does to
> > color the tale the grandfather reads to the boy. And even then, I
> > don't think it makes any sense at all to try to describe such an
> > undertaking as "taking the Westley/Buttercup story at face value".
>
> [This paragraph inserted before the realisation that the Grandfather
> reference is in fact the Father, and the book, not the film]
No, I was actually talking about the film there. I cannot imagine that
you really believe that (for example) when the kid stops the
grandfather at Westley's death, and tells him he must have read it
wrong because (implied) that's not how fairy tales work... that all of
the ensuing metadiscussion of fairy tale tropes and expectations does
not in any way affect your perception or interpretation of the story
within the story.
> In this case, it means that if the scenes showing the grandfather reading
> the story were removed, and replaced with a simple narration to set the
> scene, the result would be much the same for the viewer.
Not for any viewer I've ever met. See above.
> > I suspect that either you are wrong about how much most people are
> > aware of the interaction between frame and framed, or that most people
> > (including yourself) are more influenced by the frame than they
> > realize. Or both.
>
> But all stories have a frame - and frames within frames.
But not the *same* frame, or a completely inert frame, as you seem to
be claiming.
> There's no such
> thing as a standalone story that reads the same for everyone, regardless.
Who said anything about "the same for everyone"? That came out of left
field...
David Tate
westprog
> > > > Now, if the book is totally dependent on the framing device for its
> > > > interpretation, what are we to make of the same story with an
entirely
> > > > different frame?
> > > Something different. Why is that so controversial?
> > Because if the idea of the WB story is to illuminate the frame,
> Well, that's *part* of the point. Goldman's a good writer; he's
> allowed to do more than one thing at a time.
I fear that we are nudging closer to agreement here, if we aren't very
careful to misrepresent each other's views.
Goldman is doing a number of things - some of which are quite difficult to
pin down. I think that one of the main things he's doing is telling a fairy
story. Another thing he's doing is lifting the lid off so we can see the
workings. Another thing he's doing is playing with our sense of what is true
or false.
> > surely the
> > same (or very similar) WB presented with two very different frames -
with
> > the same author/screenwriter, who presumably had something in mind.
> This sentence no verb. I've tried to guess what you were intended to
> say, but nothing seems obvious and I don't want to put words in your
> mouth.
I must have been posting very late at night.
I'm arguing against the POV that the frame is the important bit, and the
story subsidiary to that (which may not have been your point, but it was
made by someone along the way). If the internal story is broadly the same,
but the outside bit is disposable, then I don't think the outside bit is
critical. If we were really supposed to worry more about Goldman's marriage
and his fat son, then how come that could all be left out of the film?
It seems to me that it's the other way around (and you may well have a
similar viewpoint) and that the framing device is to illuminate the story as
a story, so we can explicitly accept the conventions and rules - happy ever
after, villains punished, heros rewarded.
> > If we had had the same framing story, with a quite different internal
one, then
> > we'd say that the frame had priority.
> It's not a question of 'priority', as far as I can tell. It's just a
> question of what the writer is trying to write about, and how he goes
> about it. In the book, Goldman writes about a lot of things that he
> doesn't pursue in the screenplay, and he uses the internal fairy tale
> in a different way. In the screenplay, knowing the limitations of the
> medium, he tells a simpler story and uses the fairy tale in a more
> straightforward way. That's part of the genius of the screenplay --
> that he adapted and revised various parts of the book to do something
> quite utterly different from the book, but more suited to film and
> equally successful.
I'd accept that. Though I think that the device of showing the story with
the lid off is present in both versions. In the book we are given a
succession of unreliable versions of truth, leading into something we know
to be fictional. In the film, we are presented with two fictions, and I
don't think that they have different statuses. We accept the grandfather and
boy as made up characters acted and filmed, and we (meaning me, and all the
people who share my take on it) accept Wesley and Buttercup as made up
characters, and take them on the same basis.
> > > > IMO most people take the Wesley/Buttercup story at face value, and
view
> > > > the grandfather and the boy as a way into the story.
> > > Whereas I can, if I try very hard, just barely imagine what it would
be
> > > like for some exceptionally focused (if not downright autistic) viewer
> > > of the film to successfully ignore everything the framing story does
to
> > > color the tale the grandfather reads to the boy. And even then, I
> > > don't think it makes any sense at all to try to describe such an
> > > undertaking as "taking the Westley/Buttercup story at face value".
> > [This paragraph inserted before the realisation that the Grandfather
> > reference is in fact the Father, and the book, not the film]
> No, I was actually talking about the film there. I cannot imagine that
> you really believe that (for example) when the kid stops the
> grandfather at Westley's death, and tells him he must have read it
> wrong because (implied) that's not how fairy tales work... that all of
> the ensuing metadiscussion of fairy tale tropes and expectations does
> not in any way affect your perception or interpretation of the story
> within the story.
It does to some extent - but I repeat - that's telling us something we
already know! That's the first experience of fairy stories - being read them
in an interactive way - asking questions, being given explanations. Any
fairy story will have the same expectations. PB just points them out.
If I'm watching Willow, for example, the same rules and conventions of fairy
stories apply. This means that typically, an adult will watch with a degree
of ironic detachment even though there is no framing sequence. A child will
take it literally.
In films such as Shrek, the same effect is achieved by anachronisms and
jokes - such as the wrestling sequence in the big fight. It's a way to point
up that this is a story.
> > In this case, it means that if the scenes showing the grandfather
reading
> > the story were removed, and replaced with a simple narration to set the
> > scene, the result would be much the same for the viewer.
> Not for any viewer I've ever met. See above.
For me, it would. Though I specifically mean the reaction to the WB scenes
by themselves. There is a seperate reaction to the film as a whole, and the
grandfather scenes.
> > > I suspect that either you are wrong about how much most people are
> > > aware of the interaction between frame and framed, or that most people
> > > (including yourself) are more influenced by the frame than they
> > > realize. Or both.
> > But all stories have a frame - and frames within frames.
> But not the *same* frame, or a completely inert frame, as you seem to
> be claiming.
There's always a context. For example, the ludicrous swordfight bit where
both characters turn out to be fighting with the "wrong" hand. That's just
as much a clue that the story is a story as the frame. A sophisticated/adult
viewer will see that as a joke - and "step outside" for a moment. The
unsophisticated/child will just go "wow!". A lot of people will combine the
reactions.
> > There's no such
> > thing as a standalone story that reads the same for everyone,
regardless.
> Who said anything about "the same for everyone"? That came out of left
> field...
What people bring to the story is potentially as significant as what is
placed around it by the author.
J/
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>There's always a context. For example, the ludicrous swordfight bit where
>both characters turn out to be fighting with the "wrong" hand. That's just
>as much a clue that the story is a story as the frame. A sophisticated/adult
>viewer will see that as a joke - and "step outside" for a moment. The
>unsophisticated/child will just go "wow!". A lot of people will combine the
>reactions.
When I stepped out, it was to say "what a great child's fantasy
element!".