Okay, so I started reading Emma, and I was really enjoying it. The world that Austen creates for the reader is at once tranquil yet restless. Ordered, but in flux. Maybe I'm not explaining it well, but I could feel the charm of Austen. Just getting into her world, ya know?
Then a line in the book (maybe around page 40) triggered a distant memory: Oh my God! Wasn't the movie Clueless based on Emma?
It was.
And this has been a mixed blessing. On the one hand, I am astounded at how true the movie is to the book and how relevant the story is still today. But it's a weird feeling... I'm reading the book for the 'first' time, but not.
It's a great jumping-off point to ponder the question that recently came up in class: why is Jane Austen still read and adapted into movies like mad today?
I'll let you know what I find.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
"That was way harsh, Tai"
The "Letter to the Publisher" and "Reply" at the end of Adolphe startled me. I can see how some of the blame for his own unhappiness and Ellenore's death fall on him, but never to that extent! Especially since the "Letter" and "Reply" were written by Benjamin Constant.
This reminds me of an (unconfirmed) Goethe quote someone mentioned in class last week: "Be a man, don't be like Werther."
The question I have is this: how can a writer create a character that is so real, so vivid, and so human, and then be so critical of the character? When reading both books, I assumed the protagonists of both (Werther and Adolphe) were at least somewhat related to their respective authors.
And this brings up another issue, that of 'where does art come from?' I don't mean where literally, but rather where in the mind, the soul does it come from. For example, Brett Easton Ellis wrote American Psycho and though I've only read a few choice parts (thanks, Nick, for pointing me to that sex/murder/sex/strangle scene), and it's exTREMELY graphic. But here's the question. How does Mr. Ellis' wife feel about this? What I mean is this: can we really separate a character completely from the mind from whence it sprung. I think not, and it is for this reason that the criticism of Adolphe seems a bit too harsh.
One last thought: perhaps Constant wrote Adolphe more from the perspective of a 'cautionary tale,' illustrating exactly what not to do when one has fallen out of love. It's possible.
This reminds me of an (unconfirmed) Goethe quote someone mentioned in class last week: "Be a man, don't be like Werther."
The question I have is this: how can a writer create a character that is so real, so vivid, and so human, and then be so critical of the character? When reading both books, I assumed the protagonists of both (Werther and Adolphe) were at least somewhat related to their respective authors.
And this brings up another issue, that of 'where does art come from?' I don't mean where literally, but rather where in the mind, the soul does it come from. For example, Brett Easton Ellis wrote American Psycho and though I've only read a few choice parts (thanks, Nick, for pointing me to that sex/murder/sex/strangle scene), and it's exTREMELY graphic. But here's the question. How does Mr. Ellis' wife feel about this? What I mean is this: can we really separate a character completely from the mind from whence it sprung. I think not, and it is for this reason that the criticism of Adolphe seems a bit too harsh.
One last thought: perhaps Constant wrote Adolphe more from the perspective of a 'cautionary tale,' illustrating exactly what not to do when one has fallen out of love. It's possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)