lirazel | ummm...

Current Mood: annoyed

Entry tags:

ummm...

So I just watched (without sound, because at work) this teaser for the adaptation of The Giver and I'm already annoyed. It looks like none of the movie is in black and white! Are you kidding me? One of the great joys of the book is when Jonas starts seeing colors--flashes of red in a thrown apple, in his friend Fiona's hair. I figured they would at least get that right: have the movie shot in black and white until he starts to see color and then gradually bleed it in. This would be so easy to do in film WHY AREN'T THEY DOING IT? If we're just told that everyone sees black and white but we don't get to experience WHAT IS THE FUN IN THAT?

Also: way too action-y looking and I'm skeptical they'll even come close in getting the ambiguity of the ending right.

I have Feelings about this because A) first book that taught me that ambiguity could be AWESOME and B) first dystopian book I ever read and here I am 20 years later, still obsessed. IT'S VERY IMPORTANT OKAY? AND LOIS LOWRY ALSO WROTE NUMBER THE STARS WHICH IS ALSO VERY IMPORTANT AND THANKFULLY HAS NEVER BEEN TURNED INTO A MOVIE.

[eta] Speaking of dystopias, the Divergent series' premise sounds profoundly dumb to me. Um, excuse you writer, but EVERYONE is divergent. NO ONE IS JUST ONE THING. It's like the silliness of the Hogwarts house sorting--oversimplified categorizing of human beings--treated overly seriously? I'm annoyed just reading a basic summary. Is it just really well-written and that's why people are obsessed with it?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

ouch. Way to fail again, Hollywood.

I must admit that I was really disappointed the first time I read The Giver ... mostly because my father thought that starting me on Ayn Rand at 12 was appropriate and had already read Anthem and>/b> Atlas Shrugged by the time this was assigned to my seventh-grade class. and had also grown up on Rush's 2112 which remains my favorite dystopian narrative of ever. Now, I can look back and see all the wonderful things that I missed at 12 with Lois Lowry's wonderful narrative.

Um, excuse you writer, but EVERYONE is divergent. NO ONE IS JUST ONE THING.

um... YES THAT IS THE POINT OF THE NOVELS. The science is STUPID and IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE. The protagonist has to go through the process of living in a system where people are SOCIALLY programmed to be "one thing" and learns that it's all bullshit ... again and again and again. It's all backed up with ridiculous science that makes no sense and that's the point: that we classify people into groups that make no sense and it IS HARMFUL.

Is it just really well-written and that's why people are obsessed with it?
It's decently written. The science is /bad/ - but it's supposed to be. There's more female characters than male and all have varied personalities and experiences and motivations. The main "relationship" is the best I've ever seen in the genre - both characters talk shit out and MOVE FORWARD. They are in love: but that doesn't make everything roses. They fight. A lot. For completely justifiable reasons that they work through as a couple. Also did I mention ladies? The big baddies for all three books are (mostly) female. The protagonist is greatly strengthened through her relationships with other women. Women are friends and support each other and fight for what is right and have equal footing with men. There's very little in the way of gross gender politics in the text.

By placing everyone into "categories" the narrative is able to deflect all gender, sex, race, etc. issues onto the "categories" - there's no sexism and the "racism" is based on classes of people.

Also the female protagonist is surly and grouchy like Katniss AND SHE NEVER APOLOGIZES and unlike Katniss - NO ONE EVER SHAMES HER for the way she behaves. She's brilliant and strong and she loves women for the strengths they bring to the table and she's just really feckin' awesome, alright?

Yes, the /categories/ bullshit is some bullshit.
And the author is totally aware and her PONT is that it is bullshit.

I really honestly think that you would love this series and was going to ask you if you had read it? because I find it so wonderful and...

I have a lot of feelings about these books. They are not perfect by any means, but they do SO MUCH right.

Especially the ladies.

I think The Giver is a pretty solid book all around, but it's one of the ones that becomes magical if you read it at just the right time. And if you're outside that time in your life, you think, "Yeah, it's good, but why is everyone freaking out about it?" Sounds like you didn't get to read it at the right time!

Okay, that is a relief to hear, but my next question would be: does the author explain how that world came to be? Because it's a bit of a stretch for me to imagine our world morphing into that world, and I would need some backstory explanation on how it happened. With some dystopias, you don't need that--1984 arises out of the Cold War very easily, and the better episodes of Black Mirror seem almost inevitable. There are some premises where I'm willing to operate on suspension of belief (most things that bill themselves as fantasy, for instance), but with dystopias I'm really picky about that (like I cannot watch that Revolution show when the entire premise is that ELECTRICITY STOPPED WORKING).

But you know me: I love the ladies!

I guess mostly I'm not buying that such a setup could last for more than five minutes. Like, if it crumbles once the heroine (presumably) starts pushing against it, why didn't it crumble long before then? Is it a brand new system? What's going into keeping it in place? Why is humanity standing for it, basically. What kind of terrible thing happened as a result of NOT having these categories that keep people so afraid that they accept them? Or, conversely, what kind of benefit are they getting from it that's impossible to get in a setup that actually makes sense?

I guess I just want to know if the worldbuilding is any good.

all of these things are answered in the novels, yes.

like I understand your hesitation and the worldbuilding has some holes - but doesn't Panem? doesn't a lot of dystopian worldbuilding?

there's a complete backstory, you meet and get to know the gamemakers, it's all fleshed out. takes a while. the game changes halfway through and you have learn everything all over again. but it's solid.

I don't want to say anything more because these questions are SO SPOILERY.

Needless to say... yes. you are right. these are the right questions. these are the questions the novel answers. in very interesting and surprising ways.

UGH OMG READ THEM SO I CAN TALK TO YOU ABOUT THESE THINGS BECAUSE I LIKED THE WAY THEY WERE HANDLED.

Okay, that makes me feel a lot better about it. (And for the record, I thought the first Hunger Games book worked well and then a lot of things completely fell apart in the second two. I liked the books fine, but I wouldn't say I'm a fan?) I can overlook a few plotholes as long as the bulk of how-does-humanity-relate-to-this makes sense. The 'how did we get here and why are people willing to stay'-ness of it, you know?

Haha, I'll request them at the library, but it'll probably be a while before I can read them--I'm sure I'm like number 47 on the list or something. Maybe worse.

I just ended up downloading them because I'm a horrible person or something.

And yes - the first book doesn't really feel like a set-up for good stuff. But in particular: "why does the entire world believe this" is explained in a bizarrely fascinating way.

The books have a lot of mumbo-jumbo made-up science. But they are actually socio-psychological studies and OMG I AM GOING TO DIE THIS CONVERSATION IS GONNA GET SPOILERY SOON.

Everything is meta and everything hurts.

and also LADIES.

okay so like the point of Hunger Games is: "what power can a woman have if her image is being used by such large power structures?" (the answer: none. we're all screwed.) ((sorry not sorry I see HG as a very pessimistic text))

Divergent's point is: "what are we willing to do to make and keep categories of humans in our lives in order to keep power in limited hands by use of the status quo?" (the answer: a whole lot. way more than you think.)

I think the questions these two texts raise are extremely interesting.

an overall I was more satisfied/hopeful at the end of Divergent than HG

Yeah, I think that was what HG was trying to do and did quite well in the first book, but I wasn't really happy with how it answered that question in the second two although I was fine with the depressing answer to the question.

"what are we willing to do to make and keep categories of humans in our lives in order to keep power in limited hands by use of the status quo?"

That is an interesting question. And obviously, we do a ton of that. Like, our entire culture is built around that. (I guess I just found the categories chosen and especially what they were called pretty silly? Like, off-putting. Idk. I just know that every time I've read a summary of them, I've thought, "You have got to be kidding me." And I'm one who loves cracky premises!)

w/r/t the categories: actually when you start learning about the different factions and the WAYS in which they keep people in line, it's totally fascinating.

because any other time we've categorized people, it is by things that people can't choose. race, class, sex, religion, race - mostly inherent traits, right?

well what if you had a society where the social training modified behaviorisms and presumed that behavior is inherited. that people are either all selfless, all smart, all peaceful, all brave, or all ... omg I forgot the last one. So once you are in the world, you see all the ways that people monitor behavior - through shaming others and self-monitoring. Tris spends most of book one asking herself /why/ she responds to things the way that she does. She's in a system where your motivations should be pure, and she learns that it's only actions that count.

It's just so fascinating from a psychological perspective: watching this girl break from a lifetime of social programming that /still/ controls her entire world... only the more she challenges it, the more she realizes that she's not the only one and the system she had so much faith in was never all that sturdy to begin with.

It's like Foucault's wet dream of a society, honestly.

Just so, so fascinating.

Hee! Foucault! You do a MUCH better job selling these books than anything else I've seen about them. Period. She should hire you to be her publicist.

You have no idea.

I totally get it, though. The way they are written - you /should/ be going in blind. "Oh a weird dystopian society, okay" AND THEN SHIT GETS REAL. And I like knowing that her publicist isn't giving everything away. Because I've seriously spoiled so much for you in this conversation in my attempts to get you to read them... like I honestly feel bad.

But also the summaries are silly and don't give you any sense of what you are walking into.

I just really, really love a series that is based on the precedent of: "if I am of ________ faction, then all my motivations are clear and I know exactly how to respond to things and why" and having to watch a brain determine how that doesn't work and why and stretch into itself.

Like a subjectivity narrative on over drive.

With a cutie couple and Foucault-isms and flawless, multi-faceted ladies.

And a female protagonist who is a non-sentimental grouch.

It's everything I love.

I agree so much with THE LADIES and THE RELATIONSHIP. Tris is one of my fave YA main characters EVER. She's SO AWESOME and her relationship is SO DAMN GREAT. I didn't like the third book that much (how it was written + I didn't really buy the explanations of how it all happened, truth be told), but it was SO worth it because not only the first two books were incredibly addictive, BUT the ladies and the relationships and the characters and! I enjoyed it so much. :D

I didn't enjoy Divergent much (I have only read the first book though) because yeah, the world building felt really terrible. Like I get that she was out to disprove the scenario but it never made any sense to me why the entire world would fall into that? I don't remember the explanation for it but it didn't make sense to me, and some other elements felt cheesy and like something twelve year old me would come up with, without thinking things through at all. It was a while since I read it though, and I didn't like it for several other reasons too which might color my opinion (mostly the main romance was SO PREDICTABLE which is something that annoys me greatly with YA fantasy with female main characters. The romances are almost never appealing to me and always something you can spot from the moment the male character is introduced and I was very very sick of them when I read Divergent).

the explanation for everything doesn't come until the third book. the world building is actually quite thorough if you stick it out. the second and third books have great game changers and all the "first romance" stuff that characterizes the first book is really challenged and explored in interesting ways in the second and third (especially).

um... mostly I know the first book isn't the best. but all the cheesy stuff actually is explained in a way that is - while not brilliant - not horrible either.

That's the danger of explaining your more out-there elements at the end instead of revealing them all along, I guess. Like for people who stick around, it really works, but for those who grow tired of waiting for answers, they bail. (You know what was a show that did the actually-explaining-things really poorly? THE X-FILES. The writers were clearly flying by the seat of their pants the whole time and didn't have some overall plan, and it showed. I mean, I love the show, but that's because I love the characters so much. And it had tons of MOTW episodes. The mytharc should have been awesome but it never reached the level it should have because there wasn't enough planning in it.)

It's so, so necessary to follow the path with Tris, though. Like... UGH READ IT... because I can't fathom her being able to establish the emotional connection that you need to this society and it's people and the desperate /need/ so many of them have to maintain their faction's culture (while others are fighting it tooth and nail) before throwing in the big explanation.

Also - like omg. So much really great work on abuse narratives and abuse-victims and the psychological impact of PTSD. Lovely, lovely work on that front.

That's definitely the way it comes across when you read the summaries (made up by a twelve-year-old). I assumed the writer was one of those fifteen-year-olds who managed to get their books published somehow. But I looked her up and she's only a couple of years younger than men. (Which makes me feel terrible about myself, but never mind that.) It's really good to hear from Kelsey that stuff ends up making more sense in the end.

Hi. The Giver is one of my favorite books too. When I read the book I thought the colors have always been there it's just that the people are not taught the concept of "colors" so they never thought about it. They never distinguish or prefer something because the color is different. It's like they never see any person as beautiful or ugly or different from the other. That's how I interpret it.
Do you remember the special ability that the Giver has? I only remember that Jonas can see red. My book is as of right now not here with me so I can't look up.

This would be so easy to do in film WHY AREN'T THEY DOING IT?

Because no one would go see a black and white movie (ever how long that part lasted), clearly.

I don't remember The Giver well enough to comment (though I agree the lack of b&w-to-color is profoundly ridiculous), but as someone who also only knows Divergent through pop culture osmosis I SO AGREE?? Like at least with Hogwarts sorting there's the possibility of spinning it to be about what motivates you/what you value the most, so it's more like "you aren't just one quality but this is the thing that matters THE MOST to you." And Divergent doesn't seem to be that? And based on what I've read the purpose of this (though I could be wrong/misinterpreting something) seems to be make sure that society will cease with infighting and causing conflict? Which is ALSO RIDICULOUS because people fight just as much - if not more - when they're too alike rather than being too different. DIVERGENT, YOU'RE WEIRD.

eta: okay having read the comments/discussion above now I feel silly and things make more sense. (though I'm still not totally sure about the reasoning for such a system of classification bcs for real, isn't "sameness of personality" an easy way to clash? idk.)

Edited 2014-03-22 03:00 (UTC)

hihi! sorry for jumping in, but the whole factions thing has been so poorly misrepresented in the osmosis of pop culture that I kinda want to answer this as best I can (hope that's okay!)

I think a lot of people who are familiar with the texts are TERRIFIED of spoiling the game makers and the game and it is nigh-impossible to talk about the factions and the ridiculous therein without accidentally revealing what the strings are, who is pulling them, and why.

So I will try to explain how they work without being a spoilery jerk :)

Each faction focuses on a certain attribute: bravery, intelligence, and selflessness are the three most important factions in the book. (although peace does make a late-game swing that's pretty cool) And the presumption of the society is that people are naturally inclined to be only one thing. That's what people think. That being selfless (for example) is something that is inherent to certain people, they don't have to work at it, and therefore they belong to the faction that suits them perfectly.

But the text makes it really clear from the beginning that behavior is socially monitored. People in each factions expect people to behave a certain way and have interests in certain things, so they do. There's nothing "natural" about it. But you are experiencing this world from the perspective of someone that whole-heartedly believes that some people are naturally 'selfless' and don't have to try and don't struggle with that identity. So much of the series is following Tris (and some other characters) through breaking down this social programming - not just of only behaving a certain way, but believing in the system.

It's like the author took our racial stereotypes and ramped them up to the Nth degree: "white people are always..." "asians are always..." "Blacks always..." "Hispanics always...." etc. We've all heard the jokes. We all know the stereotypes.

What she is doing is exploring this kind of thinking, but using attributes (without any racial connotation - that was just Real World example to compare it to) as the center of a culture around which behavior is maintained and monitored.

It feels like a serious extreme. But that's what dystopians do - they take something from our own culture and put it into the extreme and then make us deal with what we are actually doing right now.

Divergent is about so many things. Mostly it is about the psychological need to divide people into "us" and "Other" and how strong that need is. It's also about the power of the human mind. We are all divergent - that's a fundamental truth to human beings. Being selfless isn't easy for anyone. Being brave isn't easy for anyone. And yet, there are some really brave and selfless people that we know. Imagine if you lived in a culture that forced those attributes onto from the time you were a child - exposed you to cultural hatred based on these attributes - and as you are struggling with what you are supposed to naturally be, you can't see that so is everyone else. and that no one actually fits any one attribute/faction.

All of the complaints and frustrations that Lauren and you have expressed make up the central conversation of the series.

and also:

isn't "sameness of personality" an easy way to clash?
I'm just going to smile. because I know the answer to this. and I think it wouldn't necessarily disappoint you.

Sorry for being so wordy!

Basically what kwritten said. I also have to admit I personally didn't buy the explanation that much nor loved the third book in terms of writing, but it was worth it for the characters and the relationship of the otp. I was so happily surprised with that! I didn't expect such thing from a YA book (and it's sad that I say this based on experience) but it was awesome. Can't promise you you'll like it, but maybe it's worth a chance to see it for yourself? :)

Right, right, RIGHT?! I remember first reading it and how gut-punched I was when I realized that the strange factor that Jonas kept noticing was color.
I was never the biggest fan of dystopias...except for this one. The Giver was That One Dystopia I Love, and now you’re gonna take what I love away from it? Nope.

Never seen/read Divergent but, hah, Hogwarts houses. Yeah. It is legitimately strange to me that people on Tumblr and elsewhere have knock-down, drag-out fights over defending “their” Houses.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

ummm...

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject