![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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?
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?
no subject
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.
no subject
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!
no subject
I guess I just want to know if the worldbuilding is any good.
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
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
no subject
"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!)
no subject
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.
no subject
no subject
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.
no subject