lirazel | 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

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.

ummm...

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject