Author: Michael @ Knowledge Lost

BBC Magazine's — Frankenstein: 10 Possible Meanings

Posted March 15, 2011 by Michael @ Knowledge Lost in Literature / 0 Comments

I stumbled across this story (thanks to twitter) by BBC Magazine and though it was absolutle brilliant and had to share it with everyone I know. All credit should go to Tom Geoghegan who wrote this article.

Frankenstein: 10 possible meanings

The idea emerged from a summer that didn’t happen.

Due to the largest volcanic eruption for more than 1,600 years, in Indonesia in late 1815, the northern hemisphere was plunged into a freakishly cool and sunless summer the following year.

On the shores of Lake Geneva, the miserable weather kept five British tourists cooped up inside a villa for days, where they passed the time in a horror story-writing competition. The 19-year-old Mary Godwin, in Switzerland with poet Percy Shelley, envisioned “the hideous phantasm of a man” and turned her contribution into a novel published anonymously in 1818.

It told the story of a Swiss scientist, Victor Frankenstein, who is so horrified by the ugly creature he brings to life from assembled body parts that he abandons him, with terrible consequences.

Within a few years, the novel was being adapted for the stage, and in the 20th Century there were many memorable film versions that took the work in different directions. This week, a production by Slumdog Millionaire director Danny Boyle at London’s National Theatre is being screened live to 400 venues in 22 countries.

Nearly 200 years after that sunless summer, the novel is considered a landmark work and every decade brings a new interpretation. Here is a selection – some include plot details.

1. Science can go too far

The term “Frankenstein foods” – applied to genetically modified products – suggests the name of the novel has become a byword for bad science. But this metaphor is unfair, says Angela Wright, a lecturer in Romantic literature at the University of Sheffield.

“There’s evidence that she was very conversant with the scientists of her day. But she believed in the sanctity of human life and knew the work of Lawrence and Abernethy, who were working in Edinburgh in the 1810s in dissection theatres, on the re-animation of corpses. [Her husband] Percy Shelley was also very interested in that.”

She thought these people had crossed a line, says Wright, but she had a lot of admiration for scientific thought in general.

2. Actions have consequences

Boris Karloff in the 1931 film Frankenstein

It’s not just the responsibility of creating life that Shelley wants to emphasise, says Wright, and this is clear in the letters of Robert Walton that frame the Frankenstein story – the wider narrative that is often overlooked.

Walton is the seafarer who rescues Frankenstein from an ice float deep in the Arctic, as the scientist pursues the monster. Encouraged by Frankenstein, the captain ignores the pleas of his crew to to turn back, actions that Shelley appears to condemn.

“Walton doesn’t take responsibility for the safety of his men and that is criticised within the novel. He comes round but regretfully, simply because the atmospheric conditions are against him, not out of concern for his men.

“He seems to be a very shadowy double of Victor Frankenstein in many ways, because he pants for tales of romance and adventure in the same way.”

3. Don’t play God

“As suggested by the novel’s subtitle, The Modern Prometheus, Victor Frankenstein is an example of the Romantic over-reacher, who transgresses boundaries between the human and the divine,” says Marie Mulvey-Roberts, author of Dangerous Bodies: Corporeality and the Gothic.

According to Greek myth, Prometheus stole fire from the gods and gave it to man, and suffered eternal punishment. The sense that Frankenstein has pursued forbidden knowledge is further underlined by the references to Milton’s Paradise Lost, a work the creature reads and recites. His rejection by his creator can be seen as a second Fall of Man.

4. A warning about freed slaves

Mary Shelley

Shelley was writing the novel a mere 10 years after the abolition of the slave trade in the British Empire, and she did so in Bath, not far from the port of Bristol, where many of the slaving ships departed the country. There are references to it in the novel, says Mulvey-Roberts.

“Frankenstein says he is enslaved to his work, and the creature escapes like a refugee slave, pursued by his master. But then there’s a power shift, so you get a hegemonic master-slave dialectic where the slave is a master and the master is a slave to his work and to his obsession.

“Mary Shelley was certainly no supporter of slavery but she did not protest when [Foreign Secretary George] Canning used the analogy of the Frankenstein as a spectre warning of the danger of slaves being emancipated too quickly. In the novel when the creature assumes mastery, he causes mayhem leading to the loss of life.”

5. Shelley’s maternal guilt

Many critics think the novel is shaped by the tragic events in Shelley’s own life. Her mother died days after she was born and Shelley herself lost her first child, born prematurely.

The first feminist interpretation of Frankenstein was by Ellen Moers, who read Shelley’s novel as a sublimated afterbirth, says Diane Hoeveler, from Marquette University in Wisconsin, US.

“The author expels her own guilt both for having caused her mother’s death and for having failed to produce a healthy son for Percy, as his legal wife Harriet had done three months earlier.

“For Moers, the novel’s strength was to present the ‘abnormal, or monstrous, manifestations of the child-parent tie’ and in so doing, ‘to transform the standard Romantic matter of incest, infanticide, and patricide into a phantasmagoria of the nursery’.”

6. Post-natal depression

The feminist movement has championed the elevation of Mary Shelley to canonical rank, says Prof John Sutherland, former Booker Prize judge and an expert on Victorian fiction. And there are moments when the creation appears to be presented as a birth and Victor Frankenstein as a stricken mother.

“It was on a dreary night of November, that I beheld the accomplishment of my toils… It was already one in the morning; the rain pattered dismally against the panes, and my candle was nearly burnt out, when, by the glimmer of the half-extinguished light, I saw the dull yellow eye of the creature open; it breathed hard, and a convulsive motion agitated its limbs. How can I describe my emotions at this catastrophe, or how delineate the wretch whom with such infinite pains and care I had endeavoured to form?” (Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, Chapter five)

Is this, asks Sutherland, inventor’s remorse or post-natal depression?

7. Monsters are not born monsters

The creature’s initial innocence suggests you are not born a monster, says Vic Sage, a professor at the University of East Anglia who has written extensively on the Gothic tradition.

“When he looks into the pool and sees himself, you want to shout out at him ‘You’re not a monster, you’re OK.'”

Many of the Hammer films didn’t even give the monster a voice, he says, only capable of grunting the odd word.

“Even with [director] James Whale, it doesn’t ever feel like history could ever be on Boris Karloff’s side. They are thought to be great films but they missed the point of the book.

“Mary Shelley gave him a voice. It’s great that he talks like an 18th Century philosopher because then you have this disparity between his appearance and his speech, which tests the viewer.”

8. Difference should be celebrated, not shunned

Today’s society has a greater understanding of the notion of difference, says Dr Sage, so the scene where Frankenstein rejects his creation, so repulsed is he by his disfigurement, has a wider resonance.

“Everyone reading it now knows that she’s dramatising difference in the most absolute way possible. Differences in race and class. That’s why it’s very important to think that the creature is a creature and not a monster, and that he has a voice.”

9. Vive la revolution

Frankenstein’s creature has been interpreted as symbolic of the revolutionary thought which had swept through Europe in the 1790s, but had largely petered out by the time Shelley wrote the novel.

Critics said the creature’s failure to prosper and the havoc unleashed was evidence that Shelley was anti-revolution, unlike her radical parents and husband, and supportive of the old order.

But by applying modern values to the narrative, it is clear that the failings lie with man, the creator, and not the creature, says Dr Sage.

“That’s the notorious riddle: Who is the ‘new Prometheus’ of the title – Victor or his creature? You can read into it that it’s a failure of the revolution that he represents, but only if you don’t have the psychological and social attitudes of today.”

10. Christian allegory

The book is really a dialogue between reactionary and progressive points of view, says Sage, and this applies to the question of the presence of Milton and the Christian story – the treatment of the Fall – which it puts under the glass.

“The creature has read Milton but, as he says, he feels more like the fallen angel than Adam in that story, because he has to play the part of the outcast. Mary Shelley dramatises the conflict between the Romantic view of Satan as a Promethean hero, out to take God’s place, which was the projection of a set of male poets – Blake, Shelley, Byron and Goethe, for example – and the havoc that such idealistic projects wreak domestically, in people’s actual lives.”


The Romantic Brooder

Posted March 11, 2011 by Michael @ Knowledge Lost in Poetry / 0 Comments

It is interesting that the three most influential Romantics had three entirely different personalities. So how did these personalities help shape and hold up the romantic ideas. Over the next three weeks, I will attempt to discover how this was done.

John Keats was always surrounded by death; even as a young boy, when he lost his mother and brother. This caused Keats to contemplate life and the legacy left, after death. But Keats wasn’t always a poet, he was a trained surgeon. Though he had a real talent in the medical profession, the horrid sights affected him deeply. In the end he “feared that he should never be a poet, & if he was not he would destroy himself”. With the new discovery of empathy, Keats sought to heal the soul with his words; choosing his passion, Art, over the prestige of Science.

Lord Byron despised Keats’ quiet contemplation, calling his style mental masturbation. But Keats life of solitude was his attempt to reach towards meaning. With the experiences of death came depression, but also a more intense love for life.

“How astonishingly does the chance of leaving the world impress a sense of its natural beauties upon me! Like poor Falstaff, though I do not “babble,” I think of green fields; I muse with the greatest affection on every flower I have known from my infancy—their shapes and colours are as new to me as if I had just created them with a superhuman fancy.” 1820

Images of life and death haunted Keats; in 1820 Keats displayed increasingly serious symptoms of tuberculosis. Death terrified Keats; the thought of his poems drifting into obscurity scared him. The thought of immortality plagued him, he wished for his words to live forever.

This Grave
contains all that was Mortal
of a
Young English Poet
Who
on his Death Bed, in the Bitterness of his Heart
at the Malicious Power of his Enemies
Desired
these Words to be
engraven on his Tomb Stone:
Here lies One
Whose Name was writ in Water.
24 February 1821

Keats’ memory didn’t dissolve has he had predicted. After his death, his words were read more intensively by his fellow Romantics, as well as people today. Even Shelley thought that Keats’ suffering conveyed the sense of the sublime often sought by the Romantics.


The Romantic Bond With Nature

Posted March 4, 2011 by Michael @ Knowledge Lost in Poetry / 0 Comments

Wanderer above the Sea of Fog by Caspar David Friedrich 1818

During the birth of the industrial age, the art world draw great inspiration from the changing world, so why were the Romantics focused on Nature? So what made the Romantics so interested in Nature? Their quest for liberty seemed to draw a lot from their natural surroundings. What did Blake, Wordsworth, Lord Byron & Mary Shelley draw from the natural world?

Blake

As a boy William Blake dreamed of a different type of world; claiming he had a vision of angels while staring at the sunlight shining through the trees.

To see a world in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.
Auguries of Innocence (1803)

Blake never forgot his vision and like most Romantics, often drew inspirations from his childhood imagination. While the industrial age was taking a toll on child innocents with the use of child labour, Blake wrote a collection of poems called Songs of Innocence in which he dreamed of a world of innocent children again, included poems like The Chimney Sweeper, in while he hopes to save four and five child chimney sweepers.  But his desire for innocents was shattered when he lost his brother, this lead to a new collection of poems called Songs of Experience, which included a darker version of The Chimney Sweeper. William Blake considered the industrial age the works of the devil, having left the city to live on the outskirts to be closer to nature.

And did the Countenance Divine,
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here,
Among these dark Satanic Mills?
And did those feet in ancient time (1808)

Wordsworth

Wordsworth grew up in the Lake District and was heavenly influenced by this. William Wordsworth had a love/hate relationship with nature. While he loved his childhood growing up in the Lake District, he also lost both parents due to the acts of Nature and had been educated by the natural forces all around him. One night he was stuck in a situation similar to what caused his father’s death, but instead of fear, Wordsworth discovered an awe of the power of nature, it could render him small and insignificant but it also could connect him to the world.

Was blowing on my body, felt within
A correspondent breeze, that gently moved
With quickening virtue, but is now become
A tempest, a redundant energy,
Vexing its own creation. Thanks to both
The Prelude, Book One (1799)

Byron

1816 was known as the year without a summer, as a result of a volcanic winter event. Lord Byron thought this to be the beginning of the apocalypse. While he didn’t spend much time in nature, this fear and respect for nature brought a group of intellectuals together. The fear of darkness and nature brought together a group of new Romantics.

I had a dream, which was not all a dream.
The bright sun was extinguished, and the stars
Did wander darkling in the eternal space,
Rayless, and pathless, and the icy earth
Swung blind and blackening in the moonless air;
Morn came and went -and came, and brought no day,
And men forgot their passions in the dread
Of this their desolation
Darkness (1816)

Shelley

During the year without summer, Mary Shelley was hidden indoors with Lord Byron, her lover and future husband Percy Bysshe Shelley. During these nights they would write poetry and gothic stories and during this time was the birth of one of the greatest horror novels of all time. Frankenstein was a cautionary tale that expresses the dangers of messing with nature and a great source of the romantic ideal. Frankenstein’s message was clear, respect and revere nature.

The Romantics were the first to express a desire for the sublime in nature. Their longing for nature was not just the discovery of beauty but the terror that nature can bring. The key to the sublime was the ability to lose themselves, with no restraints or confinement. Weather they feared or loved nature, or just feared the modern world; nature played a big part of the Romantic Period.


A Quest for Liberty

Posted February 24, 2011 by Michael @ Knowledge Lost in Culture / 2 Comments

The Mariner; one of the wood-engraved illustrations by Gustave Doré.

On 11th July 1789 the French citizens stormed the Bastille. Their dreams were for a revolution, a dream of liberty. One of the biggest influences of the French Revolution was Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau and his fellow philosopher Denis Diderot dreamed of a world where everyone was unique and free. But both these philosophers shared two very different views on the world. Diderot believed knowledge was power and is as a co-founder and contributor to the Encyclopédie and is quite possible the father of the Age of Enlightenment (an era that focused heavily on Western philosophy, intellectual, scientific and cultural life). But Rousseau was focused more on the emotions and humanity; his thinking paved the way for the Romantic Period.

While both philosophers dreamed of liberty and went onto do great things after the French Revolution, liberty was not fully achieved. While the lower and middle classes were now considered people, they never really have the opportunity to have a voice and freedom of expression. It wasn’t until the book Lyrical Ballads did this chance begin to take effect. The collection of poems breathed life into the Romantic Period and the vision of individuality. Lyrical Ballads was written by William Wordsworth and Samuel Taylor Coleridge and changed the course of English literature and poetry. The book was an intimate look at the rustic lives, written in simple words for everyone to read and enjoy. The poems had a more lasting affect than any political document and were a pure expression of Romantic ideas. The poems placed an emphasis on the vitality of the living voice and used the poor to express their realities. The poems took aim at the harsh realities of life at the time; like The Last of the Flock, which tells the story of a farmer who had to sell all his animals in order to feed his family. One of best known poems from this collection, The Rime of the Ancient Mariner focused on one of the major themes linked with the Romantic Period; the importance of nature.

The Romantic Period and the Age of Enlightenment (both era’s I’ve held great interest in) have helped build society – for better or worse – into what it is today. While both eras were fighting for liberty, it is interesting to note that without the French Revolution we may have never been free to express ourselves.


Why Study Literature?

Posted February 18, 2011 by Michael @ Knowledge Lost in Literature / 0 Comments

Recently I posted a blog post about what I would teach if I was to do a class on English Literature 101.  The topic sparked a lot of debate and I was very happy with the post. But I was asked this week, why I read so much and why I would want to teach English literature. The short answer is the fact I love reading and it’s an exciting topic; but I’ve been pondering the question and trying to get a deeper more extensive answer.

As most people know, I never was much of a reader until recently, when I started my journey into educating myself; I discovered a real joy in reading. It’s easy to just look at reading as just an activity to do for enjoyment but I believe there is so much more to reading and there is a lot to gain from studying literature.

To benefit from others beliefs, bias, insight & knowledge

The world of literature has a wealth of knowledge we can learn from and if we take the time to study and analyse what we read, we have access to some interesting points of views. This information can give us access to many different aspects, from first-hand accounts of history, their personal understanding of the world and even a different take on the philosophy and culture we live by and in. While it’s important to remember that what we read is in the view point of someone else, this bias view can help us redefine or strengthen ourselves.

Self Improvement

I can think of so many ways reading can help you improve; from simple things like improve vocabulary, exercising our brains, learning from others mistakes and helping to define a writing style. While I think these are great; there is one more reason why reading can help you improve and I want to focus on this one. Reading encourages us to question “accepted” knowledge; in school we are taught that we have to accept what we are taught as fact, and those basic hypotheses are the building blocks of knowledge. However the human progress doesn’t work this way. When we get older we begin to question things more and more. The main problem is we often just form assumptions based on what we know and don’t take the time to analyse the information. When we read (especially nonfiction) we are forced to look at information from other points of view and while we don’t always agree with it, inevitably we are forced to look at ourselves. While people “say what they mean and mean what they say” ultimately we need to learn to open our minds to the ambiguities of world.

Exploration

While most people say they read as a form of escape, it is important to remember that we are able to learn while we are escaping our world. We can be learning empathy just by reading a tragic story; we can be learning about other cultures and their views and even into the mindset of a different type of person. There is so much about the world we can discover.

Maybe we don’t take the time to analyse what and why we are reading but maybe subconsciously we are learning something new. I’d like to think every book I’ve read is teaching me something different and while I don’t take the time to analyse every book, I do try to understand and judge the books content for myself.


The Measure of Intelligence

Posted February 10, 2011 by Michael @ Knowledge Lost in Education / 3 Comments

In 1904, the French psychologist Alfred Binet created the Binet Scale which became the basis of what is now the IQ Test. Originally it was created to measure a child’s strengths and weakness so the teacher knew which areas would require special attention for each individual student. The Binet Scale become a revolutionary approach to the assessment of individual mental ability, but it was never designed to test someone’s intelligence. Binet himself cautioned against misuse of the Binet Scale and has been quoted in saying “the scale, properly speaking, does not permit the measure of intelligence, because intellectual qualities are not superposable, and therefore cannot be measured as linear surfaces are measured.” He also feared that the test would be used to condemn a child rather than assist their education.

The Binet Scale had a profound effect on educational development but they failed to listen to Alfred Binet’s warnings and as a result of Lewis M. Terman’s revisions to the Binet Scale (now known as the Stanford Revision of the Binet-Simon Scale of Intelligence) we now has a standardised intelligence test. This IQ Test became a standard practise and a multimillion dollar business; even resulting in the American Academy for the Advancement of Science listing the IQ test among the twenty most significant scientific discoveries of the twentieth century along with nuclear fission, DNA, the transistor and flight (in 1989).

If the IQ test was meant to monitor a person’s intelligence I have some questions that need answering;

How are they defining intelligence?

  • The ability to do well in school?
  • The ability to read well and spell correctly
  • Or the ability to following an intelligent person?

When did a person’s intelligence become linear?

The problem I found is that standardised testing is trying to make everyone the same, when we should be using the test on the young for its original purpose. Maybe we should just scrap the whole thing. I’ve also think other tests like the SAT’s are been misused as well. Let me know your thoughts.


What Would You Read in an Introduction to Fiction Course?

Posted February 1, 2011 by Michael @ Knowledge Lost in Education, Literature / 16 Comments

Currently on the curriculum for the Ohio State University course, An Introduction to Fiction is Twilight by Stephanie Meyer. I’ve also heard of some other high schools and universities using it as an introduction to fiction or gothic fiction courses. At first I felt sorry for all the future English majors who will have to read this book. But I thought, instead of bad mouthing the book (which is so easy to do), I would take some time and think about what I would want to see in an introductory course of fiction.

I started by compiling a list of topics I would want to cover if I ever did a course about fiction. I narrowed it down to ten key topics when looking at fiction;

  1. Plot
  2. Characterisation
  3. Dialogue
  4. Point of view
  5. Setting
  6. Style
  7. Narrative
  8. Themes
  9. Genres
  10. Concepts/Issues

 

It was the last point that stood out to me more than any of the other topics. When looking at good fiction, I would want to look at the issues that drive the discussions about these books. With this I picked out five books that would explore moral, social, philosophical or intellectual issues. When picking the books, I also tried to pick different genres and writing styles that make for a great read.

 

So if I was to create an introduction to Fiction course, my reading list would include;

I would love to know what you would pick for a reading list if you were to lead a similar course.


Guernica; Picasso's Masterpiece

Posted January 27, 2011 by Michael @ Knowledge Lost in Art / 8 Comments

In 1937 the Spain was at war; a civil war between the Republic Government and Francisco Franco’s Francoist army. Franco led a rebellion army to overturn the government and bring communism to the Spanish people. The Francoist army had the support of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. On April 26, 1937, 24 planes bombed the Basque town of Guernica. The town held no military significants, the objective; to send a message.

This tragedy effected many people including Picasso, and with a commissioning by the Spanish Republican government, Picasso set to work on a mural which would become his most famous piece of work. The painting, Guernica, broke Picasso out of a creative drought and renewed a passion, but now he did not want to be known as an icon breaker. Now, he set to work to create an icon.

The painting was 11 x 25.6 feet reflects the devastating effect of the bombing.   while early sketches showed images of hope and optimism, this faded and we are left with this powerful painting. We can pull a lot of meaning from this painting and many spend time analysing it. Like the ever-seeing eye; the focus of everyone’s gaze and could be a symbol of evil or the bombers, the light bulb in the eye symbolising the devastating effect of technology or maybe it’s there because the Spanish word for light bulb is “bombilla”, which makes an allusion to “bomb”. Some symbols in the painting may be easier to recognise, like the open palm of the dead soldier is a stigmata, a symbol of martyrdom. No matter what you see in the painting, it truly is a masterpiece that stirs up a lot of emotion.

I would love to hear what you see and think of the painting but I would like to leave you with a story I’ve heard about Picasso, the painting, during World War 2.

During the 1940’s Picasso’s studio on the rue des Grands-Augustins was often visited by German officers. On one of their raids a Gestapo officer found a postcard of “Guernica,” Picasso’s 1937 lament for the Basque town bombed by the Luftwaffe.

“Did you do this?” asked the German.

“No, you did!” replied Picasso.  “Take it? Souvenir”


Picasso – The Icon Breaker

Posted January 21, 2011 by Michael @ Knowledge Lost in Art / 0 Comments

Pablo Picasso is known as the pioneer of the avant-garde art movement known as Cubism; a modern art (almost surrealist) style which involves objects being broken up, analysed, and re-assembled in an abstract form. Not only is he known for this art style, but he should also be remembered as an ‘Icon Breaker’. Picasso made it a mission to break from the traditional; not interested in pleasuring the viewer, but trying to get to the core of the person in the painting.

Traditionally, art often depicted a man on a horse, nudes and the classic portraits; but for Picasso, well, let’s look at some examples.

Boy Leading a Horse (1906)
Boy Leading a Horse (1906)

In 1906 Picasso painted “Boy Leading a Horse”.  Most traditional paintings of a man with his horse depict a symbol of power and a man demanding respect; Picasso’s painting did the opposite.

Les Demoiselles d'Avignon (1907)
Les Demoiselles d'Avignon (1907)

The ever popular nude was another target for Picasso. In a nude the woman is a simple of grace and beauty, but the 1907’s “Les Demoiselles d’Avignon” showed five nude female prostitutes from a brothel, each woman, in a disconcerting confrontational manner and none are conventionally feminine.

Portrait of Daniel-Henry Kahnweiler (1910)
Portrait of Daniel-Henry Kahnweiler (1910)

When it came to the traditional Portrait, Picasso often painted in the cubism style and painted how he saw his subject. As depicted in paintings like the 1910’s “Portrait of Daniel-Henry Kahnweiler”.

So what changed for Picasso that turned him from the “Icon Breaker” into an “Icon Maker”?

Find out next week


Is The Book Always Better Than The Movie?

Posted January 11, 2011 by Michael @ Knowledge Lost in Literature / 0 Comments

Book-into film-adaptations is a tricky subject.  Sometimes it’s easier to take the hard line and say the book is always better than the movie, but this isn’t always the case. With some interesting choices for adaptations coming out this year (Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, The Dark Tower & the upcoming TV series; Game of Thrones) as well as some classics redone (The Hobbit, Jane Eyre & The Three Musketeers), I thought that we should see if we can work out, what makes a good adaptation?

I don’t think it’s fair to say all books are better than the movie.  There have been some great examples to prove this isn’t the case such as Bridget Jones Diary & High Fidelity. In fact, one of the first blockbuster movies was adapted from a very ordinary book (Jaws).

But it doesn’t stop there; sometimes great books do make great movies. These books normally have a strong narrative drive; The Road is a really dense novel, full of ideas, very exuberant prose and great language, yet it made a great movie, surprising many, because of the narrative.

A great adaptation also needs to capture the essence of the book; we want fidelity between the book and the film but there is a problem with this. If a filmmaker does a faithful adaptation to the book the people will say you lack imagination, but if you make a movie without perfect fidelity you run the risk of been chastised by the fans of the book.

One of the major problems with adaptations is the fact that as a novel there are all these different ways of expressing character but as a film writer there is only action. A novel can have thousands of ideas and perspectives but in a film it needs to be distilled into one central idea.  There was a quote from someone who worked on the Harry Potter movies that really explained this; “We’re not trying to hit all the bases and reproduce all the favourite characters and the favourite scenes cos that, in itself, is not enough. The film has to have meaning. And you need to distill that and that’s your job as an adaptor.”

On a rare occasion there comes a movie that takes a creative spin on their adaptation and does it really well. From a modern retelling of Romeo + Juliet & the BBC series Sherlock to the ground-breaking Bladerunner which ignores the central theme of the book almost completely. Taking a completely different direction on a book is often risky but can have surprising results.

‘The book is better than the movie’ may not be a golden rule, (but I think there should be a rule that “You need to read the book before seeing the movie”) however, movie adaptations can successes or failures, and more often than not they do fail. On a side note, I think graphic novels adapt a lot better than a novel ever does, is this because it’s almost a screenplay already? I would love to know some examples of good and bad adaptations, as well as your opinions on the subject.