I bring this up not for its original definition but its play on words.
Okay, I let a friend read some of Blue Zone, and was telling her where I hoped to go with a relationship between Mina and Felix. Her response was something along the lines of "Isn't that kind of beastiality?"
Whaaaaaaat?
*Cringe*
There is nothing quite like that unique little jab in the gut about something so off the wall as beastiality to put a kink in your literary think tank. After vehemently defending that really, Felix is a man most of the time, two its magical dammit, and three it wouldn't be having any sort of carnal relations with a bird, I was still left with the sensation that real fantasy was not for her. I wanted to ask her if Bella sleeping with Edward was Necrophilia since he had technically died, but I was afraid she would go fan rabid on me.
Still I never thought I would have to defend against beastiality. I don't think I would feel all that proud wearing a beastiality t-shirt either. The wierd thing is, it doesn't bother me in a literary sense, because beastial relations in stories have been around since Zues ran around seducing women as a swan, but it bothered me more because I feel that it does not apply here. It such an odd term to use, I don't even think she knew completely what she was talking about.
Dictionary.com has a definition for beastiality:
1.bestial quality, character, or behavior
2.a bestial act or practice
3.sexual relations between a person and an animal
The problem is I'm not sure which definition she may have been referring to here. Felix does have bestial quality, character, or behavior. But for some reason I fear she may have been aiming for definition number 3.
I am somewhat disturned...
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Beware: Vicious Defender of Writers
My husband and I went to see the Lightning Theif, at my prompting. I have been enarmored with Rick Riordan's amazing quintet of modern greek mythology since I first stumbled upon him a few years ago, working the recommendations section at Borders. (One of the perks of this job was discovering new authors as they came out. In other words, I had read Twilight before it was huge) I remember opening the new arrivals box to this interesting looking cover to a story called the Lightning Theif. The book turned out to be incredible. Rick Riordan started out writing for adults, and because of this, I think his 'kids books' have a great multi-generational feel to them. Since then, I have hooked as many people as I can onto these books. I have gotten some of the pickiest readers to dive in and want more. I got my eight year old nephew hooked on these books and my 62 year old co-worker. They are that good. So when I heard a movie was being made, naturally I felt excited. Hollywood had been on a good streak with film adaptations as of late. They had produced several good movies that were relatively faithful to their literary foundations so I was hopeful.
It was the greatest disappointment I have had in years.
I left the theater with the feeling of "I want my ten bucks and two hours back." The movie big shots had slaughtered Rick Riordan's work. Every plot point had been cast aside, characters were drastically changed, and the main villain of the storyline was completely left out. It wasn't even so different that is was good to stand on its own as a movie. Weak acting crippled it there. It was just bad. I knew I wasn't the only one feeling the disappointment, I could feel the murmers around me from several younger kids, who whispered frantically to their parents through the whole movie "That's not what happened."
Hollywood has made a huge mistake, and I hope they pay for it. Its like they underestimated the intelligence of their audience, "Oh they won't notice we changed a few things". Well your audience noticed and they are not happy.
On a personal level it is chilling to watch something like this. I think, in this age, every writer has the secret fantasy their book will be made into a film. I used to consider it flattery, but sometimes, Hollywood takes such liberties that film can become an insult. Truthfully its a matter of the author's involvement. If the studio shuts out the author completely, which I feel they must have to Riordan, then the movie tends to be a piece of drivel like Lightning Theif. However, if they let the writer in, even in an artistic sense, such as the screen writing attempting to channel the writer's essence into their script, it usually makes a much better movie all around. An instance of this is Interview with the Vampire. Anne Rice has a total sign off on it, and it was a great film adaptation. It's subsequent wanna-be sequel Queen of the Damned was the exact opposite. Rice was completely shut out and thus the movie pretty much bombed.
Truthfully I don't know what I will do in the future if I am ever (hopefully, oooh maybe) approached to have a book made into a movie. I don't think I could stand by and let them slaughter my literary child, so really I would be the sort to insist on my presence. I would be barging into offices, criticizing casting, sticking my nose all over the place. I'd be a bloody nuisance. But I'd make sure it was a damn fine movie.
It was the greatest disappointment I have had in years.
I left the theater with the feeling of "I want my ten bucks and two hours back." The movie big shots had slaughtered Rick Riordan's work. Every plot point had been cast aside, characters were drastically changed, and the main villain of the storyline was completely left out. It wasn't even so different that is was good to stand on its own as a movie. Weak acting crippled it there. It was just bad. I knew I wasn't the only one feeling the disappointment, I could feel the murmers around me from several younger kids, who whispered frantically to their parents through the whole movie "That's not what happened."
Hollywood has made a huge mistake, and I hope they pay for it. Its like they underestimated the intelligence of their audience, "Oh they won't notice we changed a few things". Well your audience noticed and they are not happy.
On a personal level it is chilling to watch something like this. I think, in this age, every writer has the secret fantasy their book will be made into a film. I used to consider it flattery, but sometimes, Hollywood takes such liberties that film can become an insult. Truthfully its a matter of the author's involvement. If the studio shuts out the author completely, which I feel they must have to Riordan, then the movie tends to be a piece of drivel like Lightning Theif. However, if they let the writer in, even in an artistic sense, such as the screen writing attempting to channel the writer's essence into their script, it usually makes a much better movie all around. An instance of this is Interview with the Vampire. Anne Rice has a total sign off on it, and it was a great film adaptation. It's subsequent wanna-be sequel Queen of the Damned was the exact opposite. Rice was completely shut out and thus the movie pretty much bombed.
Truthfully I don't know what I will do in the future if I am ever (hopefully, oooh maybe) approached to have a book made into a movie. I don't think I could stand by and let them slaughter my literary child, so really I would be the sort to insist on my presence. I would be barging into offices, criticizing casting, sticking my nose all over the place. I'd be a bloody nuisance. But I'd make sure it was a damn fine movie.