Le Guin Peeved About Earthsea Miniseries 880
Several readers have written in with unhappy opinions on the Legend of Earthsea miniseries just aired on the Sci-Fi channel. Ursula Le Guin has also chimed in, with a short but highly critical blurb on her website, and now this dissection on Slate.com.
SCI-FI is the most consistently disappointing TV (Score:1, Interesting)
Sci fi "original series" (Score:5, Interesting)
It's one thing to be low-budget in production (the original Star Trek was about as low budget as Sci Fi comes), but they could at least make an attempt to get decent writers. Someone should explain to them that people who watch/read a lot of Science Fiction are more interested in a decent scientific plot instead of their writer's latest flavor-of-the-week politically-correct-philosophy with "futuristic" stuff tacked on. I can think of at least three recent "original series" that may have been a series, but were original in all the wrong ways.
USA has better "Sci Fi" original series than the Sci Fi channel. What's up with that?
Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? (Score:5, Interesting)
I admit, I wasn't much of a fan of the book, but watched the miniseries anyway. I've seen worse adaptations, but I can certainly see why fans (and the author) are unhappy. I taped it for a good friend of mine who _worships_ Earthsea, so I really want to see the look of horror on his face when I show it to him (yes, I am that evil).
Authors who... (Score:2, Interesting)
What was she thinking? (Score:2, Interesting)
rj
Re:Since when (Score:5, Interesting)
sPh
Some People Call Him "Dad" (Score:3, Interesting)
Alfred Louis Kroeber (June 11, 1876-October 5, 1960) was one of the most influential figures in American anthropology in the first half of the twentieth century.
Kroeber was born in Hoboken, New Jersey. He received his doctorate under Franz Boas at Columbia University in 1901, basing his dissertation on his field work among the Arapaho. He spent most of his career in California, primarily at the University of California, Berkeley. The anthropology department's headquarters building at the University of California is known as Kroeber Hall.
Although he is known primarily as a cultural anthropologist, he did significant work in archaeology, and he contributed to anthropology by making connections between archaeology and culture. He conducted excavations in New Mexico, Mexico, and Peru.
Kroeber and his students did important work collecting cultural data on western tribes of Native Americans. The work done in preserving California tribes appeared in Handbook of Indians of California (1925). These efforts to preserve remaining data on these tribes has been termed "Salvage Ethnography." He is credited with developing the concepts of Culture Area and Cultural Configuration (Cultural and Natural Areas of Native North America, 1939).
His influence was so strong that many contemporaries adopted his style of beard and mustache as well as his views as a social scientist.
He is noted for working with Ishi, who was claimed (though not uncontroversially) to be the last California Yahi Indian. His second wife, Theodora Kroeber, wrote a well-known biography of Ishi, Ishi in Two Worlds.
His textbook, Anthropology (1923, 1948), was widely used for years.
Kroeber was the father of the academic Clifton Kroeber by his first wife and the fantasy writer Ursula K. Le Guin and academic Karl Kroeber by his second. He also adopted the two children of his second wife's first marriage. Clifton and Karl recently (2003) edited a book together on the Ishi case, Ishi in Three Centuries.
I dont like her. I like Brin, Efremov,Lem,Asimov (Score:1, Interesting)
David Brin has a PhD in astrophysics:
Ivan Efremov was a paleontologist:
One of the Strugatskii brothers (either Arkadi or Boris) was an astronomer
Stanislaw Lem was a physician (well, medicine is a profession, like law, not a real science like astronomy or biology, still a medical backgroud is good enough for a sf writer)
Isaac Asimov had a PhD in Biochemistry.
Even Tolkien was a linguist (linguistics is still a science, although not as great as physics, biology or astronomy)
Re:poor, racist adaptation (Score:2, Interesting)
My favourite books are those which do not specify the colour of anyone's skin, hair, eyes etc. That way I can form a mental image of what they are like without the author's prejudices being thrust upon me. Of course, this does allow me to impose my own prejudices on the world the author creates.
You can make the case that enyone who believes skin colour is important enough to make a fuss about is racist, although this is not a viewpoint I would universally apply because it makes it impossible for anyone to criticise perceived racism in others.
I think the best anti-racism stuff I've seen is series' like Red Dwarf in which all the characters are treated equally, and colour is implicitly a non-issue. Dave Chappelle's treatment of racism in the first episode of Chappelle's Show was also excellent.
Phil
gah! (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's leave alone the obvious deviations from the plot, and focus on more germaine aspects of the production.
First, acting. When you are producing something like this, having good actors is appropriate. The chick from Smallville (Kristin Kreuk) is good, as is the guy who plays Ged (Shawn Ashmore). Some of the others are decent, such as the Arch-Magus, the King (decent) and his whore(er.. preistess), Ogion (Danny Glover), High Priestess Thar (Isabella Rossellini) and even Vetch (Chris Gauthier). Ged's father? Terrible acting--wooden, poor delivery, obviously fake, and poorly written.
This (the father's acting) is TYPICAL of ALL the non-central characters. The sound is off too, but that could be a function of the tape I was watching it on.
The special effects are decent (the scene where Vetch is describing his island and using bits of sugar to represent them [the sugar turns into the islands breifly] is interesting), as is the scene where the Arch-Magus comes to talk to the king. But they are only decent. The fire shot out by the mages defending Roke? Pathetic. In fact, the entire seige of Roke is pathetic. They DO NOT tap into HOW difficult it is to find Roke, or the releationship between the king and his pet wizard.
Overall, I think it has been worth my time to watch the show, but I won't be keeping it on tape, nor will I be recommending it to anyone for viewing. This would be true EVEN IF I had never read Earthsea.
A final complaint--when Ogion and Ged meet, Ogion raises him, and then gives him his name. As I recall this was a much more lengthy and involved ritual than is shown. The whole treatment of names is done FAR too lightly from what I remember. This is characteristic of the show in general--there is NO real character or plot development.
Re:Five minutes was enough (Score:3, Interesting)
To be fair...I thought so too, but I held my nose and watched a little longer. What actually was going on was (slightly) less stupid: they weren't throwing around true names, they switched Ged's true and use-names! Really! You knew when they said a true name, because those were weird and echoey (I guess to show that they were magic).
But when the gebbeth chases Ged, it shouts his use-name (Ged) at him, in probably probably the biggest example of how the filmmakers managed to utterly miss this particular point.
Daniel
Re:Five minutes was enough (Score:3, Interesting)
* People throwing around each other's true names (witness the girl talking to Ged).
And, of course, his True Name is Sparrowhawk. ROTFLMAO.
* A hot-looking Kossil sleeping with some guy.
In the books, you *NEVER* spoke someone's true name out loud. And Kossil was a fat, dumpy, ugly woman who was high priestess of an order that shunned men.
What about the girls in the School? Women weren't allowed in the School, except as visitors, by special permission.
And, by tradition, Wizards were celebate.
And the Order of priestesses at the Tombs was dying. None of this "our faith and prayer has kept peace in Earthsea" crap.
The miniseries was horrible.
Re:Five minutes was enough (Score:3, Interesting)
Nothing at all like the SiFi rendition.
She's played it pretty well, really (Score:5, Interesting)
Pretty much the consensus seems to be that the adaptation is as bad as she claims, but she did sign the rights away. No matter what she may have thought was going to happen, if it's not in the contract, it's not going to happen.
As soon as the line was crossed from not involving her to putting words in her mouth, though, she's got every right to complain as loudly as possible about what was done to her work. To her credit, she stayed quiet out of an honorable respect for the contract, and only began publicly making her feelings known once ideas and motives were attributed to her that weren't hers.
As sour grapes as her last salvo might come across, it's important to bear in mind that it was only caused by the producers clearly stepping over the line. They opened the floodgates, she's simply providing the water. Also note that she does not claim that the producers were under any legal obligation to stay true to her books, she simply claims that the books were better, and what the producers put onscreen is essentially unrelated to what she wrote.
*Yes, this is a shameless plug.
Re:Five minutes was enough (Score:3, Interesting)
What I don't get is, why make such a change at all? It serves no dramatic purpose, but it's jarring to those of us who read the books. Do they make changes just for the sake of making changes?
I am usually a pretty accepting type when it comes to these kinds of adaptations. I give the makers a lot of benefit of the doubt, and I really wanted to like it. I tried to like it. But I thought this thing absolutely blew. Very, very disappointing.
Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? (Score:3, Interesting)
I think to her, having fought hard to even get the covers of her books right, it was an example of how ridiculous the changes got. I mean would it have killed them to hire some actors that looked like the characters for the most part? Were they afraid that people wouldn't take to a less-caucasian cast?
Of course they trashed it anyway.
Re:/me raises hand (Score:3, Interesting)
Most of the people complaining about this book are talking about the bloodshed, infanticide, incest, rape, etc. within its pages. They're accustomed to fantasy in which the "great evil" consists of some figure standing in a tower and sending out orcs to find some artifact or whatnot. The depiction of this hand-wringing black-clothed figure as being the epitome of evil debases the existance of real evil in the actions of human beings, motivated more often by greed, ambition or some other self-interest than corruption by an artifact in which evil is inherent.
That was written about George R. R. Martin's "A Game of Thrones" -- the beginning of a series that has completely redefined what I consider quality fantasy. The characters are tremendously complex -- there are no archetypical heros here (maybe one, but he dies early), and even the "villains" are entirely human. Undoubitably, it pushes the envelope. Undoubitably, it offends traditional sensibilities -- though either "pop-culture trash" or "faddish idiology" would be a severe misnomer. And memorable?
Yes, it's memorable. Very, very memorable. I actually start to tear when I recall the last stand of Syrio Forell, and very, very little fiction causes anything even remotely akin to that reaction.
Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'll let you sit and ponder that for a moment...
Let's say that I didn't leave the front of the class to a thundering round of applause. Did I mention that this was a catholic high school? Did I mention I didn't have very many friends at school? Can you guess I was a little bit of a loner and outcast? Describing latent hermaphrodites to a stunned crowd of adolescents. What was I thinking?
Nonetheless, it was (and is) a great book and Ms. Le Guin is a very, very good author.
Re:Five minutes was enough (Score:3, Interesting)
Here I go again. . . (Score:4, Interesting)
I think the biggest mistake the W brothers made in Reloaded was to cram all of the important information into a single scene with a man whose face was more interesting than his droning voice, i.e. the Architect.
That scene is the single most important scene in the entire movie. If you weren't paying attention, you missed it.
First, there was no implication of matrices within matrices. The architect spoke of five previous matrices. Each time there was an anomaly that caused the matrix to implode (The anomaly was the dual creation of Neo-One/Smith-virus). Each time, the Architect had presented the One the choice of immediately merging with the Virus and in gratitude, the machines will spare 17 women and 6 men (sound familiar? Morpheus speaks in M1 of the 23 founders of Zion) of his choosing, or he can reject the offer and everybody dies.
In every previous Matrix, the One chose to save the twenty-three of his choosing and face/merge with the Virus. Until Neo. Sure, you can really get deep and discuss the Oracle's manipulations of the whole situation, but that's for another discussion. Neo, told the Architect, the Machines and everyone else to fuck off and go save his girlfriend. At this point, from the POV of the machines, the wheels fell off the cart. Because, the machines need Neo to stop Smith. They couldn't. They never could. They were screwed.
Because Neo rejected their offer, he was now in a position to dictate terms. Of course, it takes him a while to figure that out ("Not too smart, though."), which is most of Revolutions. I don't think Neo really understood his own decision when meeting with the Architect beyond saving Trinity. I don't think it occurred to him until much later that he could be dooming both the humans and machines into extinction by making the choice he did.
When it came down to it, Neo chose the chance for peace and coexistence. That's a resolution. And a damn fine one at that. The whole matrix within a matrix just perpetuates the endless loop and IMHO is a cop-out ending.
Yes, I agree, most people don't pay attention to plot anymore.
Re:"highly critical blurb" (Score:3, Interesting)
Writing is a collaboration of the writer/reader (Score:3, Interesting)
The Slate article describes a perfect example of this. Le Guin said that most white readers don't even notice the racial/skin tone elements, whereas many minorities have praised her for those elements.
So, the meaning of the book for a typical white reader is different than the meaning for a minority.
We all, as readers, bring our own history, ideas, opinions, and feelings to everything we read. Whatever you believe a passage means is exactly what it means.
That's not to say traditional literature are not valuable. By telling you that the river in Huck Finn represents life, the teacher is trying to give you insight into the book.
Now, if you don't agree with that insight, don't agree, but at least you've thought about it, and maybe you've learned something about the book or about yourself.
Do you sometimes have to write something that you don't agree with to pass? Sure. Welcome to the real world. You'll always, unless you run your own business, have to take other people's positions to be successful in your job.
To bring this back full circle, it sounds like Le Guin is upset that the producers changed the basic elements of the story rather then presenting their own perspective on the story. Some of that, as she understood, is neccessary for an adaptation of the books, but she thinks they went too far. There will always be tension there, and I think producers including the author (if living) or a representative of the author in the creation process can minimize that tension. It's a shame that the producers of this mini-series didn't do that.
Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? (Score:4, Interesting)
Just so I don't get flamed, the episode where Dylan Hunt notices a scar on the body of Rhade that shouldn't be there, his longtime friend (and seemingly) his betrayer. Done through a series of flashbacks, it was directed rather well (one of the few instances where flashbacks have ever been done well on a TV series that I have ever seen), not to mention an excellent story that does time travel only done better by B5.
**SPOILER WARNING STOP READING NOW**
As it turns out, Rhade actually succeeded in killing Captain Hunt at the beginning of the story (episode 1), only to be trapped in time dilation 300 years himself. It isn't obvious at first that the only reason he does so, is because he believes the commonwealth incapable of defeating an unbelievable threat, and his own species the saviors of the galaxy, should they take control. 300 years in the future, it's obvious that they only staged the rebellion because they are warmongers, who end up making the galaxy even more vulnerable. Following the same course that Dylan will (later, already???) take/took, he tries to restore the commonwealth through diplomacy, humanitarianism, and any other avenue available to him.
The scene where he has the engineer create a holographic AI "version" of the friend he himself killed, seems particularly sad. Especially because the actors manage to keep all traces of emotion out of it (they could easily have hammed it up so bad it would be awful).
When a freak temporal/dimensional accident (which until now, has only been used twice, unlike every other star trek episode) gives him the option of going back in time, he takes it... even knowing that it will mean his own death (this for a species for whom personal survival is *always* priority #1). He kills the younger version of himself, takes his uniform, and loses a fight with Dylan that obviously he could always have easily won. Still not sure... was it because he now knows that only his friend can save everyone? Or is it at least partly because he has felt guilty ever since that betrayal, and it's the only way to atone?
Also funny, for those that watch it semi-regularly. Dylan Hunt is always trying to appeal to the (non-existent) good nature of Tyr, who continually betrays him (in smaller ways). Rhade sees right through it, and when the final, unallowable betrayal comes, has already outsmarted him and just shoots him dead, barely even wasting any words on the lowlife.
Of course, the latest season is just awful. Much like with Earth: Final Conflict, another roddenberry series that started off fantastic, and went downhill. Well, dropped off a cliff, in that case.
Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? (Score:4, Interesting)
As she brought up, the current state of Sci-Fi leaves very few candidates of color with a tagline like Ashmore's. She can't really criticize the casting of Kreuk since she basically fit the description from the book and is, in fact, half Asian. Her criticisms of the casting of Vetch and the lack of minority bit parts and extras make a lot more sense since those characters could easily have been played by a minority actors with no significant difference in ratings.
As it is, I don't think she should be too upset with it. There is now likeley to be a whole new group of people who saw the mini-series and will now go out and buy the books. When they read them, they will discover that they are so much better than the mini-series and their images of the characters will be replaced by those from the book simply because they are so different from those portrayed in the mini-series.
Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? (Score:3, Interesting)
I watched the movie before I ever read the books (years in fact) and I felt it was a relatively well executed production. Made some cuts in some important areas, perhaps, but as a piece of entertainment, overall well done. As opposed to it's successors...
Re:LeGuin has a color hang-up (Score:1, Interesting)
Race and sexism in my opinion are no longer issues in western society. The bulk of the population doesn't even think about African, Asian, disabilities, etc. (there is some prejudice against Arabs and Jewish). The pendulum has swung completely away; girls can join Boy Scouts but boys cannot join Girl Guides; scholarships can exist for woman/disabled/race barring the Caucasian males.
As for the mini-series vs author, her fixation on race is mystifying. I assume racial awareness is the reasoning, but the awareness should be that race does not matter, not that it does. (And as for copper-red skin colouring, who has that? I can't imagine body make-up is a fun ordeal for the cast)
Imagine the backlash if the roles were reversed, an author criticizes a series for switching a white character with a black actor.
Re:Five minutes was enough (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Since when (Score:4, Interesting)
After these were listed, Scott pointed out that every one of the things Collings mentioned was there, they were all intentional, and, if anybody noticed them on their first time through the story, he was failing in his job as a writer.
Scott has also said that Collings knows more about the meaning in his work than he does himself. I don't think this is unusual.
Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? (Score:4, Interesting)
I think the Sci-Fi adaptation was actually better than David Lynch's version in that it was more faithful to the source material (Wierding modules? WTF!?!). I think that (some) of the casting choices were better as well (even if the acting isn't as good), because the characters were portrayed more like they were in the book.
Patrick Stuart is an excellent actor, but he's far too refined to make a belivable Gurney Halleck, Stink^Hg is *NOT* Feyd Rautha, and Vladimir Harkonnen is an EVIL GENIUS, not the stupid disgusting perverted sadist Lynch portrayed.
Re:Le Guin at the Agony Column - Chronolgy (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:New Series (Score:3, Interesting)
I disagree. Witness:
The author of parent represents writing, in particular that of Ursula K. LeGuin, as a russian space opera in which elephants control an interstellar parliament whose primary concern is the equitable distribution of custard.
See, it's all well and good to note that commentary and criticism can carry content despite the author's conscious intentions. That taken in stride, that does no magically validate everything such commentary or criticism has to say.
Frankly, if you'd read the books, I would think the scriptwriter's and director's statements would seem rather more absurd than my custard example. The anger in Ursula's voice is not unwarranted, and the closing comment about Frodo and the ring in my opinion is rather an understatement; given what I believe is the total butchering of the books in the form of this miniseries, I would suggest that Ursula could have gone quite a bit further in her exposition of what is essentially a mockery of her work.
I feel for Ursula: she doesn't get the recognition she deserves (before someone points out all the awards, two words: Anne Mc-fuckingCaffery,) and yet when a TV channel finally stumbles across one of the most painfully obvious targets for conversion to miniseries in history, they screw it up to a degree whch would make Soviet Communist censors uncomfortable.
What Kubrick did to 2001 was one thing; he added and created, yet destroyed none of the original content. What was done to Earthsea is, in my opinion, nothing short of criminal.
But of course, 85% of the theories are still utter crap.
#include <boost/statistics>
template<MadeUp&> float GetPercentage(const statistic& NumberOnSlashdot) { return 0.931; }
Re:"highly critical blurb" (Score:3, Interesting)
huh?
She claims that the books are NOT about "a great duality of spirituality versus paganism and wizardry, male and female duality. The final moments of the film culminate in the union of all that and represent two different belief systems in this world."
She then claims the books ARE about "the wizardry of the Archipelago and the ritualism of the Kargs are opposed and united, like the yang and yin. The rejoining of the broken arm-ring is a symbol of the restoration of an unresting, active balance, offering a risky chance of peace."
That sounds pretty close to the same thing to me. Me thinks she is just peeved about some petty matter..
Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? (Score:3, Interesting)
Oi, you beat me to it.
In fact, I am convinced this isn't just "the way to enjoy it", but "deliberately how they made it". The opening scenes clued me into this; the monologue by the Baron, well, "monologue" is just the right word and that's more a theatre thing. With that clue up front I quite enjoyed the series, plus I just watched it on DVD straight which usually helps.
But anyone who misses that or tries to watch it as a blockbuster movie is going to be very, very disappointed. I won't say whether it is right or wrong to demand that it be a "big" movie