Slashdot Mirror


Le Guin Peeved About Earthsea Miniseries

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.

880 comments

  1. great news! by kjeldor · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Now I don't feel so guilty for skipping it to play World of Warcraft.

    1. Re:great news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "That.. that doesn't work for me. I gotta have more cowbell!"

      "Can I just say one thing? I'm standing here, staring at the hordes of Azeroth. And if the hordes of azeroth want more rage, we should probably give them more rage!"

    2. Re:great news! by Orclover · · Score: 1

      Watch crappy butchering of a novel.....or get one step closer to my felsteed....

      wasnt a hard choice.

      --
      I am Jack's complete lack of surprise. -Fight Club
    3. Re:great news! by Progoth · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      psssh, I've been so busy playing wow I didn't even know it existed.

      what are we talking about again?

    4. Re:great news! by SilentChris · · Score: 1

      Man, I can't stand that personally. :) 3 guys are smacking the heck out of me, my group just ran off, and my character is telling me he "needs more rage?" Gah!!!

    5. Re:great news! by TarrVetus · · Score: 1

      Why watch an adventure on TV (and in this case, a marred one) when I can be in one in a game?

    6. Re:great news! by achacha · · Score: 1

      That personally pisses me off, how can I possibly have more rage than when my whole group runs off and I am left tanking some very angry hyena looking bipeds... come on!

      Then again I think this is a well known gripe with the warrior class in the game :)

    7. Re:great news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how is this offtopic, clueless moderator? He said he's not sorry he skipped the show. Explain how that's offtopic, and I'll explain how you're not a clueless idiot.

  2. Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by kalidasa · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm guessing her next blog posting will be a complaint about Slashdot.

    1. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by Creepy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      complaining about slashdotting her blog before the first 5 posts were up?

      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).

    2. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by Pxtl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I feel so special. I just Slashdotted my childhood goddess! w00t!

      Hmm - couldn't help but notice that 90% of her complaints were about the fact that they changed the story into all white people. I didn't get the impression that race was a huge issue in the novels - it was just part of the *colour* of the setting, if you'll pardon the pun. While it certainly isn't nice to lose that part of the story, it seems kinda odd to obsess over it. On the other hand, the scuttlebutt is that Ender's Game is being made with a less international cast, which really hurts the story.

      At any rate - after reading her comments, I suddenly don't feel so bad that I missed it.

    3. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by vonFinkelstien · · Score: 1

      You fools /.ed my favorite author's website!!!

    4. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      Hmm - couldn't help but notice that 90% of her complaints were about the fact that they changed the story into all white people. I didn't get the impression that race was a huge issue in the novels - it was just part of the *colour* of the setting, if you'll pardon the pun. While it certainly isn't nice to lose that part of the story, it seems kinda odd to obsess over it. On the other hand, the scuttlebutt is that Ender's Game is being made with a less international cast, which really hurts the story.


      It clearly was regarded as an important part of the "color" of the story by the author. The elimination of characters of color from all but minor supporting roles, over the author's objections, seems pretty racist.

    5. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by Badgerman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have fond memories of Earthsea, and I think the fact that it WASN'T a group of pseudo-European white people appealed to me. It added a certain different flavor to the story, it took me out a of the standard images I had.

      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.

      --
      "The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
    6. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by itwerx · · Score: 3, Informative

      couldn't help but notice that 90% of her complaints were about the fact that they changed the story into all white people

      Um, I think you must have read a different article/post/something/WTF? She doesn't say anything like that at all!
      Here's a copy of what she posted. You show me where she says anything like that:

      "Earthsea"
      11/13/2004

      "Miss Le Guin was not involved in the development of the material or the making of the film, but we've been very, very honest to the books," explains director Rob Lieberman. "We've tried to capture all the levels of spiritualism, emotional content and metaphorical messages. Throughout the whole piece, I saw it as having 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, and that's what Ursula intended to make a statement about. The only thing that saves this Earthsea universe is the union of those two beliefs." Sci Fi Magazine, December 2004

      I've tried very hard to keep from saying anything at all about this production, being well aware that movies must differ in many ways from the books they're based on, and feeling that I really had no business talking about it, since I was not included in planning it and was given no part in discussions or decisions.

      That makes it particularly galling of the director to put words in my mouth.

      Mr Lieberman has every right to say what his intentions were in making the film he directed, called "Earthsea." He has no right at all to state what I intended in writing the Earthsea books.

      Had "Miss Le Guin" been honestly asked to be involved in the planning of the film, she might have discussed with the film-makers what the books are about.

      When I tried to suggest the unwisdom of making radical changes to characters, events, and relationships which have been familiar to hundreds of thousands of readers all over the world for over thirty years, I was sent a copy of the script and informed that production was already under way.

      So, for the record: there is no statement in the books, nor did I ever intend to make a statement, about "the union of two belief systems." There's nothing at all about the "duality of spirituality and paganism," whatever that means, either.

      Earlier in the article, Robert Halmi is quoted as saying that Earthsea "has people who believe and people who do not believe." I can only admire Mr Halmi's imagination, but I wish he'd left mine alone.

      In the books, 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.

      This has absolutely nothing to do with "people who believe and people who do not believe." That terrible division into Believers and Unbelievers (itself a matter not of reason but of belief) is one which bedevils Christianity and Islam and drives their wars.

      But the wizards of Earthsea would look on such wars as madness, and the dragons of Earthsea would laugh at them and fly away...

      Toto, something tells me Earthsea isn't Iraq.

      I wonder if the people who made the film of The Lord of the Rings had ended it with Frodo putting on the Ring and ruling happily ever after, and then claimed that that was what Tolkien "intended..." would people think they'd been "very, very honest to the books"?

      Ursula K. Le Guin
      13 November 2004

    7. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by hymie3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I didn't get the impression that race was a huge issue in the novels

      I can understand someone not seeing that. The more subtle the message, the more powerful the art, I guess.

      LeGuin is not happy about the whitey cast because of two things.

      1) Race is a big deal in her work because it wasn't a big deal.
      2) Race is (sometimes) a big deal in her work because it's really (or also) referring to gender. (or visa versa)

      The thing that (at least in the sixties and even seventies) that was important was that her portrayl of race wasn't a big smelly trout moral issue; LeGuin just presented the characters as people.

      Sometimes, though, in her work she talks about gender issues (Left Hand of Darkness of course springs to mind) and the subtext is clearly "i'm also talking about race here, white sci-fi reading America!". And versa visa.

      Although her stories are fun stories, she is above all a *social* science fiction author, so there *is* also a subtext present, whether or not one chooses to pay attention to commentary on social discourse.

    8. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm guessing you didn't read the /other/ linked article, then.

    9. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by rasjani · · Score: 1
      Imho, Ursula doesnt even mention skincolour in her blog. The most problematic point she tries to make is that the world of Earthsea is someone transfered to "Believers" and "nonbelievers".

      And, lets not forget about the fact that the director is saying that Le Guin did "hidden message" about the duality of this ongoing world and she wanted to make a statement in her books.

      Which she obviously didnt.

      And as you raised the point about the skincolours. How about the director's quote:

      "We've tried to capture all the levels of spiritualism, emotional content and metaphorical messages"
      So, skincolour of majority in the books being non-caucasian-looking wasnt metaphor worth of saving for ?
      --
      yush
    10. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by EvilAlien · · Score: 1
      It saddens me that her most vehement criticisms come down to "wahh, marketing drones changed skin colors!", not "they completely and utterly bastardized the story". There is plenty of low-brow fiction out there that is popular without something as meaningless as skin color (I'm not a racist, so its meaningless to me at least) being a factor. Hell, R.A. Salvatore made his name based on a character with dark black skin. Good golly! How'd that ever get past the publisher?!

      I also hear that there are other books and stories that feature non-white people. Othello comes to mind... I also hear that Clavelle's Shogun featured a bunch of Asian people.

      Maybe its easy to be colorblind if you are white... its also easy when you aren't a racist.

      Maybe Ursula should take the following advice:

      1. Try not to pick publishers that have morons on staff that think the skin color of characters in cover art matters
      2. Not sell the rights to her stories to random people that she has no reason to trust not to wreck the stories, just like the majority of book-to-screen adaptations (big hint here!... Stephen King can't blame skin color changes on the high suck level in almost all of the movies based on his work)
      3. Finally, pick a website host that doesn't crumble under a bit of traffic ;)
      That being said, Ursula's rant has convinced me not to watch the shitty adaptation of her books (which I haven't read and don't plan to) when/if they get aired here in Canada. The superficial racism (thats pretty oxymoronic, actually) on the part of the people responsible for the mini-series is reason enough to snub it.
      --
      perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
    11. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by Perl-Pusher · · Score: 1

      Danny Glover had a central part not just a supporting role. I don't think it was at all "racist". I think it had more to do with popular actors and "looks". Race was obviously important to the author. But I don't think the suits even read her novels, they just went with what they thought they could package and sell to a predominately white audience (US & Canadian SciFi channel viewers). People use the racist label too easily.

    12. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by Sandor+at+the+Zoo · · Score: 3, Informative
      Um, I think you must have read a different article/post/something/WTF?

      Yes, the rest of us read the Slate article that is 80% about how race was a big thing in the Earthsea (and other Le Guin) books.

    13. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by jdray · · Score: 1

      So, if someone has never read the book (series?), is the miniseries worth watching? I'm a little sketchy about most "made for TV" sci-fi/fantasy miniseries, as the producers usually try to dumb things down so much that they're intolerable to watch for your average sci-fi/fantasy fan. I haven't necessarily seen that to be the case, though, with The SciFi Channel's miniseries, such as Dune or Farscape, which is sort of amazing considering how dumb a lot of their regular programming seems to be (Andromeda, for instance).

      --
      The Spoon
      Updated 6/28/2011
    14. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by tgibbs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Danny Glover had a central part not just a supporting role.

      In terms of screen time, he had a more minor role than the characters whose race was changed.

      I don't think it was at all "racist". I think it had more to do with popular actors and "looks".

      If anything, it seems like it went the other way. The most prominent actors that they managed to recruit were Danny Glover and Kristin Kreuk. Is it coincidence that they are also the only characters permitted to deviate from the otherwise lily-white color scheme?

      Race was obviously important to the author. But I don't think the suits even read her novels, they just went with what they thought they could package and sell to a predominately white audience (US & Canadian SciFi channel viewers). People use the racist label too easily.

      It seems to me that eliminating mixed race characters in hopes of appealing to a "predominately white audience" is inherently a racist decision, even if the racism is driven by economics rather than bigotry. There is also a disturbing circularity in justifying such a decision based on the fact that the viewership is predominately white, when the systematic elimination of people of color from major roles helps to drive off nonwhite viewers.

    15. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by solios · · Score: 0

      I've never read Earthsea, but if their treatment of Dune is anything to go by, you'll get a lot more mileage out of your friend's reaction than you will any other form of entertainment you've paid money for this year. I promise.

      (the Dune miniseries was absolutely HORRIBLE. UNfuckingWATCHABLE, even. I'm not sure which was shittier- the Hercules And Xena production values, or the "modernized" dialogue. >.)

    16. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never read the books, and I thought the miniseries was okay. Not great, but good. It looks like it had a much, much lower budget than any of the others you mentioned, but that's only apparent in the wide shots of nonexistant fortresses and villages and the crappy animation of the hawk in flight. It felt very rushed at times, which made it obvious it was a book adaptation. The ending, especially, wrapped things up way too neatly in just a few minutes. The whole thing probably would have benefitted from an extra hour or two.

      Also, as someone who has never read the books, the author's ire over race is perplexing. Nowhere in the miniseries did it actually matter what race anyone was. There were basically only two distinct cultures, one being the evil empire and the other being everyone else. If there were actually racial issues in the books, then I'm glad the miniseries didn't include them. That wouldn't have been the story of fantasy I was looking for.

    17. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by gentoo_moo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What seems pretty shallow and superficial to me are quotes like this from her post on slate:

      My color scheme was conscious and deliberate from the start. I didn't see why everybody in science fiction had to be a honky named Bob or Joe or Bill

      ... That's funny, when reading "Out of the Silent Planet", "Martian Chronicles", "Dune", "Stranger in a Strange Land", etc.. I don't ever recall thinking "Damn, I'm glad these guys are ... Lets ask Bradbury if he deliberately made his characters white/black/red/green...

      and...

      I figured some white kids (the books were published for "young adults") might not identify straight off with a brown kid, so I kind of eased the information about skin color in by degrees--hoping that the reader would get "into Ged's skin" and only then discover it wasn't a white one.

      White, or any other color-kids won't relate to or "get into the skin" of a character if the character development isn't very good. The author's responsibility to the reader is not to pre-determine if they are able to 'deal' with a character's skin color, but to make them interested in the character regardless and the story as a whole. or...

      I think it is possible that some readers never even notice what color the people in the story are. Don't notice, don't care. Whites of course have the privilege of not caring, of being "colorblind." Nobody else does.

      ...uh, how exactly do whites have the privilege of being colorblind ? Its not a privilege, its your duty to your fellow man to be colorblind. So far, the only 'honky' (as she so nobley puts it) that doesn't have the privilege of being colorblind is the Her.

      As an anthropologist's daughter, I am intensely conscious of the risk of cultural or ethnic imperialism--a white writer speaking for nonwhite people, co-opting their voice, an act of extreme arrogance.

      Isn't is also extreme arrogance to call ethnic imperialism the act of a white author speaking for a non-white people.? The word "ethnic" is a generic term, yet she uses it specifically to target white writers in her statement. Ethnicity is defined as a group of people sharing a common and distinctive racial, national, religious, linguistic, or cultural heritage.

      She should spend some time pulling the plank out of her own eye before removing the splinter of others.

    18. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I thought it was the whining mormon crap that hurt Ender's Game.

    19. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by tgibbs · · Score: 4, Informative

      White, or any other color-kids won't relate to or "get into the skin" of a character if the character development isn't very good. The author's responsibility to the reader is not to pre-determine if they are able to 'deal' with a character's skin color, but to make them interested in the character regardless and the story as a whole. or...

      Obviously, if the reader is initially distracted by the character's skin tone, that is likely to interfere with the reader's ability to identify with the character. The strategy of letting the reader discoverer a character's differences (which may be as subtle as race or as extreme as species) later on in the story has long been used successfully in SF. Heinlein also used this device for a nonwhite character.

      how exactly do whites have the privilege of being colorblind ?

      Whites have the privilege of being colorblind because they only rarely have to take into account the possibility that the people whom they have to deal with in their day-to-day existence may be prejudiced against them because of their race.

      Isn't is also extreme arrogance to call ethnic imperialism the act of a white author speaking for a non-white people.? The word "ethnic" is a generic term, yet she uses it specifically to target white writers in her statement.

      Uh, if you didn't know, Ms. LeGuin is white--the "white author" (singular, not plural) that she is referring to is herself

    20. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by itwerx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, the rest of us read the Slate article

      My bad! :)
      I figured the Slate article was a rehash included for bandwidth purposes and went straight for the "true word".
      Of course now I've read the Slate article and see that she wrote it as well and it is indeed all about color (funny she didn't mention that at all in the post on her site).
      However, many people who see a movie will read the book just to see what got left out. This could be a good thing! I'm sure there's a segment of the population that would either be turned off by the presence of color or read negative reviews because of it.
      This way some of them will see the movie, read the books and, as she put it "get into Ged's skin" before discovering that he's not a "lily". (She does have a way with words, I've always loved that series).

    21. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Andromeda had alot of potential in the first and second season. As someone that hates Sorbo, I was suprised when I started watching it. There are still a few episodes that stand out as "excellent, for any series, not just Andromeda".

      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.

    22. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by Gilmoure · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hell, they had John Wayne play Temujin Khan in "The Conquerer". Hollywood sucks ass!

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    23. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      E:FC died when they killed Boone off.

      A season, two tops?

    24. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by curunir · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The commercials for it constantly mentioned "X-Men's Shawn Ashmore and Smallville's Kristin Kreuk" so I think they probably felt that the books alone wouldn't be able to draw enough viewers. Moreover, they would be the wrong viewers since they would be expecting something that could never live up to their experience reading the book. I think it was clear that the Sci-Fi channel was aiming specifically for audiences that had not read the book but have an interest in Sci-Fi.

      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.

      --
      "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
    25. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by ckaminski · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Lynch did this thing in the original movie with Inner Dialog that I think made the original so hard to beat. What I found most annoying about the remakes was their constant verbal conversations simply to explain basic facts of the universe, where with the original it was like slowly peeling an onion...

      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... :-/

    26. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by Tassach · · Score: 3, Interesting
      the Dune miniseries was absolutely HORRIBLE. UNfuckingWATCHABLE, even.
      I think you're going overboard. It wasn't great by any stretch of the imagination, but it wasn't THAT horrible compared to other crap that's on TV.

      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.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    27. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by badmammajamma · · Score: 1

      " 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)."

      Damn, you're my kind of people. What's that german word for "enjoys the pain and suffering of others"?

      --
      Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood. -- H. L. Mencken
    28. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by RapmasterT · · Score: 1
      That being said, Ursula's rant has convinced me not to watch the shitty adaptation of her books (which I haven't read and don't plan to) when/if they get aired here in Canada. The superficial racism (thats pretty oxymoronic, actually) on the part of the people responsible for the mini-series is reason enough to snub it.

      Ursula's rant not only convinced me not to watch the miniseries, but convinced me to never read any of her books either.

      What a childish and uncomfortably racist piece of crap that was (her Salon article)

      I don't blame TV producers for making race changes to fit the actors they have available, that's kind of the reality of the real world vs. a fictional text where can write anything you want.

      I do blame Le Guin for her racist tirade and childish tantrum over what happened after she SOLD the rights to her work. Hey baby, I got news for you...when you sell something, they can do what they want with it.

      However, making statements putting words in her mouth...she should sue them to f**k and back.
    29. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      The chimera thing was interesting, so maybe half of season 2. Amazing potential, squandered on a "the atavus have been here all along" story that even Mutant X doesn't stoop to.

    30. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by RollingThunder · · Score: 1

      It's schadenfreude.

    31. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by rodgerd · · Score: 1
      Hell, R.A. Salvatore made his name based on a character with dark black skin. Good golly! How'd that ever get past the publisher?!
      Because people like, uh, Le Guin had proven you could sell sci fi and fantasy work with non-white characters, something which wasn't considered the case in 1966.

      (big hint here!... Stephen King can't blame skin color changes on the high suck level in almost all of the movies based on his work)
      No. He blames the fact that since Hollywood will most likely fuck up his work regardless, he sells to the highest bidder to ease the pain.
    32. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by buffy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree...original poster was overboard IMHO.

      The way I get past the dunes and other modestly executed sfx shots is to think of it as a theatrical production--makes it much more palatable. Backdrops are AOK in theater! ;)

      Now, as for the follow up mini-series, The Children of Dune (Actually an adaptation of Dune Messiah and Children of Dune books), I thought was far superior..and parts borderline fantastic. The only teeth grinding were at some of the Leto II scenes.

      Please, even if you were turned off by the Dune mini-series, give the CoD a chance!

      -db

    33. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by ahdeoz · · Score: 1

      It seems her only real complaint is that the got the skin-colors she imagined her characters to have (I don't think it's mentioned or particulary relevant in the book, although the Earthsea Archipelago culture is markedly Euro- or even Anglo-centric, not a surprise coming from a white author to a white audience.) I suppose she feels an dShakespearean production of "Othello", or a Sowetto schoolchildren's "A Christmas Carol" would also be inauthentic and in violation of original authorial intent. Her only other gripe seems to be an assumption that the hollywood producers were hardcore rightwing idealist warmongers serving their republican President's interest with their slavish and cunning propaganda. That said, it was a lousy cheap overbudget typical S&S fantasy though. I could only watch a few minutes, and it sounds like the "dualism" is actually blessed by her, but she prefers to think of "Spirituality" and "Paganism" as two sides on the same coin, and was afraid the producers meant "Christianity" and "pop-witchcraft."

    34. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by bani · · Score: 1

      I have to agree. critics lambasted lynch's inner dialogue bits, but I thought they worked very well. lynch's dune was lightyears better than scifi's.

      Not to mention lynch's visuals were amazing (and disturbing, as usual).

      Not to mention that Kyle MacLachlan can act the pants off Alec Newman.

      And yes, I did read the books.

      fwiw scifi's 'children of dune' was much better then their first 'dune'. much better director. unlike scifi's first 'dune', it didnt come off shot like a 1960s batman episode, with screamingly obvious indoor sets with painted cloth backdrops.

    35. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by ahdeoz · · Score: 2, Informative

      Her "rainbow people" utopia was a pretty common motif in 1940s sci fi, and everyone from Isaac Asimov to Roger Zelazny had brown-skinned characters (even real black African from real Earth) in their stories before her.

    36. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      What's that german word for "enjoys the pain and suffering of others"?

      Chiropractor

      Oh wait, that's greek :)

    37. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It concerns me you can't tell the difference between Salon and Slate.

    38. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by dastardly_villain · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the whole fact that she complains after the fact rubs me entirely the wrong way. I mean, she's already cashed in. Obviously it didn't matter that what was going on in the Sci-Fi Channels version. To complain now is pretty cowardice.

    39. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by RapmasterT · · Score: 1
      It concerns me you can't tell the difference between Salon and Slate.
      It does? what an odd thing to be concerned about. Maybe you should get your medication checked. But seriously, Salon...Slate... same number of vowels.
    40. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by badmammajamma · · Score: 1

      Thank you, sir.

      --
      Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood. -- H. L. Mencken
    41. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by cvas · · Score: 1

      IMO, no. I've never read the books and I watched both parts. I wish I hadn't. I actually stopped watching the first part 3/4 of the way through and only finished it (and watched the 2nd part) because I knew I'd be wondering what happened if I didn't.

      The acting was sub-par (a few exceptions but they did nothing to elevate the level of those around them). The effects were horrible. And that's even taking into consideration that this was made for TV.

      Also, as someone who has never read the books and only knew that this was supposed to be a story about a boy who could be come the most powerful wizard ever and save the world (I think I read something to that effect somewhere) I was VERY dissapointed in the lack of magic used.

      I won't even get into the disjointedness/pacing of the story.

    42. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by Jerf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The way I get past the dunes and other modestly executed sfx shots is to think of it as a theatrical production--makes it much more palatable.

      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 :-), but it is true that it is not one.

    43. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by Snaller · · Score: 1

      There are still a few episodes that stand out as "excellent, for any series, not just Andromeda".

      Only problem is, that it was show in an alternate universe ;)

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    44. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by Snaller · · Score: 1

      "how exactly do whites have the privilege of being colorblind ?"

      Whites have the privilege of being colorblind because they only rarely have to take into account the possibility that the people whom they have to deal with in their day-to-day existence may be prejudiced against them because of their race.


      I think you misunderstood what she was saying there. When white people read books, they assume the characters are white, unless otherwise specified. Where as, she seems to say, when people of other color are reading books they ALSO assume the characters are white, unless otherwise specified. So only the whites don't really care if the color of the character isn't specified.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    45. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who cares about this chick? And who cares about some stupid movie based on her books? I remember reading her books... They're children's books. These are not for adults. These are easy-readers for down-time in gradeschool.

    46. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by stg · · Score: 1
      Much like with Earth: Final Conflict, another roddenberry series that started off fantastic, and went downhill. Well, dropped off a cliff, in that case.


      Well said - that is exactly how I felt about both series. IMHO, it seems like they are incapable of creating consistent story archs, so they just keep pulling stuff out of nowhere to make the next episode - much like Star Trek's particle of the week. I can still watch Star Trek, except for Enterprise, which isn't worth the time.
    47. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by Moekandu · · Score: 1
      "It seems to me that eliminating mixed race characters in hopes of appealing to a "predominately white audience" is inherently a racist decision..."

      I would have to agree. For the most part I can understand why screenwriters/directors will change a given part of the story (even their reasoning is, well, stupid). Changing the race of a character when it is specifically explained in the book is bigoted. And that's regardless of how it is changed.

      Now, that's not to say that I disagree with creative changes when the race or basic look is not mentioned at all in the book. It can add depth to the character and story. Heinlein (as well as many others) deliberately refrained from mentioning racial characteristics. Hell, William Gibson does not mention Molly's hair color at all in Neuromancer (other than the pink wig). Trust me, I checked. It gives the director freedom in casting the right actor, not just the actor with the right "look." Then on the other hand, LeGuin deliberately created a rich, multi-racial world and the filmmakers simply crapped all over it. I find that offensive.

      There are so many other details to be nailed down in making a movie, why fuck with things that don't need to be changed? But, then that's just me.

      --
      Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself; but talent instantly recognizes genius. -- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
    48. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Vladimir Harkonnen is an EVIL GENIUS, not the stupid disgusting perverted sadist Lynch portrayed.

      Did you read the book?????????

      In the book, Vladimir Harkonnen IS a disgusting, perverted, sadist AND an evil genius.

    49. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by Digi-John · · Score: 1

      Whites have the privilege of being colorblind because they only rarely have to take into account the possibility that the people whom they have to deal with in their day-to-day existence may be prejudiced against them because of their race.

      Allow me to politely interject here: bull. I am white and live in a predominately (70+ percent) Hispanic-populated area (in Washington, U.S.). The number of dirty looks, comments (in Spanish, but I can understand a few, and they aren't polite), and downright uncooperativeness (is that a word?) I receive are at least equal to those of, say, a black man in a predominately white neighborhood. Things work both ways; don't make so many assumptions.

      --
      Klingon programs don't timeshare, they battle for supremacy.
    50. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      Allow me to politely interject here: bull. I am white and live in a predominately (70+ percent) Hispanic-populated area (in Washington, U.S.). The number of dirty looks, comments (in Spanish, but I can understand a few, and they aren't polite), and downright uncooperativeness (is that a word?) I receive are at least equal to those of, say, a black man in a predominately white neighborhood. Things work both ways; don't make so many assumptions.

      "Rarely" != "never"

      There are obviously circumstances in which caucasians are in the minority. They are nevertheless the exception rather than the rule.

    51. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "day-to-day existence may be prejudiced against them because of their race."
      That is a closed minded view. While in the west this might be true it is not true in say, Japan, China, India, or the middle east? Prejudice can also be based on other things like religion, or even height or weight. Want to ask a jewish person how they feel going through life with out ever dealing with prejudice?
      I guess I hope that when a child reads a book they put themselves in the role of the hero no matter what color they are. It would seem that it is a bit arrogant to feel that everyone that reads a book pictures the hero as white unless you say other wise.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    52. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      Um, her point was that almost everyone in the book was not fair-skinned. I've read 30's/40's SF my whole life, and it was very, very rare to see an explicitly non-white protagonist.

      Her points about this aspect of the production were, one, that she populated EarthSea prodominately with dark skins because in real life this is the case, as European fair skin is rare in the world. Secondly, this was undone for the series for no apparent reason other than to avoid alienating white male viewers.

      Trivia for tonight: didja know that in Heinlein's I Shall Fear No Evil, Eunice, the body donor for the old man, was black? Heinlein said he was amused that no one picked up on the hint. I myself never found the passage, 'cause the book was so incredibly loooooooonnnnnnnngggggg I never reread it.

    53. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by 1u3hr · · Score: 2, Insightful
      There are obviously circumstances in which caucasians are in the minority. They are nevertheless the exception rather than the rule.

      As we're about 10% of the world's population, it's actually the rule outside your enclave. (I live in Hong Kong, so I'm disabused of any idea that we're a majority of the population.) That was something UKL expanded on in her Slate piece; that it's absurd to think in the future most people in every place will be Caucasian, as they are in every single SF movie and TV series (please correct me if you can think of one; I can't). It makes one wonder what happened back on Earth; is there still a rich white First World and a dirt-poor Third in the 23rd century? Was there a global ethnic cleansing? The implications are creepy and never explained.)

      Of course, it's the same reason most aliens look like humans down to their fingernails (with some latex on their forehead or ears); because that's what Hollywood has available.

      However, I was a bit surprised that was the thing UKL focused on; the general opinion (looking at the forum on the Sci-Fi Channels's site) is very negative with regard to the story, script and acting; everyone who read the books hated it, few who came to it without knowing the books liked it either.

    54. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      It saddens me that her most vehement criticisms come down to "wahh, marketing drones changed skin colors!", not "they completely and utterly bastardized the story".

      Actually, while the Salon piece is pretty much just about race, her own site she does complain about how they fucked up the story, especailly after they did publicity about how much they respected her vision.

    55. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by Zangief · · Score: 1

      Maybe you would like to see the life of Shaka Zulu represented just by white people?

      Do you think "The Last Samurai" was a insightful view into the japanese warriors?

      This is just racism.

      Period.

    56. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Whites have the privilege of being colorblind because they only rarely have to take into account the possibility that the people whom they have to deal with in their day-to-day existence may be prejudiced against them because of their race.

      What a complete load of politically correct bullshit. Prejudice actions and reactions to whites happen all the time. I have experienced it more times than I can remember. The most dramatic of these experiences being when I was physically assaulted by a half-dozen gang bangers screaming racial slurs while they beat the shit out of me. I was lucky I wasn't permanently disabled.

      While some people might turn that around and become prejudiced against blacks, I know it was just a bunch of ignorant (and racist) assholes, not the race as a whole that was responsible.

      I do, however, partially blame our education system. Teaching kids that it's a white society to blame for all their ills and they can take pride in themselves just because they are black, but without actually accomplishing anything useful, results in young people with too high of an opinion of themselves and an expectation that society owes them something.

    57. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by L0rdJagged · · Score: 1

      hi, just so you know, there are plenty of black and asian actors out there who would love to have work in a scifi or fantasy film who won't get it because they always make these kind of changes. it isn't that they aren't available, it's that all the parts are given preferentially to white actors even when there is no reason for it. it hurts them, it hurts scifi, and it is definitly racist of the movie industry to do this. like changing juan rico to john d. rico in starship troopers, and going with the creepy aryan look. everyone in that book is pretty much black, asian or hispanic as well.

    58. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      Yeah, the whole fact that she complains after the fact rubs me entirely the wrong way.

      She didn't see it beforehand; she had no input to the production. They had the legal right to, and that's what happens to just about every author who sells rights. From the producers' POV, they don't want to be limited by slavish attention to following the author's whims. Another Halmi production, Dinotopia, actually went too far the other way. The author was deeply involved in the production; it looked beautiful, but was ultimately boring as he never had any story, just a visual concept (he was originally an artist) that he sent his protagonists through to display it, something that sustained the first miniseries but ran out of steam in subsequent episodes. But Le Guin is an award-winning writer, she knows what a story is and they were fools to think they could do better.

    59. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I she didn't like the mini-series, it must have *really* been bad since all of her books sucked and she thought they were good.

    60. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      Her "rainbow people" utopia was a pretty common motif in 1940s sci fi, and everyone from Isaac Asimov to Roger Zelazny had brown- skinned characters (even real black African from real Earth) in their stories before her.

      In one of Asimov's stories is an amusing scene where one character tries to bond with another; he being deep black, the other being lily white he thinks they have something in common as the vast majority are then an almost homgeneous brown. The white guy just stares at him as at this time it's about as important as eye-colour.

    61. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      While in the west this might be true it is not true in say, Japan

      Please remember that if you live in America, Japan and China are both west of you.

    62. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      ...uh, how exactly do whites have the privilege of being colorblind ?

      In the media context of North America, white/caucasian is the default ethnicity. For an interesting demonstration, watch an episode of Fox's The Simpsons. Notice that most people are colored yellow, which means white, unless they're brown, which means brown (Abu and Karl).

    63. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      I don't blame TV producers for making race changes to fit the actors they have available,

      They could've easily recruited actors of absolutely any ethnicity. There's no way they can blame anything on scarcity of non-"caucasian" actors.

      Plus, the Earthsea hero was actually supposed to be red, a shade not found in human skin, but easily managable with either makeup or CGI. (Especially when the series is only 2 episodes long)

    64. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by evilviper · · Score: 1
      Please remember that if you live in America, Japan and China are both west of you.

      Haha! They are ALSO east of you! Round planet, remember?

      East/West refers to the specific (predefined) hemisphere, not relative geographic locations.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    65. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by dastardly_villain · · Score: 1

      Point, but the fact remains....after all the years of books being butchered by Hollywood, I can't beleive she didn't have any clue what-so-ever that this could happen. If she didn't, she should have had the foresight to negotiate some kind of "final-say" clause. It's her intellectual property, it's up to her (and her alone) to aultimately protect it.

    66. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      Point, but the fact remains....after all the years of books being butchered by Hollywood, I can't beleive she didn't have any clue what-so-ever that this could happen. If she didn't, she should have had the foresight to negotiate some kind of "final-say" clause. It's her intellectual property, it's up to her (and her alone) to aultimately protect it.

      Of course she knew; it's bee the way the studios do business for 100 years. Nothing she could do about it. The fact is that authors hardly ever get any say over what is made. If they want the money, what they're selling is control. In the worst case, the movie sucks, but the author walks away with $10,000 to a million. Their books may get reprinted, and bad movies quickly disappear.

    67. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by BJH · · Score: 1

      (I don't think it's mentioned or particulary relevant in the book, although the Earthsea Archipelago culture is markedly Euro- or even Anglo-centric, not a surprise coming from a white author to a white audience.)

      Go back and read the books again (if you ever read them properly, that is, which I find doubtful). It's mentioned many times that Ged, and the people of the central islands of the Archipelago, are red-skinned or black, whereas the Kargs are more Nordic in appearance.

    68. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by Pxtl · · Score: 1

      ? By red, I'd always assumed it was the English connotation of "red skin" - that is, like a Native in colour. I'd just imagined some dusky Filippino looking boy with warm-coloured hair.

    69. Re:Did you slashdot the nice lady's website? by magefile · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, the scuttlebutt is that Ender's Game is being made with a less international cast, which really hurts the story.

      Really? How are they gonna do that? I remember a line where someone (Dink?) tells Ender, "you, like our dear teachers, are American - and I am not". That was one of the major points, that the Formic Wars gave the IF the authority to rule Earth (sorta), and no one wanted to risk facing the Buggers without 'em, thus keeping the peace.

  3. Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by onegoodpenguin · · Score: 1

    Who exactly is Ursula Le Guin?

    1. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by Jameth · · Score: 4, Informative

      Le Guin is the author of the books.

    2. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by noweat · · Score: 1

      i only know of her from reading the "left hand of darkness", but i believe shes a well known sci fi author who has recieved a few hugo awards. noteworth enough to have a miniseries based on her works at any rate

    3. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, you should be more familiar. Ursula Le Guin is one of the greatest living authors of science fiction and fantasy, winner of multiple Hugo and Nebula awards. Her novels include The Left Hand of Darkness, The Lathe of Heaven, and the EarthSea series. She is also the author of a wonderful interpretation of the Tao Te Ching.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    4. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by kalidasa · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ursula LeGuin wrote two absolutely classic SF novels:

      The Dispossessed, about an anarcho-syndalicist society formed when the founders of their political movement were exiled to their planet's moon, and whose first visitor to the a couple of hundred years later is the most brilliant physicist in known space: a man who has figured out a very, very important issue in physics (which I will not reveal), and has numerous adventures that illustrate the homeworld's society (and also has contact with an alien ambassador from a very familiar planet).

      The Left Hand of Darkness, about an alien ambassador visiting a planet whose inhabitants naturally change sex with each mating season, and so have a very fluid concept of "gender" - and who consider someone who sticks with one sex throughout life to be a pervert. There's some political intrigue, too, and a journey across an ice field.

      She's probably most famous for A Wizard of Earthsea and its related books, which formed the basis of the miniseries being critiqued.

    5. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by Minter92 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      A fantasy/sci fi writer. I personally thought the earth sea books were terrible but there are some uber fanboys of it.

    6. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      Wow, that's a great typo: should be anarcho-syndicalist. Sorry.

    7. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by Qzukk · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Lathe of Heaven

      Not a lot of other posts even mentioned this story.

      I figured I'd chime in to point out that The Lathe of Heaven was also converted to a Made-for-TV movie, and I thought the transition was quite well done. Even if not a literal copy of the book, it was still effective at conveying the core concepts and displaying the changes in the world and its people through the shifts in architecture, costumes, technology, etc.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    8. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      I figured I'd chime in to point out that The Lathe of Heaven was also converted to a Made-for-TV movie, and I thought the transition was quite well done.

      Are you talking about the one from the 70s or the new one they made about two years ago?

    9. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by grub · · Score: 3, Funny


      shes a well known sci fi author

      Is her work better than L. Ron Hubbard's?

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    10. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by richyoung · · Score: 1

      The Left Hand of Darkness was great, but I felt that The Lathe of Heaven sucked profoundly, both in concept and execution. If I were Le Guin, I'd cringe at being identified as the author of The Lathe of Heaven.
      The Disposessed, on the other hand, is something Le Guin should be very, very proud of. (I'm speaking only of the books, BTW. I haven't seen any TV adaptations.)

      --
      6. Audible Alarm (not shown)
      -from a Cuisinart product owner's manual.
    11. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 1

      My money is on the one from the 70s, which I, too, thought quite a competent "translation," thought it's still worth reading the story.

      --
      Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
    12. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to be confused with LA Guns, a crappy metal band from the 80's.

    13. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by Wavicle · · Score: 1

      It's kind of sad that most people do not know more about Ursula Le Guin. I first learned about her when I was looking for a good sci fi book to read and came across what I think is the only book to win both the hugo and nebula awards in the same year: Ursula K. Le Guin's "The Left Hand of Darkness."

      To be fair, her books have extraordinary levels of character development, very detailed accounts of what is going on and well... they are just very deep. You don't just run back to the book the same way you might with others. So not everyone will stick one of her books out. But they are worth the read.

      --
      Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
      Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
    14. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by KDan · · Score: 1, Informative

      She's not a "sci fi author", she's a science fiction author (difference is in the quality. Star Wars is Sci Fi, Minority Report is Science Fiction). And she's a Fantasy author. In both genres she has created a seminal series of books - in Fantasy she made the unique and fascinating Earthsea world, and in SF she made the equally fascinating universe of Anaresti/Urasti, Hainish, Earth, etc. She's on equal footing with the likes of Arthur C Clarke in terms of popularity, and above most of his books in terms of quality (Childhood's End being the only exception I've read).

      Daniel

      --
      Carpe Diem
    15. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by Bollux · · Score: 1

      I find Ursula Le Guin's books to be either very good or very bad. Earthsea Trilogy, fantastic. City of Illusions, good. Malafrena..so bad I couldn't finish it. Tehanu, the 20 yr later followup to Earthsea, was an incredible disappointment. I got rid of it directly after reading (This from a collector!) I also have The Winds Twelve Quarters, with 2 nice Earthsea short stories. I haven't read all of her books. Usually when I find a good author I hunt down all their other books and add them to my collection. Le Guin simply isn't consistent enough to pursue that way.

      I must wonder, why did she sell the rights if she didn't get a guarantee on the story? Did she need the money that badly? I've read the Earthsea Trilogy a dozen times or more, and the race thing is a subtle theme in the story. And there she is ranting about it...well, I'm sure I would be disappointed to see it for other reasons. Putting books in video format is a challenge.

      -Bollux
      ---
      couldn't post, for lack of a clever comment

    16. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by sakwin · · Score: 1

      That was my question exactly. I watched the Earthsea miniseries on SciFi with my husband, and neither of us had heard of or read any of her books. Now that I've seen the movie, I'm going out to get the books and read them. How many others are like me? For us, at least, the movie gave us awareness of her stories, and will result in a sale of books that wouldn't have happened otherwise.

      Did it seem to anyone else that her entire Slate article was about how they changed the race of the characters? Maybe it's a bigger issue in the book, but personally it doesn't matter to me if Ged is brown, black, white, or purple...in fact, sometimes I prefer for an author to leave a character's physical description out of the novel entirely, unless it's critical to the plot. That way I can use my imagination.

    17. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by the_mad_poster · · Score: 1

      We're not playing limbo here, mate.... you can set the bar up a bit higher than that...

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    18. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure Ender's Game did too, but I'm too lazy to research it.

      I have respect for Le Guin's work, but I've never really enjoyed it much. I've only read the Earthsea books though.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    19. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice try, but that's pronounced "Luh"...

    20. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by wbm6k · · Score: 1

      A focus of the Slate article was on the race of the characters, but she also commented that they completely botched the plot:

      It's full of scenes from the story, arranged differently, in an entirely different plot, so that they make no sense.

      That comes in while she is mentioning that she signed up with the group because of a particular script writer (Phillipa Boyens of Lord of the Rings), who was subsequently dropped by a new producer.
      The problem with the races is that instead of having a bit of race/culture clash (as in the books), the miniseries turned it into a conflict between believers and unbelievers. She saw the cultures as more of yin/yang complements than true competitors.

      Disclaimer - I did not see the miniseries, but I did RTFAs and I have read the books.

    21. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by DavidTC · · Score: 3, Funny
      The difference between 'sci fi' and 'science fiction' is that 'sci if' annoys people like you.

      So, everyone, please continue to use it.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    22. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by alexjohns · · Score: 3, Interesting
      About 25 years ago, in 10th grade English class at Mount de Sales High School in Macon, GA, I gave an oral book report on The Left Hand of Darkness.

      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.

    23. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMFG. A genre nazi called Star Wars Sci Fi. I've seen it all now, and can die happily.

    24. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      As I've always understood it, science fiction generally means fiction based upon science and/or science fiction (explanation follows.)

      There's hard and soft science fiction. Hard science fiction is SF based upon real science, where the author has attempted to make the physics of the piece's universe make sense and be internally consistant. There can be errors, there usually are, but they're almost never dependent upon the author being deliberately disengenious. Hard science fiction consists of everything from most of the works of Arthur C. Clarke to... well, believe it or not, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, which makes an honest if tongue in cheek attempt to base itself upon current theories of partical physics. Remember all that stuff about infinite improbability drives? That was based on real science Douglas Adams had been following.

      "Soft" science fiction is comprised of stuff that looks a bit like science fiction but for which there's been no real attempt to make it sound, and where there's no desire on the part of the author to explain anything scientific. That's where the "based upon science fiction" bit in the above comes from. Star Wars is an obvious example, it's all mythology in space, but Lucas never, for a second, was trying to explain the consequences of anything real.

      As far as Le Guin goes, if she's a fantasy author, I'm not sure she qualifies as science fiction at all. I've never really understood how something that has nothing remotely about science can be described as "science fiction". The books are lumped together, and tend to appear in book stores under the heading "Science fiction/fantasy", which isn't to imply fantasy is science fiction, but to suggest that the two, non-overlapping, fields of fantasy and science fiction, are in the same place, presumably because the bookstore owner feels that people interested in one are almost certainly interested in the other too.

      For a similar, unlikely, pairing, take a look at the equivalent DVD racks, where science fiction and horror are usually combined into one area. Why? Probably the monsters.

      Some authors, of course, pander to this and write stories that appeal to both groups. I know Kim Stanley Robinson's done a "fantasy" novel, though he's far more famous for his (hard) science fiction (note again: hard doesn't mean every detail is correct. Attaching a windmill to a blimp is not going to power that blimp...)

      As far as "sci fi" goes, it's hard to come up with a consensus on what it means. There's a view that it applies to everything, hard and soft, because it's essentially an abbreviation that the public uses to describe everything about space ships and the future and monsters. But likewise, there's also an opinion that the very fact it encompasses so many crap elements of the art means that it's a derogatory term. If you Google a little bit, you'll find a few thousand essays on people who feel very, very, strongly about the issue.

      Usually the same people have written essays expressing their opinion on whether "anal retentive" should be hyphenated or not. Go figure.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    25. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      As far as Le Guin goes, if she's a fantasy author, I'm not sure she qualifies as science fiction at all. I'
      Please ignore this. I misread the grandparent's comment. I didn't realise he meant that Le Guin had written both science fiction and fantasy. My apologies.
      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    26. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by ktulu1115 · · Score: 1

      I'd definately recommend reading the books; they are far superior to the miniseries. While it was nice to see the story (more or less) on film, from what I remember it was altered a significant amount - more than just the race/color of the characters. There was definately a fair amount of Hollywood throw into it, and as Le Guin stated, "It's full of scenes from the story, arranged differently, in an entirely different plot." I first read the original book of the series "A Wizard of Earthsea" back in middle school (~10 years ago) and I thought it was a fantastic story. There was a substancial amount of storyline from her second book "The Tombs of Atuan" thrown in SciFi's miniseries.

      As for the race, I personally don't recall it having to do that much with the storyline. It was definately mentioned several times throughout the story, but I didn't feel too much emphasis was placed on it. Perhaps because I was not focused on those details.

      Regardless, the books make for excellent reading. I just recently discovered there is a fourth book in the Earthsea series, "Tehanu". From what I've read, it's a story about Ged and the young priestess who escapes at the end of "The Tombs of Atuan", but much later on in life. I'm not so sure if it's the normal "epic" quest-like story that I loved about the first three, however I think it's worth a read.

      --
      # fuser -v /dev/attention | grep work
      #
    27. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by Mantorp · · Score: 1

      in other news SF authors are feeling ignored

    28. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by Daniel · · Score: 1

      There was a substancial amount of storyline from her second book "The Tombs of Atuan" thrown in SciFi's miniseries.

      Not really. There were a lot of names and places from the Tombs of Atuan, but the plot might as well have been from another story entirely.

      We can start, for instance, with the fact that the priestesses in the miniseries were essentially an order of pacifist and loving nuns, rather than the vicious and bloodthirsty devotees of evil that are found in the book.

      Daniel

      --
      Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
    29. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by AnonymousKev · · Score: 1
      Pikers. All you new-fangled whippersnappers should stop with this scifi, SciFi, and SF garbage. Get back to calling it scientifiction, just like the original "Amazing Stories" magazine.

      :)

      --
      Anonymous Kev
      Proudly posting as AC since 1997
      (Finally got a dang account in 2004)
    30. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      Tehanu, the 20 yr later followup to Earthsea, was an incredible disappointment.

      I too was disappointed the first time I read it. I went back to it later, though, and realized it was more a problem of my exepections versus a deficiency of the work itself - Tehanu is a very different story, and if you go in expecting more of the same as the original trilogy, it won't sit well. I like it now - it also helps that it's no longer the last EarthSea book.

      (Actually my copy is now in the hands of an ex-girlfriend - unless she's thrown it out or burned it. I really shouldn't lend books to women I date...)

      I must wonder, why did she sell the rights if she didn't get a guarantee on the story?

      As she says, "my contract gave me the standard status of `consultant'--which means whatever the producers want it to mean, almost always little or nothing. My agency could not improve this clause. But the purchasers talked as though they genuinely meant to respect the books and to ask for my input when planning the film." I think she was misled by assurances or representations made outside the contract - legal, perhaps, but hardly ethical.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    31. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMFG! You godwinned the thread! You bastard!

    32. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by hymie3 · · Score: 1

      I'll do you one better. In the fourth grade I did a diorama of "Nine Princes of Amber". I chose the scene from the cover. Corwin, blood-drenched, sword in hand, holding high the severed head of a shadow cat.

      Cool points with the guys in the class, strange looks from the teacher, and a (sealed) note from the school counselor. (Only 20 years ago)

    33. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by mrlpz · · Score: 1

      Interpretation of the Tao Te Ching ? That answers that. Anyone who tries to make a concrete "interpretation" of that is bound to be a little fruity.

      Sure, Sure, that pisses off some of you...but just because your undies are all up in a bunch, doesn't mean that it's not true.

    34. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by I_M_Noman · · Score: 1
      whether "anal retentive" should be hyphenated or not
      Depends on how it's being used in the sentence.
    35. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's odd. My opinions of the two works are completely the reverse of yours. I wouldn't recommend The Dispossessed to anyone, as the concept's uninteresting and the political nature of the book made it drag, but The Lathe of Heaven has a very cool idea implemented in a fun way (and she predicted a volcano eruption, even if she missed by about 100 miles by choosing Hood over St. Helens.)

    36. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by paganizer · · Score: 1

      PLEASE someone give the parents mod points, I nearly choked on my coffee.
      (um, for the record, Hubbard's golden age creations weren't that bad, pretty good space opera in general)

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    37. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      I really shouldn't lend books to women I date...

      I once gave a 150 year old reprint of Shakespeare's first folio to a girl I was trying to get in bed. No nookie for me and she kept the book. Doh!

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    38. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      She always had the option to walk away before the deal was signed.

      Her desire for money outstripped her desire for control. That's cool, of course...the decision was hers to make.

      Maybe she'll make different ones in the future.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    39. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's some political intrigue, too, and a journey across an ice field.

      That's like saying of LOTR "there's also some battles and something about a ring."

    40. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't consider Le Guin one of the greatest living authors of sf and fantasy. Obviously other people do.

      I've read many of her books when I was younger, including left hand and the wizard of earthsea series. I've always considered her books to be extremely original, but I gotta say her writing doesn't seem as good.

      When I first read left hand, I was 12. The book was a tad hard to understand, as I recall, but it seemed like a great story. Read it again as an adult and it seemed dry and flavorless, but still a good story, if that makes any sense.

    41. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by Mondrames · · Score: 1

      I wrote my HS Senior AP English thesis paper on the book as well.

    42. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Science fiction and fantasy are lumped together because both revolve around impossible assumptions. The difference is in the way these assumptions are used: in fantasy, they are interesting (to the author) story devices, whereas science fiction writers use them as a starting point for extrapolation. SF is thus that area of fantasy which is concerned with asking "what would happen if...", and supplying some (hopefully both plausible and entertaining) answers.

      As to the distinction between "hard" and "soft" SF, that lies not in the plausibility of the science or otherwise, but rather the role it plays in the story: in "hard" SF, the "impossible idea" is a central character, whereas "soft" SF concentrates on the effects that the idea has on people and society. Larry Niven's "Ringworld" would thus be termed "hard" because the Ringworld is as much a character as anyone else in the story, while Frank Herbert's "Dune" is soft because it explores the effects that certain changes have had on societies and the people who live in them.

      Note that most SF writers do not regard Star Wars as "science fiction" (hard or soft), but as space fantasy -- it is a story about knights, princesses, and wizards, not a "what if..." scenario based on an extrapolation of a set of impossible assumptions.

    43. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Dispossessed, about an anarcho-syndalicist society

      You're fooling yourself... we're living in a dictatorship!

      Help, help, I'm being repressed!

    44. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      That answers that. Anyone who tries to make a concrete "interpretation" of that is bound to be a little fruity.

      By "interpretation" I mean a English version prepared by someone not a translator, but working from several different translations. Le Guin is not expert in the Chinese language; she consulted several scholarly translations and prepared from them an English text.

      It's not unusual, Stephen Mitchell just did this with Gilgamesh

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    45. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      Hard science fiction is SF based upon real science, where the author has attempted to make the physics of the piece's universe make sense and be internally consistant... As far as Le Guin goes, if she's a fantasy author, I'm not sure she qualifies as science fiction at all.


      I know you corrected the above statement, but you should be aware that Le Guin's science fiction is about as hard as you can get, far more than even Asimov.

      Le Guin is one of the few writers who refuses to have Faster-than-Light travel for her characters. As a result, time dilation at near-lightspeed is a major plot element in all of her science fiction stories.

      She also anticipated (probably with input from her physicist husband) quantum entanglement, when she invented her "ansible" instantaneous communication device.

    46. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by ahdeoz · · Score: 1

      I thought the difference was that Star Wars was a great show with an inner consistence and Minority Report sucked and contracticted itself.

    47. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      Never heard of her, myself... Still I've run out of Asimov/Clarke/Niven books to read (the authors being dead doesn't help!) so might give her a try provided it's real science fiction not 'dungeons and dragons with a bit of cheesy magic' which most of modern scifi is nowadays.

    48. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by mbourgon · · Score: 1

      The Left Hand of Darkness was great, but I felt that The Lathe of Heaven sucked profoundly

      I have a different take as well. I liked the Lathe of Heaven. Improbable, yes. Fantastic, yes. But neat.

      Left Hand of Darkness, though (apparently) the first of the "gender-bender" novels, is far from the best. I finally read it in college, astonished at how dull the actual story was. Of course, I like Jack L. Chalker (although, Jack, stop with the "how fucked can this person be at the end of book 2"), and I enjoy his gender-bending-body-swapping-mind-switching books a _whole_ lot more. They take the premise, but then put an actual story to it. LHOD seemed to be a prototype for that type of story, which is fine, but in and of itself not all that impressive.

      --
      "Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
    49. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It may not just be money but a desire to see ones work go further.

    50. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Sure. Desire for fame is a powerful motivator. It still outstripped her desire to control her work.

      So, again: She's a big girl, and she made a decision she now might regret. Them's the breaks.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    51. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by ahdeoz · · Score: 1

      but were the brown people in the movie the same color of brown that Ursula imagined them?

    52. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is, but the point is not to spoil the damned story, and if you get into a complete explanation of the voyage across the ice you pretty much ruin the impact of the book now, don't you. This isn't a review or a critical article, it's a teaser.

    53. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      Still I've run out of Asimov/Clarke/Niven books to read (the authors being dead doesn't help!) so might give her a try provided it's real science fiction not 'dungeons and dragons with a bit of cheesy magic'

      Definitely "real" SF and fantasy. A Wizard of EarthSea predates D & D, after all.

      On the other hand, if you've been weaned on a diet of nothing but Asimov/Clarke/Niven, you might find her stuff to be a sudden shock to your system. It's more literary, thoughtful, feminist, anarchist, Taoist SF. The "science" in her "science fiction" is more anthropology than physics.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    54. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by Charlie+Monoxide · · Score: 1

      You can't blame the author (unless they had total control) of the SciFi series. I've never seen so many cliches packed into 2 hours. I only watched the first part. I haven't read the books and after seeing what I saw, I don't think I will. Charlie (critic at large) Monoxide

    55. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by MrBoombasticfantasti · · Score: 1
      Tehanu, the 20 yr later followup to Earthsea, was an incredible disappointment.

      For me, Tehanu is one of the truly great stories. It is very different in tone compared to the first three parts of Earthsea, I'll grant you that. But where these could be described somewhat as 'high-fantasy', Tehanu is more of a real (oh boy, I'm gonna get flamed for this) novel. The character development of the little girl is unbelievably well-written.

      I've read every single book by LeGuin, and there are two books that dwarf the rest: The Dispossessed and Tehanu.

      --
      !ERR: Signature not found.
    56. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by renoX · · Score: 1

      If you want 'real good SF', consider reading Lois Mac Master Bujold: her 'Miles Vorkosigan' serie is very good.

    57. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Lathe of Heaven?

      Now that really sucked!

    58. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by mrlpz · · Score: 1

      And we're just going to "trust" that those scholars didn't pepper the "interpretation" any ? If people squawk about the "translations" and "interpretations" of the bible ( or let's be more specific, the Talmud ), no reason why someone shouldn't question that translation's ( or transcripter, as you've made her sound like ) veracity.

    59. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      And we're just going to "trust" that those scholars didn't pepper the "interpretation" any?

      Sure that happened to some degree. Much less so than with the Bible, since written Chinese is a living language (the spoken language changes, but written Chinese of 2500 years ago is closer to that of today than for phonetic written languages), the work is a order of magnitude or two shorter, and the nature of the work and the culture in which it is embedded is fundamentally different.

      The Tao Te Ching is not a book of religious or political law - it's a bunch of poems from a semi-mythical hippie anarchist.

      Unlike the Bible, there are many translations that are on equal footing, and Le Guin explains in notes where they have differences, and has a bibliography of translations you can check out for yourself. You don't have to just "trust" here interpretation, you are explictly invited to check out others.

      You can see some exceprt from her version here

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
  4. that teach her by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    website to go dis'ing the elements!

  5. Stargate!? by Temfate · · Score: 0

    I was just pissed that stargate wasn't on... How can you NOT AIR the series that makes your network famous!?!

    1. Re:Stargate!? by ThosLives · · Score: 1

      Well, they did cancel Farscape....

      --
      "There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
    2. Re:Stargate!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was that series really that good? I couldn't get into it. I tried. 2 of the main aliens on that ship were Muppets. They didn't look like aliens, they looked like Muppets. I kept expecting Kermit and Miss Piggy to come on. Sorry, I just couldn't get past that thing.

    3. Re:Stargate!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what do you care they were 3rd repeat reruns anyways.

      i'm pissed that they have NOT had any new shows for over 8 weeks now, that is bullshit.

      Stargate:TOS and Stargate;Atlantis are both great shows that are being ruined because the company is too damned cheap and stupid to continue making more episodes, so the ratings drop like a rock because people do NOT like watching reruns that are pretty fresh.

    4. Re:Stargate!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try developing an imagination. You might find you enjoy science fiction more.

  6. She must be kidding by nagora · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    " They said they had already secured Philippa Boyens (who wrote the scripts for The Fellowship of the Rings) as principal script writer. The script was, to me, all-important, so Boyens' presence was the key factor in my decision to sell this group the option to the film rights."

    Given just how mangled Fellowship of the Ring was in terms of the original characters and meaning of the book, I can only assume that UKlG has never read Lord of the Rings. Boyens' presence was a guarantee that the characters would be unrecognisable and that the story would be reduced to a shallow and meaningless shadow of its former self.

    TWW

    --
    "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    1. Re:She must be kidding by lightspawn · · Score: 1

      Given just how mangled Fellowship of the Ring was in terms of the original characters and meaning of the book, I can only assume that UKlG has never read Lord of the Rings. Boyens' presence was a guarantee that the characters would be unrecognisable and that the story would be reduced to a shallow and meaningless shadow of its former self.

      If you think FOTR was mangled, just wait until His Dark Materials hits the big screen. (A BBC article about the changes can be found here).

    2. Re:She must be kidding by nomadic · · Score: 0

      Given just how mangled Fellowship of the Ring was in terms of the original characters and meaning of the book, I can only assume that UKlG has never read Lord of the Rings. Boyens' presence was a guarantee that the characters would be unrecognisable and that the story would be reduced to a shallow and meaningless shadow of its former self.

      The LotR movies were different, not necessarily worse. The movies actually improved on the book in some ways.

    3. Re:She must be kidding by merdark · · Score: 1

      Wow. I really think you are exagerrating just a wee bit. No, the movies were not 100% the same as the books. But seriously, they were really good as far as movie conversions go.

      Your opinion is not the same as the Tolkien fans I know, who all really liked the movies.

    4. Re:She must be kidding by mac_mon · · Score: 1

      Indeed! FOTR was butchured and if she didn't think she must not have read the book nor understood the characters in it iether. All in all she's just as guilty as the producers she is accusing. However I was very excited to see this series in production as I was a huge fan of her work specifically the Earthsea series. It is sad they had to 'white' it up and have a sex object just to make sure it would be watched.

    5. Re:She must be kidding by sphealey · · Score: 2, Informative

      The cuts and character rearrangements to FotR were fine, and Tolkein had anticipated them (see his "Letters" circa 1958).

      However, the gratuitous changes to the storyline, key plot elements, and key characterizations were totally unnecessary and unforgivable.

      There is no reason _Wizard of Earthsea_ couldn't have been filmed, and successful, more or less as written.

      sPh

    6. Re:She must be kidding by nagora · · Score: 1
      The LotR movies were different, not necessarily worse.

      I agree that it wasn't necessary for them to be worse, they just were.

      The movies actually improved on the book in some ways.

      Story-wise, I don't think so. They were visually almost perfect; stunning even, if that's not abusing a semi-colon.. But as a version of JRRT's story, and particularly characters, they were worthless.

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    7. Re:She must be kidding by Nutria · · Score: 1

      The LotR movies were different, not necessarily worse. The movies actually improved on the book in some ways.

      You're kidding, right? Right? Right?

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    8. Re:She must be kidding by nagora · · Score: 1
      No, the movies were not 100% the same as the books.

      That's not the issue: no adaptation could be 100% faithful to the book. The problem is not what they took out or even re-arranged, it's that all the stuff they added was garbage. I'm not sure which film was the worst, particularly as my girlfriend failed to make me go to the third one, but Fellowship was a travesty particularly in respect of Frodo's character which was constantly undermined.

      They were just bad movies almost saved by fantastic visuals.

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    9. Re:She must be kidding by Derkec · · Score: 1

      Movies do need to deviate from the books. The Fellowship in particular I thought was an excellent film adaptation. Sure, things were changed and scenes left out, but the themes were left in tact, most of the characters maintained their selfness (some were combined a bit) and the film was made into something accessible and good. I think EarthSea would have benifitted from the same hand.

      However, they did not actually get Boyens to do the script. They apparently got someone with less interest in keeping the books together. Granted it may have been a difficult task given the short time allotted to the miniseries (two, two hour tv shows) but the script was shoddy, unimaginitive and lead to some pretty dull performances by the actors.

      I can't remember where I read this, but I'm quite sure she has read LOTR and appreciates it. I'm happy to see her piece on slate disparaging the mini-series. I enjoyed the nastalgia of remembering scenes I had last read 10 years ago, but the series was boring, didn't really hold together and dropped central themes of the book on the floor.

      Danny Glover almost made it pleasant to watch, but he wasn't around nearly enough.

    10. Re:She must be kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Oh, come on! Marking the parent post as Flamebait!? It's not flamebait it's truth. To start with the movie completely massacres the personality and character traits of the characters in the book of which their supposed to represent. What? Aragorn? In the book he was prepared to be king of Gondor since his younger days by Elrond's family and knew who and what his place was in the world. Yet, interestingly, he was not someone who placed himself above others. In the movie Aragorn is... afraid to be king? What? He's unsure of his place in the world? Hmm, how about Arwen next... let alone it was Glorfindel who shows up in the book and not her. Oh, and what is with the 'as Sauron's power grows Arwen is dies' thing? How the hell is she connected to Sauron? She doesn't even have a ring of power like daddy! That NOT in the book and a major change.

      I could go on of course but there are sites out there to find more. Don't get me wrong the movies were great and I have them but I view them as something completely unrelated to the book and view the place and character names as mere "coincidence" that they share with the book names.

      Flame bait? The original poster should be given at least "Interesting".

      My 2 "Yankee Trader" the BBS door games' credits!
      (Which I spent on the Galactic Lotto at Earth port of which I own) ;-)

    11. Re:She must be kidding by dclydew · · Score: 1

      Movies are Cliff Notes for people too lazy to read Cliff Notes. If someone wanats to read Earthsea, LoTR or what have you, then they can get the same fantastic story we've all read. If they are happy to be spoonfed visual entertainment with less than interesting plots, so be it.

      Noting replaces reading.

      --
      Get a life, not a lifestyle. - Hikem Bey
    12. Re:She must be kidding by aurelian · · Score: 1
      They were just bad movies almost saved by fantastic visuals.

      Completely agree. I couldn't understand why everyone was raving about these movies. And it's got nothing to do with being a Tolkien 'purist' or any such nonsense, because I think that, for example, the amplification of Arwen's character was an improvement. But almost all the other changes were to the detriment of the characters involved, notably towards the end of the story, when Faramir and Denethor were turned into one-dimensional and unbelievable caricatures.

    13. Re:She must be kidding by doorbender · · Score: 1

      as you may notice i left out a value judgement.

      I personally thoroughly enjoyed the movies. I also enjoyed the books. They both entertained me, kept my attention, and engaged my limited intellect.

      I was just seconding the observation that the movies and the books are quite different.

      The main diference between the Earthsea and LOTR screenplays is that We (sadly) do not have Tolkien to ask how he liked the film rendition, and the director did not claim Tolkien spoke to him in a dream and said it was good.

      IF we had seen more of Cate and Liv then I would have to agree the movies improved on the books BUT as it is in thier own medium they are both worthy of consideration.

      --
      "He's a real midnight golfer"
    14. Re:She must be kidding by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      > Wow. I really think you are exagerrating just a
      > wee bit. No, the movies were not 100% the same as
      > the books. But seriously, they were really good as
      > far as movie conversions go.
      >
      > Your opinion is not the same as the Tolkien fans I
      > know, who all really liked the movies.

      Meet some more Tolkien fans. I'm a huge fan (I've even read the History of Middle Earth series from beginning to end) and the movies were crap. What a waste of celluloid.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    15. Re:She must be kidding by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Story-wise, I don't think so. They were visually almost perfect; stunning even, if that's not abusing a semi-colon.. But as a version of JRRT's story, and particularly characters, they were worthless.

      Characterizations were what I was thinking of. The most notable example was Grima, who in the books was an incredibly two-dimensional character, but who in the movies achieved some actual depth. Saruman in the books was also a little bit of a clown which didn't really work.

      Their toning down of the elflord thing was also a good move in my opinion, since it didn't really make too much sense that they sent out a bunch of hobbits instead of some of the higher level guys. And yes, I remember the justification, but it was clumsy and unconvincing.

    16. Re:She must be kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you missed the part where she indicated she knew that because of the differences in media that certain changes would be made.

      With regard to LotR she may have been simply more accepting of the changes that were made, not seeing them as harming the integrity of the story, regardless of your opinion and in contrast with what she felt was done with EarthSea.

      Misery the book and Misery the movie are different, but I'd hardly qualify the changes as being for other than (a) necessary reason--unless you thought the actual in novel 'Misery' scenes were going to be in the movie and (b) supporting the portrayal of personality--say with the Liberace fascination to show how off track Annie was.

    17. Re:She must be kidding by vidarh · · Score: 1
      I'm not sure I agree with you about the changes to the FotR storyline, though I'm a bit ambivalent about the movie - on one hand it did give me a new appreciation for parts of the books, on the other hand they were sufficiently different not to really satisfy me.

      As for the Wizard of Earthsea I really don't think it would translate well to a movie "more or less as written" - the story is too "simple", and so much is driven by Le Guin's descriptions, which is a problem because it would often translate into very visually heavy scenes that should convey much but probably won't because the viewer of a movie won't get time to digest them unless you "fill in" material outside the plot to give you an excuse to spend more time on the visuals without boring the viewer.

      It was a problem for LoTR as well, though in that case compounded because of the many digressions that are hard to weave into a visual retelling of the story without massively confusing the viewer, that resulted in some scenes having to be pushed aside to give enough time for the scenes that are important to the main plot.

      The worst part about Earthsea isn't that they've changed the plot, but that they appear to have done lots of changes that have no reasons grounded in the story. Changing the colour of the characters for instance, can hardly be anything but a result of spineless writers and marketing people (if I want to be nice) or racism (if I want to be cynical about it). Other changes sounds like they are entirely ratings driven as opposed to driven by a need to fill in or translate the story into a form that works on the screen.

    18. Re:She must be kidding by nagora · · Score: 1
      but the themes were left in tact, most of the characters maintained their selfness

      I think you need to read the book again. Frodo's development was totally undermined by the changes, none of which made the film any more watchable.

      The changes to Elrod, Aragorn and Arwen were totally awful, and the break-dancing wizards scene will haunt me for the rest of my life as bad film-making at it's worst.

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    19. Re:She must be kidding by nagora · · Score: 1
      The most notable example was Grima, who in the books was an incredibly two-dimensional character, but who in the movies achieved some actual depth.

      Well, Grima...you know. He's a great character but totally unrealistic. He would have had an "accident" years ago. So I'm ambivilent. I would have loved to have seen the sequence from "Unfinished Tales" where the Lord of the Nazgul meets Grima on the road to Isengard. And the following bit where a very worried Saruman manages to get the Lord to go away using his voice through the gateway of Orthanc.

      Anyway, Frodo is the main character and was relly badly done by in the script. Almost as badly done by as the poor old Balrog, who ends up saving them all from certain death. Sheesh!

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    20. Re:She must be kidding by Pxtl · · Score: 1

      I don't find that you're being fair - I think Fellowship and Return were both very well done - they cut out the pieces they had to, brought in the Arwen side-plot to dilute the story with a little romance (necessary to diversify appeal). The Arwen plot _is_ Tolkein - its all from his appendices. My real problem was threefold:
      1: they positively butchered The Two Towers, removing everything but Rohan vs. Orcs, even adding new battles to fill it out, and the friggin elves at helms' deep.
      2: Jar Jar Gimly. My fave character is now comic releif.
      3: The total death of the subtlety of magic. Saruman's powers of manipulation and cunning are replaced by brute force of magic and mind-control. This is best illustrated in TTT, where in the book King Theoden frees himself from Wormtongue's power with a stirring pep-talk from Gandalf, while in the movie its a dramatic magical exorcism. The same at Orthanc, where Saruman defeats Gandalf in a battle of wills, instead a battle of old-guys-flying-around-the-room.

      Still, otherwise I found it to be an excellent adaptation. The cast was exceptional, the writing fairly faithful, and the movie was well made. Asking for better is just being unrealistic - so far only Tolkein and Harry Potter are the only fantasy/sci fi that have gotten decent adaptations from Hollywood. Remember, you could have gotten LXG or Aliens Vs. Predator.

    21. Re:She must be kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhhh... perhaps you should clarify, nothing replaces the original media. There are plenty of horrendous books based on great movies, great games, great tv., etc. Reading is nice. Other media formats are also nice.

    22. Re:She must be kidding by stanmann · · Score: 1

      WHile some of us would have prefered to see a real wizard's duel with the two of them standing and doing nothing for 15 minutes, it isn't good movie making.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    23. Re:She must be kidding by Spyky · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if this is what the original poster was getting at, I think the movies did improve upon LOTR in the sense that they became more accessible to a wider audience. I know lots of people who could never get past 100 pages in FOTR, yet loved the movies. People such as myself, who have read LOTR 10+ times also found the movies highly enjoyable, if not actually 'better' than the books.

      -Spyky

    24. Re:She must be kidding by pla · · Score: 1

      Your opinion is not the same as the Tolkien fans I know, who all really liked the movies.

      Well, as another Tolkien fan, I'll add my voice of dissent - The movies really didn't come out very good.

      Not unwatchably not-very-good... On its own merits, I thought it made a decent (not good, decent) set of movies (though #2 dragged quite a bit). But in terms of supposedly making LotR into a movie? No.

      My biggest problem involves having made up new crap... Making up the whole "Annoying Multiple-Personality Gollum" that had only the faintest resemblance to the "real" Gollum. Making up female roles for the sake of eye-candy (beyond Eowyn killing the Nazgul king, and one scene with Galadriel and Frodo, the original simply had no women. And Arwen? Hey, I like looking at Liv Tyler as much as the next guy, but Arwen existed only as a plot device for Aragorn in the books). And what the hell did they have in mind when scripting Jar-Jar Gimli?

      I can forgive needing to chop material out. I can forgive some rewriting of less critical scenes to maintain continuity in light of chopping some material out. But when you need to chop material out, don't insult the (real) author and the audience by adding entirely new material.

    25. Re:She must be kidding by nagora · · Score: 1
      WHile some of us would have prefered to see a real wizard's duel with the two of them standing and doing nothing for 15 minutes, it isn't good movie making.

      The Bakshi version got this bit right: lighting, voices, and music for about 15 seconds carried the idea of great wills struggling against each other "behind the scenes" quite well. And he didn't have the continuity error of Gandalf's staff either.

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    26. Re:She must be kidding by Derkec · · Score: 1

      Frodo's development in the Fellowship? Sure, they dropped a couple decades, but whenever I read the books I read Frodo has been fundementally young anyway. What changes there do you see as tragic to the story?

      The fighting wizards was fine. It conveyed the basic message of a duel between wizards where Saruman was the stronger. I would have loved to see the ringmaker, the wizard of many colors etc. The lack of character development on Saruman was more painful to me than the Elrond or Arwen.

    27. Re:She must be kidding by Daniel · · Score: 1

      Compared to what happened to the Earthsea books, the adaptation of LOTR was incredibly well-done. I can't say I liked every choice made by the producers, but I could at least tell I was watching something more-or-less based on Tolkien's story. The Earthsea miniseries had a few names and a few scenes from the books, and even those were often wrong. (true names switched for use-names, Orm Embar substituted for Yevaud, etc)

      Daniel

      --
      Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
    28. Re:She must be kidding by mausmalone · · Score: 1

      Well, keep in mind that the "butchering" of FOTR you speak of is pretty subjective. I've read the books multiple times, and when I saw the movie, I though it was a pretty good adaptation. There were differences, but the characters were mostly what I expected and I had a good time. It's not that the script writers didn't "understand" the characters, it's that they don't have the same take on them that you do. (Though they seemed to have a similar take on them as I do.)

      And about her being "just as guilty,"... for what? Is this about FOTR or Earthsea? As far as Earthsea goes, she can't really be that guilty, as the producers were pretty closed minded to her requests and yet they claimed to know her intentions (which is the main complaint, as far as I can tell).

      See, the problem with arguing whether or not somebody "gets" the LOTR series is pretty useless. Unlike Le Guin, Tolkein is dead, and we're not going to get an authoritative answer on our interpretations.

      --
      -=-=-=-=-=
      I'd rather be flamed than ignored.
    29. Re:She must be kidding by nagora · · Score: 1
      What changes there do you see as tragic to the story?

      Very quickly, as I'm off out: Frodo makes an arse of himself in the book and nearly gets killed. By the time of the ford the reader should be doubting Gandalf's choice; certainly the other characters should be. Suddenly, he's alone, separated from the other travellers and finds himself facing the Nazgul, led by the dread Lord himself, with no one to save him, no Aragorn, no Gandalf, no one. And he defies them. Alone against the pwoer of Sauron's agaents and the calling of the Ring for its master he faces them down and refuses their bidding. He comes through and is vindicated.

      In the film, he's rescued. Bah!

      In the book Frodo makes the choice to split off from the Fellowship on his own, without council. He is able to face his fate after Boromir's attack and do what he know he has to, no matter how hard.

      In the film, he asks Aragorn if it's okay. Double bah!!

      Got to go sorry about the typing.

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    30. Re:She must be kidding by C0deM0nkey · · Score: 1
      I could go on of course but there are sites out there to find more.

      Check out the Movie-Goer's Guides at The Encyclopedia of Arda for an excellent treatment of the differences between the books and the movies.

    31. Re:She must be kidding by Derkec · · Score: 1

      Sure, he may ask for permission or whatever, but he still has the balls to go off, by himself, into hell. That fundemental toughness comes through.

      The lack of standing for himself at the ford is sad. But he was still rescued in the book. He stood against the 9, they decided to come get him and Elrond \ Gandalf sent the flood to bale him out.

      The character development did suffer in the movies. It had to. They could have chopped out half of Helm's deep and got better development in, but other than that, it was rough going trying to develop a dozen decent characters. That said, in my mind the only really offensive deviation was the field trip to Osgilith.

      I'd love better Saruman. I'd love to see Arwen pushed to the background (real bad film making there) and I'd really love to see the scouring of the shire. A better portrayal of the nature of Tolkien's evil and the lesson that one still needs to tend to their own homes were important themes.

      The theme of the average guy sucking it up and doing what must be done was carried through by Frodo and Sam trecking alone in Mordor. Frodo's bravery in going it alone, on his own accord and Sam's steadfast loyalty to run him down and join him when it would have been exceptionally easy to take the safer road.

    32. Re:She must be kidding by stanmann · · Score: 1

      I didn't catch any continuity errors with the staff. Gandalf lost the wood one in moria against the balrog and recieved the white one from/with galadriel.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    33. Re:She must be kidding by bbc · · Score: 1

      The Lord of the Ring films were dramatized movies based on an English translation (thousands of years after the fact!) of a Westron propaganda pamphlet about the War of the Ring. Unless they had somehow uncovered a box of Elvish and Orcish accounts of the War, Peter Jackson and his team have always stood a snowball's chance in hell of creating an accurate depiction of the event. I don't think it is fair you blame him.

    34. Re:She must be kidding by Thuktun · · Score: 1

      However, the gratuitous changes to the storyline, key plot elements, and key characterizations were totally unnecessary and unforgivable.

      I could have forgiven the rest if they had not tried to shoehorn Arwen into the action at every opportunity.

      Well, that and the way they changed the decision of the Entmoot and made Treebeard thick-headed.

    35. Re:She must be kidding by nagora · · Score: 1
      I didn't catch any continuity errors with the staff.

      I'm pretty sure (although I've only seen the film once) that he didn't have it when banished to the top of Orthanc then he did have it when he was rescued.

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    36. Re:She must be kidding by RapmasterT · · Score: 1

      I agree. Unless you read Sauron's diaries of the time, you're only getting one side. In reality, he only wanted rights to water his cattle on elven land, and practice his oft misunderstood religion of polygamy.

    37. Re:She must be kidding by dcam · · Score: 1

      The movies were different from the feel of the book.

      The movies were as much about internal conflict (generally manufactured: Sam & Frodo, Faramir, Theodun & Gandalf over Helms deep etc) as they were about conflicts with an external foe. The books were about fighting an enormously powerful enemy, there was no need for internal conflict to heighten tension. The effect of this was to weaken the characters.

      --
      meh
    38. Re:She must be kidding by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      A lot of what was cut for the first film was the stuff Tolkien wrote early, before he decided what the main point of the books would be (Bombadil, Old man Willow, the Barrowdowns). In various letters, Tolkien himself 'admitted' he left in some parts extranious to the main plot, knew this was placing obstacles in front of the readers, and only hoped the readers would find them entertaining enough to overlook their nature as padding. He himself described his goals in leaving these early bits in as incorporating tip of the hat references to various medeval works, i.e. references to the Old Thomas the Rhymer type stories and Jack fairytales, not as supporting the main story. It's not a statistical coincidence that most people who drop the LOTR unfinished do so before Frodo meets Strider in chapter 10.
      I don't know if this makes the films better than the books. I doubt that - but it may mean that the films don't essentially demand you go read a number of early works from Beowulf to the Song of Roland to make full sense out of them.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    39. Re:She must be kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod this up. Just because some of you useless fanboys can't handle the criticism doesn't make it wrong. Those movies are a pale imitation of the books and contain too many changes for the sake of marketing or giving certain people screen-time.

      What a fucking joke.

  7. Legend of Earthsea by Scott7477 · · Score: 2

    Le Guin's work is one of the greatest in fantasy writing, comparable to Tolkien in my opinion. That said, expecting a TV/movie adaptation of any book to compare favorably to the written work itself is unrealistic. Peter Jackson's LOTR was a masterpiece and by definition masterpieces are rare. I am not going to watch this Earthsea product; I don't want to mess with my memories of reading the series.

    --
    "Lack of technical competence coupled with the arrogance of power, as usual, leads to no good end."
    1. Re:Legend of Earthsea by Tassach · · Score: 1
      Peter Jackson's LOTR was a masterpiece
      As films, taken on their own, they are masterpieces. Taken as adaptations of the books, they suck. Certianly, some changes have to be made when going from the printed page to the screen -- non-verbal dialog has to be verbalized or conveyed in other ways, things have to be condensed, etc. However, these changes should not change the essential nature of the characters or of the story.

      Fellowship of the Ring found a (tolerably) good balance between what works on the printed page and what works on the silver screen -- replacing Glorfindel with Arwen made sense, and cutting Tom Bombadil makes sense as well. The changes were understandable and didn't severely impact the overall plot (although the loss of the barrow-wight scene was an important character development event)

      The Two Towers, on the other hand, just sucked as an adaptation. For example, the whole trip from Edoras to Helm's Deep was not in the books -- that's ~20 minutes of screen time and a gratutitious battle scene that was pulled straight out of Jackson's ass. Even more distrubing was the changes to Faramir's character. The WHOLE POINT of the encounter with Faramir was that HE WAS NOT TEMPTED BY THE RING AT ALL, that he passed the test his brother failed.

      Return of the King also completely missed the point of a couple of key plot elements (EG the Path of the Dead). The omission of the Scouring of the Shire also misses one of Tolkien's most important messages: that war affects everyone, even people far away from the front lines, and that it dramatically changes the people who take part in it (The 4 hobbits are VERY different people when they get back compared to when they left).

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    2. Re:Legend of Earthsea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go ahead and watch it. Your memory can't be that great if you think Jackson's LOTR was a masterpiece. Just how many discrepancies and alterations were made to the story to give certain people screen-time or involve them in the story so they could bill the actor's name in the commercials? Read the books again, and try to pay attention this time.

  8. "highly critical blurb" by XCorvis · · Score: 4, Informative

    Text from her website...

    "Earthsea"
    11/13/2004

    "Miss Le Guin was not involved in the development of the material or the making of the film, but we've been very, very honest to the books," explains director Rob Lieberman. "We've tried to capture all the levels of spiritualism, emotional content and metaphorical messages. Throughout the whole piece, I saw it as having 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, and that's what Ursula intended to make a statement about. The only thing that saves this Earthsea universe is the union of those two beliefs."

    Sci Fi Magazine
    December 2004

    I've tried very hard to keep from saying anything at all about this production, being well aware that movies must differ in many ways from the books they're based on, and feeling that I really had no business talking about it, since I was not included in planning it and was given no part in discussions or decisions.

    That makes it particularly galling of the director to put words in my mouth.

    Mr Lieberman has every right to say what his intentions were in making the film he directed, called "Earthsea." He has no right at all to state what I intended in writing the Earthsea books.

    Had "Miss Le Guin" been honestly asked to be involved in the planning of the film, she might have discussed with the film-makers what the books are about.

    When I tried to suggest the unwisdom of making radical changes to characters, events, and relationships which have been familiar to hundreds of thousands of readers all over the world for over thirty years, I was sent a copy of the script and informed that production was already under way.

    So, for the record: there is no statement in the books, nor did I ever intend to make a statement, about "the union of two belief systems." There's nothing at all about the "duality of spirituality and paganism," whatever that means, either.

    Earlier in the article, Robert Halmi is quoted as saying that Earthsea "has people who believe and people who do not believe." I can only admire Mr Halmi's imagination, but I wish he'd left mine alone.

    In the books, 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.

    This has absolutely nothing to do with "people who believe and people who do not believe." That terrible division into Believers and Unbelievers (itself a matter not of reason but of belief) is one which bedevils Christianity and Islam and drives their wars.

    But the wizards of Earthsea would look on such wars as madness, and the dragons of Earthsea would laugh at them and fly away...

    Toto, something tells me Earthsea isn't Iraq.

    I wonder if the people who made the film of The Lord of the Rings had ended it with Frodo putting on the Ring and ruling happily ever after, and then claimed that that was what Tolkien "intended..." would people think they'd been "very, very honest to the books"?

    Ursula K. Le Guin
    13 November 2004

    1. Re:"highly critical blurb" by John+Harrison · · Score: 1

      I wonder what she got paid for the movie rights and if she signed away all creative control...

    2. Re:"highly critical blurb" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She must have.

      But she says in her response that she's commenting because the producer made a statement about the series being true to her books and what they mean which she felt were far off the mark.

    3. Re:"highly critical blurb" by aminorex · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "the lathe of heaven" was a horrible, horrible movie, but it was very true to the book, which was wonderful. m. le guin was deeply involved in producing that pathetic monstrosity. the skills of authors and filmmakers scarcely overlap.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    4. Re:"highly critical blurb" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To me, the point is: why purchase a property if one is not intending to be true to that property? "Starship Troopers" the movie didn't need to be called "Starship Troopers", as it had very, very little to do with the books of the same name... even the "troopers" had totally different equipment. This "Earthsea" started off on the wrong foot: noone in the books uses their true name, because it gives power to others when they know that name. So, Ged is "Sparrowhawk". Things go downhill from there.
      Sci-Fi should have developed their own series with a new name and say "based loosely on the world of _A Wizard of Earthsea_".

    5. Re:"highly critical blurb" by John+Harrison · · Score: 1

      Ursula has lived long enough to know that a contract is a contract and any pretty side promises are useless. To me, the point is: she was happy to take their money. She is also free to whine about the end product, but readers should note that she is whining all the way to the bank.

    6. Re:"highly critical blurb" by cpeterso · · Score: 2, 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..

    7. Re:"highly critical blurb" by sakeneko · · Score: 1

      I haven't seen the series. Having read what Ms. Le Guin thinks of it, though, I won't bother. I first read the first Earthsea books when they were just being published, when I was in junior high school. I've lost count how many times I've read them since.

      I wouldn't want to watch a mockery of them. I certainly don't want to watch something that hasn't even got the integrity to mock. :/

      It's a shame. The Earthsea books are among the great fantasy books of the last century, perhaps not quite a match for "Lord of the Rings" or Michael Ende's "Neverending Story", but absolutely in the same class as Roger Zelazny's Amber series and Lewis's "Chronicles of Narnia". They deserved better treatment from moviemakers. *We* deserved better treatment, as well.

      If it makes Le Guin feel better, I doubt that the SciFi channel did any worse a number on the Earthsea trilogy than whoever it was that made the movie version of the Neverending Story.

  9. Re:Okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And it's not our fault that you don't recognize a quite famous author and have not read her works.

  10. SCI-FI is the most consistently disappointing TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Constant mediocrity, pedestrian intellect, and growing roster of pseudo-science crap.

  11. Re:Okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jesus. Are you helpless? Can you not grok the basics of doing a Google search?

  12. Quityerbitchin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    At least it didn't have Will Smith in it!

    (Name Withheld)

    1. Re:Quityerbitchin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it did, she'd have one less character's ethnicity to complain about.

    2. Re:Quityerbitchin by Glog · · Score: 1

      Actually Will Smith would have done a great job in the movie as Ged. The guy can act and be serious if he wants to. He would also have fit in with LeGuin's "color scheme" (her words).

    3. Re:Quityerbitchin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's too old and physically imposing. The mini-series was going for a comming of age wizard not "if this spell fails I can still kick your ass."

    4. Re:Quityerbitchin by Glog · · Score: 1

      The mini-series means nothing to me. I grew up reading the "Earthsea" cycle and they completely butchered it in this adaptation. I think just about anything else would have been better than what they did. You should really quit referring to the Sci-Fi channel mini-series as a classic. It's not.

  13. "McMagic" by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 0, Funny

    I hereby dub the fantastic term "McMagic" to be the official description of any Hollywood attempts at fantasy. Freakin' great.

    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."
  14. Since when by topham · · Score: 3, Insightful


    Since when does the Authors opinion count!?

    One of my sisters likes telling the store of how they had discussed a book in class in great detail. The teacher going to great depths about how the story originated, etc. Later the teacher was able to get the author of the story to appear before the class, where she dismissed every 'insight' into the story as being completely wrong and misinformed.

    1. Re:Since when by GoofyBoy · · Score: 3, Funny

      I had that same thing happen in my high school.

      One author was invited to speak to my English class and he talked about how people will read things into his writing that he never considered and about how a reviewer once make a comparison between his story and and King Lear. He had never even read King Lear.

      At that point one of the English teachers in the back, who had invited him to speak, yelled "Don't listen to him!"

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    2. Re:Since when by sconeu · · Score: 1

      This happened in the Rodney Dangerfield movie "Back to School". Dangerfield's character hires Kurt Vonnegut to write an essay on one of Vonnegut's novels. The professor gives Dangerfield an "F", saying he (Dangerfield/Vonnegut) had no clue what Vonnegut was talking about.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    3. Re:Since when by sphealey · · Score: 4, Interesting
      This happened in the Rodney Dangerfield movie "Back to School". Dangerfield's character hires Kurt Vonnegut to write an essay on one of Vonnegut's novels. The professor gives Dangerfield an "F", saying he (Dangerfield/Vonnegut) had no clue what Vonnegut was talking about.
      OTOH, Isaac Asimov had essentially the same thing happen to him (slipped in to a lecture hall where his books were being discussed), and the conclusion he came to was that he probably didn't understand the meaning of his own work. Which, given his self-described arrogance, was a very interesting thing for him to say.

      sPh

    4. Re:Since when by welloy · · Score: 1
      I always thought these assignments were interesting but worded incorrectly. That always annoyed me. The prof does not care for you to explain what the author thought or cared about, but rather to intelligently make connections between the work and the rest of the (literary and real) world. Couching this assignment in the notion that you are looking for specific stuff that the author came up with i think makes the grading seem less subjective.

      Analyzing a work for "the authors intent" is really just short hand for "think about this work deeply and write up what you think is interesting".

    5. Re:Since when by NMerriam · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We first had this discussion in an English class when reading Huck Finn (if you recall, Mark Twain says in the introduction specifically that you shouldn't read any meaning into the story, blah, blah).

      So of course we all said that we shouldn't be reading into the story, the author specifically said not to!

      Years later, as an artist, I can honestly say that yes, 85% of the stuff people "read into" my work is totally random and stupid (or optimistic on their part). But the other 15% is either outright correct or something that rings very true even though I hadn't intended it.

      So much of the creative process is subconscious that I have to grudgingly agree with my old English teacher that the author doesn't always realize (or even recognize!) all of the things they put into a work.

      So even when an author says "I didn't mean to represent X as Y", it doesn't make it any less true that X is represented as Y, or that it tells us something about the story, the author, or the characters. it just means the author didn't intend it consciously (or wants to disavow it after the fact).

      But of course, 85% of the theories are still utter crap.

      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
    6. Re:Since when by Monkelectric · · Score: 1

      Eh yes and no... I write music which is sort of the same as books but, in a 3 - 5 minute format :) People hear what they WANT to hear in music. And it can't be any different then books.

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    7. Re:Since when by Vinnie_333 · · Score: 1
      This happens to authors, movie directors, musicians, etc... Almost every artist whose work is considered a great insightful masterpeice either dismiss all the "insight" in their work or, if they want to be thought of as a genius, just don't comment on it publically.

      Once you unleash your creation on the world, you lose control of it. Period! It is not possible to control how someone else interperts your work. That's why I'm retaining ALL creative control of my novel ... by never writing it. That way, it can't be misinterpreted by the masses.

      --

      "We shall party like the Greeks of old! You know the ones I mean." - HedonismBot
    8. Re:Since when by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the idea that the meaning of a work is what was concieved by the author was popularized by the romantics. Paralel ideas include that the meaning lies within the reader (and thus each meaning is different), the meaning lies within the words (and thus there is only one), and the greek idea that the meaning is in the sounds and cannot be encapsulated in writing.

      I, however, was more interested by the fact that your daughter's teacher can get the author of a book to talk to the class. That is incredible.

    9. Re:Since when by vidarh · · Score: 1
      Hearing what you want is fine. Feeling or interpreting a written word the way you want is fine.

      What always pisses me off is when people try to take THEIR intepretation of a work and try to pass it off as the authors intent. It is arrogant, disrespectful, and it is usually an attempt of lending authority to their particular interpretation without having to provide any proper justification.

      I don't mind teachers etc. getting people to think about how a work can be interpreted or considering alternative interpretations from the authors, but they should be bloody careful about assuming they have a clue about what the author intended just from the work, because without a direct statement from the author about it they are likely to be guessing and likely to be completely wrong.

      In fact, I think it would have been a very useful excercise in interpreting literature to first discuss the work and then introduce a text from the authors explaining what was intended, and try to figure out why the members of the group have come up with wildly different interpretations from the author. I think that would teach people a lot about how quickly the assumptions that people make when communicating break down horribly...

    10. Re:Since when by parmenio · · Score: 1

      The author's opinion is about as valid as anyone else's as long as they RESPECT THE TEXT. The point here is not that LeGuin's vision is distorted... The text iself is distorted to send a different message (one the producers of the series are forcing upon it). A work of literature stands alone bound by rules set out in the text. It says what it says, not what the author or anyone else claims it says. This is one of the problems with literary criticism. The forcing of a social or political framework upon a text that won't support it in order to further an agenda outside the literary. The producers, as LeGuin correctly points out, are feeding off the LoTR/Harry Potter magic craze with a dose of sex. Very sad indeed.

    11. Re:Since when by westlake · · Score: 1

      I am reminded of a short, but memorable, quote from an essay on mystery fiction: "The author is the last to know."

    12. Re:Since when by cHALiTO · · Score: 1

      That's why they say that a book has as many ways to interpret it as it has readers. That's great about books (or pretty much any work of the kind), anyone can interpret it and understand or think up different meanings in them.
      This is not (if I understand corectly) what LeGuin is complaining about. The problem here is that the producers not only -really- changed lots of stuff (going beyond any reasonable concept of 'interpretation'), but they claim that to be the authors intended original meaning.

      and that's what Ursula intended to make a statement about

      That's where they totally fscked up.

      --
      "Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
    13. Re:Since when by bigpat · · Score: 1

      analysing a book is like divining entrails. You can read whatever meaning you like into it, but once you start picking it apart you will lose its original purpose.

    14. Re:Since when by Ubergrendle · · Score: 1

      I wish I could remember whom to attribute this quote, but a study of literature -- any literature -- starts with a basic premise. "Trust the word, not the author." I'd guess Northrope Frye offhand...

      I'll offer a very Slashdot-relevant example: Tolkien argued that his works were not allegorical in nature. However, the most basic and straightforward interpretation of LOTR would allow for the following: it is a 'romantic' lament on the decline of Merrie england in the face of industrialisation. Whether Tolkien had this as his primary focus or not is irrelevant -- that THEME is present in his work, whether intentional or not.

      Authors are artists, and artists are never to be trusted. They purpose is to create; their audience's purpose is to ascribe value to their work (if at all). Whether the artist is aware of their contributions is irrelevant. (note: don't tell the MPAA/RIAA this)

      --
      John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
    15. Re:Since when by KDan · · Score: 1

      And he said it in an interesting way. The conclusion I came to after reading that particular anecdote (and being an amateur writer it affects me too) was that the meaning of your story is in the mind of the reader. Once you've written your story, it slips out of your control and you have no determination as to its "meaning" anymore. This is actually one of the things that make great masterpieces so lasting - each person reads their own meaning into them.

      Daniel

      --
      Carpe Diem
    16. Re:Since when by amerinese · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Good point. But let's be specific in this case.

      Le Guin wrote a sci-fi series that was intended to complexify and breakdown the super-whiteness of sci-fi and fantasy, i.e. LOTRs, Vampires, etc. Look, I liked LOTRs but it got a little creepy how white everyone was, and how the only slightly non-white, Arab/African looking guys are bad guys. Le Guin knows she achieved her intended effect because people write to her telling her it did.

      So big media wants to turn this written work into a widely viewed video work. Because they believe in the racism of the general public, they commit a racist act themselves (of course they may claim so only to deflect the accusations of racism to others). The theoretical discussion about authorial intent versus thematics is interesting but besides the point--what "unrealized" or "unintended" insights were brought into the film by white-washing it? That's the point.

    17. Re:Since when by EatAtJoes · · Score: 1
      So much of the creative process is subconscious that I have to grudgingly agree with my old English teacher that the author doesn't always realize (or even recognize!) all of the things they put into a work.

      ...But of course, 85% of the theories are still utter crap.

      I don't think it's ever necessary to genuflect to the author when interpreting a work; it's almost the judge of a good work that it can live on it's own. The whole thrust of deconstructionists was that indeed every structure of meaning in a work will have the seeds of it's own destruction.

      The author's story about their work is can be fascinating, but sometimes can ruin it too. Tolkein hated interpretations of his work that tied the ring to the bomb or whatever; that doesn't mean that LOTR doesn't have a powerful message about power and even technology.

      It can go the other way, too: LOTR's overwhelmingly white-supremacist orientation could say loads about Tolkein's beliefs. Or not, though: for me, the race angle is THE most fascinating thing about LeGuin's complaints about the series, but it's probably, ultimately, not why the series sucks a$$.

    18. Re:Since when by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recall being puzzled a bit by the concept of interpreting music. I primarily listen to music for its emotional effect and care rather little about trying to ascribe to it any 'meaning' whatsoever. I suppose if I listened to music with vocals I could attempt to find various meanings in the lyrics but that seems distinct from interpreting the music itself, which I just treat as abstract emotional manipulation.
      Then I recall listening to an expert on music history speak about all of the meaning of various pieces that I had listened to probably over a thousand times. I was really quite baffled by how he could come to these conclusions in the absence of any written intent from the authors.

    19. Re:Since when by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 1
      Mark Twain says in the introduction specifically that you shouldn't read any meaning into the story

      Wasn't that the one where he states something like:

      Those looking for meaning, will be disappointed.
      Those looking for a plot... will be shot.

      --

      They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
    20. Re:Since when by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1
      Of course the primary motivation for the statement "Since when does the Authors opinion count!?" is to allow practitioners of lit crit to justify their own existence. For them to continue their tenures it is essential to propagate the myth that they can be correct about the author's intentions even in the face of denials by the author. And as these people obviously have a monopoly on the teaching of lit crit it's not surprising that they have succeeded in brainwashing their students into believing them.

      This is not to say that the statement is entirely without merit. It's quite clear, for example, that an author writing in a particular culture at a particular time is probably going to be saying a lot about that culture, esepcially when read by readers in a different time and place. Their work is likely to be highly colored by the values and mores of the day, even if the author didn't deliberately set out to represent these things. But there's no mystery here, no need even to invoke the word 'subconscious' (because using the word 'subconscious' suggests that when a 21st century mystery writer, say, sets out to write a mystery novel, that 'deep down' there's a part of their brain that's saying 'we must sneak some covert references to 21st century values into this story', and there's clearly no need for such a hypothesis.)

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    21. Re:Since when by Mastoid · · Score: 2, Informative

      90%. See Sturgeon's Law.

      --
      I had an argument...with the person here at the university that teaches OS design. I wonder when I'll learn --Linus
    22. Re:Since when by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would say that the author's word is the final answer on what they meant. What you want something to mean is between you and your book.

    23. Re:Since when by Rimbo · · Score: 1

      OTOH, Isaac Asimov had essentially the same thing happen to him (slipped in to a lecture hall where his books were being discussed), and the conclusion he came to was that he probably didn't understand the meaning of his own work. Which, given his self-described arrogance, was a very interesting thing for him to say.

      I wonder if this happened before or after Asimov wrote the short story, "The Immortal Bard," where a scientist uses a time machine to drag Shakespeare from the past and enroll him into a course on Shakespearean literature... only to earn a failing grade.

    24. Re:Since when by Phanatic1a · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But that's *supposed* to happen. A hallmark of truly great art is that the reader can take things away from it that the author never put *into* it, apply it to situations which the author never even considered, and so forth.

      Shakespeare almost certainly never put the consideration into almost every one of his lines that modern students study them with, but that's just an indication of the far-reaching and timeless nature of his work. "How should we stretch our eye when capital crimes, chewed swallowed and digested appear before us" was certainly not written with, say, lethal injection in mind, as a discourse of the death penalty as applied in modern societies, but the greatness of that scene in Henry V is that we can *use* it to gain insights into situations unenvisioned by the author.

      What an artist intends is pretty much secondary to what audiences perceive. If the artist doesn't like it, he can go screw himself.

    25. Re:Since when by fritter · · Score: 1

      So even when an author says "I didn't mean to represent X as Y", it doesn't make it any less true that X is represented as Y, or that it tells us something about the story, the author, or the characters. it just means the author didn't intend it consciously (or wants to disavow it after the fact).

      And I think more importantly, I've always felt that it doesn't matter whether or not the author meant to put some meaning or another into a work, but whether or not you got meaning out of that work. It's not important whether or not the book you're reading or movie you're watching is trying to make a point about an issue or philosophy, it is important whether or not you were inspired, whether you took something away and see things in a different light. If you think Herman Melville was making a commentary on America's foriegn policy and its effects on the 2002 Olympic figure skating scandal, well, you probably aren't right, but the value comes from the fact that you've used a piece of art to gain another perspective on things.

    26. Re:Since when by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      That incident was precisely why he wrote that story. He mentions it in one of his collections.

    27. Re:Since when by kfg · · Score: 1

      As a minor composer and art photographer who has done both in an academic setting I have had occasion to hear my works "interpreted."

      The one that comes most to mind is a photo I took of some broken glass lying on a stone floor beside the window it formerly comprised.

      I put the camera on the floor at the level of the glass and shot toward the window. The end result looks something like a fantasy spiral galaxy shot edge on, only with deep black underneath and bright white above caused by exposing for the glass while shooting from a shadowed interior slate floor toward daylight.

      I've heard all sorts of interpretations of what I was trying to "say" with this picture, from Taoist/Buddhist philosophy to Jungian symbolism.

      The thing is, I know damned well that the only thing in the artist's mind, subconcious as well as concious, at the time the picture was taken was, "Oooooooooooo, shiney!"

      Where do these interpretations come from?

      The same place alien abductions and fairies in the garden come from. Purely from the mind of the observer. They're made up fantasies, but fantasies you can get a doctorate for describing.

      KFG

    28. Re:Since when by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, "If you think Little Red Riding Hood wore a blue cape, your WRONG!" (from Matt Young's book "No Sense of Obligation, it's not very good) The point is, just as in the matrix, some rules you can only bend. You can argue that LeGuin is actually a racist for making this book, and that she inserted a white 'ethos' into all her charecters, blah blah blah . . . . But you cannot argue all her charecters actually WERE white, when clearly they were not. I will listen to any interesting arguments, but not silly ones. By the way, the script writers were racist.

    29. Re:Since when by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      link to photo please?
      i suggest obsuscating the link slightly (to require editing) so you don't get slashdotted, or ask us to mirror it.

    30. Re:Since when by Daedala · · Score: 1

      The author's opinion of her work doesn't count, I agree. I have a looooong rant on the authorial fallacy somewhere around here.... On the other hand, the author's opinion of her own intent does. The director can say the stuff was really there; but saying that the author intentionally put it there, when she says she didn't, is pretty rude.

      --
      What I say does not represent the views of my employers, my friends, my cats, or myself.
    31. Re:Since when by Xylantiel · · Score: 1
      I think the reason people always get in deep water with Tolkien is that it is most broadly about Good vs. Evil. This means that the reader can take it and apply it to essentially any situation in which he sees this conflict and show parellels. Even when the reader's definition of Good and evil are slightly different from the Tolkien's.

      Him saying that they were not allegorical means exactly that. There may be common themes, but it was not intended as a direct allegory, and therefore the reader shouldn't try to draw too many parallels.

      A work which is highly insightful in the specific is often the best demonstration of generalities. When put in another context, this often leads to an apparent misinterpretation of the author's intent, when in reality it's just that the reader percieves the genarality differently.

    32. Re:Since when by divisionbyzero · · Score: 1

      I've just read a lot of replies to this message saying "interpretation is very subjective" and "it doesn't matter what the author intended". Bullshit. Think of the work of art as a "person" trying to communicate. Now, would you say that in a conversation with a person that your interpretation is very subjective or that it doesn't matter what the author was trying to say? Only if you're a solipsist.

      Art is more ambiguous than a conversation, mostly because we don't have the cues and context that we would need to disambiguate it, but that doesn't mean that the meaning can be whatever the viewer wants it to be. We can usually discern the author's intention, with a lot of hard work. Do we know for sure? Of course not. Is the author's intention or meaning the best interpretation of the work? Not necessarily. Maybe or maybe not. But it makes sense to try to figure it out. It's only courteous.

      In any case an interpretation has to be based on the work. It can't be just any old thing that pops into your head. There are better and worse interpretations, too. People who utter meaningless pseudo-intellectual statements like "it is totally subjective" or "the author's intention doesn't matter" usually do not want to do the hardwork to actually understand the art and that's fine, but don't trivialize the hard work of artists and those who put the hard work into trying to understand art.

      I should say that this is the norm. There are exceptions that play off of this norm. Works that are so ambiguous and so slapdash that they are utterly ambiguous and they were trivial for the artist to create, but the power of these works comes from the fact that they are playing against a millenia old tradition.

      People who trivialize interpretation by turning it into solipsism are just as bad as those "yes-sayers" that agree to every interpretation someone else proposes.

    33. Re:Since when by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a lot of critical theory on this issue. The basic idea is 1. the author sometimes puts things into a work that he or she isn't aware that he (or she) put into it, 2. that often the perceived meaning as it is incorporated into other literary responses is more important than the intended meaning ever was, 3. authors lie. (Yes, they do lie. See e.g. *The Anxiety of Influence*, which talks about one reason authors lie about what they "intended," though there are many other reasons - sometimes, e.g., an author lies about what he or she intended because he (or she) can't express that clearly enough for it not to be trivialized and misunderstood, etc.). No, LeGuin isn't lying: I don't think the intentional fallacy has a place in this discussion, though reception theory might.

    34. Re:Since when by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I second the other AC - linky linky please :)

      (Make it small if you want - I only want an idea of what the picture looks like - a thumbnail would do :)

    35. Re:Since when by Kreist · · Score: 1

      85% of what people "read into" any work is a simple reflection of themselves. 15% is actual enlightenment. Most authors are human (I leave this to "Most" as to not anger those who believe that some books where written by a god or gods). Being that they are human, they will also write in ways that either reflect upon themselves and/or in ways that they are not conscientiously aware of, but in both respects outside observers (much like a psychiatrist or psychologist) will be able to observe behaviors and decrypt symbols that the author had not knowingly created. An author may claim the meanings of certain things in a book and may claim that other things have no meaning, but it does not matter. The strength of an author is to convey exactly what he/she intends. It is like that of an actor. An author must convince you that this is a real story and these are the real facts and real messages. If an author fails at that then it is the weakness and fault of the author not the readers who may interpret it differently. I feel that once an author, like an artist, releases his/her work into the open public, he/she has no more control over its interpretations. Like a wild animal or child. The author of Earthsea signed the dotted line and received her check. It is wholly unprofessional of her to attack the director of the movie based on his interpretation of her work. She is in her right to disagree and dislike the movie but it should stop there. She should have cleared things up before she signed the contract and depositing their check.

    36. Re:Since when by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just a point about LOTR - the only reason the people are white, is because it was intended to be a type of beowulf for Britain, ie. a grand old myth for Europeans, but recreated in modern times.

      Europeans, as you may have noticed, are white. (I'm talking about the original groupings).

      If someone in Africe had decided to do the same, then not surprisingly, I would expect everyone to be black or brown, with different skin tones accorded to the foreign races.

      There is nothing creepy or racist about it at all. Do you criticise Asian literature for only having asian characters? African folk stories for having African characters?

      I fail to see why the colour of the character's skin in LOTR has ever been an issue for anybody at all. (And my friend, who is Maori (that's a polynesian race from New Zealand)) agrees with me...

      Of course - to be honest, I never noticed much about the skin tones of the characters in Le Guin's books either :) I just take it all at face value. If a character is one race, then they are that race - I don't see what the big deal is.

    37. Re:Since when by MrWa · · Score: 1
      This was in Back to School, when Kurt Vonnegut wrote a book report for Rodney Dangerfield and the professor gave the report a failing grade.

      As for this complaint - it should be expected that movies based on a book will be different. Not only because of the medium change but the intepretation that must take place when a new person "directs" the story. Unless the author is intimately involved in the production there will be interpretation, assumptions, marketing requirements, and wild-ass guessing that changes the final cut of the movie from the book.

      Don't like it? Don't sell the rights to your book.

    38. Re:Since when by Blain · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I was at EnderCon a few years back, and sat in on a panel with Prof. Michael Collings about the connection between the epic tradition and Enders Game (and, iirc, comic books). During the panel, Orson Scott Card slipped in and listened as Collings gave examples of literary devices in the text that were taken from the epic tradition, and were used at key pieces in the story.

      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.

    39. Re:Since when by DFossmeister · · Score: 1

      I've often felt the same about literature classes. The lecturer will drone on and on about what the author was saying, trying to say, or meant to say. I generally sit there and wonder what the lecturer was smoking that morning.

      While most authors are guilty of a little allegory, some a lot of allegory, most writings are not meant to be that deep. If the reader cannot find the meaning of something in the first reading or two, then the writer did not convey his point very well.

      I have read the EarthSea books, and I found them to be fairly simple and straightforward. The abject rape of her plot was worse than I, Robot! That is sad. If a producer ever approaches me or my agent about turning one of my books into a movie, even a TV movie, I am sure that I will certainly say yes, then ask how much. The movie can only promote sales of the book and help you sell future works. I will probably be one of those who gets all morose about what they did to my story and world, but I'll only do that until another offer, if any, comes along. Money puts food on the table, and shirts on my back. Purity of intention makes me happy, but hungry in the end.

      --
      No Not Again! Its whats for dinner.
    40. Re:Since when by Astrorunner · · Score: 1

      It doesn't. "Death of the author" and all that. Your interpretation of a book is just that -- yours.

      Now bastardizing it into a crapfest of a movie is another thing all together.

    41. Re:Since when by sahonen · · Score: 1

      That was the best description of the artistic process I've ever seen. I've worked in local theater a couple times and talked to the directors about the symbolism in their work, and the response was usually something like "Well, I didn't put that in there, but hey, that actually works, doesn't it?"

      The artists who create the most successful works, in my experience, are the ones who aren't focusing too much on the deeper meaning, they're just doing whatever the equivalent of "ooh, shiny" is for their medium. If there just happens to be a deeper meaning they can ascribe to it when they're done with it, all the better. Thinking too much about your art is a very bad thing, all you end up with is art from the head, not the heart, and it just doesn't come across as well.

      As you can probably tell, I am now extremely cynical about anyone talking about the "obvious symbolism" in a work unless what they're talking about serves absolutely no other purpose than to be a blindingly obvious symbol.

      --
      Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
    42. Re:Since when by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess this sort of thing could be likened to talking to a psychiatrist. You tell the psychiatrist things, and then they interpret them. Now, you may have no idea that your thoughts make you your personality type, or show that you have a personality disorder, and you may not intend to show these things, but they are always there in your subconcious and come up without you realizing it. So when an author writes a book, things from their life influence it that they may not even realize, and then when people read the book and are looking for themes and allegorys, then they see things that the author never knew they were putting in. Sort of a "can't see the forest through the trees" type thing.

    43. Re:Since when by kfg · · Score: 1

      Ah, well, the request raises some issues I'm afraid.

      The first is that, other than Slashdot and one other forum, I have very little "web presence." Although I have the space available I have no personal website, no blog, no newsletter, no nothin'. This is intentional. Although I always post under my real name or monogram, have nearly 6000 posts here, a similar number in that other forum, probably rather more on usenet, in RL spend at least a few hours a week in front of an audience lecturing or performing, have been recently described as "gregarious" and at least don't exactly come across as the retiring sort, well, I am really.

      I'm a bit jealous of my privacy and solitude.

      I'm the guy out at a club sitting in a dark, back corner by himself reading a book. At least the first time I show up at that particular club. The second time I show up the waitrons are already calling me by my first name and giving me special treatment. By the third time I find myself "holding court" in my dark corner. I gather flocks wherever I go. I'm not really sure how it happens, and I'm always a bit uncomfortable about the whole thing, especially as some of the flock always seem to end up thinking I'm the goddamn Messiah or something.

      I'm not making that last bit up, or even applying hyperbole. While chatting with some people outside of a jazz club recently where I like to attend open mike to practice new pieces in front of a nonpaying audience a woman I had just met started gushing about how wonderful I was and one of the other guys in the group said to her, "Yeah, he really is a fantastic and there are people inside right now who think he's Jesus or something."

      I know it seems odd for someone who could easily be described as a "public personage" to complain about people not leaving him alone, and particularly odd for a Slashdotter to complain (as I have in a couple of other posts) that women won't stop following me around like lost puppies, but there you have it.

      So I don't have a website and the picture does not exist online.

      I've recently been reconsidering this stance, as I recognize even a small bit of selfpromotion might be an actual asset to my "followers." At least a listing of club dates or something so people who are out of personal touch can find out where I'm appearing, but I'm intensely distrustful of selfpromotion in others, and quadruplely so of my own. I'm not in that class of people who think my own farts smell good. Still, while I'm perfectly happy gathering a small crowd on a street corner, playing the odd sold out house can be nice and keeps the club owners happy. Puts a bit of money in my pocket too, which is not to be entirely discounted as a motivation.

      Then there's the other issue. As an art photographer the monetary value of my work lies in it's exclusivity. This rubs up against all sorts of "information wants to be free" issues that I'm quite vocal about here on Slahsdot, and I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is, but the people who buy my photos also depend upon that exclusivity to maintain the value of what they have given me money for, and I feel I owe some responsibility to them as well.

      Yeah, there isn't really that big an issue there, as well as various ways to deal with it, and I seriously doubt counterfeiters are lining up to pump out fakes, but. . .I sometimes do something a little unusual -- I treat a photo as an orginal painting, and prints are "1/1." This photo happens to be one that I so treated. The negative no longer exists and I do not have physical possession of the only proper print ever made from it. I can't even look at it myself, which is a shame, because it's my all time favorite shot. I don't know that it's great art, but it is a bit sparkly and shit.

      I keep meaning to track down the owner (who I haven't seen in about 15 years) and ask if I can make a scan of it for my own enjoyment, but have never considered the issue pressing enough to actually do it (although I might

    44. Re:Since when by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you don't let people see your work? How did you get such a wide and varied sampling of interpretations of your broken glass piece, if only a select few have seen it? How does an exclusive and most likely homogenous small group of individuals' opinions form any basis for a generalization on society? And then this extended explanation explaining why only the buyer can see the photo...? Uh? Everyone know you're full of shit. Go back to your hole and stop making up realities that don't exist.

    45. Re:Since when by EatAtJoes · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I've just read a lot of replies to this message saying "interpretation is very subjective" and "it doesn't matter what the author intended". Bullshit. Think of the work of art as a "person" trying to communicate. Now, would you say that in a conversation with a person that your interpretation is very subjective or that it doesn't matter what the author was trying to say? Only if you're a solipsist.

      What's hilarious here is that you disprove your own argument with your response to other comments. There are a number of responses here that do indicate that the author's intention is not *necessarily* important. Yet you parrot their viewpoints with a ridiculous oversimplification. "Interpretation is very subjective" is proven by your misinterpreting.

      Your analogy of art to a person is hopeless. A person has subjectivity. An artwork does not. You can ask a person to clarify or restate. You cannot with artwork. What's more, you're not a very sophisticated communicator if you think a conversation is so easy to interpret. People misunderstand each other constantly.

      It's not true always that only through "a lot of hard work" can we arrive at the author's intention. It can come easily -- or be utterly impossible (Pynchon and Koons come to mind). It's fine to laud the efforts of academics, critics and historians. But the paradigm shifts of time continually prove "rock-solid" interpretations wrong. This is true for the "hard" disciplines like history and science, so therefore even more so for art criticism.

      Works that are so ambiguous and so slapdash that they are utterly ambiguous

      oh, my. Who's the "pseudo-intellectual" here?

    46. Re:Since when by kfg · · Score: 1

      See my response to the other AC.

      KFG

    47. Re:Since when by roju · · Score: 1

      Part of the problem is that the idea of an interpretation of a work is iteself vague. The are many aspects to an interpretation. Some readers might find that a book gives them insight into their own lives. That's an important effect of the book to study. The author might claim he had no such intention. That's also an important angle to study; however, rather than proving the first interpretation wrong, it merely makes the whole thing that much more interesting.

      I love learning what an author intended with a work, how they wrote it, the things they hate that the critics say. That said, the work doesn't exist in a vacuum. The author (and work) will be, by necessity, a product of their time. The work is read and studied by people, all of whom it will have some effect on. Treating the author's word as canon is as unfaithful to a work as making up a random interpretation.

    48. Re:Since when by C0deM0nkey · · Score: 1
      Tolkien argued that his works were not allegorical in nature.

      I see this statement in nearly every lengthy discussion of LOTR. What I think is often missing from the discussion is the fact that Tolkien disliked strict allegory. I do not have a page reference for you (maybe someone else does) but I believe he makes an argument similar to what follows in one of the History of Middle-Earth books. I do not believe Tolkien was opposed to the idea of one thing symbolically representing another but rather I believe he was opposed to the idea of telling a tale solely to illustrate a specific point. In a strict allegory, each significant entity is a symbol for some other concept; this is what Tolkien disliked. I guess another way of looking at it would be that Tolkien was not interested in writing parables; instead, he wanted to develop a mythology.

      I just wanted to throw that out there for further discussion; let it be known, however, that I agree with the gist of your statements.

    49. Re:Since when by kaladorn · · Score: 1

      NMerriam says:

      So even when an author says "I didn't mean to represent X as Y", it doesn't make it any less true that X is represented as Y, or that it tells us something about the story, the author, or the characters. it just means the author didn't intend it consciously (or wants to disavow it after the fact).

      This is true, but it is a corollary. Of what? Of the fact that meaning is not an absolute, but is in fact subjective. When I look at something and derive meaning from it, that meaning is a combination of the author, his intentions, me, my predilictions and experiences, and probably other random factors. So meaning is more than just 'what was intended' or 'what an observer took from a work'. Meaning is a non-uniform individual experiential matter. And that means that all you can ever say about the meaning of an artwork is what it meant to you and how it conveyed that message to you. Or, I suppose, if you are the author, what it meant to you and what you hoped to get across to others, which may differ markedly from what they took from the work.

      Seems to me we focus altogether too much on right/wrong, truth/falsehood type thinking with a single view of meaning. The author is wrong when he says "My work does not mean X" because to someone else, it may very well mean X. All the author can ever say is "I did not intend or my work to mean X". Similarly, critics and commentators and English teachers need to realize that they can't say "His work means Y" and instead should say "I can see Y in his work". Meaning and Art are so subjective as to make the attempt to Objectify the meaning rather laughable.

      --
      -- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
    50. Re:Since when by amerinese · · Score: 1
      Regarding LOTR, the essential story was recreated, but no modification was made to make it more Disney-happy-world-everything is good politcally correct for American or worldwide audiences. The reason was, as you say, to stay true to the written work. So then, why the hell was Le Guin's work changed? If you read her article, she says the skin tones are important and she says people who read her books think it's important too.

      Your logic regarding mythologies or traditional literature is correct; these should not be a reinterpretation of these stories using concepts we derive from mixed ethnicity modern democratic nation states. Point taken. But it's not applicable. Le Guin's work is NOT constrained by history. She is purposely imagining a future where Western white male dominance no longer exists. It's a fantasy, and the reason for the fantasy is something more like Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" than Beowulf. Any interpretation of the work without consideration of such a prominent detail like the skin or ethnicity of characters that differs greatly from other works in the fantasy/sci-fi genre is if not mistaken, at the very least highly incomplete.

      As I mentioned, I don't buy the amusement park-one-of-every-color-it's-a-small-world super safe view of multiculturalism. I think there's something extraordinarily darkly subversive about this view of the world, which is entailed by your statement that you don't ever notice the skin tones of characters. Sure, we want to all live in harmony together. I'll buy that. But to reduce the real, virile, living breathing cultural and ethnic communities to flat two dimensional smiley singing dancing caricatures, that's racism too. Colin Powell was asked once something like "So color doesn't matter to you?" and his quick retort was "Doesn't matter to who?". Ethnicity matters and to not recognize it is as insulting as to mischaracterize it as deviant or inferior or to make it out to be some kind of strait jacket the way stereotypes do.

      This is also the difference between the official model of multiculturalism of Canada and the United States. Canada envisions a mixed bag of communities that can preserve their specific ethnicities living together in liberal democracy without rolling over differences as in the "melting pot" of the United States (I don't mean that this actually happens in practice in the United States nor that it should).

      One last point. I really take offense at the "I have a friend that is x and he or she thinks y so y is okay" model of argumentation. Just as there is the difference between authorial intent and actual thematics, there is a difference between someone being of x race and doing or thinking y and whether that y is racist or not. Blacks in America after did all sorts of ridiculous caricatures of themselves as clown sort of performers--this absolutely does not legitimize what they were doing. It is not a big leap to think that even people of degraded x race may buy into the racism. That was the argument behind why schools should be integrated in the US since it was shown that black children were buying into the myth that they were intrinsically inferior and that they needed to be shown by society that they were every bit as capable as white students. I'm not necessarily taking issue with your Maori friend's comment, but as I said, I find that line of argumentation quite distasteful.

      Long response, hope you can find some things that you agree with.

    51. Re:Since when by kfg · · Score: 1

      So you don't let people see your work?

      This is one of the silliest damned things I've seen on Slashdot (to be superceded only by my response to it).

      Have you never heard of art galleries and their attendant review panels? I also know for a fact that the buyer has several friends who are not stone blind. Anyone who wants to see my stuff is perfectly free to stay from gallery opening to closing, as far as I'm concerned, and gawk and interpret all they want.

      Are you supposing I sell them sight unseen?

      All I don't do is go out of my way to achieve popular recognition. I neither need nor desire it and I end up selling everything I offer without doing so ( and a few things I don't offer, which is always a bit painful). The vast majority of my shows and performances are done at the request of the promoter and I only rarely solicit work myself.

      They are able to make such requests specifically because they have been able to see or hear my stuff someplace or other.

      In this specific case I am physically incapable of complying with the request for a viewing since I do not own the work and am not in direct contact with the person who does.

      In about three hours I shall be before a live audience. From past experience with the venue I'd say I can count on about 100 people and can guarundamntee you that not one of those people will leave the club complaining that I don't let them listen to my music. If you show up you can listen too, and join the small and homogenous group of some tens of thousands of people who have heard me perform at some time or another ( I have no idea what that number might extend to if you include television and radio audiences).

      It is true that my recordings are limited and highly obscure (and entirely on anthology albums), as I prefer to work live ( I don't consider myself a recording artist, or even a musician really. I'm just an entertainer), but they exist, although they do not exist on the web. It may come as a shock to you, but things that don't exist on the web still really exist.

      In future I expect I'll release a solo CD mixing public domain and original works, but I'm no particular hurry. I also expect I'll release a number of performances of traditional and classical music to the web under the Creative Commons License, but again, I'm in no hurry, and these are already available as performed by people who can do so much better than myself. They'll only be of interest to people who want to hear me play them for some silly reason or other.

      Such people seem to exist. I haven't the foggiest notion why.

      KFG

    52. Re:Since when by Retric · · Score: 1

      I always thought the simplest interpretation of LOTR was a direct reflection of WWI.

      It's more a like a war story told from the grunts perspective than anything else. I mean there is never any reason given for the LOTR war. It's just someone wants to make war and losing would be Vary Vary BAD.

      The hobbit's = the Irish / hearth and home.
      The US = treabeard and his fellows ect.

      Archers and bowmen on your side vs. Enemy; tanks artillery and all.

      But, I would say such things are more the background for the story than it's deeper meaning. He is using such ideas for the emotions they evoke rather than as an attempt to provide meaning. You can look at it as "Don't piss of the Ent's!" or "Thank got the Ent's have joined the fray!" which seems to be his intent. Picture a little kid screaming "NEVER PISS OFF THE ENT'S!" at the top of his lungs vs. a chess master saying "Ahh you forked your nights o well one more piece for me". Now clearly LOTR's tone is much more that of a rollercoaster ride of a child than the cold calculation of chess Master.

    53. Re:Since when by Feanturi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When I was in high school, I had a theory. If I could build a time-machine, I would try to write a really great literary work and send it back say 50 years, so as to ensure it would have time to work its way into the school curriculum of my native time. The theory went that, if given the novel as an assignment for study and dissection, I would surely fail that unit. Almost guaranteed.

    54. Re:Since when by Feanturi · · Score: 1

      reader can take things away from it that the author never put *into* it, apply it to situations which the author never even considered

      I'm cool with that, but what I'm definitely not cool with is when an English teacher (or some other literary pundit) gets on a soap box and says, "This *IS* what it is about, and your assignment needs to reflect that or you fail."

    55. Re:Since when by St.+Arbirix · · Score: 1

      Literary deconstruction is a whole field completely absorbed in making insights into books and stories. I don't know a single person working on an English degree who hasn't spent hours pouring over Joyce, Pynchon, or Kerouac (the whole beat generation probably counts) and has had to learn to make "insights." If you can't exhibit to the professor that you are capable of recognizing "insightful" things in a text (whether they be there or not) you're not going to pass.

      My girlfriend is getting an English degree and has told me that it really doesn't matter what the author intended. Almost completely across the board, liberal arts degree programs teach you to be exceptionally pretentious in this manner.

      Kuro5hin had a good article pointing this out a while back. Someone deconstructed Winnie-the-Pooh. Postmodern deconstructionism is a powerful and yet inbred movement that's been taking intellects by storm and has spawned all kinds of unique "insights" several degrees removed from the original intents of their creators.

      --
      Direct away from face when opening.
    56. Re:Since when by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a book is written with explicit mention of race or appearance, and a movie director changes or ignores it, you have to assume that it is purposeful.

      If a book does not make a point of race/appearance and a movie director goes "all-white" it may be immaterial, it may be simple convenience, or might be subliminal discrimination.

    57. Re:Since when by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think sometimes authors are unaware of the allegory of their writing.

      A blatant example, I think, is J.R.R. Tolkien's adamant denial that LOTR was an allegory for World War II. Yet is was written during that war, was very specific on the vilification of mechanization and scientific manipulation of warcraft, and the One Ring seems a pretty easy to associate with atomic power.

      I think perhaps that is the distinction between theme and allegory -- theme is the intended interpretation hoped by the author and allegory is the interpretation by the reader. These might be quite different, and both are "right".

      If an author can't get their readers to notice their theme, then that is the author's failure, not the readers. Honestly as a kid I never even noticed the racial theme of EarthSea -- I took away more about magic words and sailing to the end of the earth.

    58. Re:Since when by Xeriar · · Score: 1

      I wrote what was once considered to be a rather good poem (kind of lovey-dovey and such). Anyway, people were discussing it and I put in my opinion about some point.

      Then some random person comes in and tells me I'm wrong (!?) and proceeds to explain their point of view. They didn't know I wrote it at the time.

      I've since learned that that means I did a good job writing it :-)

    59. Re:Since when by danila · · Score: 1

      I think the creators of the films may simply disagree with Le Guin that having all characters asian/black/whatever is important. I certainly didn't care about the skin colours, when I read Earthsea. May be it's because I am white, but the fact is - if I were to make a mini-series based on Earthsea, making everyone darkskinned would be the last thing on my mind. I would not be making these films to stroke the ego (or reaffirm the confidence) of the dark-skinned viewers, which may be against Le Guin's wishes, but which is still a perfectly normal thing.

      She sold the rights, and those who bought them think that Earthsea is a story about an archipelago, sea, dranons, magic and stuff first and a story about dark-skinned people... well, not at all. I can hardly blame them for it.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    60. Re:Since when by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      "Look, I liked LOTRs but it got a little creepy how white everyone was, and how the only slightly non-white, Arab/African looking guys are bad guys."

      You say you read LOTR? Maybe you are confusing the book and the film? And, perhaps, you're not stopping the film to look at the actors either.

    61. Re:Since when by 1lus10n · · Score: 1

      LOTR: One of the most expansive productions in history and one of (the ?) most expensive movies ever made. Rabid fan base unlike anything else, who would have CRUSHED the films and put newline out of bussiness if they had screwed up.

      Earthsea: A mini-series on a second rate cable channel KNOWN for fucking up material to suit their "target audience"

      See the problem ? Apparently the check blinded her, if she was so concerned she would have done more research and found out how crappy sci-fi is to work with.

      "Ethnicity matters and to not recognize it is as insulting as to mischaracterize it as deviant or inferior or to make it out to be some kind of strait jacket the way stereotypes do."

      That works both ways. Being labeled "white" or "black" when your German or South African is an annoying thing when cultures can be so far apart. In many cases the only thing that cultures have in common are skin color. It gets a lot more time contraining and annoying (though most "high horse" types would never admit it) to break everything down to a granular level, so we simplify it. Once the simplification is done we assume that everyone is fairly similar to ourselves. Nobody is exempt. Black people and Yellow people are every bit as racist as white people. Here in the US white people are the majority, so most things are catered to them. If I move to Tokyo, Hong Kong, Seoul, Mecca, or Capetown I dont expect to see a whole lot of white people on TV or in the Movies. Someone who claims that race is important should understand that its also important to the people who are watching the show not just important in the way the original creator wants it to be.

      I wonder if she gets ticked off when stories written by white people are modified and cast with asians, south americans, mid-easterners or any other race ? I doubt it, it doesnt get her off the hook for selling her shit to a known crap network.

      --
      "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
    62. Re:Since when by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll offer a very Slashdot-relevant example: Tolkien argued that his works were not allegorical in nature. However, the most basic and straightforward interpretation of LOTR would allow for the following: it is a 'romantic' lament on the decline of Merrie england in the face of industrialisation. Whether Tolkien had this as his primary focus or not is irrelevant -- that THEME is present in his work, whether intentional or not.

      Funny, I thought it was similar to the way American culture overwhelmed the rest of the world, reducing people to trudgery and fear in the mines of Sauruman and the armies of Sauron. You can even draw parallels between Gandalf and Richard Stallman, just look at the beards and ages! It's really about freedom and tyranny in the operating system market, the ring is Microsoft and wants to rule everything, with mindless subjects. Only the elite hackers (wizards) and sensible people (hobbits, elves) can battle Morgoth(IBM)'s successor.

      So, really, what you mean is that a central theme of LoTR is a struggle between great powers. It's that abstract. Good, evil, old, new, technology, nature, they're all aspects of human ambition and history. Tribesmen thousands of years ago could probably apply it on a local level to intertribal wars and politics. Our descendants thousands of years in the future will either be able to apply it to random historical happenings or simply live virtually within the world he created. LoTR and any other good work of fiction appeals to the intellect, imagination, and emotions of the reader. The subject of the book is generally the backdrop, and well written books have a generic backdrop that can apply anywhere, at any time. The dynamic interaction between the subjects is what makes a book interesting.

      So, yeah, you might say LoTR is about the decline of Merrie England, but it would be better to say that the decline of Merrie England is an instance of events often repeated throughout history. That the lands of England (roughly) were chosen to tell the story means only that Tolkien was familier enough with England to write a proper, consistent backdrop with it.

    63. Re:Since when by DavidBrown · · Score: 1

      This reminds me of the scene in Rodney Dangerfield's "Back to School" in which he earned an F on an literature essay on one of Kurt Vonnegut's novels. Of course, Melon (Dangerfield) had actually hired Vonnegut to ghostwrite his essay.

      --
      144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
    64. Re:Since when by kfg · · Score: 1

      I am now extremely cynical about anyone talking about the "obvious symbolism" in a work. . .

      I've recently written a little classical guitar etude. Nothing special really, but I felt the need to tune up my classical technique . . .and I felt the urge to write something pretty for someone pretty.

      There's all sorts of quite intentional symbolism around the piece, even down to the speed it's played at, andante (at a walk), the title and secondary inspiration being a line from Tennyson (which has personal significance), "If I had a flower for everytime I thought of you, I could walk in my garden forever," (which, go figure, has personal significance), leading to the fact that it repeats endlessly and has no musical resolution. Sooner of later you just get tired of playing it, stop, and think "and so on, and so on, and so on. . ."

      Hell, it takes far longer just to "explain" the damn thing than it does to play it one time through (36 seconds at 92 bpm).

      So how did I pack so much meaning into so little music? Well, I didn't. The symbolism is all around the piece, in its literature as it were, stuff I made up to to serve no other purpose than to be a blindingly obvious symbol, but when it comes to the music itself I just twiddled some arpeggios on a G chord until I thought, "Oooooooooo, that's pretty" (the musical equivalent of "shiney"), " I guess we go the C chord from here, huh? Ok, how about to the minor for a touch of that 'whistful' feeling. Back to G. Done."

      And it doesn't mean a goddamned thing. If I didn't "explain" it to you you'd have no way of figuring it out. It's just a bunch of notes that sound kinda nice if you play them one after the other that I derived by relying on standard practice and accident.

      It's a complete fraud symbolically.

      I hope she likes it.

      KFG

    65. Re:Since when by Neop2Lemus · · Score: 1
      There's an asimov story on precisely that topic.

      Shakespeare is brought into the future where he takes a literary class on his own work.

      The Immortal Bard in Earth is Room Enough

      --
      Needle Nardle Noo
    66. Re:Since when by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

      In the book, the Southerners have dark skin, while the Easterlings are oriental. And no, that fact doesn't make LOTR "racist".

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    67. Re:Since when by Lost+Race · · Score: 1

      I don't know, it seems like a pretty nice fantasy world to live in. I wish my misinterpretation of reality were that positive. No, I just have these crappy delusions of persecution.

    68. Re:Since when by amerinese · · Score: 1
      Factually, you're wrong about East Asia and whiteness in the media. There IS a lot of whiteness in media and advertising, and I think it begs for explanation. There is the conversion factor, that is there is a whole bunch of western (meaning American) works that are readily sellable once you subtitle it, so you may not modify it to native characters to air it. But tell me, how would you explain the prevalence of white models for cosmetics? Seriously how the fuck does that make any sense?

      Do you really buy that white models are better looking than any other models? Even if they are, I mean the idea is that if you use the cosmetics, you'll look like the model right (as unlikely and stupid as that sounds)? But the cosmetics for brown haired chick with pale ass skin can't seriously work for black hair mildly colored skin. Like, it should make it so big of a leap that the ads shouldn't work. But they do. And I can only explain that through the fact that the dominant western powers have perpetuated a stereotype that white is beautiful. And everyone else has been beaten up historically so bad that it is not hard to see why they might accept such values. If you disagree, propose a credible, alternative reason for such prevalence. Again, part of my point in the original post was that those that are on the receiving end of racism can hold these racist values as well either because we all do or because they are in the inferior position and are spoonfed the racism by the dominant elites of society.

      I do agree with you that over-recognition of identity is a problem too. Maybe my sex matters more, maybe my occupation, maybe I'm just a big weirdo. Whatever the case though, I do think it would be insulting to not recognize someone's communal cultural identity if they and their community feel it's important.

    69. Re:Since when by amerinese · · Score: 1
      Okay, so another post pointed out the people she sold the rights to SciFi channel, which usually does a poor job with preserving the original work. But when she sold it, she believed that the script writer would have been the one who helped put together the LOTR movies, which was faithful to the books (I guess this depends on how fanatical you are about it), and it just ended up that it wasn't him. So you really can't blame her for thinking it was one way when she sold it and it turning out completely different.

      Further, it's ridiculous to put the choice as "making everyone dark-skinned" as if white is the default. Default is the book. And it was a prominent feature of the book. You still don't explain why the book was white-washed--if it doesn't matter and if the reason is to stroke people's egos rather than to explore a future that sounds kind of possible to us in some ways but differs greatly in terms of race--then why should they be stroking the egos of white viewers? A conscious choice was made and I don't buy white is normal in the US where at least 30% of the population is non-white.

    70. Re:Since when by sahonen · · Score: 1

      I hope she likes it.

      Ah, so you're just doing the whole music thing for the chicks. Say no more, say no more.

      But yeah, that's pretty much how I approach doing anything artistic. When something just looks or sounds right, just do it, don't try to over-cerebralize it or you'll lose it. From now on, though, I think I'll call it the "Ooh, Shiny" method of composition. =D

      --
      Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
    71. Re:Since when by danila · · Score: 1

      I am not saying that the current situation (where white is considered to be default) is normal. However, it is the reality we live in and we should not pretend otherwise. If you want to blame filmmakers for this, fine, but don't concentrate all blame on those poor guys making the Earthsea. It's not their fault.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    72. Re:Since when by kfg · · Score: 1

      Ah, so you're just doing the whole music thing for the chicks. Say no more, say no more.

      Yeah, that's why I've shut myself up in a dungeon locked to a metronome for several hours a day the past couple of weeks and hope to keep it up until the grass is green again.

      'Cause chicks really go for that sort of thing:

      "Not now honey. Just another hour and I think I can get Ragtime Annie up to the top level of the metronome, and then I'll have to fight the boss monster. After that I have try to do it armed with a flute, and then I get to start all over again, only this time in F!"

      Just drives the women crazy, that does.

      I think I'll call it the "Ooh, Shiny" method of composition.

      No, no, no. Not "Ooh," "Ooooooooo." Get it right.

      Now, when performing the piece if you start out slow and pretty and get the audience to say "Ooooooo," and then play it faster and faster until they say "Ahhhhhh!", that, of course, is the "Fireworks" method of playing. Pretty common fare for the Bluegrass and Speed Metal dudes.

      Me, I like to "take the cork out of the bottle" once a set, about a third of the way through, just to let them know I can do it, and then, for some reason, they're far more content to spend the rest of the evening listening to the pretty ballads and slow airs which are really my favorites. Always finish up with a "crowd pleaser" though. A rollicking blues or sing along always works well. Sing alongs are the biggest producer of standing ovations and encores, because subconciously they're really clapping for themselves.

      Kinda hard to pull off when doing a purely instrumental program though, so then you just have to fall back on fireworks again.

      KFG

    73. Re:Since when by sahonen · · Score: 1

      Just drives the women crazy, that does.

      Wait'll you see what it's like for a drummer. Drives the neighbors crazy, it does. Though I've had a suprisingly cool (or at least sonically insulated) collection of neighbors. Only been busted by the police once, and that's just 'cause they were driving by and heard the racket. At 2 am. Now, when performing the piece if you start out slow and pretty and get the audience to say "Ooooooo," and then play it faster and faster until they say "Ahhhhhh!", that, of course, is the "Fireworks" method of playing.

      Also known as the "Drummer could use some work on his time" method of playing. The "Ahhhhhh!" in this case being the screams of the audience at having to listen to another terrible bar band. Used to happen to me quite a bit when I drank a lot of sodas to get some caffeine in me so I could stay awake for sets. Yeah, I was awake. Maybe a little... too awake. Things are better now that I don't have a day job, I work in television and the hours tend to be when people are watching TV, believe it or not.

      Say, got any clips of your compositions? I'd love to hear them. I'll show you mine if you show me yours. =D

      --
      Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
    74. Re:Since when by divisionbyzero · · Score: 1

      If you read the posts that precede my post, you will see that I'm not parroting or over-simplifying. Their views are overly simplistic.

      You have not said anything that contradicts the main point of what I said. So I suggest you go back and reread what I wrote. You are reading something into the post that I did not put there. This "misinterpretation" on your part "proves" my point that people just don't put in the time and effort necessary to understand what is being said.

      A couple of clarifications might help. We apparently have different interpretations of subjective and, presumably, objective. When you say, "'Interpretation is very subjective' is proven by your misinterpreting", I'm not sure whether you mean by subjective that two people can have different interpretations or that the possibiliy of error make something subjective. In either case you are wrong. Two people can have different interpretations because they have different grounds upon which they make an interpretation. So there is nothing essentially subjective about it, other than the fact that it is done by a "subject". As to the possibility of error, an interpretation can be correct but false, that is it follows all appropriate formal rules and is objectively correct but ends up being wrong. It happens all the time. The possibility of error is not essential to subjectivity or objectivity.

      My analogy between art and a person was meant to indicate the ethical responsiblity we have to an artist at least to attempt to understand what he is trying to convey. Of course, it may be that he or she is not trying to convey anything. It was not meant to indicate that we don't misunderstand each other in conversations.

      One point where we do disagree is on the possibility or impossibility of arriving at an author's intention. I don't have the time or inclination to argue my point. It would need to be a monograph. We'll have to agree to disagree.

      You seem to think I'm harkening back to a "scientific" approach to literary interpretation that began back in the nineteenth with philology and continued into the early twentieth century as "linguistics". The over-riding belief was that a certain method could be followed that would produce an objective result. Anything considered objective was also considered true, a rather bad interpretation of objective, but there you have it. This is not what I'm advocating.

      I am advocating a scientific/evidence based approach, but one that is defined by falsifiability, rather than formal rules that could be applied to a text to produce the author's intention which would then be assumed to be the only proper interpretation.

      You know the "hilarious" thing about your response is that you do to my post exactly what you accuse me of doing to the other people's posts, that is grossly simplifying and caricaturing my position. You'd be surprised how often that happens. It's an obnoxious tendency that most people are not even aware that they do. You might want to keep an eye open for it in the future when you try to "flame" someone else.

      I was tempted not to even bother responding, but your misinterpretations of subjectivity and consequently objectivity are so common that I felt I needed to say something about it even if nobody else besides you reads it. You should read some philosophy, especially something written after, say, 1930.

    75. Re:Since when by Proteus · · Score: 1

      how would you explain the prevalence of white models for cosmetics?

      If you meant "in Asia", then it makes sense when you understand that Asian peoples have traditionally thought of fair skin as beautiful. You'll see many references in traditional Japanese poetry, for example, that describe beautiful women milk-toned skin. Look at geisha -- they whiten their faces, and they did so far before it was generally known that there was an entire race of white folk in Europe.

      If you meant, "in the US", it's because white people have all the money. There are exceptions, of course, but racial minorities in the US also tend to make less money (a few popular exceptions, like Oprah or Snoop not withstanding). So, if you're a marketer trying to sell products that only sell if the customer believes they will be better-looking, you try to picture someone who will be as close as possible to the majority's concept of ideal beauty.

      It's disgusting, but business doesn't care about much more than the bottom line.

      --
      We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
    76. Re:Since when by amerinese · · Score: 1
      I mean in East Asia (see the statements preceding it), and by white I don't mean the color, but Abercrombie & Fitch "all-American" white persons. I don't think the Geisha ideal has anything to do with the good point you bring up in your second paragraph, which I think is actually a lot more relevant.

      The Geisha ideal is the same one that used to be found in European cultures, the idea being that in agricultural societies, those who are paler must also be richer, not having to labor in the fields all day. The fact that white people have all the money in the US not only explains why marketers should target whites and thus use white models, but also why whiteness is beautiful--it's the same mechanism as above, because people are dumb and they see this correlation between whiteness and power and then call it beauty.

      Last, businesses don't care much about the bottom line, but that's not a justification. Changing people's ideas, educating people is important. A business taking part in racist practices just because they think that most people are racist is not justified--that would be circular reasoning. Otherwise we throw our hands up and just say the world is the way exactly it should be. And then we would have no right to feel disgust.

    77. Re:Since when by kfg · · Score: 1

      Wait'll you see what it's like for a drummer. Drives the neighbors crazy, it does.

      One of my oldest friends is a drummer. I get to hear him complain all the time about trying to find a place to practice. In fact, the whole "where to practice" issue is one of the main reasons I've never taken a crack at drums myself (I've played nearly everything else except double reeds. I imagine the Tibetan prayer horn drives the upstairs guy nearly as nuts as drums would though).

      Also known as the "Drummer could use some work on his time" method of playing.

      How do you know it's a drummer at your door?

      The knocking speeds up, slows down, then speeds up again.

      A couple of months ago I got to hear Adrian Legg telling funny stories about his bad relationships with drummers. He hit his humorous peak when he started complaining about this one drummer who kept an absolutely perfect beat, and how the hell was a guitar player supposed to cope with that?

      I've given up being surprised that most guitar players have never, ever worked with a metronome, but it still suprises the hell out of when I meet a drummer who hasn't.

      The "Ahhhhhh!" in this case being the screams of the audience at having to listen to another terrible bar band.

      Oh yeah. Been there. Done that. Tore up my T-shirt to stuff my ears. Didn't help.

      Say, got any clips of your compositions? I'd love to hear them. I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

      I'd actually like to oblige, but I'll have to beg for time. I'm experiencing technical difficulties in the analog to digital conversion process (including the breakdown of both of my tape decks and the sudden refusal of my box record .wavs anyway, so when I tried to rip off a quick and dirty of the etude I came up empty.)

      If you're still thinking about that in a couple of weeks hit me in another thread again and see whether I've made any progress or just decided it would be quicker to slit my wrists and be done with it.

      KFG

  15. Well... by Blue-Footed+Boobie · · Score: 0
    You guys are going to love my new series I am pitching to the Sci-Fi Channel.

    It's called 'Sky-Wind'.

    --
    DAMN YOU OCTODOG! DAMN YOU TO HELL!
    1. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will have to compete with my pitch of "Dip-Shit."

    2. Re:Well... by Blue-Footed+Boobie · · Score: 1
      No competition.

      You've got Dip-Shit down pat.

      --
      DAMN YOU OCTODOG! DAMN YOU TO HELL!
  16. Re:SCI-FI is the most consistently disappointing T by eMartin · · Score: 1

    Just wait until you get Battlestar Galactica in January.

    That may change your mind. :)

  17. Sci fi "original series" by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Does anyone think that the Sci Fi channel will ever get actual decent Sci Fi authors to do their scripts and come up with series for them?

    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?

    --
    The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    1. Re:Sci fi "original series" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's kinda funny you say that, since USA and Sci-Fi are owned by the same company.

    2. Re:Sci fi "original series" by slapout · · Score: 1

      That's kinda funny you say that, since USA and Sci-Fi are owned by the same company.

      I think that was his/her point.

      --
      Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
    3. Re:Sci fi "original series" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate to burst your bubble, but in it's day Star Trek (T.O.S.) was one of - if not the - most expensive to produce shows on television. It looks low budget in retrospect, but at the time it was about as good as T.V. was gonna get in terms of production values.

    4. Re:Sci fi "original series" by bobbagum · · Score: 1

      "Just because you wrote something doesn't mean that you understand it."

    5. Re:Sci fi "original series" by FatRatBastard · · Score: 2, Informative

      the original Star Trek was about as low budget as Sci Fi comes

      You've obviously never seen British (BBC) SciFi. Blakes 7, Early Dr. Who, even Red Dwarf. Cheap, cheap, cheap (yet mostly really good stories).

    6. Re:Sci fi "original series" by what_the_frell · · Score: 1

      The SciFi channel DID hire decent authors to do their work. You're forgetting Farscape, one of the best sci-fi series to be aired on television, with some of the best writing and visuals to ever grace the small screen, IMHO. ...But then again, SciFi foolishly canned the series.

    7. Re:Sci fi "original series" by NecroPuppy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, to make room for more of that John Edwards crap.

      As my brother might say...

      *BLAM* John Edwards, you've crossed over. Is there anything you'd like to say?

      --
      I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
    8. Re:Sci fi "original series" by GMFTatsujin · · Score: 1

      I haven't bothered with the Sci-Fi channel's adaptations of sci-fi classics ever since they remade Dune. Baron Harkonnen did *not* crack his poison tooth implant first, you insensitive clods!

    9. Re:Sci fi "original series" by Eric+S+Raymond · · Score: 1

      They just need to do good books, not crappy ones.

      --
      Bypass Compulsory Web Registration -- http://bugmenot.com/
    10. Re:Sci fi "original series" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately it wasn't "foolishly cancelled."

      The contract that sci-fi agreed to was "foolishly agreed to." Sci-fi was going to make nothing on syndication, the Henson company was, so the reason it was canned was purely financial, they weren't going to make money on it in the long run. So if you're a business and not going to make money on something, would you keep doing it? That's how decisions are made, not "oh, people like it ok, we'll do it for them"

      I'm not happy the show was cancelled, but I understand why it was done.

    11. Re:Sci fi "original series" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 oblique star wars reference.

    12. Re:Sci fi "original series" by eno2001 · · Score: 1

      I think they are going to need to have a CGotomy before they can ever make decent science fiction films. One of the biggest downfalls of SciFi films (the genre) today is the over reliance on CG and action. SciFi was meant to be a thinking man's fiction. Today, it's just non-stop action movies set in the future, in space and with a lot of CG (a lot of it crappy). Whatever happened to the story? Oh yeah, I forgot that most people don't pay attention to plot anymore. This is exactly why the last two Matrix movies sucked. The first movie actually had a bit more plot than usual which is what made it stand out. They really missed the boat with the Architect thread. They also had an implication in the second film about matrices within matrices, but they just completely dropped it in the third movie. And then the ending of the series? A temporary truce? WTF?! Sorry, but SciFi films these days stink to high heaven. There used to be a time when people actually focused on science and culture in SciFi films and still managed to tell a good story too. Not anymore. Now it's just lots of action, FX and way overused CG. I didn't even see the Earthsea series, but I imagein it suffered from the same symptoms of crap SciFi/Fantasy. On another topic... didn't Leguin aslo write the more famous "A Wrinkle in Time"?

      --
      -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    13. Re:Sci fi "original series" by Jtheletter · · Score: 1
      Does anyone think that the Sci Fi channel will ever get actual decent Sci Fi authors to do their scripts and come up with series for them?

      Short answer? Nope, probably not ever.

      Seriously, how long has the scifi channel been around? About 10 years now? Doesn't really matter, I was excited when I first heard about it. 'All right,' I thought, 'a whole channel devoted to shows I like, and they'll make their own series too, this will be great.' Wow, couldn't have been more wrong. I don't watch Farscape so I don't know if that's a scifi original or not, but barring that one show I have never seen a single scifi channel original - series, movie, anything - that was tolerable, let alone good. Terrible writing, awful actors (do they get these people fresh out of dental commercials or what?), and downright stupid "special" effects - I've rotoscoped lightsabers in paintshoppro that look better than half the weapons effects I see on scifi. And the cinematography and directing is just as lamentable. I think that's what really kills me, is that I can't find even one facet of most of these shows that's worthy of any sort of praise.

      I stopped even bothering to tune in any more, I just skip over it like a home shopping channel. Honestly, if something like a decade of awful shows hasn't forced them to change their ways, what possibly could at this point?

      --
      -- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
    14. Re:Sci fi "original series" by Dr_LHA · · Score: 1

      Just wait until you see the Battlestar Galactica series (not the mini-series). Its the best and most intelligent Sci-Fi to come out of television in years.

    15. Re:Sci fi "original series" by fm6 · · Score: 1
      (the original Star Trek was about as low budget as Sci Fi comes)
      Wrong. When TOS came out, it was the most expensive TV series ever made. It only looks low-budget to somebody used to CGI and other modern gimmicks. But back in 1966, a big budget didn't buy what it buys now.

      Of course, if you look at the later, shark-jumping episodes, you can see them cutting corners to save money. But that's something that happens to all TV series, especially ones that are struggling to stay alive.

    16. Re:Sci fi "original series" by nizo · · Score: 1

      I am so glad I haven't seen this: The Wizard of Earthsea is one of my favorite books from when I was a kid. Lets hope that someone else with half a brain gets the rights to the book later and makes a decent adaptation (just compare the earlier horrible lord of the rings cartoons to the recent movies, ick).

    17. Re:Sci fi "original series" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Madeleine L'Engle wrote A Wrinkle in Time

    18. Re:Sci fi "original series" by Spyky · · Score: 1

      On another topic... didn't Leguin aslo write the more famous "A Wrinkle in Time"?

      No, that was Madeline L'Engle. And you are certainly not the first person to make that mistake, as Leguin points out in an essay about being pigeon-holed as a "science fiction" writer. Excellent essay by the way, I wish I could remember where it was.

      Anyway, Leguin is quite brilliant, if only she were 40 years younger and single...

      -Spyky

    19. Re:Sci fi "original series" by rjelks · · Score: 1

      I know it didn't originate on the Sci-Fi Channel (and I agree with almost everything you said), but Sci-Fi is also the home of Stargage SG1.

    20. Re:Sci fi "original series" by cheezitmike · · Score: 1
      On another topic... didn't Leguin aslo write the more famous "A Wrinkle in Time"?

      That was Madeleine L'Engle. Yet another decent book that was turned into a lousy made-for-TV movie.

    21. Re:Sci fi "original series" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For myself, I enjoyed the SciFi Dune series much better than the theatrical Dune movie. The series seemed to hold much closer to the book and made better sense. Of course, we now know where Lucas got the idea from Luke's parentage... "Paul, I am your grandfather..."

    22. Re:Sci fi "original series" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canada's neat, but you have to remember, the SciFi channel is Canada's only "space program". As such, it is more like the cheap spontaneous "soap opera" side of the early American space program ("The Right Stuff") , not the scientific side, which is much more expensive.

    23. Re:Sci fi "original series" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Baron had no such implant. Is this some Star Wars joke I didn't get because I always hated Star Wars and thus didn't buy and/or watch all of Lucas's shitty remakes and thus don't care who shot first?

      SciFi's remake of Dune was quite an improvement on the movie. Now Children of Dune, that was a true crime against humanity.

    24. Re:Sci fi "original series" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Wow - nice display of utter ignorance of history and current facts.

    25. Re:Sci fi "original series" by sprag · · Score: 1

      If I had mod points, you'd get a +1 Funny.

    26. Re:Sci fi "original series" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My current fanatasy involves fan-made machinima implementations of good science fiction books, done right. Minimal editing and story changes, released on the sly on the net. Not a huge audience of course, but imagine, say, "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" done PROPERLY with say the Source engine.

      Cool, ne?

    27. Re:Sci fi "original series" by PMuse · · Score: 1

      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.

      And yet, these people are the guaranteed audience for anything SciFi. Perhaps the producers take them for granted and are seeking a dumber, broader audienc with their gimmicks, changes, etc.

      --
      "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
    28. Re:Sci fi "original series" by ravingsanity · · Score: 1

      That's about the only show I'll watch on Scifi anymore. That and Stargate Atlantis which I've found to be enjoyable thus far.

      One thing that always gets me about the Sci-Fi Channel is the proliferance of horror/creature movies. To me, that's really not sci-fi. It's horror. So what the hell's it doing on the freaking Sci-Fi channel? Can someone explain to me what the hell "The Puppetmaster Vs. Demonic Toys" has to do with SCI-FI? They should think about renaming the channel "The Horrible Schlock Channel That Occasionally Plays Something Good".

      I also watched Earthsea and I thought it was okay. Not great by any means and not even quite "good" but it was "okay". I should also mention that I haven't read the books. It struck me as I watched the two parts that it should have been *much* longer. Maybe as long as 3 or 4 parts because it felt rushed to me and there was a lot of room for expanding on things. Watching it in two parts felt a lot like a "wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am" and there really wasn't time for any tension to build or anything. Just when one obstacle or problem gets introduced and you just start going "uh-oh" it's already done with and the story moves on. That really bugged me. I think the series failed to engage the audience and make them care about the characters and the story to a large degree. There were moments but not much more than that. It was much more like "okay, so this happens. Then we go here. Then this happens." It just felt flat and I feel this probably should have had much more depth.

      Anyway, the point is I was hoping for more out of it and even though I haven't read the books, I still think they dropped the ball on that one in a very big way. I'm interested to see what they do with Battlestar Galactica but I'm not holding my breath.

      --
      I tried to dial REALITY once and I was informed that it had been disconnected.
    29. Re:Sci fi "original series" by Darren+Winsper · · Score: 1

      That's a very short-sighted mindset. God knows how many people subscribed to SciFi just because it had Farscape. When it was cancelled, the shit hit the fan so badly that SciFi were practically forced into allowing the Peacekeeper Wars.

    30. Re:Sci fi "original series" by M1FCJ · · Score: 1
      Hear hear.

      It's not the (mostly cheesy) 3D effects that makes a good movie/series, it is the story. If the story sucks, no one can help. If the story is good (as you mentioned, Dr. Who, Blake's 7 etc.) you fondly remember them after years of time.

      If it was the graphics that made the thing, theater would be completely dead but with a couple of simple props you still can play Hamlet.

    31. Re:Sci fi "original series" by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      Well, I myself thought it was a wash when they named it the "SciFi" channel. I know this is a hoary old dispute, but people who grew up with literary science fiction groan and wither when people use that term. It's "Science Fiction", or SF; "Sci-Fi" is a term used by marketing people.

      Here's a working breakdown:

      SF (Speculative Fiction): Term first used, if I'm not mistaken, by Harlan Ellison. Inclusive of science fiction, alternative histories, comics, fantasy. Someone once mentioned that all mainstream literature could be considered a subgenre of SF.

      Science Fiction: Stories predicated by someaspect of real science, baldly stated. Although the main spar of all stories involve human interaction, in SF the story cannot violate scientific understanding. Exceptions are granted, of course: you can have gimmes for science not yet known. That's basic. But don't overdo that.

      Fantasy: Not based on science, necessarily. More in tune with dreams than science fiction stereotypically is.

      I've always said the basic difference between science fiction and fantasy is this: science fiction stories are based on improbable conjecture, but still is within the bounds of reality, but fantasy is based on impossible conjecture. Science: hyperspace drives. Fantasy: dragons in the Dark Ages of Europe.

      SciFi: the fun stuff. 50's flicks. Godzilla. Battlestar Galactica. Anthing labeled "science fiction" in the popular media is scifi. SciFi uses science fictions's props, but does not use science. It invokes science fiction's integrity without doing the hard work. No SCIENCE in SciFi, no disciplined interpretation of reality. Star Trek is scifi. No? Really, the entire universe speaks English? Or universal translators can listen to three sentences of unknown language from a new species, then produce graduate-level philosophical translations on the fly?

      Space Opera: (ref: Horse Opera) A subdivision of scifi. Like horse operas of the 50's, which worked cowboy cliches to death, space opera uses scifi cliches as props. The main example, the supreme exemplar of all time: Star Wars. There ain't no science fiction at all in Star Wars. There ain't no SCIENCE in Star Wars. Change the scifi costumes to swords and sorcery garb, and the story doesn't even need to change.

      SciFi can be fun, but the sad truth is that in damned near everyone's minds, scifi IS science fiction. Or as some put it, "science fiction fantasy", the ultimate in no-nothing terminology [grind teeth grind teeth]. This isn't about elitism, it's about precision in understanding what one is talking about. Ursula writes good science fiction, and likewise excellent fantasy - but never does she write scifi.

      There isn't enough science fiction in movie or TV to fill up even six hours of SciFi programming. No one's made any.

    32. Re:Sci fi "original series" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course I must ask how could the shark be jumped, if the shark had not yet been jumped?

    33. Re:Sci fi "original series" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Sci-Fi is owned by Halliburton?

      Oh, you meant the other USA.

    34. Re:Sci fi "original series" by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Does anyone think that the Sci Fi channel will ever get actual decent Sci Fi authors to do their scripts and come up with series for them?

      Apparently you haven't been watching. This is the first miniseries that SciFi has butchered in a couple of years. Taken, Battlestar Galactica, Peacekeeper Wars and the two Dune miniseries were excellent.

      I had had high hopes for Earthsea. I'm stunned and disappointed.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    35. Re:Sci fi "original series" by sesshomaru · · Score: 1
      Well, I myself thought it was a wash when they named it the "SciFi" channel. I know this is a hoary old dispute, but people who grew up with literary science fiction groan and wither when people use that term. It's "Science Fiction", or SF; "Sci-Fi" is a term used by marketing people.
      Sci-Fi originated with Forest J. Ackerman, see his bio.

      It's all you really need to know about the term. He calls his house the Ackermansion...

      --
      "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
    36. Re:Sci fi "original series" by Aidtopia · · Score: 1
      It's one thing to be low-budget in production (the original Star Trek was about as low budget as Sci Fi comes)....

      Star Trek was big budget television for its time. A big difficulty in selling it to NBC was that they thought a sci-fi series would be too expensive. Roddenbery and the others always wanted to tell even bigger stories than they had the funds for, which is why it sometimes seems so rough around the edges, but that's also why it was, from time to time, stunningly good.

    37. Re:Sci fi "original series" by I+Sil+Zah · · Score: 1

      One would hope that they would figure out that a a good portion of their audience has a functional brain and would like it stimulated with quality programming. But they probably won't. The really frightening thing is that there are all of us that want good quality programming but somehow really bad stupid and pointless shows like Scare Tactics get even better ratings. Now explain to me why they couldn't afford a fifth season of Farscape but they could have shows like Scare Tactics?

  18. Google Cache link by CharlieHedlin · · Score: 1

    7 comments, and I had to use Google.

    http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:BMsCMw5b1Wo J: www.ursulakleguin.com/UKL_info.html+&hl=en

    1. Re:Google Cache link by PetiePooo · · Score: 4, Informative

      C'mon, Chuck! If you've going to post a URL to a high-bandwidth site, at least post it as a link...

    2. Re:Google Cache link by mamahuhu · · Score: 1

      Better stil to do it to a cache without the images linked from the site you're trying to avoid Slashdotting...

      Text Only Google Cache

  19. Lathe of slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had a dream where everyone, everywhere had infinite bandwidth, but the dream turned into a nightmare because you could only run IIS.

  20. Re:Okay by Drantin · · Score: 1

    Ursula K. Le Guin happens to be a long time SF and Fantasy author who happened to write a series of fantasy called EarthSea...

    I'm sorry I can't give more detailed info as it's been about 6-7 years since I've read any of her books...

    For more information about the Author, click here ...or wait until the slashdotting is over, or just google...

    --
    Actio personalis moritur cum persona. (Dead men don't sue)
  21. Since it's slashdotted... by Embedded+Geek · · Score: 0, Redundant
    "Earthsea" 11/13/2004
    "Miss Le Guin was not involved in the development of the material or the making of the film, but we've been very, very honest to the books," explains director Rob Lieberman. "We've tried to capture all the levels of spiritualism, emotional content and metaphorical messages. Throughout the whole piece, I saw it as having 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, and that's what Ursula intended to make a statement about. The only thing that saves this Earthsea universe is the union of those two beliefs."

    Sci Fi Magazine
    December 2004

    I've tried very hard to keep from saying anything at all about this production, being well aware that movies must differ in many ways from the books they're based on, and feeling that I really had no business talking about it, since I was not included in planning it and was given no part in discussions or decisions.

    That makes it particularly galling of the director to put words in my mouth.

    Mr Lieberman has every right to say what his intentions were in making the film he directed, called "Earthsea." He has no right at all to state what I intended in writing the Earthsea books.

    Had "Miss Le Guin" been honestly asked to be involved in the planning of the film, she might have discussed with the film-makers what the books are about.

    When I tried to suggest the unwisdom of making radical changes to characters, events, and relationships which have been familiar to hundreds of thousands of readers all over the world for over thirty years, I was sent a copy of the script and informed that production was already under way.

    So, for the record: there is no statement in the books, nor did I ever intend to make a statement, about "the union of two belief systems." There's nothing at all about the "duality of spirituality and paganism," whatever that means, either.

    Earlier in the article, Robert Halmi is quoted as saying that Earthsea "has people who believe and people who do not believe." I can only admire Mr Halmi's imagination, but I wish he'd left mine alone.

    In the books, 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.

    This has absolutely nothing to do with "people who believe and people who do not believe." That terrible division into Believers and Unbelievers (itself a matter not of reason but of belief) is one which bedevils Christianity and Islam and drives their wars.

    But the wizards of Earthsea would look on such wars as madness, and the dragons of Earthsea would laugh at them and fly away...

    Toto, something tells me Earthsea isn't Iraq.

    I wonder if the people who made the film of The Lord of the Rings had ended it with Frodo putting on the Ring and ruling happily ever after, and then claimed that that was what Tolkien "intended..." would people think they'd been "very, very honest to the books"? Ursula K. Le Guin
    13 November 2004

    --

    "Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."

    1. Re:Since it's slashdotted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He has no right at all to state what I intended in writing the Earthsea books.

      (later)

      claimed that that was what Tolkien "intended..."

      Funny she would bring up Tolkien in her griping. While I believe she certainly has a valid complaint, she should be aware that Tolkien fought this kind of thinking as well, after all the critics of the time found all sorts of symbolism he never intended in his works, and continue to teach that symbolism to this day.

  22. Re:Okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK, I'll try. Here in the USA, we have these things called "books". Le Guin writes some of these "books". A TV movie of her "books" was made, and it is not good, so she is not happy and wrote articles about it.

  23. Re:Okay by WillerZ · · Score: 1, Troll

    Firstly: I am not Jesus, although it's a common mistake.

    Secondly: I could do a google search, but I wanted to know if I cared at all before expending even that small effort.

    Phil
    (not Jesus).

    --
    I guess today is a passable day to die.
  24. You want to see a worthy miniseries? by ulatekh · · Score: 1

    Why doesn't someone do Lucifer's Hammer by Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle? Now that would kick butt. I wanna see the surfer smack against the side of the skyscraper!

    --
    "Once we've identified and embraced our sickness, we'll have strength...and that's when we get dangerous." - John Waters
    1. Re:You want to see a worthy miniseries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of Niven & Pournelle books, I wouldn't mind a movie or miniseries of Footfall just for the Orion. :)

    2. Re:You want to see a worthy miniseries? by Pfhreakaz0id · · Score: 1

      agreed. I've always thought that would be a great miniseries. Too long to make a decent movie.

    3. Re:You want to see a worthy miniseries? by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      The Mote in God's Eye would be a better book, but a bear to adapt to the big screen.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    4. Re:You want to see a worthy miniseries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Raymond E. Feists "Magician" would be the ultimate movie... its similar to Harry Potter and Earthsea...

    5. Re:You want to see a worthy miniseries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the exact book I've been longing to see made into a movie, but the longing is always tempered by the dread of how badly it can be ruined in the hands of the godless, soulless barbarians of Hollyweird.

    6. Re:You want to see a worthy miniseries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now now now: we don't *know* the surfer hit the building, do we? (Go read it again!) Some of us prefer to believe he rode that one out, and is telling the young'uns all about it.

  25. it did appear by doorbender · · Score: 1

    that the fellowship of the rings screen play was written based on the animation lotr"fotr from a "few" years ago

    --
    "He's a real midnight golfer"
    1. Re:it did appear by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

      Which was in turn adapted from the thirteen one hour episodes created by Micheal Sibley (in fact, Ian Holmes did the voice acting for Bilbo)...

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    2. Re:it did appear by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 1

      Ian Holm

      --
      Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
  26. Also the special effects kind of sucked. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They made Xena: Warrior Princess look like a dignified aesthetic masterpiece by comparison.

    I did find it funny though. I saw their featurette "making of" thing they were spamming the movie theaters with and they must have referenced "Lord of the Rings", like, every six seconds. "We wanted to do this [thematic style], like Lord of the Rings". "We thought this [costuming/set methodolgy we used] was a lot like Lord of the Rings." "We think this [story] is an epic that approaches Lord of the Rings." Gee, anyone have aspirations outside their reach, maybe?

    1. Re:Also the special effects kind of sucked. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They made Xena: Warrior Princess look like a dignified aesthetic masterpiece by comparison."

      You probably should realize that Xena has an orders of magnitude higher production budget.

  27. Sci-Fi Mini-Series are Awful by mothlos · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    This is news? Did anybody see the Dune mini-series or countless other TV Movies they have made that just tear up the intent of the author?

    Good Sci-Fi is a genre where authors play hypothetical sociologist to reflect on humanities strengths and weaknesses (albiet with often erotic consequences), but it doesn't translate very well from book form to screen form, particularly when done by a second-rate cable channel just trying to make a buck on the name recognition.

    1. Re:Sci-Fi Mini-Series are Awful by miryth · · Score: 1

      Hm, but that Dune miniseries was pretty good, in my opinion :p I didn't bother comparing it to the books. What's the point? It's a movie, not the book; I therefore don't expect it to be anything like the book. The Dune one was a bit better than others, I think, since it at least captured the atmosphere of the books (again, in my opinion). (the lord of the rings movies were good for the exact opposite reason- they weren't in a long-winded epic style [which I don't think would fit a movie very well {whee, sub-parentheses(!)}])

    2. Re:Sci-Fi Mini-Series are Awful by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >Did anybody see the Dune mini-series

      I thought it went a long way toward undoing the evil David Lynch debacle.

      It did not seem false to Frank Herbert at all. Liberties were taken, but not in any way that I took offense to.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  28. Ursala's words on the sci-fi mini-series by visionsofmcskill · · Score: 0, Redundant

    From the soon to be inoperable website.... Ursala's very own words on the mini-series remake of her books.


    "Earthsea"
    11/13/2004
    "Miss Le Guin was not involved in the development of the material or the making of the film, but we've been very, very honest to the books," explains director Rob Lieberman. "We've tried to capture all the levels of spiritualism, emotional content and metaphorical messages. Throughout the whole piece, I saw it as having 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, and that's what Ursula intended to make a statement about. The only thing that saves this Earthsea universe is the union of those two beliefs."
    Sci Fi Magazine
    December 2004

    I've tried very hard to keep from saying anything at all about this production, being well aware that movies must differ in many ways from the books they're based on, and feeling that I really had no business talking about it, since I was not included in planning it and was given no part in discussions or decisions.

    That makes it particularly galling of the director to put words in my mouth.

    Mr Lieberman has every right to say what his intentions were in making the film he directed, called "Earthsea." He has no right at all to state what I intended in writing the Earthsea books.

    Had "Miss Le Guin" been honestly asked to be involved in the planning of the film, she might have discussed with the film-makers what the books are about.

    When I tried to suggest the unwisdom of making radical changes to characters, events, and relationships which have been familiar to hundreds of thousands of readers all over the world for over thirty years, I was sent a copy of the script and informed that production was already under way.

    So, for the record: there is no statement in the books, nor did I ever intend to make a statement, about "the union of two belief systems." There's nothing at all about the "duality of spirituality and paganism," whatever that means, either.

    Earlier in the article, Robert Halmi is quoted as saying that Earthsea "has people who believe and people who do not believe." I can only admire Mr Halmi's imagination, but I wish he'd left mine alone.

    In the books, 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.

    This has absolutely nothing to do with "people who believe and people who do not believe." That terrible division into Believers and Unbelievers (itself a matter not of reason but of belief) is one which bedevils Christianity and Islam and drives their wars.

    But the wizards of Earthsea would look on such wars as madness, and the dragons of Earthsea would laugh at them and fly away...

    Toto, something tells me Earthsea isn't Iraq.

    I wonder if the people who made the film of The Lord of the Rings had ended it with Frodo putting on the Ring and ruling happily ever after, and then claimed that that was what Tolkien "intended..." would people think they'd been "very, very honest to the books"?

    Ursula K. Le Guin

    --
    --Idiots, Every single one of YOU, A flaming mass of conglomerated morons, hey wait a second, isnt that how RAID works?
  29. Re:SCI-FI is the most consistently disappointing T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ha ha ha! Sorry, but I include BG in my statement. Some nerds will watch anything.

  30. The Dangers of Adaption by StefanJ · · Score: 5, Funny

    Years ago, I went to a panel discussion at an SF convention about how books are adapted to film. The authors on the panel had all had their works adapted.

    First up was Barry Longyear, whose novel Enemy Mine was turned into a "B" movie. He rattled off a good-natured Hollywood horror story.

    Next was Gary Wolf, whose book Who Censored Roger Rabbit was turned into what I recall was a rather popular movie a few years back. He was wearing the fancy jacket provided to the cast. He got to go to the Hollywood premiere and got very rich.

    When he described getting to sit with Kathleen Turner at a celebratory banquet, Longyear got up and pretended to strangle him.

    1. Re:The Dangers of Adaption by GMFTatsujin · · Score: 1

      And if you haven't read Who Censored Roger Rabbit, you really should. It's funny, original, brilliant, and nothing at all like the film. *Nothing* at all...

    2. Re:The Dangers of Adaption by fm6 · · Score: 1

      And so what? They took a silly pointless book with a dark edge and turned it into a silly pointless movie with a comic edge. Hardly the biggest travesty in Hollywood history.

    3. Re:The Dangers of Adaption by bm17 · · Score: 1

      I'll say the same about The Princess Bride by William Goldman. The movie was great but the book was simply brilliant.

    4. Re:The Dangers of Adaption by jspoon · · Score: 1

      Then again, William Goldman wrote the screenplay as well and was one of the best in the business. He won an Academy Award for All the Presidents Men IIRC and also wrote Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid which is genius and may have won also.

    5. Re:The Dangers of Adaption by kaszeta · · Score: 1
      Years ago, I went to a panel discussion at an SF convention about how books are adapted to film. The authors on the panel had all had their works adapted.

      First up was Barry Longyear, whose novel Enemy Mine was turned into a "B" movie. He rattled off a good-natured Hollywood horror story.

      I've been to a similar panel in the early 90's, where the author (I forget which), mentioned something very close to "...you realize early on that you have to let go a bit. It's very much like selling your car to the used car salesman; you hope that it is taken good care of, but it's really out of your control now" and mentioned how badly they had butchered his work.

    6. Re:The Dangers of Adaption by The+Damned+Yankee · · Score: 1
      I think writers should just come to grips with the fact that, once the pre-production starts, the story is out of their hands. Short stories and novels are expressions of personal vision, whereas the movie or miniseries or what-have-you based upon said short story or novel is the creation of a small community. That the two bear any similarity to each other is sometimes nothing less than a gift from God (compare Ian Fleming's James Bond novel Moonraker to the movie of the same name).

      Comic writer Alan Moore acknowledges this fundamental difference, and takes pains to distance himself from the celluloid adaptations of his work. While this seemed quirky or exceptionally modest when it came to, say, From Hell, it was absolute genius when confronted with the massive stinker that was League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

      --
      "Against the assault of laughter nothing can stand." - Mark Twain
    7. Re:The Dangers of Adaption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then again, William Goldman didn't write The Princess Bride. He did the screenplay. And he did the popular abridgement of the original text by Morganstern (also known as "The Good Parts" version). You should check out the anniversary edition that contains Goldman's story about why he abridged it, and his adventures in making the movie. Very entertaining (and fraught with Hollywood insight!)

    8. Re:The Dangers of Adaption by abb3w · · Score: 2, Informative
      And he did the popular abridgement of the original text by Morganstern

      Another gullible victim. There is no Morgenstern, save Goldman. In the voice commentary on one DVD edition, he tells how he got the title: he asked his daughters what he should write about. "A Princess" said one; "A Bride" said the other.

      --
      //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
    9. Re:The Dangers of Adaption by Kelson · · Score: 1

      Good luck finding the mythical "original" version...

  31. My complaint so far... by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

    So far, I've only watched the first episode, but I'm very unimpressed.

    It is like watching "Harry Potter of the Rings", with some good old Dune mythology thrown in...

    The plot thus far is old, forumlatic and clique.

    The other tragedy is that CG isn't even that good. When they did the fly over of the city/village, it was very very VERY obviously CG...

    Who knows, maybe it'll get better?

    --
    Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    1. Re:My complaint so far... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's 'formulaic and cliche'...

    2. Re:My complaint so far... by jhagler · · Score: 1

      I agree...I had the overwhelming feeling that this was EarthSea meets Harry Potter. I can see the pitch to some producer now:

      Ged doesn't know he's a wizard, then he goes to Hogwarts and meets Vetch and Herminey and his arch-nemesis Jasper Malfoy. He then does some nifty tricks that will look realy good on screen, maybe something with a hawk or owl. He can then fight off Tygath and his DeathEaters to save the world and everyone lives happily ever after.

      I mean come on, this thing was made to cash in on Harry and LOTR, not to actually tell a good story.

      --
      Never underestimate the power of human stupidity -RAH
    3. Re:My complaint so far... by psbrogna · · Score: 1

      This is more a comment on Potter as Earthsea preceded Rowley's world by several decades- it was originally published in 1968.

    4. Re:My complaint so far... by joeldg · · Score: 1

      I was thiking the same thing throughout..
      Harry Potter is kind of like a simplified childs version of earthsea with all white people.. so it is nice and sterilized for the masses who call it "fresh and inspirational" etc etc.. yadda yadda..

      Reality being that HP, while fun reading, has little depth (Perhaps some if count the whole mud-blood thing, but that feels like it was contrived, added afterwards and thrown in there to say "look I 'am' actually socially concerned").

      Watching this, it was clear they were trying to appeal to the HP and LOTR crowd, new fantasy fans..

    5. Re:My complaint so far... by CoffeeJedi · · Score: 1

      i never read the books, but:
      something told me that the hero originally didn't have a chubby slacker, and a know-it-all redheaded chick as sidekicks
      at one point the Hermione clone even exclaimed "Brilliant!" in that oh-so-Rowling tone

      --
      May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage. RAmen.
  32. Re:Okay by WillerZ · · Score: 5, Funny
    Here in the USA, we have these things called "books".

    For real? You guys have books now?

    Phil

    --
    I guess today is a passable day to die.
  33. Re:Okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you've not read any of her books in 6-7 years, then you're probably not aware that she added a fifth novel to the Earthsea series back in 2001 or so (The Other Wind).

  34. Apolgies - bad link.... by Embedded+Geek · · Score: 1
    I cut and pasted source without correcting the local reference on her site. The link should be...

    ...to state what I intended in writing the Earthsea books.

    Oh,yeah, also insert the standard "I submitted this story Tuesday" rant here, too.

    --

    "Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."

  35. ++parent.funny by WillerZ · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Come on mods. Okay, so the other two elements would give Fire-Wind, but it's still a good joke.

    --
    I guess today is a passable day to die.
  36. Authors who... by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Complain about movies made from their books often have just cause. However one very rarely hears about them returning the money they received when they sold the rights.

    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    1. Re:Authors who... by nukem1999 · · Score: 1

      "Hey, your movie sucked! Here's a couple hundred thousand dollars for the effort."
      Yeah, that'll teach 'em.

    2. Re:Authors who... by 787style · · Score: 1

      Amazingly enough, Stephen King hated Kubrik's version of "The Shining". Ergo, we had that cinematic piece of tripe mini-series back in '97 staring that scoob from "Wings".

    3. Re:Authors who... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 3, Insightful

      However one very rarely hears about them returning the money they received when they sold the rights.

      Heh, you've obviously never looked into the publishing industry. 20 years ago it was pretty bad, you could publish your own works, which were never put in book stores, or available to the public and no one would ever read your work. Or you could sign a contract to give up the rights to your work and your next several works, and a publishing house would ship it to all kinds of stores. Most stories were then ignored but some became popular and the authors wrote more stories (already owned by the publisher) for the already negotiated fee. Today things are even worse. You see some authors, like Stephen King, developed a large following and then, were able to make money on their fourth or fifth novel, and dictate terms to publishing houses who wanted to make some profit. Now they pretty much make you sign away the rights to anything you want to write for the next 10 years if you want a shot at a mainstream audience. It is ironic that avoiding this exact situation in Europe was one of the primary concerns of the authors of our copyright law. Ben Franklin predicted this outcome which was why he railed against the passage of our copyright laws.

      Simply the fact that one can make a movie based on and using the title of a copy-written work without consulting the author, is proof that our system is horribly broken. No author wants to give up rights to their creations, but if they want to be published, they have little choice.

    4. Re:Authors who... by mykroft42 · · Score: 1

      However one very rarely hears about them returning the money they received when they sold the rights.

      Yeah give them their money back ... that'll teach them. Just the lesson producers need to learn, "If we make the movie bad enough the author will give us back the money we paid her for the rights"

    5. Re:Authors who... by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      "Simply the fact that one can make a movie based on and using the title of a copy-written work without consulting the author, is proof that our system is horribly broken."

      It's all about using borrowed money. If you dind't have to do that, you could retain absolute control.

      Almost all of these complaints come back to that root: using borrowed money. It's not just about the entertainment industry.

      There is nothing wrong with copyright law. There are problems that lead to a situation where an author can be persuaded to relinquish his or her rights, and sometimes that does indeed have a connection to things like distribution monopolies, and so on, but at the end of the day, it is the author's hand that signs the contract to relinquish her rights.

      LeGuin was hardball enough to get a mainstream publisher in the 1950s to publish the work of a female author in a genre completely dominated by men, with controversial themse at a time when that was not always acceptable. She got soft later in life, and let her guard down for the Sci-Fi channel. But I don't think anyone other than the author herself bears the slightest responsibility for this. She could have insisted on stipulated details in the contract she signed. She might not have had the clout to keep her attitude from breaking the deal, but that's the price, isn't it?

      She isn't starving. She lives in a dream house in Portland, and to all appearances seems to be pretty comfortable for a 72 year old lady. She could have retained these rights for the sake of her grandchildren, you know. They'd have been good for another 75 years after her death, which hasn't happened yet.

      Now I think the marketing folks crossed a line, and probably even committed a crime, when they attributed quotes to her that she had not said, but that's a separate issue. As for the selling-out of TV rights to her most significant works, she herself bears all the responsibility and none goes to the Sci-Fi channel. Basically, she sold a piece of her grandkids' future for a short term gain, a little extra folding money at the twilight years of her life. I find that pathetic. I compare it to an old lady in my home town who signed a timber contract to have a couple of thousand acres of woodlands clearcut and strip mined -- at the age of 87!

      Après moi, le déluge!

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    6. Re:Authors who... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's all about using borrowed money. If you dind't[sic] have to do that, you could retain absolute control.

      Well, it is partially about using borrowed money. It is also about a legal system weighted towards the wealthy and without protections for the poor. I don't know anything about Miss LeGuin's financial status when she signed away the rights to her book (and probably simultaneously any future movie or TV series rights) but I seriously doubt even with twice the money a normal publishing house spends on the procedure she could have had her books in stores and available for purchase. You see book stores order from publishers, and are largely uninterested in self-published books or independent authors. If you want to be sold in stores, you have to sign your rights away unless you are absolutely a sure thing to make a whole lot of money (See Stephen King). Even he signed with a major publisher, but since he was a sure thing and a celebrity he could get the publishers to compete for his books.

      I understand your point, but I think you are wrong to think it is all about money. If you are wealthy I'm sure you could pay to get your book in stores (very very wealthy). But I doubt you can do so for anywhere near what it costs a mainstream publisher, and I doubt that you will be able to make deals with as many smaller book stores and chains.

      In order to address this very imbalance, laws were written to protect the rights of some artists, notably graphic artists, unfortunately the industry works around it by requiring all art to be created as "contract work" where the idea is "legally" the publishers and you are just a contractor doing the grunt work. The system is very, very broken.

    7. Re:Authors who... by cgreuter · · Score: 1

      I'm starting to think that you're trolling here, but anyway...

      Or you could sign a contract to give up the rights to your work and your next several works, and a publishing house would ship it to all kinds of stores.

      This is incorrect. Authors always retain copyright (with the exception of sharecropped work like, say, video game novelizations) if they're dealing with a reputable publisher. They sell publication rights and usually only for a temporary time period. And that's pretty much it. Movie rights are separate and the author keeps those.

      You see some authors, like Stephen King, developed a large following and then, were able to make money on their fourth or fifth novel...

      This is also incorrect. In On Writing, Stephen King describes pretty much exactly what happened with his first published novel, Carrie. He sold the hardcover (IIRC) rights and got a couple of thousand bucks advanced. (I.e. he sold it for royalties but the publisher kicked in some money up front--this is standard practice.) The contract also gave the publisher 25% of the paperback rights if a publisher decided to pick those up.

      As it happened, someone did buy them for an advance of around $300,000, which netted him something like five years' salary in one go.

      Now they pretty much make you sign away the rights to anything you want to write for the next 10 years if you want a shot at a mainstream audience.

      I think you're confusing the book publication industry with the music industry.

      The reason movies adaptations are usually so horrible--well, one of them anyway--is that basically, the film rights are negotiated long before everything else. So when I sell the movie rights to my best-selling novel (look for it in book stores sometime after hell freezes over), nothing else has been done--no hiring decisions have been made, no casting, no script. I have to trust whoever's in charge of the project to do a good job and I also need to trust the studio to keep him or her around until the project is done.

      Both of these are high-risk ventures. The best thing to do as an author, usually, is to just take the money and run.

    8. Re:Authors who... by gamgee5273 · · Score: 1
      But this is a case where she sold the rights under a specific belief (that Phillipa Boyen would be writing the script). My personal opinion is that, if she wanted more involvement, she should have pulled the rights off the table until she could get an agreement on it (taking less of an up-front payment and more of ad revenue, DVD sales, etc. might have helped there). Authors who are typically named as "consultant" typically get no input on the story.

      I point to J. K. Rowling as an example of an auther who is very involved in the movies. She dictated many of the details in the contract, and even has say over casting decisions. She did, however, give up almost all of the merchandising rights, which is why Warner makes so much crap when it comes to Harry Potter merchandising...

    9. Re:Authors who... by RoundTop-VJAS · · Score: 1

      Baen Books treats its authors well.

      Mainly they are nice and don't take all the rights. But they are a "small" publisher due to their small stable of authors.

      Check out their free online library, very cool.

      --
      RoundTop

    10. Re:Authors who... by stonecypher · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is ironic

      Whereas I agree with the sentiment, that's not what irony means.

      Simply the fact that one can make a movie based on and using the title of a copy-written work without consulting the author

      That's not frequently true of well-known authors, or in fact of most book contracts with little-known authors. Pretty much the only publishing subindustries with that sort of conjoinder in their contracts standard-issue are science fiction and horror; if you try to run that sort of clause in a fiction contract you will be summarily laughed off of the phone by any typical book agent.

      Furthermore, in science fiction and in horror, movies and miniseries are rarely made from the work of little-known authors. So, whereas it is an issue for those two genres, it's less of an issue IMOALE than you suggest.

      No author wants to give up rights to their creations, but if they want to be published, they have little choice.

      If this is spoken from experience rather than guesses and prejudice, then my friend, you need a better agent. This is a bit like hearing "no programmer wants to use Microsoft tools, but if they want SQL, they have little choice." Well yes, they do, given a simple familiarity with what's available to them.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    11. Re:Authors who... by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      "Now they pretty much make you sign away the rights to anything you want to write for the next 10 years if you want a shot at a mainstream audience."

      Bullshit. This is not at all how it works. You typically have to hawk each and every piece you write. You are talking out of your ass in order to sound authoritive.

    12. Re:Authors who... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      You are talking out of your ass in order to sound authoritive.

      I never claimed to be authoritative, but I am speaking from experience. I looked into publishing options for a for a work of fiction about 3 years ago. I write non-fiction for a small audience on a regular basis and am published several times a year.

  37. What was she thinking? by Deadstick · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Movie producers have been reducing SF and fantasy to mindless drivel at least since "The Wizard of Oz," with only a handful of glowing exceptions. If a writer is willing to sell screen rights without some defense written into the contract, one can only assume that they'd rather have their work defaced than do without the money.

    rj

  38. Google Cache and others by davidwr · · Score: 1

    A Google Cache is here: http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:BMsCMw5b1WoJ: www.ursulakleguin.com/UKL_info.html+&hl=en

    A list of general-purpose Slashdot-caches are here: http://slashdot.org/~davidwr/journal/92257
    Mirrordot is down, and archive.org doesn't have the latest version of the author's home page. The site is too heavily slashdotted for the Coral Cache to pick it up either, but hopefully that will end soon.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  39. Next Ursula Le Guin movie- by Japong · · Score: 2, Funny

    I can just picture it now, the Left Hand of Darkness: The Movie.

    A romantic comedy about men and women, trying to find love together in a tropical paridise. Starring Julia Roberts as Estraven and Hugh Grant as the Envoy.

    1. Re:Next Ursula Le Guin movie- by rjh · · Score: 3, Funny

      Look, buddy, I don't wanna know what your left hand has been doing in the darkness while thinking about Julia Roberts, okay?

    2. Re:Next Ursula Le Guin movie- by CrosseyedPainless · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh, my God. Those Hollywood grassfuckers *would* do something like that, too. Please, do not repeat that statement anywhere else. Thank you.

    3. Re:Next Ursula Le Guin movie- by Dirtside · · Score: 1
      Those Hollywood grassfuckers
      Filthy Critic shout-out, yo!
      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
  40. another missive by X_Caffeine · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Le Guin has written another public apology, published at Slate.

    I have mixed feelings about her reactions. She seems a lot more peeved with the skintones of her characters being changed than with the entire plot being gang-raped.

    --
    // I will show you fear in a handful of jellybeans.
    1. Re:another missive by Embedded+Geek · · Score: 1
      Actually, the comments at her site seem more concerned about the reduction of her ying/yang concepts to believers vs. unbelievers, ripe for a Crusade. As to her plot being "gang raped" (great word choice, BTW), she's a pro. As she states, "I've tried very hard to keep from saying anything at all about this production, being well aware that movies must differ in many ways from the books they're based on..."

      Her opinions on race are long standing. I heard her blurb about "readers of color who told me that the Earthsea books were the only books in the genre that they felt included in" years ago. It's something she really feels strongly about.

      Oddly, I heard that blurb when I was reading Left Hand of Darkness and I thought she was talking only about Earthsea. For the life of me, I hadn't realized that the characters in Hand weren't white.

      --

      "Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."

    2. Re:another missive by hcduvall · · Score: 1

      Well, it sounds like she made a conscious decision to have her characters be non-white, and considers it a big part of the world she created. It may not be the biggest draw of the books, but it can be a pretty compelling part of the stories for readers, especially in a genre like fantasy.

      And the text has been left alone for 30+ years now, but everytime its reissued or reprinted, she has to prod the publisher to making a cover that matches the text. So its also an issue that she has to deal with regularily, and its own her mind more.

    3. Re:another missive by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 1

      I think your point would be more valid if it weren't for the fact that the skin-color of the characters is often a significant plot point.

      --
      Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
    4. Re:another missive by Mannerism · · Score: 1

      I stopped feeling sorry for LeGuin when I read, "When I sold the rights to Earthsea a few years ago..."

      As much as I respect and admire LeGuin, I can't find any sympathy for someone who sells the rights to their work, then complains about what happens to it.

    5. Re:another missive by stevesliva · · Score: 1

      I would imagine Slate preferred a left-leaning cry of whitewashing to a discussion of the merits of the plot butchery. Don't get me wrong, I really like Slate's political coverage, but that's exactly what Slate is-- political.

      --
      Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
    6. Re:another missive by Daniel+Ellard · · Score: 1
      Significant? Hardly.

      Maybe there's some anglo-bashing (the Kargs are aggressive and warlike, and speak a different language than everyone else, and also happen to be white) but that's it.

      Show me some place that skin color is an issue... (sure, at one point Ged has to disguise himself, and changes his skin hue, but he also changes his hair, clothes, etc.)

      --
      Disclaimer: I work for a company, but I don't speak for them.
    7. Re:another missive by Daniel · · Score: 1

      Please provide an example of an incident in the first 3 books [0] where skin-color is a significant plot point.

      Given that it's hardly ever even mentioned, and then only as part of a description, I doubt you can. The most I remember is some passages where an inhabitant of the Archipelago meets an inhabitant of Karego-At, or vice-versa, and the skin color is part of the overall strangeness of the other.

      I thought the skin-color issue was a clever touch in the books, and it was certainly a bad sign that it was removed from the movies, but to read Le Guin's essay you'd think the central point of the books was something to do with race. (which, I suppose, means I've been misunderstanding them all this time..)

      Daniel

      [0] Books 4 (Tehanu) and onward are set in a different universe than the first 3, so they don't count :-)

      --
      Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
    8. Re:another missive by ndogg · · Score: 1

      I read both articles, and to me, she doesn't seem at all apologetic in her second article. If anything, she's tacking on more concerns she has about this rendition of her book.

      --
      // file: mice.h
      #include "frickin_lasers.h"
    9. Re:another missive by aWalrus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I can't find any sympathy for someone who sells the rights to their work, then complains about what happens to it.

      You should read the entire article then. She's a pro. She didn't complain or attack the miniseries until the director decided to put words in her mouth and say what "she had intended by..."

      A very understandable reaction, I believe.

      --
      Overcaffeinated. Angry geeks.
    10. Re:another missive by SirWinston · · Score: 1

      > I thought the skin-color issue was a clever touch in the books, and it
      > was certainly a bad sign that it was removed from the movies

      As you've pointed out, skin color was never a central issue in the books. It was merely descriptive and mentioned in passing, and not part of the plot. Because of that I don't think it's at all significant that most of the actors cast were white--this wasn't an Ellison or Angelou book, after all, so complaining about race smacks of PC bitching. Nobody complains when blacks or hispanics or Asians are cast in roles written with whites in mind, so why in this case? Since race isn't a plot point, naturally I'd expect SciFi Channel to cater to its mostly-white audience by casting mostly whites, just as I'd expect a Black Entertainment Network production of Cinderella to have a mostly black cast even though the characters were conceived as white Europeans.

      To make race an issue is just political correctness rearing its ugly head. With due respect to LeGuin and her writing talent, the fact that she complains about the cast's race more than anything else paints her as a politically correct self-hating white. Screw that culturally denying self-effacing bullshit, especially since she admits her writings derive from a Northern European mythic tradition.

      --
      "It's a damn poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a word."--Andrew Jackson
    11. Re:another missive by Daniel · · Score: 1

      While race isn't a plot point in the books, the author is quite clear on what color her characters are. This isn't one or two characters changing from non-white to white; it's the entire population of the Archipelago!

      I can certainly imagine a good adaptation of Earthsea where the characters are all white, but to the extent that it's good for adaptations to be similar to the original work, it's a bad sign when details are changed for no particular reason. By "a bad sign", I mean just that: when I saw a bunch of white actors on the screen on Thursday, I started to worry that the adaptation would be wildly inaccurate. Not because I have any real problem with a white Earthsea, but because the authors had demonstrated a predilection for fiddling with the story beyond those necessary to adapt it to the four-hour format, and I figured that they probably wouldn't stop at superficial changes. Unfortunately, I was correct.

      Daniel

      --
      Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
  41. Turn your geek card in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    and absorb more reality tv, because it seems that in the fact that you don't know who she is, instead of doing a quick find on the web (not to point out a particular search engine) you show intellectual sloth by posting that question in the forum. And I'm posting AC because, indeed, I'm flaming you. Stupid git.

  42. Re:SCI-FI is the most consistently disappointing T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BG is good sci-fi, and has some non-nerd appeal because of the vague hope that they won't have strategically placed enough scenery to hide all the nipples this week.

  43. Five minutes was enough by sconeu · · Score: 3, Informative

    Within the first five minutes we had:

    * People throwing around each other's true names (witness the girl talking to Ged).

    * 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.

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    1. Re:Five minutes was enough by westlake · · Score: 1, Insightful
      In the books, you *NEVER* spoke someone's true name out loud.

      This sort of thing can work in a book, but it is hell on the audience for a film or a video.

    2. Re:Five minutes was enough by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 1
      * People throwing around each other's true names (witness the girl talking to Ged).

      Say no more! I now know I need not watch this adaptation. Ugh. What were they thinking?

      --
      Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
    3. Re:Five minutes was enough by HeighYew · · Score: 1

      Actually, they didn't go around speaking their true names aloud (at least no more often than in the books). What they DID do was switch Ged's true name with his "use name". Awesome Book: True name = Ged, Use name = Sparrowhawk Craptacular Movie: True name = Sparrowhawk, Use name = Ged Regardless it was a major disappointment. :\

      --
      There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't...what about the other 8?
    4. Re:Five minutes was enough by Daniel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      * People throwing around each other's true names (witness the girl talking to Ged).

      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

      --
      Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
    5. Re:Five minutes was enough by Nutria · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Within the first five minutes we had:

      * 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.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    6. Re:Five minutes was enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably not all that hard - they did have 'use' names, which were nicknames they used for everyday matters. It's analogous to Strider/Aragorn - the audience knew him as both, even though his 'true' name wasn't mentioned until, what, halfway through the first volume?

    7. Re:Five minutes was enough by larkost · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree with your main point... but in the book, most of the priestesses were dedicated to the temple of the Kargish Kings, and they were doing quite well. There was only one priestesses left who was "sacrifices" and "emptied" for the nameless ones, who's temple was decaying into ruins.

      Nothing at all like the SiFi rendition.

    8. Re:Five minutes was enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It worked in Kill Bill didn't it?

    9. Re:Five minutes was enough by ndogg · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you, but I remember characters in movies or videos for their characterization and what they did, not their name. Whenever someone tells me " was the best," I respond, "Who? Tell me what they did or what they were like, and perhaps I'll agree with you."

      Truthfully, though, that's true for me in general.

      Or it's just related to my difficulty of putting name to a face.

      --
      // file: mice.h
      #include "frickin_lasers.h"
    10. Re:Five minutes was enough by ChuckleBug · · Score: 2, Interesting

      they switched Ged's true and use-names!

      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.

    11. Re:Five minutes was enough by AnotherBlackHat · · Score: 1

      Within the first five minutes we had:

      * People throwing around each other's true names (witness the girl talking to Ged).


      In the book, before he was given his true name, he was called Duny.
      Then his spoken name became was Sparrow Hawk, and his true name was Ged.
      In the mini-series, his true name was Sparrow Hawk, his spoken name was Ged, and there was no child name.
      (Or perhap, it started after he'd been given his true name).

      On the one hand, changing the names of the characters make little difference to the story.
      On the other hand, their's no good reason to do so.
      It made me feel like the person who created the screen play didn't bother to read the book.

      -- Should you believe authority without question?
    12. Re:Five minutes was enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the books, you *NEVER* spoke someone's true name out loud.

      Then it's a stupid book. But that goes without saying.

    13. Re:Five minutes was enough by Daniel · · Score: 1

      That's why I only said slightly less stupid. :-)

      Daniel

      --
      Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
    14. Re:Five minutes was enough by mausmalone · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, it works just fine if the visual designers can make the characters sufficiently different looking. There are a lot of shows I watch where I don't know the characters' names (usually subtitled anime where the reading/listening action jumbles everything), but the context works well enough for me to get who they're talking about. Besides, it can draw an audience in, making them have to think to "get" what's going on and taking a participatory role in the show.

      --
      -=-=-=-=-=
      I'd rather be flamed than ignored.
    15. Re:Five minutes was enough by OddWeapon · · Score: 1

      And I thought Ged was supposed to be black!

    16. Re:Five minutes was enough by ktulu1115 · · Score: 1

      Aha! That's what I thought. I read "A Wizard of Earthsea" about 10 years ago and don't have a copy lying around, but when I watched it I thought they had it backwards.

      And yes, for the most part it was pretty disappointing. Hollywood's flair sneaked it's way in there far too much. Fuckers. Way to ruin a wonderful work.

      --
      # fuser -v /dev/attention | grep work
      #
    17. Re:Five minutes was enough by ktulu1115 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually he's described as having reddish-brown skin. I recall nothing about Ogion being black.

      --
      # fuser -v /dev/attention | grep work
      #
    18. Re:Five minutes was enough by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      it can draw an audience in, making them have to think

      Whoa whoa WHOA there, buddy.

      This is intended for an American audience. That sort of thing might fly in Europe or Asia, but NOT in America! No siree Bob!

      Terry Pratchett broke a deal to have a hollywood movie made from one of his books because the producers insisted on dumbing it down so that any slack jawed yockel could wander in to an Alabama mall and enjoy the movie. He's rich enough to afford putting his foot down, not every good author has that chance.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    19. Re:Five minutes was enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can make a guess at why they made the change.

      First off, they probably figured that, no matter what they did, you (as someone who had read and enjoyed the book) wouldn't like their adaptation.

      Second, imagine Danny Glover whispering Ged in his ear with that echoey effect...not quite the same as Sparrow Hawk. And the staff he carried around, it had a hawk's head on it. It's a little harder to have something iconic of the name Ged and it wouldn't seem as meaninful for his staff to be tied to his common name.

      Not saying it was the right call, but perhaps that's what they were thinking.

    20. Re:Five minutes was enough by ChuckleBug · · Score: 1

      First off, they probably figured that, no matter what they did, you (as someone who had read and enjoyed the book) wouldn't like their adaptation.

      Probably so. But it's not true, and it seems like throwing a bone to us readers doesn't cost them anything.

      Second, imagine Danny Glover whispering Ged in his ear with that echoey effect...not quite the same as Sparrow Hawk.

      Again, you're probably right. Wouldn't be the first time the story is driven by an effect, rather than the other way around.

      And the staff he carried around, it had a hawk's head on it. It's a little harder to have something iconic of the name Ged and it wouldn't seem as meaninful for his staff to be tied to his common name

      Fair point, but I'd find it more compelling if they'd actually managed to imbue anything in this turdburger with meaning. :-)

      Perhaps Ged tested better in focus groups or something.

      I guess I don't see much point in making a movie version of a book and then just randomly altering the story. I know, the name's a draw. As an aside, this all reminds me of one of my pet peeves: It seemed to be a fad some handful of years ago to put the book's author's name in movie titles. The example that comes to mind is "Bram Stoker's Dracula." Dammit, that is NOT Bram Stoker's Dracula; Bram Stoker never wrote a bloody screenplay, he wrote a book! The title is false by definition! There oughta be a law, mutter, mutter...

      OK, I'm rambling. Sorry.

      Not saying it was the right call, but perhaps that's what they were thinking.

      I understand. It's always hard to peer into the mind of someone who's not thinking very clearly in the first place. :-)

    21. Re:Five minutes was enough by sconeu · · Score: 1

      From the previews, I had figures Danny Glover as Gensher (who was black in the book).

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  44. Google Cache by OctaneZ · · Score: 1

    well the article is 503'ing, and it didn't get coralized, so here is a link to the google cache'd copy.

  45. who is this Ursula Le Guin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and why do we care what he has to say

  46. BE QUIET! (I'm being repressed) by Darth23 · · Score: 1

    In the commune on the moon, does Supreme Power derive from a mandate from the masses? Are there and strange women lying in ponds, distibuting swords?

    --

    -------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.

    1. Re:BE QUIET! (I'm being repressed) by fitten · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that in this commune, one man has the right to rule because some watery tart flung a sword at him?

  47. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny points, and he didn't even use "but I've never even been to Mexico".

  48. poor, racist adaptation by Optical+Voodoo+Man · · Score: 1
    I thought her arguments were very valid. How could they change so much in a set of books that are so short? It's not like adapting Lord of the Rings, were the whole thing won't fit.

    It's sad that color still plays such an enormous role in what sells on TV. I guess the sci-fi channel felt that they would get more advertising dollars without all of the red and brown cast members.

    1. Re:poor, racist adaptation by WillerZ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I dunno, tho.

      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

      --
      I guess today is a passable day to die.
    2. Re:poor, racist adaptation by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Well, look at what Le Guin said in that slate article:

      "I figured some white kids (the books were published for 'young adults') might not identify straight off with a brown kid, so I kind of eased the information about skin color in by degrees--hoping that the reader would get 'into Ged's skin' and only then discover it wasn't a white one."

      Now, how are you going to do that in a movie?? Start the characters off as white, and then gradually make them look brown, like a reverse Michael Jackson?

      Obviously it wasn't going to work, so they left it out. Not a big loss, I think.

      For most people, sci-fi/fantasy isn't about white guilt or coming to understand other races. That's why so much of it has to do with elves and dragons and aliens -- you don't even really care about the race of the humans involved.

      When I read the Earthsea books, I didn't pick up on the fact that the characters weren't white right away, and I didn't really care when I found out they weren't. If only Le Guin could be as subtle about race in real life as in her books! Why does she have to act like such a freak in her article? I mean look at this: "Whites are a minority on Earth now--why wouldn't they still be either a minority, or just swallowed up in the larger colored gene pool, in the future?"

      Yeah so much for valuing diversity!

    3. Re:poor, racist adaptation by AtomicSushi · · Score: 1

      You miss the point about the white minority. She's simply stating a fact of population growth. In a far flung future earth its logical to see a bunch of nonwhite characters as, over time, the earth's ethnic groups mix (and darken). To have spaceship crew of all whites in a 500 year from now earth is just dumb.

      Ethnicity is important in her books because its not important. Just as in Red Dwarf (mentioned earlier) the ethnicity of the characters is meaningless as much as it is meaningful. Ged is brown, not because it means anything but because he is. Making him white asian or whatever is less of an issue than the fact that nearly EVERYONE has been whitened. What this says is that the producers feel that a largely non-white cast would not have been as marketable.
      It sucks for the same reason that they considered Lucy Liu for Electra in the Daredevil movie. She (and asians in general) were a *hot item* at the time and some marketriod thought it would make more money that way. Never mind that Electra isn't asian and her Greekness is integral to who she is.

  49. Re:Okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I was your age, we used to call TV "books".

    :)

  50. And an incredible mishandling of .. by burgburgburg · · Score: 2
    Mystery Science Theater 3000.

    Turkey Day was so lonely without Crow, Tom Servo, Gypsy, Cambot, Dr. F, TV's Frank, Mrs. Forrester, Brain Guy, Bobo and Joel and/or Mike. So very, very lonely.

    1. Re:And an incredible mishandling of .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm suprised that no one has made a bootleg version of MST3K on the internet. I mean some people actually built the puppets, someone else should find an old cheesy sci-fi movie (which there is no shortage of) and write a script. Then add in Crow and Servo and dub over it. I think it could be done as long as no one totally slaughters it by using the f-bomb all the time or something. Man that was OT, but lack of MST3K pisses me off.

  51. Re:Okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, Phil, and we brush our teeth here too!

  52. Whitewashed Pointlessness and Artistic Abuse by ChaoticCoyote · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm not a big Le Guin fan, and I looked at The Legend of Earthsea simply as a diversion.

    The mini-series was not awful, but it certainly wasn't very good, either. The actors were so understated as to be boring; the only reason I cared about Tinar is because she was cute. ;) As for the main character, he was a stereotypical pretty boy; his sidekick Vetch was the traditional pudgy geek. The best character was a dragon, who figures in about three minutes of screen time.

    Le Guin should be upset, but not surprised. Publishers, TV execs, and movie makers have always twisted ideas to their own ends; even examples such as Jackson's LOTR do not prevent "the powers that be" from dumbing down artistic vision for mass audiences.

    So why do creative people let their worlds be perverted by publishers and movie makers? Because you can't make money if your work doesn't get printed and sold. It's a myth that people will pay artists through online contributions; it just doesn't happen.

    1. Re:Whitewashed Pointlessness and Artistic Abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Le Guin should be upset, but not surprised

      It doesn't seem like she's surprised. In fact her responses say that she wasn't even going to publicly respond until the series' promo materials started attributing quotes to her.

    2. Re:Whitewashed Pointlessness and Artistic Abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, talk about a myth... Stephen King made a million dollars from his online sales of The Plant... and he didn't even finish it!

    3. Re:Whitewashed Pointlessness and Artistic Abuse by peragrin · · Score: 1

      >>The actors were so understated as to be boring; the only reason I cared about Tinar is because she was cute. ;) As for the main character, he was a stereotypical pretty boy; his sidekick Vetch was the traditional pudgy geek. The best character was a dragon, who figures in about three minutes of screen time.

      I would put tinar first, just because she was cute, but yea that's pretty much how I saw it.

      also when does two-two hour episodes create a mini series? At least the Farascape's PeaceKeeper Wars was 6 hours long, But this wasn't worth 4 hours, you could take out half of it and still keep it whole(used loosely)

      I watched the whole thing, and was bored the characters weren't ennteraining, the plot was confusing, and i would rate TNT's The librarian higher, and that was a mediocore laugh.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    4. Re:Whitewashed Pointlessness and Artistic Abuse by nlper · · Score: 2, Insightful
      So why do creative people let their worlds be perverted by publishers and movie makers?

      Funny thing. Le Guin writes this Slate piece and spends far more time complaining about the producers not sharing her political agenda than she does addressing any narrative changes. She ends it, however, with the admonishment that freedom includes responsibility. In other words, the producers should have made a miniseries closer to her work and wishes. It doesn't describe her efforts, if any, to retain control of derived works.

      Meanwhile, J.K. Rowling -- who wrote her first book on the dole and had no leverage when she signed her first contracts -- was vociferous in protecting how her book was adapted to the screen.

      Le Guin might be a better wordsmith, but when it comes to the artistic integrity of protecting one's vision Rowling is miles ahead.

      Tyler

    5. Re:Whitewashed Pointlessness and Artistic Abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Meanwhile, J.K. Rowling -- who wrote her first book on the dole and had no leverage when she signed her first contracts -- was vociferous in protecting how her book was adapted to the screen.

      And the big difference here was the Harry Potter filmmakers wanted to make good adaptations, actively consulted with Rowling about the productions and followed her advice.

      No such luck with Earthsea - Le Guin's inputs weren't wanted (or in the minds of the producers, needed). Rowling got lucky, the HP movies were made by admirers who had kids who really liked the books. Earthsea was made by execs seeking ratings, period.

    6. Re:Whitewashed Pointlessness and Artistic Abuse by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      If your artistic vision happens to be one big cliche in the first place then you'll probably be quite content with it's conversion to film.

    7. Re:Whitewashed Pointlessness and Artistic Abuse by nlper · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Curious. So you think because Le Guin was more original she has less of an obligation to protect her work? Le Guin is the one who raised the issue of responsibility to the work in the first place. So far as I can tell, when it came to actions she was happy to cash the check and snipe afterwards.

      Tyler
    8. Re:Whitewashed Pointlessness and Artistic Abuse by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      No, I think Le Guin has exactly as much obligation to protect her work as she judges fit.

      In this case she negotiated a deal with no real control on her part and the end result was something she didn't like.

      I didn't read any moans by her in either of the articles about the studio not doing what she wanted, what I did read were her opinions on the finished article and I believe she has every right to express opinions on what they have done without it being necessarily construed as whinging or moaning.

    9. Re:Whitewashed Pointlessness and Artistic Abuse by Lazlo+Nibble · · Score: 1

      Harry Potter was/is a huge mainstream front-cover-of-every-newsmagazine publishing phenomenon, and JKR's personal story is an integral part of that. The Harry Potter producers would have ignored Rowlings' concerns at the cost of her publicly trashing the movie(s) to her legions of devoted young fans. In short -- they had to listen to her, because she might have cost them a great deal of money if they hadn't.

      There is no way in hell Ursula LeGuin would have had, or ever will have, this kind of juice with the people who adapt her work for TV or film.

  53. Troll? by WillerZ · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Well, fuck you mods. Ask an honest question, get modded down. There is no justice.

    Phil

    --
    I guess today is a passable day to die.
    1. Re:Troll? by skadus · · Score: 1

      I would contend that there *is* justice in the modding, considering as you were clearly being an asshat in your tone. There are nice ways of asking what an article is about, and there are not-so-nice ways.

      And considering Slashdot is an American site, it would make sense that the paragraph was written with Americans in mind. Obviously Earthsea was a miniseries on the Sci-Fi channel, and Ursula Le Guin was involved in it somehow. It follows that maybe Earthsea was a book by LeGuin and Sci-Fi made a bad TV movie out of it.

      Now excuse me while I go write a scathing post at The Register for talking about 'biscuits'. They're COOKIES, dammit!

  54. Which demographic bought most of her books? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, out of curiosity, I wonder which demographic bought most of le Guins books? Which demographic actually "awarded" her with the book awards she received? Do these questions matter?

  55. Re:Okay by YellowElf · · Score: 2, Informative
    The Earthsea books are a series of short novels set in the fantasy world of Earthsea. There are five of them: A Wizard of Earthsea, The Tombs of Atuan, The Farthest Shore, Tehanu, and The Other Wind. The author has also penned a book of several short stories in the same setting.

    Briefly, Earthsea is a world composed of hundreds of islands. The society is non-industrial, but magic is an integral component of everyday life. Women are seen as a lower class, and only men perform magic. Otherwise, the rest of the world is "normal" in our sense, except that dragons are a reality, though their presence is rare.

    The books tell tales of a few recurring characters, most notably a wizard named Sparrowhawk (also known as Ged). If the producers of such a series went through all the trouble to proclaim this as based on Earthsea, you would think they would have been more faithful to the books. However, they seem to have written a completely different story, with some small number aspects of the original sprinkled throughout the shows. The end result is something that barely resembles the books and thus loses its uniqueness as a fantasy world.

    It seems that the NY Times review (Registration required.) of the series is dead on: what is left is a mishmash of various fantasy stories, sort of Harry Potter meets Lord of the Rings meets Hercules meets Star Wars.

    Anyone hoping to see a film version of the beloved books is going to have his hopes dashed upon the thorny rocks. Instead a different story is presented, using people with the same names but completely different experiences. Anyone hoping to learn about the books by watching them will be misled into thinking they are shallow cookie-cutter versions of everything else. Imagine if Frodo had "lived happily ever after" when he kept the ring himself to bring peace to the world... even though Tolkien never envisioned such a world.

    Undoubtedly, a film producer must change the story presented on screen in order to compensate for the differences between visual and printed media, but this is one of the sloppiest adaptations I have ever seen. Ms LeGuin's comments only underscore my own opinion (or is it the other way around??). Don't watch it, unless you don't care whether the Earthsea movies match the Earthsea books, then it won't matter anyway. --dv

    --
    Insert witty saying or aphorism here.
  56. Gone Hollywood by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    FT(/.'d)A (via Slate):

    "They [the filmmakers] replied that the TV audience is much larger, and entirely different, and would be unlikely to care about changes to the books' story and characters."

    The entire story in a nutshell: the producers and the Sci-Fi Channel are so powerdrunk with their huge audience that they care about Earthsea only as a brand, not a story or a community. Maybe they're right, given their success with their mediocre oversimplification of the masterpiece, Dune, and their large audience for the low-grade crap that fills their schedule. They're the MTV of SF, worthwhile only for their interstitial station-identification, riding the wave of the coming-of-age of their audience with the lowest maintainble quality of exploitation. If only there were a spell strong enough to cure them.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Gone Hollywood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The entire story in a nutshell: the ___________ and ____________ are so powerdrunk with their huge audience that they care about Earthsea only as a brand, not a story or a community.

      put in the blanks...

      Star Wars , Lucas
      Star Trek , Universal
      Survivor , Braindead morons

      etc....

      and all I can say to you is DUH, this is 100% normal and anyone expecting otherwise is a complete and utter idiot.

    2. Re:Gone Hollywood by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Except that this story included the writer of the LoTR movies, who succeded where all those others have failed, despite some dissatisfied people. I never said I expected any different - in fact, Anonymous illiterate Coward, in my post I specified how this is to be expected. But I count myself in good company with UKlG, in our mutual disappointment. All the more complimentary that you, Anonymous fatuous Coward, find it an occasion for an unsupported, clumsily executed, ad hominem attack revealing your own idiocy.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  57. bastardization of 'i robot' by rcamera · · Score: 1

    at least asimov was already dead before 'i robot' was horribly basterdized. elija bailey did NOT exist in the book - those were the later books in the robot series (namely 'caves of steel', 'the naked sun', and 'the robots of dawn'). and the robots would NEVER have attacked a human (at least until 'robots and empire').

    --
    Wave upon wave of demented avengers March cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream
    1. Re:bastardization of 'i robot' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ugh.

      The movie "I Robot" was NOT based on the Asimov books. It was only after the similarity of the two became apparent to the marketeers that they changed the movie title to I Robot. Stupid, sure, but it was not a direct bastardisation of the original novels.

    2. Re:bastardization of 'i robot' by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      and the robots would NEVER have attacked a human (at least until 'robots and empire').
      Nitpick: one of the stories in I, Robot does in fact involve a renegade robot who comes very close to harming a human. His Second Law had been modified, removing the phrase "or through inaction" from the directive not to harm humans.

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    3. Re:bastardization of 'i robot' by rcamera · · Score: 1

      OT - nitpick of your nitpick: first off, the first law is the one about harming people. secondly, which story? i can think of 3...

      1) 'liar liar': by being able to read human emotion, he knew what would harm a person mentally. so he would say whatever the person wanted to hear. after realizing that this could have negative side effects, we went into 'roblock' with a little help from susan calvin.

      2) mining colony example: the second law was not modified. rather, it was not balanced with the other laws appropriatly. the third law was weighed too heavily in relation to the second law, which in turn was not balanced properly with the first law. the effect of these imbalances was the apparent removal of the phrase "or through inaction" in one particular instance.

      3) scinetific research station: the first law had been modified to allow short term exposure to certain types of radiation which are not harmful in small doses. however, unless the robot knew that a certain type of radiation fell within this category, he would assume the worst and not allow the human to enter the radiation field.

      --
      Wave upon wave of demented avengers March cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream
    4. Re:bastardization of 'i robot' by wynlyndd · · Score: 1

      wasn't the third one called Lost! or Little Robot lost?

      --
      "Dogs and cats, living together...it's mass hysteria!"
    5. Re:bastardization of 'i robot' by rcamera · · Score: 1

      link please? i guess they independently came up with the three laws of robotics? and the concept of a 'robot psychologist'? and the detective had an awfully large amount of similarities to the descriptions of elija bailey in the detective books of the robot series... too many coincidences to not be based on the book imo

      --
      Wave upon wave of demented avengers March cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream
  58. Some People Call Him "Dad" by TrueJim · · Score: 2, Interesting
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_L._Kroeber

    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 hope that after I die the one word people use to describe me is "resurrected."
    1. Re:Some People Call Him "Dad" by belmolis · · Score: 1

      The connection to indigenous people continues. Ursula K. LeGuin's nephew Paul Kroeber is a linguist specializing in Salishan languages.

    2. Re:Some People Call Him "Dad" by IPFreely · · Score: 1
      Wiki needs an update. The children thing seems a bit confused.

      Alfred's first wife had no children. His second wife, Theodora, had two children by previous marriage: Clifton and Ted. Alfred and Theodora together had two children: Karl and Ursula. Alfred adopted Cliff and Ted as part of his marriage.

      Also, as the other response mentions, Paul is the son of Karl.

      --
      There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
  59. Re:Okay by fracai · · Score: 1

    When I was your age, we used to call TV "books".

    yeah, there's nothing like sitting down for a nice relaxing night of book watching.

    --
    -- i am jack's amusing sig file
  60. Re:Okay by mozkill · · Score: 1

    The producers of the TV show have "no idea" of the mistake they have made by butchering these books. They could have made far far more money by following the story honestly.

    --

    -- Betting on the survival of the media industry is a serious risk. I advise investing elsewhere.
  61. Re:Okay by Neop2Lemus · · Score: 1
    Earthsea books aren't limited to the USA. The trilogy is a story of a wizard Ged from childhood to old age (I can't remember if he dies in the end though). They take place in a world composed of islands and floating 'raft' cultures. There are also dragons. The earthsea books are excellent, at least volumes 1 and 3 (of 3) were.

    The books are really quiet, almost spiritual, the characters' journey's being internal and not just external.

    I really couldn't see how they could be filmed, and certainly not as action TV (which is what I got out of the trailer).

    I gave A Wizard of Earthsea to a friend to read as they claimed that they read alot of sci-fi. They couldn't read it having been raised on shite like Battlefield Earth and Robert Jordan.

    --
    Needle Nardle Noo
  62. Surprise? by Southpaw018 · · Score: 1

    Why are people so surprised that something on the Sci-Fi channel was all messed up and contained inaccuracies? It's the Sci-Fi channel. Their business is the extremes. Nothing less than the boradcast we saw should have been expected.

    Next, people are going to be expecting neutral reporting from Fox News.

    --
    ACs are modded -6. I don't read you, I don't mod you, I don't see you. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
  63. Contractual Lawsuit? by beldraen · · Score: 1

    IANAL, but it seems pretty clear to me that a level of understanding was meant and not upheld contractually. I think it is fair to say that being a consultant is not being told "this is what we are up to." Additionally, I would think you could sue for some form of damage of intellectual property. If companies are not left with a bad taste in their mouth, they will continue to go on crapping on writers. Hopefully on a side note, this may spark enough interest that someone else may want to do justice with your work. If you do, I think you'll already recognize that you need absolute veto power or no deal in the future.

    Best wishes and thank you for giving your work to the world,

    --
    Bel, the mostly sane.. "Of course I can't see anything! I'm standing on the shoulders of idiots." -- Me
    1. Re:Contractual Lawsuit? by Embedded+Geek · · Score: 1
      being a consultant is...

      In her Slate piece, she states:

      When I sold the rights to Earthsea a few years ago, my contract gave me the standard status of "consultant"--which means whatever the producers want it to mean, almost always little or nothing.

      While it's obvious she's been treated shabbily, she's too much of a pro to sue. Threats of litagation won't force Hollywood to do a better job. Only ratings (and perhaps letters to the network and producers indicating viewers were disappointed) will.

      From this and other stories of bad adaptations, it's obvious that Hollywood feels they're doing authors a favor by producing their works. And, as much as the purist in my soul screams at it, they're absolutely right. It's likely Le Guin will see more royalties for a miniseries that fades into obscurity in two weeks than over the thrity plus years of the print editions. It says a lot about her character that she at least tried to have her agents fight the good fight.

      --

      "Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."

    2. Re:Contractual Lawsuit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right. You are definitely NOT a lawyer. Can I see you for being a dumbass?

    3. Re:Contractual Lawsuit? by Parity · · Score: 1

      Nice try, and a nice dream, but no.

      The consultant is consulted as often or as rarely as the studio chooses, and there is no need to abide by the consultant's wishes. This is the standard hollywood clause, and only very powerful authors can take greater control.

      As for damages, absolutely not. Objectively speaking, the mini-series cannot possibly harm sales of the books, and will likely increase them. Since there are no -financial- damages, there's no legal liability.

      I suppose she could sue for 'psychological trauma' of seeing her book mutilated, but I think such a case would see a -very- fast dismissal.

      --Parity None

      IANALATINLAIYRLAYSCWAA

      --
      --Parity
      'Card carrying' member of the EFF.
    4. Re:Contractual Lawsuit? by Maserati · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, there are now nice new trade paperback editions of the Earthsea cycle available. Some of her other works are in this reprint series as well. If TV is anything like Hollywood, she'll see more for the sale of the new editions than in residuals on the miniseries.

      --
      Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
  64. Tell me nothing, I will guess... by Zangief · · Score: 1

    A love interest for Ged, maybe Tenar?

    1. Re:Tell me nothing, I will guess... by grommit · · Score: 1

      Actually, in Le Guin's later books, Ged and Tenar do get married. Granted, that's not until they're very old and Ged has lost his powers. He becomes merely a side character to the stories.

    2. Re:Tell me nothing, I will guess... by ktulu1115 · · Score: 1

      Was that in "Tehanu"? I read the first three and don't recall reading much about that, but it was some time ago.

      --
      # fuser -v /dev/attention | grep work
      #
  65. Re:SCI-FI is the most consistently disappointing T by roseblood · · Score: 1

    In January? Go check the usenet or your local torrent site of choice. Episodes 1 to 8 are already done, aired, and available for thef...errr..download.

    --
    There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
  66. Can we moderate her blog by Gothmolly · · Score: 0

    as -1, Troll? What does Iraq have to do with anything in the discussion?

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  67. /me raises hand by khasim · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I know the answer! I know the answer!

    "No."
    Does anyone think that the Sci Fi channel will ever get actual decent Sci Fi authors to do their scripts and come up with series for them?
    No. Because they aren't interested in Science Fiction. They want the tech-fantasy crap.

    The stuff that will be guaranteed to appeal to the 12 - 24 year old male audience.

    This isn't even about "low budget". Look at Red Dwarf's first few seasons. They had no budget, yet they had great characters and amusing plots.

    They haven't realized that going with the status quo will always result in mediocrity.

    In order to produce something memorable, they have to push the envelope.

    Watching their crap, I get the feeling that the actor's salaries, the FX, everything is calculated to the exact penny and matched against the ad revenues. They know exactly how many people will watch another rendition of the same-old same-old and they're not going to break a profitable formula.
    1. Re:/me raises hand by 87C751 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      They haven't realized that going with the status quo will always result in mediocrity.
      What gave you the impression that Sci-Fi (or any other non-subscription TV channel) is interested in anything other than mass-appeal, lowest-common-denominator mediocrity? High concept doesn't attract masses of viewers, and masses of viewers are required to keep those ad revenues up.

      Free TV isn't about art. It's an advertising conduit, and nothing more.

      --
      Mail? Put "slashdot" in the subject to pass the spam filters.
    2. Re:/me raises hand by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      ---
      In order to produce something memorable, they have to push the envelope.
      ---

      No, to get something memorable, you write to the timeless elements of human nature, both the good and bad. Tolkien is a classic because he retells what he called the "Great Myth." Stories of sacrifice, loss, redemption, the triumph of good over evil. These stories will be memorable.

      Pushing the envelope is just another way of saying offend traditional sensibilities with pop-culture trash or faddish ideologies. Pushing the envelope is about getting a shock reaction, not creating something memorable.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    3. Re:/me raises hand by broter · · Score: 1
      Free TV isn't about art. It's an advertising conduit, and nothing more.

      I agree with everything you've said, but would like to point out that the Sci-Fi channel isn't free TV. Sell to a stupid market, and you better not insult their stupidity.

      --
      "One man can change the world with a bullet in the right place."
      - Mick Travis, "If..."
    4. Re:/me raises hand by cduffy · · Score: 2, Interesting
      No, to get something memorable, you write to the timeless elements of human nature, both the good and bad. Tolkien is a classic because he retells what he called the "Great Myth." Stories of sacrifice, loss, redemption, the triumph of good over evil. These stories will be memorable.
      Tolkien's "Great Myth"... well, there's a quote from an Amazon review I'd like to find, but (as it's not readily available) I'll need to poorly paraphrase from memory:

      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.
    5. Re:/me raises hand by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 1
      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.

      Try The Light That Failed, by Kipling. I cried when I reached the end--wonderful tale.

    6. Re:/me raises hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really -- the sooner the whiners all realize that television, music and film are business, the sooner they will be able to get on with their lives.

      TV not a high enough selfless art for ya? Too bad dingleberry!

    7. Re:/me raises hand by M1FCJ · · Score: 1

      Red Dwarf's first season ratings were poorer than average. It picked up in the second season. Not only the story, also studio/channel bosses' faith in the series also matter.

    8. Re:/me raises hand by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "No. Because they aren't interested in Science Fiction. They want the tech-fantasy crap."

      Wait, are we talking about SciFi Channel or Discovery?

    9. Re:/me raises hand by GlacierDragon · · Score: 1

      Free? Where I live the Sci-Fi channel is in a Tier you have to pay for. And I haven't bothered to pay since they stopped showing "Sliders".

      --
      http://glacierdragon.smugmug.com - Check out my photos. No need to buy, even though I do need the money!
    10. Re:/me raises hand by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      No. Because they aren't interested in Science Fiction. They want the tech-fantasy crap.

      As evidenced by Taken, Peacekeeper Wars, the two Stargate series, Buck Rogers, Andromeda, the constant reruns of Star Trek, the X-Files and the Outer Limits, Five Days to Midnight, and an original movie list that out of about 60 films contains seven (in my opinion) with even a vague fantasy bent.

      This isn't even about "low budget". Look at Red Dwarf's first few seasons. They had no budget, yet they had great characters and amusing plots.

      Yes, that's exactly the point the parent post was making with the Star Trek comment.

      They haven't realized that going with the status quo will always result in mediocrity.

      Luckily, a basic familiarity with the SciFi channel library will show very little status quo (you see, that phrase means "keeping things as they currently are," and barely even applies here) and recently a relatively small amount of mediocrity.

      In order to produce something memorable, they have to push the envelope.

      As was done with Taken, both Dunes, PK Wars, battlestar galactica, etc etc etc. Which channel besides HBO puts this much effort into shows which aren't the same old NBC drivel?

      Well, also besides Cartoon Network.

      Watching their crap, I get the feeling that the actor's salaries, the FX, everything is calculated to the exact penny and matched against the ad revenues.

      This is true of everything in television and film, not just what you're angry at. Attempting to read into an industry you know nothing about and to guess at underlying mechanics is a good way to look stupid in public.

      They know exactly how many people will watch another rendition of the same-old same-old

      Except when you're talking about the knockoff b horror movies, I'd be interested to know what exactly you suggest Sci-Fi's library is duplicating. You see, giving actual examples is going to make life difficult.

      and they're not going to break a profitable formula.

      Amusingly, the formula you're making accusations about - sticking to standard issue plots and franchises - was broken about nine years ago when it changed management inside Turner Networks, and that's when the channel began to become as immensely profitable as it now is. The further SciFi steps from traditional televised science fiction, the more profitable it becomes.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    11. Re:/me raises hand by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      What gave you the impression that Sci-Fi (or any other non-subscription TV channel) is interested in anything other than mass-appeal, lowest-common-denominator mediocrity?

      Their production list.

      Free TV isn't about art.

      Cable TV isn't free.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    12. Re:/me raises hand by sphealey · · Score: 1
      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.
      Well, if you read the the whole LotR, including the appendices, I would propose that that is a reasonable interpretation of its theme. Saruon was a personification of evil, but he did not create himself, did not create the ring by himself, was not the only evil thing in the world, and his destruction was a very two-edged sword for all the non-human peoples of the Earth.

      If you want to read the Macguffin story it is in there too, and a fine one (plenty of swordfighting in a good production of Macbeth after all), but I would claim it is not the only story.

      sPh

    13. Re:/me raises hand by cduffy · · Score: 1

      Hmm.

      One impression I got from what I read of the series was that Sauron was not so much an individual as a plot element incarnate. Does that change when taking a larger view of the book? Does one ever have an opportunity to empathise and understand on a basic human level (as opposed to a more abstract concept of greed/ambition/whatever) what it is that Sauron was driven by? If so, I may want to go back, pick the series back up, and finish what of it is left.

    14. Re:/me raises hand by Dirtside · · Score: 1
      High concept doesn't attract masses of viewers


      Language note -- the term "high concept" generally means "a simple, memorably concept that can be explained in a few words." What you meant was "highbrow," not "high concept," which are actually opposites.
      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    15. Re:/me raises hand by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      and even the "villains" are entirely human.

      That's the reason why complaints about the removal of the correct ending from the Return Of The King movie are actually valid, and not just rantings of disgruntled nerds.

      In the book, the black-robed master of incarnated evil was defeated just halfway through, but the "Scouring of the Shire" chapters served as a reminder that violence springs eternal. Wherever there is life, there will be animals (men or hobbits) competing for food and doing "evil" to each other.

      The book's ending respected the continuance of non-supernatural evil, while the film went more towards the comforting idea that evil comes from outsider forces, not ourselves.

    16. Re:/me raises hand by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      As evidenced by Taken, Peacekeeper Wars, the two Stargate series, Buck Rogers, Andromeda, the constant reruns of Star Trek, the X-Files and the Outer Limits, Five Days to Midnight, and an original movie list that out of about 60 films contains seven (in my opinion) with even a vague fantasy bent.

      Wrong. You listed 9 specific things. One of them (Peacekeeper) is unfamilar to me, but all the rest are fantasy, except for Outer Limits (which vacillates fantasy and sci-fi on each episode). You apparently don't know what "fantasy" actually means. Star Trek and especially Star Gate are undeniably fantasy.

      But, your mistake is understandable, because in the wake of Tolkien's overwhelming success, a new and incorrect definition of fantasy has emerged: "involving swords, magic, and/or dragons". That's comprable to the definition of sci-fi you were using: "involving lasers, robots, and/or spaceships". Both those definitions are used when book/video stores arrange their shelving.

      The original, "highbrow" definitions of fantasy and science fiction remain as described in your dictionary, untainted by the contours of pop-culture genre patterns.

    17. Re:/me raises hand by gfreeman · · Score: 1

      Free TV isn't about art. It's an advertising conduit, and nothing more.

      You've never watched the BBC, have you?

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    18. Re:/me raises hand by 87C751 · · Score: 1
      You've never watched the BBC, have you?
      Being a USAian, and having only visited Gatwick for 8 hours on a layover once, I'd have to say "no".
      --
      Mail? Put "slashdot" in the subject to pass the spam filters.
    19. Re:/me raises hand by gfreeman · · Score: 1

      Then you're hardly in a position to say "Free TV isn't about art. It's an advertising conduit, and nothing more."

      Usually the world is bigger than our perception, and even though no TV is really free (as in beer) there are certainly some quality advertising-free stations around.

      I apologise on behalf of all Brits that you had to endure Gatwick.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    20. Re:/me raises hand by 87C751 · · Score: 1
      Then you're hardly in a position to say "Free TV isn't about art. It's an advertising conduit, and nothing more."
      So stipulated. However, if you prepend "In the USA,", I think you might agree with the statement. I've heard from other Brits that BBC has some good programming. Though owing to the TV license, BBC isn't the "free" model I'd had in mind.
      I apologise on behalf of all Brits that you had to endure Gatwick.
      Apology accepted.
      --
      Mail? Put "slashdot" in the subject to pass the spam filters.
    21. Re:/me raises hand by gfreeman · · Score: 1

      However, if you prepend "In the USA,", I think you might agree with the statement
      Yes, indeedy, and it's a shame that every other statement is missing the prepended "In the USA ...",

      "We all have the right to bear arms ..."
      "We all speak English ..."
      "We all drive on the right ..."

      TANSTAAFL comes to mind when looking for free TV.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
  68. While we're talking about SF authors... by gseidman · · Score: 1

    Theodore Sturgeon (an SF author) said that 90% of everything is crap. This is known as Sturgeon's law, and tends to be pretty accurate regardless of context. The Sci-Fi channel is no exception. On the up side, it's usually possible to determine just from the previews/trailers/commercials which of their shows will be bad and which will not.

    I've been very happy with the two Stargate series. I actually liked the two Dune miniseries (they weren't great, and I liked the David Lynch version better, but they had their appeal). The Battlestar Galactica miniseries was excellent and I have high hopes for the upcoming series. Farscape was fantastic, and I was very happy with the Peacekeeper Wars miniseries that came after long work on the part of the fans. On the other hand, 100% (with very little margin of error) of their original movies (not miniseries) are pure shit. Much of the stuff they play during the day (Dark Shadows, anyone?) is godawful. So it works out... 90% of the programming on the Sci-Fi Channel is crap.

    1. Re:While we're talking about SF authors... by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      If you liked the BG miniseries from 2003, you're going to like the new series. I've been...ahem...acquiring them online, since they're already playing in the UK, and they're just as good as the miniseries. Yay!

      If you liked Sci-Fi Channel's Earthsea, you'll gonna love "Anonymous Rex." ;)

    2. Re:While we're talking about SF authors... by Phrogman · · Score: 1

      You didn't include Firefly in your list of great series? I think its extremely well done, and sadly got canned after its first season. :(

      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
  69. No whining after profiting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Here is an excerpt from an interview http://www.bookslut.com/features/2003_10_000738.ph p
    with Augusten Burroughs (author of Running with Scissors) that is relevant here:

    INTERVIEWER: Are you going to write the screenplay?

    BURROUGHS: He is. I'm not going to write the screenplay.

    INTERVIEWER: Are you going to have an advisory role with it?

    BURROUGHS: Yeah, but I'm not writing the screenplay. That's one of those things -- maybe my advertising background makes it easier -- but when you come up with an ad campaign, you come up with this vision, something you think is really smart, yet really entertaining, and then you give it to a director and he takes it to the next level. You learn early on in your career -- if you're going to have a long career -- that you need to let it go. You either need to have complete control over [a film], write the screenplay, choose the director, much the way John Irving did for Cider House Rules, or you need to let it go. But you can't option it, and then whine about it not being good, because the only reason you option it is for money. That's why you do it.

    1. Re:No whining after profiting by blamanj · · Score: 1

      Why should you give up your right to make a critical judgement just because you were paid?

      Le Guin wasn't paid for loyalty, she was paid to relinquish a copyright protection. She didn't like the result, why shouldn't she be able to say so?

      If I have an orchard, and someone buys my apples to make apple cider and the cider tastes like horse piss, don't I have the right to say so? Why should the fact that I sold the apples (which many customers are very happy with) force me to be silent about the quality of a completely different product?

    2. Re:No whining after profiting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Part of selling out is accepting the consequences.

  70. Re:Okay by rcamera · · Score: 1

    well... not quite. google didn't release the book search yet. but we're expecting them soon!

    --
    Wave upon wave of demented avengers March cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream
  71. Re:SCI-FI is the most consistently disappointing T by eMartin · · Score: 1

    Actually 1 to 9.

    How do you think I know it's good? ;)

  72. Ohwell! by soundguy900000 · · Score: 0

    I had a feeling it wouldn't be that good, and ofcouse, when slash dot posts and everyone floods the site, most servers seem to not be able to handle all us /.'ers all at once.

  73. The screenplay had "modern" language by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Several places in the film, people talked in "modern TV language" - it was like I was watching a modern-day TV show for a few seconds.

    Quite annoying.

    Memo to Sci-Fi:
    A general-purpose TV network may get away with radical changes to the books and hoping the audience won't notice.
    When it comes to making movies from Science Fiction and Fantasy books, you don't have that option.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  74. This sucks :( by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

    Another great story getting ripped appart and turned into a money magnet for the producers.

    If they wanted to do things like Lord of the Rings, they should have READ AND ENJOYED the book. It's no mystery that Peter Jackson was a huge fan of LOTR, and even the part where they altered a slight point of the plot was controversial. Obviously Jackson wanted to follow the spirit of the book, and try to be the most respectful of it.

    But here, these producers are just USING the book for their own benefit, without even consulting the author - and worse, they put words in her mouth.

    So, it's a completely different story. A mockery. It does NOT have the right to use the name "Earthsea".

    1. Re:This sucks :( by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      That's odd since they were running adverts pimping her Earthsea books. Something tells me she wasn't too peeved until after the bulk of the ads were already run.

    2. Re:This sucks :( by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      Oh, please. You can say you liked Jackson's LOTR, but to say that he tried to follow the spirit of the book is an absolute joke. The spirit of the books is the corrupting power of evil and how it is responded to. Jackson turned it into some sort of Gladiator sword-fest with sword-wielding she-elves, creepy elf-queens and character assassinations left and right.

      The book had the majesty of a Ghandi or Chariots of Fire, and Jackson turned it into Raiders of the Lost Ark.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    3. Re:This sucks :( by MSMud · · Score: 1

      The producers received the right to use the name "Earthsea" when the author cashed that check. She knew what she was doing when she sold it. Of course the producers are USING the book for their own benefit. That's why they bought the rights.

    4. Re:This sucks :( by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      Well that's your opinion but in Jackson's opinion, and in my opinion he made a very good set of movies out of the novel which definitely is in keeping with the "spirit" of the novel.

  75. Re:Gratitude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    probably because you're an idiot

    you only hate the movies because other people like them

    you're nothing more than a wannabe rebel who tries to hate what's popular

  76. Re:SCI-FI is the most consistently disappointing T by eberry · · Score: 1

    That's probably the mini-series that was done last year. New BG episodes have not aired on SCI-FI.

    --
    Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Lois, this isn't my Batman glass. - Peter
  77. Re:Okay by doorbot.com · · Score: 1

    For real? You guys have books now?

    Yes, they aren't catching on as much as espected; television is much more accessible to people who attended our schools. Also, the talking heads have told us not to get too attached, as the Lord (GWB) is sending out the thought police soon to start burning them all. I hope they start before winter's over.

  78. Re:Okay by WillerZ · · Score: 1

    Thanks for the summary. If it makes it over here I shall definitely ignore it.

    Phil

    --
    I guess today is a passable day to die.
  79. Typical Response by dafz1 · · Score: 1

    Every time a work is adapted for another medium(like a book to a movie), the creator is going to respond, "You ruined it! You completely missed my point!" The true fans are going to tear down the changes, for similar reasons(Han shoots first).

    The problem is a director has two hours to make, and keep the audience, engaged with what the director thinks is the point of the movie. The director has to make changes to the storyline, script, and eventually, the film itself to keep the movie flowing. They have to make the movie good enough so you want to see it again, and will tell you friends to see it. Authors have more say in how long their books are, directors have 2 - 2 1/2 hours.

    1. Re:Typical Response by Scutter · · Score: 1

      To an extent that is true. However, Hollywood has a history of buying the rights to a novel and throwing away everything except the title. There are many good novels that were made into horrible unrelated movies when they could have been condensed very easily. Bourne Identity is one that comes immediately to mind. It's one thing to modify or remove a plot point to shorten the movie or keep the action flowing. It's another thing altogether to throw away everything in the story but the names.

      --

      "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
    2. Re:Typical Response by Derkec · · Score: 1

      Right, but I hardly remembered the books. My biggest gripe was that the show sucked, the actors were mostly unable to convey any emotion the script might have suggested and I was perpetually bored. My wife who never read the books, watched about 5 minutes before declaring, "This seems really bad." and looked at me like I was nuts for Tivoing it. I watched it alone the nexy day.

    3. Re:Typical Response by Zarf · · Score: 1

      The problem is a director has two hours to make, and keep the audience, engaged with what the director thinks is the point of the movie.

      Article Title: "A Whitewashed Earthsea"

      So that's why the director had to make eveyone in the movie white in a book that was at least partially about race relations. I get it. The audience wouldn't have been able to handle a brown-skinned hero.

      From the article:
      I have heard, not often, but very memorably, from readers of color who told me that the Earthsea books were the only books in the genre that they felt included in--and how much this meant to them, particularly as adolescents, when they'd found nothing to read in fantasy and science fiction except the adventures of white people in white worlds.

      It sounds to me like the race card was very important to the story. I never read the books, (I did see the mini-series) but I can tell that the whole speech about the peoples of Earth Sea being united and all that makes a lot more sense if Ged isn't white.

      The director must have made Ged white so people would stay engaged. I mean who would put a colored Captain in charge of a space-station? Who would make a non-white person the center of a heroic adventure set in the future?

      Race problems and things like that don't belong in Sci-Fi anyway. Sci-Fi doesn't exist to challenge norms. You don't write sci-fi to make people think.

      BTW: I'm being sarcastic.

      --
      [signature]
    4. Re:Typical Response by iabervon · · Score: 1

      Her first thing is actually not at all about the miniseries. It's about what the director of the miniseries says about the book. The director of a movie shouldn't claim to be true to the book without having the author of the book tell him what the book is about. It's okay for a movie not to follow the book, but the director shouldn't claim it follows the book if it doesn't. Peter Jackson didn't claim that the Scouring of the Shire wasn't in the book, or that all of the songs from the books appeared in the movies, because he was aware that these things were different.

      The second piece is a complaint about the miniseries, but it's one that didn't need to be the way it was. It's possible and not even particularly expensive to make characters have any skin color you want. It is ironic that Sci Fi has shows with blue people, but the red-brown people in this are white. If they couldn't use an actor for Ged with red-brown skin, they could at least have painted him the right color.

    5. Re:Typical Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The director must have made Ged white so people would stay engaged. I mean who would put a colored Captain in charge of a space-station? Who would make a non-white person the center of a heroic adventure set in the future?

      [Recognizing your sarcasm, and agreeing with it]

      Here's hoping SciFi channel never contracts to show Deep Space Nine, or an entire executive suite would have heart attacks at the first episode.

  80. What are youthinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Movie producers have been reducing SF and fantasy to
    > mindless drivel at least since "The Wizard of Oz,"

    The Wizard of Oz IS mindless drivel, and the inspiration for the constant misuse of cuteness in SF & fantasy films.

    1. Re:What are youthinking? by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      Whooossshhhhh.....

      rj

  81. HI, MODERATORS. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    You only need to vote up an article mirror once. Like, the first one in the discussion thread. When the third post is an article mirror, that's useful, just go ahead and vote up that one only. It isn't the fault of the people who posted article mirrors at the fifth, ninth, 13th, and 43rd posts that their mirrors were dupes; they didn't know. However, that isn't any reason to vote them up. Yet somehow they have ALL been voted up. This is not useful.

    When the MAJORITY of the top-level posts are long article mirrors, this makes things somewhat hard to read. Thus by causing the only voted-up posts to be these article mirrors, you are causing the moderation system to have the opposite effect as desired-- reading at score:3 will disappear all the real comments and just leave you with nine copies of the article.

  82. Sounds like a bad agent by digitalamish · · Score: 1

    After reading her comments it basically boiled down to her having no control/involvement in the production. She trusted the producers, which even I know you don't do. Unfortunately she dug her own hole on this one. Her agent should have asked for more control in the process.

  83. Re:My complaint so far... Sorry, it didn't by Graemee · · Score: 1

    Well if you saw the second episode, you should be even more disappointed in the story. Now I have to say I've never read any Earthsea. I've read other books by her, but I wasn't into reading fantasy and never even read the Lord of the Rings until I was out of high school.

    I have to say I thought the ending was rushed, tripe and the whole show badly acted. It will make me read the books because I know they're better. It was so obvious IMHO that they barely touched on the details of the story.

  84. LeGuin has a color hang-up by emmayche · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Like others, I was more surprised at LeGuin's ignoring the plot changes (including switching use-names and true-names) and focussing on skin color.

    Who gives a flying fsck about skin color, anyway? I'd say "dinosaurs from the 50s," but I was born in the 50s! In the South, yet!

    Besides, Caucasian though I am, leave me out in the sun long enough and I certainly turn "red-brown." In fact, if I had to describe the skin color of "white" people, it'd be pinkish-brown anyway.

    Perhaps she's just trying to see if anyone noticed that.





    ...Naah.

    1. Re:LeGuin has a color hang-up by lumpenprole · · Score: 2, Informative

      yeah, well as she points out, it's pretty much only 'pinkish-whites' who have the option of being color-blind. everybody else doesn't.

      --
      Disclaimer: MINAA (Mummy! I'm Not An Animal!)
    2. Re:LeGuin has a color hang-up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps I'm just incapable of seeing this because I'm white... but I don't understand the "whites are the only ones who have the luxury" comment. What is that supposed to mean? I (like the original poster) was rather suprised (and almost offended) by the apparent hang-up the author has on race. What race is Le Guin anyway? Why does it matter so much to her and her percieved reader base what color the characters are? Why don't black or asian or indian people have the "luxury of being colorblind"? I'm just confused.

    3. Re:LeGuin has a color hang-up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      When I saw in the trailer I noticed right away that they had made Sparrowhawk younger, whiter and downright suburban compared with who he is in the books. I decided I wasn't going to bother watching this movie. From what I've read here, it looks like I made the right decision.

    4. Re:LeGuin has a color hang-up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idea is that as a white male, you don't have to deal with racism in your everyday life. If you really wanted to, you could likely go through your entire life without dealing with racism, sexism, etc. Your issues are society's issues, because "the powers that be" are also white men who are likely to focus the governments powers on things that concern them. If you were born black, or latino, or a woman, you couldn't do that nearly as easily or as well. Your issues would be "special interests", and if racism or sexism is occuring around you, it is most likely having an negative effect on your life. You can't ignore that. You can't be "colorblind" when you deal with issues of color every day, regardless of wether you want to or not.

      That is not to say that you can not notice these things. You are very capable of seeing them, but sometimes it takes a little extra thinking because it can be very hard to put yourself in someone else's shoes and really understand how things that you don't have to think about (racism, sexism, etc) effect them can be hard.

    5. Re:LeGuin has a color hang-up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      The idea is that as a white male, you don't have to deal with racism in your everyday life. If you really wanted to, you could likely go through your entire life without dealing with racism, sexism, etc. Your issues are society's issues, because "the powers that be" are also white men who are likely to focus the governments powers on things that concern them. If you were born black, or latino, or a woman, you couldn't do that nearly as easily or as well. Your issues would be "special interests", and if racism or sexism is occuring around you, it is most likely having an negative effect on your life. You can't ignore that. You can't be "colorblind" when you deal with issues of color every day, regardless of wether you want to or not.

      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.

    6. Re:LeGuin has a color hang-up by Scrameustache · · Score: 1
      LeGuin's ignoring the plot changes

      Ignoring?

      I don't know what the film is about. It's full of scenes from the story, arranged differently, in an entirely different plot, so that they make no sense.


      And there's more.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    7. Re:LeGuin has a color hang-up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To quote the late great artist O.D.B., "Nigga please."

      The only people that CAN NOT afford to be colour-blind are The Left who rely on frequent bogus, Tawna Brawley-like claims of racism to make political mileage and avoid actually debating issues, when they can simply demonize their opponents.

      It is ironic that Democrats hate it when black people actually become successful because as soon as blacks make it into the middle class they start to vote Republican. The racist bigoted attacks on Clarence Thomas, Colin Powel & Condi Rice don't come from Southern Rednecks (The Left's version of "uppity niggers") but from Democratic Senators and the New York Times political cartoonists. It is to the Democrats advantage to keep as many blacks as possible in ignorance and poverty. We could move to a colour-blind society if The Left wasn't so afraid that they would lose their political clout without the ability to claim racism at every turn. Go ask Bill Cosby.

  85. Fell asleep by SCHecklerX · · Score: 1

    What I saw of it I liked, but waking up after key sequences, I don't know what was going on. Guess I can watch it again 2nite.

  86. Big deal... by Gadzinka · · Score: 1

    My favourite Polish writer (Andrzej Sapkowski) once said (according to him, repeating after Harry Harrison):

    If you sell a book to Hollywood you can't complain if they cast pink poodle as leading character -- if you don't like it, don't sell.

    Robert

    --
    Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162
    1. Re:Big deal... by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      Well, you could have the foresight to draw up the contract yourself, (having your skilled legal team do it, of course), which anticipates Hollywood, and specifically enumerates damages for things like "casting Pink Poodle as leading character..."

      Stephen King manages to get it right, why can't Ursula? Was she broke, or merely foolish?

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    2. Re:Big deal... by Gadzinka · · Score: 1

      Stephen King manages to get it right, why can't Ursula? Was she broke, or merely foolish?

      I think the actual word is "greedy". Greedy beyond imagination or greedy beyond common sense.

      Robert

      --
      Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162
  87. Well if she wants to blame someone by hrieke · · Score: 1

    She should blame herself first for not demanding some input into the production, then the agent who handled the sale to the production company for not getting these rights written into the contract.

    Even though authors really do hate it when their books and stories need to change to work for theater, movies and TV, not giving them an input on how the story changes usually does bring out the worst in the final product. (Oh, of course there are some egos that can't stand the fact that someone has a different take on their mangum opus which could be just as valid as the author's intent. The name Jerry Pournelle comes to mind for instance.)

    --
    III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIIIV IIVIIIIIIVIII...
    1. Re:Well if she wants to blame someone by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      "...not giving them an input on how the story changes usually does bring out the worst in the final product."

      The author bears the lion's share of the responsibility, when she signs the paper that relinquishes her rights to the material.

      As a matter of fact, I will go as far as to say the author bears the COMPLETE responsibility, because ONLY the author, or her heirs for *75* years after her death, may relinquish this control!

      Now, if you want to get into the financial considerations that lead someone to surrender rights, or if you want to talk about the standard operating procedure for the film and tv industries, that's fine, but it does not shift the responsibility away from the author, when she picks up the pen and signs the paper.

      Harsh realities of the entertainment business can lead people to make decisions that are not in thier best long-term interests, for a short term gain. But the decision always rests in the hand of the author, which signs the contract.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  88. Re:Okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's okay; we'll ignore you too.

  89. I watched it, and liked it. by havaloc · · Score: 1

    I haven't read the books before, but I saw the series on Sci-Fi (how could you not, they only advertised it 1,000 times), and while I'm sure the books were butchered, I now have an incentive to read them. I found the mini series was somewhat decent and enjoyable.

  90. I dont like her. I like Brin, Efremov,Lem,Asimov by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I like the SF writers who are also scientists. Those without a science background are just not qualified. Plenty of really good SF writers are also scientists (or were, before they became writers)
    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)

  91. Didnt scifi redo one of her pther books by trinity93 · · Score: 1

    Didnt they do a redo of "Lathe of Heaven"? similar to the one done back in the late 60's or early 70s

    --
    We substituted the coffee Slashdot normally drinks with "Sandoz Crystals", Lets see if they notice the difference
    1. Re:Didnt scifi redo one of her pther books by fishbowl · · Score: 1


      >Didnt they do a redo of "Lathe of Heaven"? similar
      >to the one done back in the late 60's or early 70s

      I missed it, I guess. The original was pretty bad, but not really counter to the spirit of the novel. I'd like to see Left Hand of Darkness in an animated treatment.

      I really liked Sci-Fi's Dune and Children, although the pacing in Children is pretty bad.

      I only see Sci-Fi channel stuff when it comes out on DVD, since my cable provider puts it on the expensive digital cable only -- and it's pretty much the only interesting thing about their digital cable. It's far less expensive to just buy their DVDs when they release them, than to subscribe to the expensive, and expensive, digital cable for these occasional worthwhile specials.

      Did I mention that Cox digital cable was expensive?

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    2. Re:Didnt scifi redo one of her pther books by Cheerio+Boy · · Score: 1

      Didnt they do a redo of "Lathe of Heaven"? similar to the one done back in the late 60's or early 70s

      It blew chunks. I have both versions on DVD and I much prefer the 1980's version. At least it was fairly true to the book and not horribly mangled.

      Much as what has happened to Earthsea.

      Producing these things is not a problem of special effects or writing it's a problem of greed plain and simple. I am quite honestly surprised that LOTR came out as cleanly as it did.

      --

      "Bah!" - Dogbert
  92. Re:SCI-FI is the most consistently disappointing T by eMartin · · Score: 1

    They have already aired on Sky One in the UK.

  93. I'm not really surprised... by injunear · · Score: 1
    Did you see what they did with Phillip Jose Farmer's
    • RiverWorld
    books?
    1. Re:I'm not really surprised... by doggo · · Score: 1

      " Did you see what they did with Phillip Jose Farmer's RiverWorld... ?

      Amen, brother. Anyone who thinks the SciFi Channel is a good source of "SciFi" is a damn fool.

      Not to mention the frickin' commercials. Jeez, they didn't have that many commercials back in the day when there was only broadcast TV, and the only place to see "SciFi" movies was on Saturday afternoons on UHF, or at conventions.

      And we're paying for cable why? To watch crap programming with 5 minutes of commercials every 10 minutes?

      You know, the other night I watched a 90 min movie on FX. It took 3 hours. That's an hour and a half of commercials. 1/1. Sick.

      Maybe I need a PVR or something. Maybe I need a bigger DVD collection.

  94. one more by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 1

    Let me just add "Star Cops."

    --
    Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
  95. i'd to present the alternative view by circletimessquare · · Score: 1, Troll

    i am in no way affiliated with the sci fi channel:

    the sci fi channel is a forum for presenting works of sci fi

    that means something

    so please, dear sci fi fan, don't criticize more than you should, lest you prove to those who would program for you that it is not worth trying to program for you... see?

    you can argue about who gets to present what, but for most of the sour grapes here, i find that complaining is what they do best

    now i'm not saying my opinion supercedes that of le guin, nor that this tv series is worthy of praise... and i have fond memories of the tombs of atuan from when i was kid that i am certain the hacks at the sci fi channel can not possibly fully realize as the same magic on the small screen

    but you do realize that to do something of what peter jackson did with tolkien requires so much effort, so much time, so much passion, so much skill, so much money, so much blood, sweat, and tears... and EVEN THEN you will find asshats who will whine and nit pick about it

    so what am i saying?

    i am saying that sci fi fans can be such incredibly cranky, perfectionist know-it-alls that you can deduce from their criticism in the end that it is impossible to please them... and therefore, why try?

    so embrace the sci fi channel for existing and being a forum for works you enjoy, and give thanks for that, and build on it, and do not disparage those who try! please make sure that your criticisms are properly directed and scoped, or they will have an impact that only hurts you in the end: that sci fi fans are an impossible audience... do you want that impression to impact the future potential of presenting great works of sci fi on video or film?

    do not bite the hand that feeds you, lest you not be fed again

    sour grapes can be defined as "disparagement of something that is unattainable"

    it is NOT unattainable to make of le guin's earthsea books on video something like what peter jackson did with tolkien on film

    but it IS on the limited resources of the sci fi channel

    consider that, then criticize, and don't criticize someone in such a way that you seem to be criticizing them for even trying, or they won't try anymore... is that the message you want to deliver? do you think i'm being strident in this characterization? read some criticisms of the sci fi channel's efforts again, and get back to me if you still think i am being overly strident

    some of you threaten to destroy the very forum which tries to please you, simply because a lot of you, dear sci fi fans, can really be some horribly impossible to please perfectionists

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:i'd to present the alternative view by Obiwan+Kenobi · · Score: 1

      The fact remains that they just plain fucked up Earthsea. You can nitpick over LOTR facts, but when the author comes out to publicly strike out against the producers, the director, and the script, being mislead time after time, then that is not "whining". That is material injustice.

      You seem to detail a world where -no- critisism should exist. Everyone lives in their comfortable little padded world, and tells the tale as best they can, to please their sponsors, to dumb it down for the masses, to take something beautiful and turn it into something different, no matter how differing from its original incarnation because White Folks Having Sex And Committing Violence Sells.

      Then there are the rest of us, you remember, those people who complain? Most of those who complain do so because they want to see a better product than may be produced without our commentary. Sure we are the noise-makers, but where would the world be without dissent? Where would the world be with no commentary, no feedback, no differing opinions?

      It would be your utopia. It would be a world in which Earthsea is an achievement, and not the abomination it has become.

    2. Re:i'd to present the alternative view by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      do not bite the hand that feeds you, lest you not be fed again

      No, we bite the hand that feeds us crap, and then go look for food somewhere else.

      If they want to know why their core audience is draining away to online gaming, they only need look to themselves.

    3. Re:i'd to present the alternative view by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > do not bite the hand that feeds you, lest you not be fed again

      You seem to think that the SciFi Channel is the only place to find science fiction? That reading the original books is somehow no longer allowed? That CRAPPY visual adaptions are preferable to reading the originals and ignoring the crappy adaptations and NOT being grateful that crap was made?

      Thanks, but for "food" like that, I'll not be biting hands or anything else of theirs. Just not watching the dreck they produce, EVER.

    4. Re:i'd to present the alternative view by broter · · Score: 1
      • i am saying that sci fi fans can be such incredibly cranky, perfectionist know-it-alls that you can deduce from their criticism in the end that it is impossible to please them... and therefore, why try?

      What rubbish. There is a long series of TV, movie, and literature that is admired by Sci-Fi fans. It is absolutely possible to shorten a story without gutting its plot.

      It is also possible to write a script that isn't shallow, rehashed drivel dredged up from pop fiction without any insights into the human condition.

      That's at the core of these complaints. Pop media's Sci-Fi is missing all the things that make Sci-Fi fans Sci-Fi fans.

      --
      "One man can change the world with a bullet in the right place."
      - Mick Travis, "If..."
  96. This is the most accurate review I've seen. by AltGrendel · · Score: 1

    I watched about 10 minutes, I quickly recognized that it was a (bad) pastiche of the books. Typical dribble from the "Entertainment" industry. I really do feel sorry for her.

    --
    The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

    - Douglas Adams

  97. Next time, go with a Bollywood producer. by RoboOp · · Score: 1

    On the plus side, the hues of the characters would have been as imagined by the author in the books.

    On the negative side, the characters would be dancing and singing their way through the story.

    --
    "First you get the Linux, then you get the power, THEN you get the women"
  98. Re:Okay by GMFTatsujin · · Score: 1

    We have actually had books for hundred of years, but the DMCA put paid to us actaully remembering any of thier contents. Unauthorized mental replication of copyrighted materials, you see.

  99. So let me get this straight... by jveit · · Score: 1

    The author sold the rights off for a chunk of cash knowing full well at the time that she had no creative control over the content of the movies and then turns around and bitches about how the producers screwed up the stories finishing her rant with an admonishment about responsibility.

    How about her own responsibility back when she was looking to sell the rights? All she saw was dollar signs. Why couldn't she have refused to sell the rights? It sounds like she wants to have her cake and eat it, too.

    1. Re:So let me get this straight... by Pantero+Blanco · · Score: 1

      As I understand it, if you want a book to be published at all, you have to relinquish a considerable amount of those rights. And if your books aren't published, you don't eat.

    2. Re:So let me get this straight... by IPFreely · · Score: 1
      I'll help you get it straight.

      The director said "We've tried to hold the authors intents as close as possible, including ...."

      And the author comes back with "Excuse me, but those were not my intents."

      Understand now? She's not complaining about the movie, she's complaining that the director is trying to put words in her mouth. Do you give up that too when you sign away movie rights? Enumerating the differences and reasons for those differences is part of her clearification, not the direct complaint.

      --
      There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
  100. Not unexpected, but..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ....hasn't Ms. LeGuin ever spoken to, or read about, Harlan Ellison?

    His Hollywood deflowering was detailed in "The StarCrossed", about his attempts to keep one of his novels from being bastardized by TV. He failed, and told about it.

    She's of an age with Harlan, she should have known this would happen.

  101. Why so much talk about skin color ? by fani · · Score: 0

    I can't understand why Ursula LeGuin is talking so much about skin color. I can see she's trying to not be racist. But in doing so, she's perhaps being one ?

    If we truly don't care about skin color, why all the talk about it in her article ? What's she trying to prove ? That you need to have proper percentage representation ? What does it have anything to do with the story ?
    Its really silly to see people go out of their way to show there's no racism and in doing so, they're being racist. Like in the TV ad's where you have the token african-american people in the ads just to balance. This is crap.

    She's all confused. If she's writing a futuristic story, she needs to step away from the past issues. It doesn't matter how much skin color is on screen. All that matters is what the story is.

    btw, there are 1 billion Indians ( brown ) and 1.5 billion chinese ( yellow ) in a 6 billion Earth population. does this mean we need 16% brown and 20% yellow all the time to represent Earth ??

  102. Just my two cents by Slick_Snake · · Score: 1
    After reading her complaints about the mini-series, it seems to me that she is most upset about the color of the characters. From what I can tell the story did was not about race, but rather about people strugling to understand their powers and purpose. Make them green and its still the same story. She didn't go into much detail about what else was wrong with the mini-series except that they rearanged some seen and it didn't make since to her. If the color of someone skin is that important to you then you are too narrow minded.

    Yes I know that she is this "great" author, but to be that critical over the color of a fictional characters skin is rediculous. If is was made in asia they would have been mostly asian. If it was made in south america they would have been mostly dark skinned. She got her pay and signed away her rights to the mini-series so she should stop bitching and live with her choice. If you don't like the terms of a contract DON'T SIGN IT.

    1. Re:Just my two cents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Maybe you just don't get it?

      Race need not be a driving aspect of the story to be a central part of the story.

      For all that I enjoyed the Magnificent Seven and Battle Beyond the Planets, neither was Seven Samurai. Part of the story is the people and events, but part of it is the culture and backdrop.

      And then there is:

      Yes I know that she is this "great" author, but to be that critical over the color of a fictional characters skin is rediculous. If is was made in asia they would have been mostly asian. If it was made in south america they would have been mostly dark skinned.


      Oh. . .I suppose it would have been difficult to find black or asian actors in North America?
    2. Re:Just my two cents by Slick_Snake · · Score: 1

      Maybe you just don't get it? The main point I was making is that she made her deal, got her money, and gave up her rights to the story. She didn't even mention a word about how the actors portaid their roles. To complain about the color of the actors and not talk how well or how bad they portraid the role they were given is petty. Culture is not a racially defined. A culture goes beyond race into the behaviors and beliefs of a society so skin color means nothing.

    3. Re:Just my two cents by Kintanon · · Score: 1

      Except that one of the primary issues with her novels is indeed skin color. She was one of the first writers to create science fiction and fantasy stories with minority main characters and it is important to her that those characters be portrayed in the fashion she intended.

      Kintanon

      --
      Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
  103. I think that is why she was upset. by khasim · · Score: 1
    The mini-series was not awful, but it certainly wasn't very good, either. The actors were so understated as to be boring; the only reason I cared about Tinar is because she was cute. ;) As for the main character, he was a stereotypical pretty boy; his sidekick Vetch was the traditional pudgy geek. The best character was a dragon, who figures in about three minutes of screen time.
    Exactly. Another Boy + Sidekick + Love interest mini-series. All stereotyped.

    Change the title and some of the names and you would not know that it had anything to do with EarthSea.
  104. It Certainly Sucked by Crispin+Cowan · · Score: 1
    I couldn't stand to watch it,and turned it off after about 30 minutes.

    But I'm unsure who to blame; the director, or Le Guin? Because it sure did feel a lot like her books, which bore me to tears. I know there are a lot of Le Guin fans out there; to each their own.

    Now, when is someone going to make a movie from a Stephenson book? Or Niven? C'mon, finding great SF to make movies from is easy, and getting easier. I submit that CGI recently got to the point where you could make a really good Kzin movie.

    Crispin

    1. Re:It Certainly Sucked by solios · · Score: 1

      The Kilrathi (Wing Commander universe) have always been a complete rip of the Kzin... and they looked like fucking MUPPETS in the movie. Alien depiction is only as good as the production crew and the director.... shit, Lucas has proven that no amount of CG can make the fake look real, while Del Toro (sp) has proven that you can mix it with the real deal for a seamless affect- the Kzin would be better off puppetry and/or makeup whereever possible- ditto the Pupeteers. :)

      Stephenson would be EASY to adapt, and probably a good deal of fun in the process... depending on the book, of course. You could do a miniseries of Cryptonomicon on a fairly modest budget without any CG at all and still have it all come across- ditto the Baroque Cycle.

      Snow Crash might require a bit more on the production design end of things, but the vast majority of it can still be created with good location scouting and creative set dressing.

      Effects are no longer an issue. Production values and commitment to excellence are, and that's what sets things like Blade II and LotR apart from Sci-Fi channel crapfests.

    2. Re:It Certainly Sucked by Crispin+Cowan · · Score: 1
      That Kzinti can be ripped off badly does not surprise me :)

      I kind of disagree about Lucas; the problem with Jar Jar and company in TPM is the crappy writing not the CG.

      For Stephenson, the stuff I think would be good choices would be his earlier books, before he started to suck :) Zodiac would be the easiest to produce, because the setting is just contemporary. It isn't even really SF, just a slightly imaginative contemporary thriller a la Tom Clancy. Snowcrash and Diamond Age would be great movies, but more expensive to produce.

      The Baroque Cycle? Hell no. Those books are sooooooooooo over written, long, and boring. That would be so dull it would make me wish I was watching Earthsea :)

      Crispin

    3. Re:It Certainly Sucked by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      Anyone wanting to make Snowcrash properly would have one basic problem: Some plot points hinge on some people having cheap looking generic avatars in cyberspace while others have carefully crafted individual avatars with much more bandwidth supporting them. How do you make it apparent in a film that the cheap stuff reflects the real characterization and not the film's special effects budget?
      I suspect that those directors who would want to do Snowcrash right exist, but they probably are not really committed to the project because they'd have to solve this problem in terms of set design, overall look and feel, and its impact on the humorous elements of the plot, all before they could even tackle a final screenplay, let alone casting.
      Usually, films, particularly SF, are done in the reverse, i.e. you delegate designing the suit robot Andy Kaufmann is going to wear after you have actually cast him. Similarly, you usually know what stunts an actor will need to do before you sweat visual style too much, so you have a plan for when you will use blue screen effects, wirework and such - a plan that is there to make the impossible shot possible, or often, safer for the actors, not to make a deliberately cheesy avatar look cheesier and a qualty avatar look more fluid and 'bandwidth rich'.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
  105. She compares herself to Tolkein? by fishbowl · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't see where she gets off comparing the SciFi channel's treatment to changing the LOTR ending.

    I also don't understand, financial considerations aside, what would posess an artist to relinquish so much artistic control over their material, that such complaints ever need to be raised. With Tolkein or Heinlein, it makes sense that they might not be respected by a screenplay writer -- but this author is alive.

    Does Stephen King have this problem?

    You can't have your cake and eat it too, Ursula.

    If you surrender your rights to control of your work, you pay the price.

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    1. Re:She compares herself to Tolkein? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Does Stephen King have this problem?

      Stephen King is the very very very rare exception. He wrote a number of books, under contract for very little money and whose rights he did not retain and became so popular that he had real bargaining power for the rest of his works (and was thus able to retain the rights to them). Most authors are not so fortunate. And most publishers now require even more lengthy contracts just to prevent this from happening again.

      If you surrender your rights to control of your work, you pay the price.

      You seem very unsympathetic to some screwed over by our intellectual property system. She never claimed to have any control, and in fact refrained from making any comments about the film at all until the producers made a bunch of wrongheaded comments about "what Miss Le Guin really meant" in her book and tried to draw some parallels with the middle east fighting those horrible unbelievers. I think she showed remarkable restrain to not comment on the butchering of her work by pseudo-intellectual asshats until they tried to speak on her behalf, expressing opinions that were shallow and ignorant.

    2. Re:She compares herself to Tolkein? by FireIron · · Score: 2, Funny

      Does Stephen King have this problem?

      King has a hilarious quote about books being made into movies being like children going off to college...you hope they do well, get good grades, and don't get gangbanged like Children of the Corn.

    3. Re:She compares herself to Tolkein? by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      She probably had little choice, I doubt she is in the position where producers are beating a path to her door wanting to make films out of her books.

      What would you do ? Wait until someone approached you with an offer which would allow you have full control over any movie or tv series which may not ever materialise or relinquish all control in return for some money right now ?

      Given that she has taken the second course of action I still think she is within her rights to comment on the end result, plus she probably feels some responsibility to her readers and fans who might otherwise be under the impression this series is done with her entire consent.

      Neither of those articles are particulary whinging about nasty TV companies ruining her work, they are more just her comments on the end result which like I said I think is fair enough.

    4. Re:She compares herself to Tolkein? by fishbowl · · Score: 1



      "You seem very unsympathetic to some screwed over by our intellectual property system."

      I'm not really, because I do understand the reality how people get screwed. I truly do.

      However, I don't buy the notion that anyone is being unfairly divested of their property. Those rights are not being abridged.

      The fact that the producers made libelous comments claiming that the author made statements which she did not make, has nothing at all to do with intellectual property or copyright. If she was damaged by these comments, she has standing to sue -- those rights were not abridged either.

      LeGuin sold her TV rights instead of putting them in her will for her grandchildren. That's a pretty shiddy thing for a 72 year old woman to do if you ask me.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    5. Re:She compares herself to Tolkein? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      LeGuin sold her TV rights instead of putting them in her will for her grandchildren. That's a pretty shiddy thing for a 72 year old woman to do if you ask me.

      When did she sell her rights to the TV show? Was it two years ago, or back in the 60's when she signed away the rights to the book? The latter is implied by the fact that they wrote the script and started production before she found out they were doing it.

      We have the exact same situation as revolutionary England. Publishing houses own all the copyrights, authors don't have any. You seem to assume this is because all the author's are greedy, and willing to sign anything for more money. I suspect it is because anyone who does not sign away their rights, is never heard of because they cannot get their work distributed.

      If we had a fair legal system it would mandate that book copyrights cannot be transferred to organizations, only individuals and any distribution contracts would have to include royalties on all uses of the copyright. Otherwise, like most of American culture, the big companies shit on the individuals. Of course this will never happen because the laws are created by corrupt sleazebags who write laws according to the whims of those that bribe them.

    6. Re:She compares herself to Tolkein? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      "Publishing houses own all the copyrights, authors don't have any."

      Baloney.

      Nobody is forcefully divested of their copyrights.
      The moment you choose to surrender them, they become someone else's property.

      It is a matter of opinion whether the legal system is "fair", but if you sign away your rights, for whatever valuable consideration is granted in return, it's not really a question of fairness.

      You have to decide whether you want to write works and hold on to them as if they are property, or whether you want your works to be distributed, and for the latter, you have to decide whether you want your works distributed to dozens, hundreds, thousands, or millions of people.

      It's really only the last case that's a problem.

      And, yeah, if you want something like ABC or the Sci-Fi Channel or Disney, you're going to be a little fish negotiating with a big fish.

      Now, if this is the result of some contract that was signed in 1965, she still had 40 years to buy back the paper.

      But, it does not sound like she is all that upset about anything except the libelous attributions of quotes to her, being things she did not say. That has nothing to do with copyright, and is an infringement of an individual right.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    7. Re:She compares herself to Tolkein? by FangVT · · Score: 1
      I also don't understand, financial considerations aside, what would posess an artist to relinquish so much artistic control over their material, that such complaints ever need to be raised. With Tolkein or Heinlein, it makes sense that they might not be respected by a screenplay writer -- but this author is alive.

      Does Stephen King have this problem?

      Yes.

      Compare Stephen King's The Shining, a book about a malevolent presence imbued into the very fabric of a resort and its hunger to capture the psychic strength of an extraordinary child, to Stanley Kubrick's The Shining a movie about cabin fever.

    8. Re:She compares herself to Tolkein? by fishbowl · · Score: 1


      >What would you do ?

      I'd put my principles before any other motivation.

      >Wait until someone approached you with an offer
      >which would allow you have full control over any
      >movie or tv series which may not ever materialise
      > or relinquish all control in return for some
      >money right now ?

      At Urusla's age, I would consult with my children and grandchildren as to whether they would prefer that I make a quick buck, or whether they would like to retain the copyrights which will be protected at least 75 years after my death.

      I didn't mean to imply I thought she was whining. Just that her complaint seems to be based on *libel*, as the producers improperly attributed certain quotes to her, which have possibly damaged her reputation. That's really what she's upset about, and it has almost nothing to do with the works.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    9. Re:She compares herself to Tolkein? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Nobody is forcefully divested of their copyrights.

      Nope, they are just de-facto censored. Maybe you are one of those ultra-capitalist people, but in my history/law books it says that copyright is to be legislated for the benefit of the people. Intellectual property is not the same a physical property, it is art and ideas and belongs to society. The restriction of our rights to spread that idea and art is supposed to be balanced by a benefit to society where that art/idea is preserved and eventually is given to everyone. Do you think publishers are upholding their end of the bargain? Do you think authors would do a better job of it?

      Now, if this is the result of some contract that was signed in 1965, she still had 40 years to buy back the paper.

      Well it turn out that was not the case. She made the deal only recently, but was deceived by the people making it. They signed her on as a consultant and asked for her input, but right after she signed, they revealed they already had a script, and then changed producers from one she thought would do a good job, to the one who actually did it. She does not seem to hold a grudge about that though, she just apologizes to her fans that it sucks so badly. Oh yeah and buy back the rights?!? Let me guess you are independently wealthy and have no idea that only obscenely rich people can afford to buy the rights to a popular work, even if they are for sale?

    10. Re:She compares herself to Tolkein? by Scrameustache · · Score: 1
      I don't see where she gets off comparing the SciFi channel's treatment to changing the LOTR ending.

      Yes! How DARE she, a fantasy author who's books have been adapted to the screen, compare herself to Tolkien, a fantasy author who's books have been adapted to the screen????!!??

      MADNESS I SAY!

      Sheesh, fanboy, get a clue.

      I also don't understand, financial considerations aside, what would posess an artist to relinquish so much artistic control over their material

      And RTFA:
      When I sold the rights to Earthsea a few years ago, my contract gave me the standard status of "consultant"--which means whatever the producers want it to mean, almost always little or nothing. My agency could not improve this clause. But the purchasers talked as though they genuinely meant to respect the books and to ask for my input when planning the film. They said they had already secured Philippa Boyens (who co-wrote the scripts for The Lord of the Rings) as principal script writer. The script was, to me, all-important, so Boyens' presence was the key factor in my decision to sell this group the option to the film rights.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    11. Re:She compares herself to Tolkein? by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Compare Stephen King's The Shining [...] to Stanley Kubrick's The Shining

      Ok: One is a masterwork from a genius, the other is a book.

      Feel free to masochistically submit yourself to a viewing of the latter, King approved adaptation, if you wish.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    12. Re:She compares herself to Tolkein? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      > Let me guess you are independently wealthy

      Ursula K. LeGuin never missed a meal. Don't even act like you're going to paint her as a starving artist.
      She was born into downright *aristocracy.*

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    13. Re:She compares herself to Tolkein? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >> Nobody is forcefully divested of their copyrights.

      >Nope, they are just de-facto censored.

      Barriers to entry into specific mass-markets is not the same thing as censorship. You have a right to retain copyright on your creative work. You may choose to trade that for the privilege of having your work presented to a wider audience.

      This is a different part of the biz, but for under ten grand, I can show you how to produce your album, while keeping all distribution rights, and get it before an audience of a few thousand people. But if you want more of an audience, like, *millions* of people, then you'll certainly have to deal with people who have the resources to make that happen.

      I cannot say the same for video. If you want a TV show made from your work, you have a tough sell. There are terms you can walk away from, and terms you can accept.

      Ursula accepted certain terms, but she never bargained for the outright *libel* which is the actual basis for her conflict.

      >Maybe you are one of those ultra-capitalist eople

      I'm much closer to "Marxist" actually.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    14. Re:She compares herself to Tolkein? by aWalrus · · Score: 1
      LeGuin sold her TV rights instead of putting them in her will for her grandchildren. That's a pretty shiddy thing for a 72 year old woman to do if you ask me.

      I think she can very well do as she pleases, can't she? Your comment reminded me of the copyright row with Stephen Joyce, Joyce's last surviving asshole of a grandson, over public reading of "Ulysses" at the centenary of the day the book takes place in.

      It even prompted Neil Gaiman to make this announcement in his blog, which contains the following jewel:

      "So, for whatever it's worth, and for the record, and as long as it's not-for-profit, people can always do readings of my stuff, if they want to, in public, in private, in school, in front of small invited audiences of marsupials, or even in Dublin. No permission or payment will ever be required. And my unborn grandchildren will just have to learn to live with it."


      So, in short... They are her rights, dude. Authors don't have a moral obligation to do anything, and if I were her I'd be damn pissed about the comments the director made.
      --
      Overcaffeinated. Angry geeks.
    15. Re:She compares herself to Tolkein? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      "So, in short... They are her rights, dude. Authors don't have a moral obligation to do anything"

      I'm not arguing this, but if I were one of her grandchildren, this sort of thing would mean the difference between her living in an old folks home, or in a wing I've built on my house for her...

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    16. Re:She compares herself to Tolkein? by 808140 · · Score: 1

      It's gratifying to know that your desire to care for your grandparents is a function of how much capital you expect to recieve for their death.

      Frankly, if I were your rich grandparent, I would sell my rights and use that money to live a happy, healthy retirement, in my own house, with my own caretakers. It would probably be cheaper, too.

    17. Re:She compares herself to Tolkein? by fishbowl · · Score: 1


      "It's gratifying to know that your desire to care for your grandparents is a function of how much capital you expect to recieve for their death."

      If I watched them *racing the clock* to make sure that *everything* was liquidated before they died, just so that the children would get nothing, then yeah.

      I've seen this phenomenon in families, and no, I wouldn't play that game. I certainly would cut off family members who put their own interests ahead of the family. Yes indeed.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  106. Re:Okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a quote. Watch the Princess Bride. Seriosuly. It's good. And based on a book. And the author was involved.

  107. gah! by DarkSarin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Having just watched the first half last night (taped!), I have to say that I am dissappointed.

    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.

    --
    "We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
    1. Re:gah! by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 1
      I don't understand why it's so hard to get decent actors. I go to my local playhouse several times a year. I see dozens of people in these plays who do it just for kicks (they have "real" jobs outside of the plays), and most are an order of magnitude or more better actors than a lot of what I see on television, especially in these made for teevee movies and miniseries.

      I think one problem is the need for known actors by the viewers. A friend of mine dated a woman who simply would not go see a movie if it didn't have some big name star in it that she liked. I fear a lot of people are like that. Mention a new movie to most people, and they ask "Who's in it?"

      --
      --- Ban humanity.
    2. Re:gah! by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      This seems to be a particularly US centric situation. I don't exactly have a survey that shows people in the US are more focused on actors and pay less attention to screen writers, directors and such than anywhere else, but I would suggest people compare the posters and newspaper ads for various movies shown both overseas and stateside and see if they come to a similar conclusion.
      I'm one of those people who goes to the theater, stays through the closing credits, and makes mental notes of who did the soundtrack or what special effects studios were involved. I only saw about 9 or 10 films in theaters last year, but I didn't see a single one that left me wanting my money back.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
  108. Re:Okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Business as usual then...

  109. Re:Okay by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

    I had some real hope for this series upon learning that only the first two books were to be covered (I did not care for the later ones). It sounds like a pretty bad hatchet job in any case. I have one minor beef with your summary, however. The statement, "and only men perform magic" is incorrect. The first book had a witch girl character with whom Sparrowhawk interacts as a student of Ogion, and who he later encounters allied with "old powers" in the north somewhere. She performs several feats of magic.

  110. Race Is Sometimes Part of the Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even when it is not a central aspect of the story, race can be part of the story.

    Didn't the plans to make Ender's Game into a movie fall apart on considerations of the racial representation when showing Ender in training?

  111. I have not read the books, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    from a sci-fi/entertainment/plot standpoint, the series TOTALLY SCUKED ASS!!!!!

    This was the most bland, lame, lifeless, tedious piece of crap I have ever seen out of the Sci-Fi channel. And that's saying alot!

  112. She OPTIONED it.. by cybrchrst · · Score: 1

    By optioning the titles, that basically cuts her out of the loop. Everything that she is saying is true, but the movie studio frankly has no reason and no incentive to go back to the author for anything. It means that the studio has bought all of the rights to the title and that they can do anything that they want to with it, including changing the skin colors of everyone and including making changes to the story. I feel for her, but honestly, if she wanted to have some way of maintaining the integrity of the story, then optioning the rights away is NOT the way to do it. The thing to have done is for her to have the movie produced herself. That would have started by her writing a script and peddling it around Hollywood to see if there is interest. Once there is interest, the producers come on and make the movie happen, but at least it would have been according to her own terms. Yes, there are authors that have more clout in Hollywood when they option their books, like Stephen King and the such, but she is not in that category and thus she would have had to do the legwork for a lot of this herself, but that's basically how she could have prevented all of this. Bellyaching about it now just seems rather childish and frankly if she was that concerned with the story, she should have not signed the movie rights over.

    --
    -=*(CC)*=-
    1. Re:She OPTIONED it.. by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      You're right she has cut herself out of the loop and the studio can do whatever it likes from that point on.

      However I think she still has every right to comment on the final product, in this case she obviously didn't like it but because she was out of the loop she is under no obligation to go along with marketing the series or to agree with the studios statements that the series has been "true to her intentions in the book"

      Yes she has sold the rights in order to get some cash for herself and in doing so given the studio full rein to do what it likes but no where has she given up her rights to an opinion on the finished product.

    2. Re:She OPTIONED it.. by idlemachine · · Score: 1
      and that they can do anything that they want to with it

      You're almost completely correct. The one thing they can't do that they did is claim they provided a "true" interpretation of the original text.

      Which is what appeared to set off Le Guin's ire here, the director publically stating that they'd succeeded in obtaining authenticity.

  113. Re:Okay by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 1

    PHIL: "Dear Slashdot, Do I care that much? Do I care at all?"

    --
    Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
  114. I feel sorry for Le Guin. by Maul · · Score: 1

    She was open for some changes necessary to adapt the book to the screen. She thought they had a guy who had worked on the LOTR movies on board, but that ended up not being the case. She was probably hoping that her books would get a similar treatment as LOTR.

    Le Guin probably saw the LOTR movies, and thought that producers were finally willing to adapt a fantasy book correctly. In LOTR the characters and events are, for the most part, true to the original version. Most fans of the books were pleased with the end results, with only some minor gripes here and there. Only the most hard core fans of the books were up in arms about changes Jackson made.

    Unfortunately, it was not to be the case that Earthsea would get a similar treatment. I didn't see the series, but they obviously created something that was not even close to what Le Guin was hoping for or had originally created.

    Should she have fought harder for more creative input? I would say that given today's world, yes. In reality, she shouldn't have to. The producers had the luxury othat Le Guin seemed to want to be more active in how this thing would turn out. If I were making a film or series based on a book, and had that luxury, I would want the original author consulting every major decision.

    --

    "You spoony bard!" -Tellah

  115. Wow by ErisCalmsme · · Score: 1
    I honestly never read the books, or even knew they existed before I saw the first commercial for the series. I watched it only because I had to see if it lived up to the hype. After 20 minutes I had to give up... the first shot of the landscape had me rolling on the floor laughing. I mean they could have used a real shot of a castle... there's a castle in Central Park here in NY they could have filmed, at least it would have been better than the horrible 3d drawing they used. I honestly thought they cut to a commercial for a cheesy video game or something.

    Anyway, after reading what Le Guin wrote on slate I am actually motivated to read the books. I'm glad I decided to check slashdot today =)

    --
    Chaos is Divine *
  116. Niven by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 1
    I believe Ringworld has entered production.

    If I were a Hollywood insider, I'd pitch a Man/Kzin Wars *series* to HBO so we could go completely nuts. Do the tales in the books, but hire decent SF authors to do more, maybe about 4 seasons.

    Oh, what you could do these days with a fight between a Kzinti and the human soldiers trained specifically to battle Kzin in hand to hand combat. What were they called? I forget. They had a special tattoo on their foreheads. Why do I remember this stuff?

    --
    --- Ban humanity.
    1. Re:Niven by jc42 · · Score: 1

      I believe Ringworld has entered production.

      Well, it'll be interesting to see who gets cast as Prill. They'll have to find an acress who will agree to 1) having all her hair removed, and 2) being nude for the entire movie.

      Actually, I get email every day telling me about such actresses, and pictures of them appear on my screen at random times when I click on links. So I suppose the only real question is whether the movie can get less than an X rating.

      Or maybe they can try to drop her from the movie. They might figure they've got enough love interest in Teela, assuming that the Hollywood people know about her. Then they'd just have the problem of who to cast as Hindmost. (We can make him a humanoid with weird ears, right?)

      It'll be interesting when they get to Ringworld Throne, whose plot makes significant use of rishathra.

      OK, Ringworld fans, go wild ...

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    2. Re:Niven by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't recall Prill being a nudist in the book.

    3. Re:Niven by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Yeah; reread it and look for descriptions of her. Remember her profession.

      Of course, not a lot was actually made of her nudity. It wasn't all that relevant to most of the plot, so you could consider it gratuitous.

      And I did wondered if it wasn't a bit of an anomaly. After all, a nude, hairless human would be rather exposed to the weather, and the Ringworld does have weather. It would actually make more sense if she had worn an assortment of (revealing) clothing, depending on current weather conditions. The alternative would seem to be a good layer of insulation (implying a chubby form that wasn't mentioned) and the ability to rapidly modify the metabolism to generate or suppress internal heat (also not mentioned).

      But it's Niven's story, not mine, so I won't be too critical.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  117. Stereotypical but still good by Quest3r · · Score: 1

    Apparently my husband and I are the only ones here that liked it. It was an interesting story about learning to face yourself and live with responsibility. It also talked about the capacity for good and evil where you least expect it.

    I will be picking up a copy of these books and will probably check out her other works as well. From an author's perspective what could be wrong with that?

    As to those comments on Slate the author is completely off. It wouldn't have mattered to me whether the characters were black, white, tibetan or martian. Likeability transends race and gender. I'm female and related more to Ged.

    1. Re:Stereotypical but still good by bhima · · Score: 1
      I'm a fan of Ursula Le Guin, I've got all of her books and many I've read more than once. I don't live in the US anymore and I had to download it just to watch it. I've just started it and Quit after 10 minutes. I have to say it's a real let down. The acting of his father is so poor it's worse than off hour all excess cable. There is gratuitous sex involving a character who not only has no contact with men but dislikes them. Slashdot readers are a more threatening mob that the Kargish warriors. The fog scene, please, tell me they nicked it from something the Dr. Who crew filmed and then decided not to air. Worst there is no evidence that anyone involved with the project has actually read the book (which there is more to than swords, magic and sex). The CGI looks like my 8 year old daughter did it with her friends. I haven't read Ursula's comments yet but I'm not surprised at all that she objected, race plays an important role in Earthsea because is juxtaposes the very stereo types you are whining about. There is a difference between the Kargs (white Viking types) and the people of Gont (swarthy dark skinned, types), that's why other characters are prejudiced against Duny(Folks didn't go bandying about people's real names in public) to begin with.a very important aspect of the book. The main character doesn't even have a name until Ogion gives him one (i.e he reaches puberty) yet he's shaging the best looking girl in the village before hand (I wish I had been so lucky).

      While I own all of her books I don't feel like I am some sort irrational Ursula K Le Guin fan fan boy... I own signed 1st editions of all of Frank Herbert's works and enjoyed that recent series. I own everything related Tolkien that has ever been published (alas no 1st addition signed copies) and enjoyed animated movie and the recent series of movies (but morned the removal of Tom Bombadil, while understanding it). But the changes to Earthsea are unnecessary and don't makes sense. It's as if the script writers said 'we know better', while they most obviously did not.

      As a side note I have the BBC radio drama of Earthsea which is really, really good (and low budget in a Dr. Who sort of way).

      Another side note I do NOT own a TV and haven't for over 25 years, as I am not impressed with TV programming in general.

      Still based on the first 10 minutes of this crap I urge everyone to ditch it and read the books or listen to BBC version...

      .

      Last comment really! Many authors are not whores and are interested in more than sales of their books, many years ago when reading up on everything Earthsea I came to the conclusion that she was one of these sorts of authors.

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
  118. SF writers MUST HAVE a scientific background by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right on

  119. Authorship & Symbolism (OT) by Embedded+Geek · · Score: 4, Funny
    When I was in high school, I wrote a humorous essay in a creative writing class. The assignment was something like 'tell a story about you doing a task in a step by step manner." I responded with a (thankfully fictional) tale of me trying to bake a cake and winding up setting the kitchen on fire.

    The teacher liked it so much, she had me type it up and she put included it on the midterm as a sample work for the other students to pick apart. I was an incredibly sloppy student and typing the thing up seemed like a horrible burden, but the idea that I'd ace the test was enough to motivate me. After all, I wrote the dang thing, didn't I?

    When test day rolled around, though, she asked things about "what technique is the author using to suspend disbelief?" and "which passages are used to build foreboding for the ending?" In the end I was lucky to pass the thing by the skin of my teeth.

    I won't pretend to be their equals, but I have to admit I vaguely know how Tolkien and Le Guin felt.

    --

    "Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."

    1. Re:Authorship & Symbolism (OT) by Gauchito · · Score: 1

      Similar thing happened to me. Ever since I was a kid, I've been using a story I wrote a long time ago about a time when some friends dared me to shoot a bird with a handgun one of them found in this dad's closet. The whole thing started as a very silly little blurb I wrote up at the last minute for a class, and got a C on.

      Anyway, I've used the damned story so many times for so many different things that I don't evern remember right which parts are true and which aren't. I even won a journalism award in highschool for it once, even though I handed it for a fictional writing assignment! (actually, I guess that fits)

      Well, I take a free-form writing class in college, and, of course, I hand in yet another version of this story as an assignment. Again, I quickly type it out the night before while waiting for the loading screens on the game on my nintendo to finish.

      The professor liked it so much, that he had me stand up in front of the class and read it to everybody the following day. The man kept stopping me every sentence or so and explaining to the class what I meant when I described the "shards of glass on top of the wall that surrounded our community, and how I was trying to convey the idea of an isolated world where you live or die by acceptance in it", or some other amazing insight into my work.

      Oh, man, I was very nervous when I started reading, but there's nothing like noticing that the prof is a complete jackass to set your stomach at ease.

    2. Re:Authorship & Symbolism (OT) by Embedded+Geek · · Score: 1

      This was before you got that writing gig on The Simpsons and made Bart do it on that one episode, right? (*GRIN*)

      --

      "Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."

  120. Re:Okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, ever since Gutenberg, we've been printing out large works from the internet and calling them books.

  121. That settles it, I am not watching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Earthsea is among my favorite fantasy worlds. I think I like it better than LoTR, even.

    When I heard there was going to be a miniseries I was cautiously optimistic, much as I was about the LoTR movies: I felt like it would be possible for the TV version to "get it right". I'm the last person to complain about plot changes - TV is a different medium and things work differently there, fair enough (not that this doesn't excuse *dumb* plot changes...).

    What I was most concerned about is that the mini-series would ruin my mental image of Earthsea, replace it with a new, unworthy aesthetic. (If you wonder what I am talking about, try this: picture Aragorn without picturing Viggo Morgentson. If you read the books before you saw the films, you must have had a mental image of Aragorn, but I'm willing to bet you have a hard time recovering that image from underneith Viggo).

    And, from the sounds of things, they mangled it. New Ged is white! White! No thanks.

  122. And the typical reply. by khasim · · Score: 1

    They want to make that movie for a reason.

    The problem is, the author does not understand the reason they want to make the movie.

    The author believes that it is because they want to film the story told in the book.

    The real reason is to save advertising dollars and link a movie to a book that already has name recognition and a decent fan-base.

    A good director can make a good movie that follows the book. And this was a mini-series so they aren't limited to a set number of hours. They can run it up to 10 hours if they want to.

    The director did not care about her story. The director just wanted the names (including her's) so they could be used to hype the film. That's all. Pure marketing. Don't waste money or resources trying to follow the book. Go with the stock formula.

  123. And on slate by Derkec · · Score: 1

    The author another set of gripes which she shares with us on Slate.

  124. It's Ursula LeGONE Now by Jason+Earl · · Score: 2, Funny

    Slashdot has no business linking to "normal" sites.

  125. Race Comments by TheFlyingGoat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It seems as though the author's main complaint is that instead of using native american or other ethnic actors, the producers used almost all white actors. That complaint is fine and good if race plays a role in the story, but her original reason for making diverse characters comes across as pretty shallow ("I didn't see why everybody in science fiction had to be a honky named Bob or Joe or Bill"). Sure, it would have been nice to have a diverse cast, and it would have been more realistic, but the author comes across as very whiney in her blog. Perhaps it was the use of "honky" when it was completely inappropriate.

    Why does everything have to be about race? :/

    --
    You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
    1. Re:Race Comments by hcduvall · · Score: 1

      Its kinda funny, to complaine about the lack of depth in a blog rant. She was glib, but does she really need a better reason than "I want to" or "Look, every everyman in science fiction is white"? Race isn't a direct issue in Earthsea world, but its one in the world where her books are published, and she made her points not just in the plot, but the details.
      For the people who do think about race, positively or negatively, (and apparently, its important to Ursula LeGuin), it is something you notice.

  126. But is it? by maroberts · · Score: 1

    When I read Earthsea over 25 years ago at school, the colour of the characters skin was very secondary to the plot. My imagination barely noticed the skin colour amongst the images of pirates, sea wizards, dragons and the isle and school of Roke at the centre of it all.

    Even if the series was not all that it should be, Le Guin should accept that the authors imagery is not necessarily going to be that of the reader. Just because she imagined a world of rainbow coloured people doesn't mean that readers are going to do the same.

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

  127. New readers' preconceptions by Theseus192 · · Score: 1

    I haven't seen the show, but judging from LeGuin's side of the story, it sounds like they've butchered her work.

    I wonder how she feels about the new readers who will be drawn to her books after having seen the TV series. Their preconceptions of what Earthsea is all about will no doubt heavily influence their experience with the books.

    --
    If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out? - Will Rogers
    1. Re:New readers' preconceptions by Pierce · · Score: 1

      "Butcher" is far too nice of a word. I have never read her books, heck I have never even heard of her books before this. Maybe it was all those years playing D&D, but very little made sense in the movie.

      Having Kristin Kreuk in the movie made up for some of the failings....some.

  128. Free TV? by FirstNoel · · Score: 1

    I didn't know you could get Sci-Fi over the airwaves...

    Here I've been paying $50 a month for cable.

    --
    "Hmm. I am to metaphor cheese as metaphor cheese is to transitive verb crackers!"
  129. Sincerest form of flattery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There was a rip off done called Meteor. May have been before your time. It was big budget with lots of flash and was godawful so it's been all but forgotten. There was talk of doing Lucifer's Hammer at the time but the studio ripping off the concept killed the project. These days they'd rather do Armageddon than films with actual stories with substance.

  130. Re:SCI-FI is the most consistently disappointing T by aurelian · · Score: 1
    BG is good sci-fi, and has some non-nerd appeal because of the vague hope that they won't have strategically placed enough scenery to hide all the nipples this week.

    Not that I'm against nipples on TV, but it's a pity that they are now the main interest in most TV sci-fi shows.

    Haven't seen Firefly yet though, which is apparently a break from the norm.

  131. Re:SCI-FI is the most consistently disappointing T by Graemee · · Score: 1

    Sky One paid some of the bills, they already showing the series. With BT there are no borders. BTW it is good. IMHO they're following a Babylon 5 formula. Several sub plots developing and interweaving into the main plot. Check TVTOME.

  132. You forgot Fred Hoyle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fred Hoyle was a great astronomer and mathematician and also a great SF writer. He did not write many SF novels, though. Science kept him busy.
    I think Ursula is not bad, either. From your list only Asimov and Efremov are better. Lem and the Strugatskii brothers are not bad, but not as good as Ursula.I HATE David Brin!

    Although I am a Frenchman, I have a soft spot for Russian SF writers, on the average they are better than the US SF writers. Our authors are not bad either.

    1. Re:You forgot Fred Hoyle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought about flaming you, Frenchy, but you would just roll over and not put up a fight.

    2. Re:You forgot Fred Hoyle by bbc · · Score: 1

      Says an anonymous coward. Let me guess: American?

  133. But it isn't mass appeal. by khasim · · Score: 2, Insightful
    What gave you the impression that Sci-Fi (or any other non-subscription TV channel) is interested in anything other than mass-appeal, lowest-common-denominator mediocrity? High concept doesn't attract masses of viewers, and masses of viewers are required to keep those ad revenues up.
    Compare The Matrix's revenues and popularity to any other Sci Fi channel's "original" movie.

    When you aim for mediocrity, you hit mediocrity. Low popularity, etc. The sort of movie that is forgotten as soon as you finish watching it.

    To get mass appeal, you have to aim above mediocrity.

    They didn't buy the rights to some mediocre novel. They wanted the rights to a series with a big time name recognition and a big fan-base.

    She didn't get those by writing mediocre novels about "safe" subjects with stereotypical characters and plots.

    You will turn a profit on a mediocre movie if you can keep the hype up and the costs down.

    Like I've said, they don't want to break a profitable formula.

    But they'll never see mass appeal or profits like The Matrix or The Lord of the Rings.

    Mediocre is what people will choose when they don't have anything better. Welcome to the Sci Fi channel.
    1. Re:But it isn't mass appeal. by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 1
      Compare The Matrix's revenues and popularity to any other Sci Fi channel's "original" movie.

      And The Matrix was aimed straight at the 14-24 year old male market, just like what the Sci-Fi channel puts out.

      I rather liked their Dune miniseries.

    2. Re:But it isn't mass appeal. by miu · · Score: 1
      I rather liked their Dune miniseries.

      Heck I like the SF Channel Dune miniseries better than that schlock that the son slaps the "Dune" name on.

      --

      [Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
    3. Re:But it isn't mass appeal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, Matrix simply had a bunch of good special-effects and some pseudo-philosophy and open plot threads (If anyone has seen the anime Evangelion then you'll know that pseudo-philosophy and open plot threads can sell really well).

      Nothing all that different, since different doesn't sell.

  134. Not the only Hugo/Nebula sweep by wbm6k · · Score: 1

    Okay, I was going to moderate here, but I had to correct this instead.

    I first learned about her when I was looking for a good sci fi book to read and came across what I think is the only book to win both the hugo and nebula awards in the same year: Ursula K. Le Guin's "The Left Hand of Darkness."

    The Left Hand of Darkness did win both awards, but it was not the only book to do so, and not even the first. In fact, it isn't even the only book by Le Guin to do so.

    Information courtesy of Award Web. Dates listed are the year of publication, not the award year.
    1965 - Dune - Frank Herbert
    1969 - The Left Hand of Darkness - Ursula K. Le Guin
    1970 - Ringworld - Larry Niven
    1972 - The Gods Themselves - Isaac Asimov
    1973 - Rendezvous with Rama - Arthur C. Clarke
    1974 - The Dispossessed - Ursula K. Le Guin
    1975 - The Forever War - Joe Haldeman
    1977 - Gateway - Frederik Pohl
    1978 - Dreamsnake - Vonda McIntyre
    1979 - The Fountains of Paradise - Arthur C. Clarke
    1983 - Startide Rising - David Brin
    1984 - Neuromancer - William Gibson
    1985 - Ender's Game - Orson Scott Card
    1986 - Speaker for the Dead - Orson Scott Card
    1992 - Doomsday Book - Connie Willis
    1997 - Forever Peace - Joe Haldeman
    2001 - American Gods - Neil Gaiman

    Two things of particular interest:
    1. Card, in 1985 and 1986, was the first (and so far only) to sweep the Hugo/Nebula for novels two years in a row.
    2. American Gods was the first two win three major speculative fiction awards (Hugo, Nebula, and Stoker)

    All of those are worth reading; Orson Scott Card is a particular favorite of mine, but there is not a bad book in the bunch.

  135. Re:Okay by fracai · · Score: 1

    As you wish.

    It was a joke.

    I'm aware of those facts.

    --
    -- i am jack's amusing sig file
  136. And I Always Thought Authors Were Jazzed... by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    And I always thought authors were to jazzed at seeing their work on the screen (big or small), not to mention the money involved, that they always said nice things about the project. I used to ask them at SF convension panel discussions about how they felt regarding their upcoming movies, and they'd universally say, "Best thing since sliced carbohydrate of your choice." Now I wonder if any of them meant it. <sniff>

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  137. Re:Okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, I'm in the USA, and nobody told me about them.

  138. Le Guin at the Agony Column - Chronolgy by Embedded+Geek · · Score: 4, Informative

    In addition to her site and Slate, she has put up a more detailed chronology at the Agony column called "Earthsea in Clorox". While the second half is a reiteration of the Slate essay, I provide the first half here to prevent slashdotting:

    1. Background: my (non)involvement with this production.
    For people who wonder why I sold out to Halmi, or let them change the story -- you may find some answers here.

    The producers (not yet including Robert Halmi Sr.) approached us with a reasonable offer. My dramatic agency at that time was William Morris. The contract of course gave me only the standard status of consultant -- which means exactly what the producers want it to mean, almost always little or nothing. The agency could not improve this clause. But the purchasers talked as if they genuinely meant to respect the books and to ask for my input when planning the film.

    As I had scripted the first two books myself, with Michael Powell, years ago, and also worked with another scriptwriter to plan his script of the first book, I was in a position to be useful to them. I knew some of the difficulties in carrying this story over to film. And some of the possibilities that could be fulfilled, too, the things a movie can do that a novel can't. It was an exciting prospect.

    They were talking at that time of a large-scale theater movie, although the possibility of a TV miniseries was mentioned. They said that they had already secured Philippa Boyen (who scripted The Lord of the Rings) as principal scriptwriter, and reported that she was eager to work on an Earthsea film. As the script was, to me, all-important, her presence was the key factor in my decision to sell them the option to the film rights.

    Time went by. By the time they got backing from the Sci Fi Channel for a miniseries -- and Robert Halmi Sr. had come aboard -- they had lost Boyen.

    That was a blow. But I had just seen Mr Halmi's miniseries Dreamkeeper with its stunning Native American cast, so I said to them in a phone conversation, hey, maybe Mr Halmi will cast some of those great actors in Earthsea! -- Oh, no, I was told -- Mr Halmi had found those people impossible to work with.

    Well, I said, you do realise that almost everybody in Earthsea is 'those people,' or anyhow not white?

    I don't remember what their answer to that was -- it may have used that wonderful weasel word colorblind -- but it wasn't reassuring, because I do remember saying to my husband, oh, gee, I bet they're going to have a honky Ged. . .

    This was in the spring of 2004. They moved very fast then, because if they didn't get into production, they would lose their rights to the property. Early in this period they contacted me in a friendly fashion, and I responded in kind; I asked if they'd like to have a list of name pronunciations; and I said that although I knew well that a film must differ greatly from a book, I hoped they were making no unnecessary changes in the plot or to the characters -- a dangerous thing to do, since the books have been known to millions of people for over 30 years. To this they replied that the TV audience is much larger, and entirely different, and changes to a book's story and characters were of no importance to them.

    They then sent me several versions of the script -- and told me that shooting had already begun. In other words, I had been absolutely cut out of the process.

    I withdrew my offered pronunciation guide (so Ogion, which rhymes with bogy-on, is Oh-jee-on in the film.) Having looked over the script, I realised they had no understanding of what the two books are about, and no interest in finding out. All they intended was to use the name Earthsea, and some of the scenes from the books, in a generic MacMagic movie with a meaningless plot based on sex and violence. (And fai

    --

    "Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."

    1. Re:Le Guin at the Agony Column - Chronolgy by John+Harrison · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      So there are articles on her website, Slate, Salon, and now The Agony. She has spammed half the internet with her rant.

    2. Re:Le Guin at the Agony Column - Chronolgy by Embedded+Geek · · Score: 1
      She has spammed half the internet

      C'mon, you have something against the lady? All she want to do is get some help in getting some cash out of the Earthsea Financial Ministry to reliable people over here in the States. What could possibly be wrong with that? (*GRIN*)

      --

      "Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."

    3. Re:Le Guin at the Agony Column - Chronolgy by stormborn · · Score: 1

      I don't buy it. LeGuin's an established author who has to know her way around the business by now. If she wanted creative control, or wanted the big screen, or wanted a certain screenwriter, that all could have been written into the contract. It might have come down to turning away the money if her creative interests were not satisfied, but the opportunity was there to strike a bargain that protected the integrity of her work. If she didn't do that, it's just sour grapes now. See a great discussion of this at http://www.fantasybookspot.com/

    4. Re:Le Guin at the Agony Column - Chronolgy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      oh, gee, I bet they're going to have a honky Ged. . .

      While her criticism of their adaptation is valid, please tell me why it's acceptable to use racist terms about white people and everyone just laughs, but if they had replied something along the lines of "we're not using a blacky/slanteye etc. for Ged" everyone would be jumping up and down in outrage?

      Please help me understand. If racism is bad, why is it not bad across the board?

      Reverse racism is still racism you know. (irrespective of whether Le Guin is herself white or not)

    5. Re:Le Guin at the Agony Column - Chronolgy by faux-nerd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I always thought it was allowable to make fun of one's self (and by extension, those like you)...?

    6. Re:Le Guin at the Agony Column - Chronolgy by hastings14 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I agree with your point, and you should point it out to her.

      However, you are forgetting the well known exception to the racist term rule that allows one to use it on one's own race. Le Guin is herself white, and therefore can slur white people. Just like blacks use the "n" word, gays can use the "f" word, and, well, everyone else can use whatever they are using against their own kind. Don't ask me why this is so - in college I believe I heard something about reclaiming the term for yourself, self empowerment, etc.

      Perhaps on the same vein, if someone on the schoolyard growing up called me a nerd, I got all offended. If someone on slashdot called me a nerd, I would take it as a compliment.

      Again, I don't make the rules. Its a strange world, eh?

      It does seem tacky for her to use it in print, though. Definitely borderline...

    7. Re:Le Guin at the Agony Column - Chronolgy by sphealey · · Score: 1
      If she wanted creative control, or wanted the big screen, or wanted a certain screenwriter, that all could have been written into the contract.
      I would be willing to wager that she signed away the rights at publication time, around 1975 or so. Very few genre authors have any kind of leverage to modify the rights grab by the publishing houses, and certainly not before their first mainstream best-seller.

      sPh

    8. Re:Le Guin at the Agony Column - Chronolgy by SideshowBob · · Score: 1

      4 websites constitute half the internet? And I very much doubt she submitted the article to Slashdot, so make that 3...

      What sort of grudge do you have against her? Getting her side of the story out there would seem prudent, lest her fans assume her silence is complicity.

    9. Re:Le Guin at the Agony Column - Chronolgy by SirWinston · · Score: 1

      > However, you are forgetting the well known exception to the
      > racist term rule that allows one to use it on one's own race.

      Bullshit. That's a very recent liberal apologia for the uneducated/gangsta segment of the black community's penchant for using the word "nigger". It's a post hoc rationalization for a behavior most middle class African Americans are themselves offended by. It's not a "well known exception" and as a white person I'm offended at Le Guin's self-hating anti-white racist language. "Honky"? Fuck anyone using racist language in this day and age, especially someone who acknowledges her writings come from the mythic tradition of the same people she's disparaging.

      Think of it this way. A black writer draws on African tribal traditions in creating her fantasy novels, but mentions all the characters are white. She sells film rights and gives up creative control, and the producers turn it into a miniseries for the Black Entertainment Television channel. Since their audience is mostly black and the story draws from African tribal lore, and race isn't central to the story, they make most of the cast black. The author then complains loudly all over the place about how the producers made her characters "niggers" when they're supposed to be white.

      Don't you think blacks would be justifiably upset about such an artificial racial construct and the author's self-effacing racism? Absolutely. LeGuin effectively did the same thing. The only difference is that the white community has a thicker skin and more tolerant, apologist attitude regarding self-referential anti-white racism. But I am offended, and so are many others. Racism, even against one's own race, is wrong. Le Guin is a politically correct liberal anti-white apologist relic.

      --
      "It's a damn poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a word."--Andrew Jackson
    10. Re:Le Guin at the Agony Column - Chronolgy by hastings14 · · Score: 1
      You contradicted yourself: I agree with you that "Le Guin is a politically correct liberal anti-white apologist relic" but you made that a negative statement. If you view political correctness negatively, then you shouldn't be offended or care if she calls someone a honky. On the other hand, if you are politically correct, then you are almost by definition be a liberal and you should embrace, as you put it, "the very recent liberal apologia for the uneducated/gangsta segment of the black community" and allow her to use the word honky. It doesn't seem to make sense to have it both ways.

      Maybe there is an age difference here? I don't know anything about the uneducated/gangsta community. I did, however, graduate quite recently from an extremely high end, liberal, and mixed race public university and everyone used racist slurs all the time, but only in the appropriate context. Describing one's own "group", or to close friends in certain situations, was alright. Speaking of other's negatively or behind someone's back was most certainly not.

      With regards to your analogy, many blacks probably would be upset but the black writer you describe would probably get away with using the "n" word, although they might grimace and shake their heads in dismay. On the other hand, a white writer writing about whites using African tribal traditions who used the "n" word after her characters were turned into blacks for a BET audience would likely lead to much more vocal protest. This analogy is now stretched past the breaking point, so I apologize. My point is merely the speaker in question and context matter in almost any situation.

      FYI - You wrote that racism is wrong in all contexts, and I certainly agree. My original post was not a moral stance. Again, I don't make these rules. I'm not sure who does, but its not me. I was merely providing a possible explanation for LeGuin's self-referential recism.

    11. Re:Le Guin at the Agony Column - Chronolgy by John+Harrison · · Score: 1
      Sideshow,

      I didn't see /. in the list, so let's count it and bring the total to five! Absent the /.ing I am sure that her true fans would look things up on her website. I would guess that Salon and Slate were not aware that she had written an article for each of them, and either would reject it if it knew of the other, but that is merely a guess.

  139. Chronicles of Amber? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember when the SciFi channel was going to do a miniseries about Roger Zelazny's Amber books? Is that still going to happen? Is it going to suck as much as this one (in terms of being true to the books)? That would really made me sad.

  140. color? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The plot changes, I can see complaining. But from her first paragraph: "My protagonist is Ged, a boy with red-brown skin. In the film, he's a petulant white kid."

    Sheez. Talk about petulant...reading on, she complains the most about the color of the actors' skin. Who gives a crap...I didn't notice the race of the characters any of the times I read the books. It's a different world, for cripes sake, it's not gonna have the same racial stereotypes anyway. And she acts like using non-white characters in SF/fantasy is avant garde, when it was pioneered by the original Star Trek.

  141. True - reading into a work is *very* subjective by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

    Years later, as an artist, I can honestly say that yes, 85% of the stuff people "read into" my work is totally random and stupid (or optimistic on their part).

    I once decided to test this.

    As a starving college student, I managed a trip to NY. Went to the Met. I was an engineering student, but looked oddball enough to possibly pass for artist. Early 20's, long hair but balding. Denim jacket, blue jeans, combat boots.

    And I wandered around the Met spouting nonsense as I would stand in front of paintings. "I like it - it says a lot by saying a little. It's artistic without being artsy. This is from her introspective period, isn't it? It's amazing how blue you can be and still provide warmth."

    And because I had an odd look and was saying odd things, the locals weren't sure if I was an asylum escapee or an unusually gifted artist. So they erred on the side of caution - and continually praised me for my insight as I wandered the museum critiqueing each piece.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  142. The sad part... by Richard+Steiner · · Score: 1

    ...is that Tolkien set up a number of wonderful theatrical moments that would have been neat to actually see on film which were totally bypassed.

    * Gandalf confronting Saruman at Orthanc, saying "I have not given you leave to go" when Saruman turns to leave, and then formally casting him out of the council. The extended edition covers some of this, yes, but it would have been a wonderful scene as written given the actors that were paying those parts.

    * Gandalf waiting at the main gate of Minas Tirith after Grond had shattered it while the Lord of the Nazgul crossed the theshold and mocked, only to have the horns of Rohan come sounding from afar and delay that potential confrontation.

    * Eomer seeing the corsairs coming up the Anduin, raising his sword in defiance, and then seeing the sails of the lead ship unfurl to display the arms of the High King of Gondor (sending him from the depths of despair to the heights of elation and hope).

    The vision of the three allied forces (Eomer and the Rohirrim from the NW, Aragorn and the Corsairs from the south, and the knights of Dol Amroth and Gondor from the city itself) coming together to form a massive three-way orc cuisinart in the Pelennor Fields. The dead didn't win that battle, the combined strength of humanity did!

    Eowyn and Faramir standing on the walls of the Houses of Healing and looking out over the rising darkness in the east, wondering why they suddenly feel so happy, and then the eagle approaches from the east crying out "Sing, all ye people of the Tower of Anor!".

    I understand some things (cutting Tom Bombadil, even the cutting of the Scourge of the Shire), but why does the Mouth of Sauron in the Black Gate confrontation have to go "roowwwr!" all the time? So we know he's a bed guy? Isn't that obvious?? :-)

    Someday I'd love to see LOTR done up as a minseries by the same people who handled Shogun or Roots. Tolkien's written dialog is damned good. Why mess with it?

    --
    Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
    The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
    1. Re:The sad part... by nagora · · Score: 1
      Gandalf waiting at the main gate of Minas Tirith after Grond had shattered it while the Lord of the Nazgul crossed the theshold and mocked, only to have the horns of Rohan come sounding from afar and delay that potential confrontation.

      That omission alone is enough to show that Jackson couldn't direct traffic in a ghostown. One of the greatest moments in fantasy literature so that we can have dwarf-tossing jokes and elves surfing down stairs.

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
  143. Re:Okay by YellowElf · · Score: 1

    You are correct.

    I realized after I has submitted my comment that the statement you refer to was imprecise; I should have said "only men perform significant magic" or maybe "only men are wizards". Women as witches perform minor and somewhat ignorant magic, while men as sorcerers are more learned and men as wizards are moreso.

    I happen to have the first book next to me-- mostly an influence of the series. The girl you refer to is mentioned as "half a witch already" and as the daughter of an "enchantress". (What the distinction is between a witch and an enchantress is not explained, if there is any.) When he meets her later she has little magic of her own, but is in cahoots with an old sorcerer. She does have the magic to transform herself into a bird, however.

    The main difference is that men are allowed to study and learn magic from books and other high wizards, while the women are left to what they can glean from superstition, limited insight, and the less learned sorcerers. Why this distinction is created in the books, I don't think I will ever understand; it seems arbitrary to me, but is a consistent aspect of Earthsea.

    --dv

    --
    Insert witty saying or aphorism here.
  144. Low Budget by Phrogman · · Score: 1

    "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."

    Actually, you are wrong completely here. The original Star Trek series was one of, if not *the* highest budgeted TV shows per episode for its time. If I recall correctly it cost roughly $180k per episode which was a huge amount of money at the time. They also had scripts written by some well known SF authors of the time - Theodore Sturgeoon comes to mind.

    The reason that the show looks like it was low budget is simply that the special effects industry of the time was primitive by modern standards. For its time Star Trek was revolutionary and very cutting edge, hard as that may be to believe now, and as hokey as the episodes can look by modern standards.

    If you want to know more about it, look for a book called "The Making of Star Trek" by Stephen Whitfield (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0345315545 /qid=1103221545/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/002-8858713 -8243237)

    --
    "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
  145. This just in: by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Author unhappy of how her story was portrayed in a different medium!
    Fans were also shocked and suprised that the new medium ws as good as they thought the series is.
    one such fans has been quoted as saying:
    "They should know how I visualized the story in my head and copied that."

    Tune in tomorrow when we interviewe people who will be shocked when the next star wars movie sucks.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  146. Kathleen Turner is a loon by Schwarzchild · · Score: 1

    At one point she was speaking with an odd accent in interviews which I guess she thought sounded cool and Argentinian but it sounded dumb.

    --

    "sweet dreams are made of this..."

  147. Re:Sci fi "original series" --needs decent acting! by dreadlocks · · Score: 1

    I don't care who has the best series on TV, as long as they get some decent acting in them. The first hour of the earthsea series was so bad, that it was hard to get into the story and enjoy it. The high priestess and the blacksmith father were particularly horrible. By the time Danny Glover showed up, I said "finally here's someone who might teach these people how to act!!!" Either the acting got better as the show went on, or the art/drama part of my brain has calluses from the abuse.

  148. Nah, we get shock all the time. by khasim · · Score: 1
    No, to get something memorable, you write to the timeless elements of human nature, both the good and bad. Tolkien is a classic because he retells what he called the "Great Myth." Stories of sacrifice, loss, redemption, the triumph of good over evil. These stories will be memorable.
    Maybe. But the "envelope" is ....

    Boy and sidekick find Boy's Love interest.
    Boy and sidekick lose Boy's Love interest to Bad Guy.
    Boy and sidekick go to rescue Love interest.
    On the way to save Love interest, Boy must save Sidekick because Sidekick is clumsy / dumb / cowardly.
    Boy battles Bad Guy.
    Love interest helps Boy at critical moment to defeat Bad Guy.
    All laugh.
    Fade to black.
    Roll credits.
    Pushing the envelope is just another way of saying offend traditional sensibilities with pop-culture trash or faddish ideologies. Pushing the envelope is about getting a shock reaction, not creating something memorable.
    We've been seeing that in the teen-slasher flix for years. All that's been changing is the FX tech to make it look more realistic (or even more realistic than reality).

    Pushing the envelope would be a story when "good" and "evil" are not clearly defined. Where each side has their own goals and the audience can sympathize with both sides.

    Or where the hero's sacrifice does NOT lead to redemption or success.

    Or where loss is loss. You learn that life isn't always sweet and nice and sometimes you lose but it isn't the end of the world.

    Even in LotR, at the end, Frodo left. He didn't get the girl and live happily ever after. He saved the world, but in saving it, he changed and couldn't be a part of it anymore.

    THAT is pushing the envelope.
  149. "Based on" by chiph · · Score: 1

    Whenever I hear "based on the..." used in the ad blurb, I know it's going to suck. So I didn't watch it. Sorry, Sci-Fi channel. You should have used the Peter Jackson play book, and stayed true to the original story.

    BTW: There's a similar rule for Tom Clancy novels: If it has an apostrophe in the title, it's gonna suck (Tom Clancy's Net Force, anyone?)

    Chip H.

    1. Re:"Based on" by syrinx · · Score: 1

      That's because the "Tom Clancy's" novels only vaguely involve him... he came up with some plot ideas, and someone else actually wrote the book (someone else who might get their name on the cover, in small type). I like a lot of Clancy's novels (the ones he actually wrote, I mean), but the "Clancy's" books are basically just to cash in on the name.

      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
    2. Re:"Based on" by ignorant_newbie · · Score: 1

      > You should have used the Peter Jackson play
      > book, and stayed true to the original story.

      Please, please, please, tell me this is a joke? do you actually think that PJ was in any way true to Tolkien's work ?

    3. Re:"Based on" by chiph · · Score: 1

      You haven't seen the Ralph Bakshi version of The Hobbit, have you? What a POS. In comparison, Peter Jackson did a stellar job, and I'm looking forward to his version of it.

      Sure, PJ had to make some changes. I personally would have liked to have seen Tom Bombadil, but he was already at most movie patron's upper bladder limit with a 3 hour film

      Chip H.

  150. As my professors used to say... by SkyMunky · · Score: 1

    "You read the book and the book reads you."

    1. Re:As my professors used to say... by banausikos · · Score: 0

      Were they from the Soviet Union?

  151. In short: by geekoid · · Score: 1

    "There is NO real character or plot development."

    It's just like the books.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:In short: by DarkSarin · · Score: 1

      have you actually read the books?

      If so, then fine.

      If not, you should refrain from commenting.

      Le Guin's works are plot building--it's slow, and subtle, but it is there. She tells a story that is different from what many people expect (aka Harry Potter), but it DOES have depth. Le Guin is occasionally focused on sexual themes, and certainly has an unusually 'mystic' feel. It's real stuff, though.

      --
      "We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
    2. Re:In short: by geekoid · · Score: 1

      only two of her books, I had no desire to punish myself more.

      You should not assume I would make a comment about anything without having a relevent experience.

      Please don't imply I am a simpleton and need books to fill in some predetermined expectation.

      Of course a fan will always find 'depth' in a book, even if it is not there.
      FYI: I read the books fully expecting to enjoy them.

      Also, when someone takes a jab at your favorite Author don't be so knee jerky. I owuld have made that same comment wether or not I enjoed her books cause it's funny. Seriously, it is.
      Someone could have made the same post about George RR martin, and I would have laughed me ass off. Of course I have perspective.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  152. If it weren't supposed to be Earthsea... by divisionbyzero · · Score: 1

    it would be a mediocre McMagic movie, as a representation of Earthsea it is a travesty. This is exactly what sucks about Hollywood. At least they tried to do it right with Dune. This movie just plain sucks. The only good that can come of it is that more people will read Earthsea and learn what a good story really is. I can't believe sci-fi thinks that their viewers have not read Earthsea. We should send them letters that indicate otherwise.

  153. True names by speck · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just to be a little nitpicky, this could work fine in a movie. The people in Earthsea all have their true names which they rarely reveal to anyone else (and which give other people power over them, a trope that LeGuin popularized and Vernor Vinge later adapted into his early cyberpunk story "True Names"), but they go by monikers that other people refer to them by. For instance the main character's true name is Ged, but he goes by Sparrowhawk, so most of the dialog in the book has people calling him that.

    So you wouldn't really have to sit through a whole movie with all the characters refering to "that guy who we met earlier" or "hey, you."

    1. Re:True names by scribblej · · Score: 2, Informative

      By saying that Vernor Vinge took the idea of true names from Ursula, you are suggesting that she originated it.

      I think if you've studied Judiac mythology, you'll find the idea is much, much older.

    2. Re:True names by mdfst13 · · Score: 1

      The other thing is that the movie is ridiculous about this. In the movie, they still have secret names. Ged's secret name is...Sparrowhawk!

      How does swapping the use name and secret name help anything? How does adding a village girlfriend make up for removing the love interest who set up the spell to raise the dead? How...

      Darn, I meant not to get started on this.

  154. How about Lucifer's Hammer? by Richard+Steiner · · Score: 1

    I'd personally love to see something like Ender's Game, Lord of Light, or The Flying Sorcerors made into a (good) movie, but I don't see any of those happening... :-(

    --
    Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
    The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
    1. Re:How about Lucifer's Hammer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ender's Game might happen as a movie ... but then, you added the qualifier "good", and who knows ...

    2. Re:How about Lucifer's Hammer? by nizo · · Score: 1

      The are working on Ender's game even as we type! You can look here for updates, but it looks like it may be awhile yet.

  155. Typical Portlander attitude. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Le Guinn's "I Hate White People. White People are bad" rant in slate is a pretty typical Portland, Oregon (Le Guinn's home) attitude. The irony of this self-righteousness is that Portland is the whitest place I have ever lived. One of the reasons Portlander's can sit around and brag about their never-ending "tolerance" is that they are all the same.

    "Latte Town" was coined a few years back and is the most appropriate term for the City of Portland that I have ever heard. A Latte town consists of mostly white, educated baby boomers and young single people. The inhabitants of the town are usually newcomers who have priced out all the original inhabitants. These towns are usually expensive, pretentious, abound in natural fibers and are laid back on the surface. Latte towns like Portland pride themselves on their most cherished concepts of diversity and inclusiveness. Most Portlanders accept this myth as Gospel but upon close examination Portland's dirty little secret is revealed. Portland is an overwhelmingly white, non-ethnic city. It is as vanilla as it gets so it makes one wonder what all the celebrating of diversity is all about. Drive through any neighborhood surrounding the downtown area and the impression that you get is that Portland is nothing more than a series of elitist ghettos compromised of rich white homosexuals, rich white yuppies, rich white hippies, rich white trust funders, and rich white kids from the suburbs pretending to be street people. Where's the diversity? Well it doesn't exist but the average Portlander likes the concept and in their eyes the different shades of rich whites all constituent diversity. In a series of articles I will attempt to breakdown and explain these subtle distinctions between the various factions of lily white, latte people that make Portland what it is.

    I think it is highly hypocritical of Le Guinn to go on and on about how much she hates the racial changes in her novels, "her world," when in the real world she intentionally moved to an "all" white town.

  156. Re:Okay by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 1

    > I'm aware of those facts.

    Yes, you're very smart. Now shut up.

  157. Re:30 years ago? by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1
    "30 years ago?"

    "Who cares what they did to a 30 year old story??

    "assclown"

    Let me guess: You're under 30, possibly under 20. 'nuff said.

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
  158. 90% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you're off by 5 percent. it's sturgeon's law.

  159. The short of it... by DrWho520 · · Score: 1

    Le Guin is the author of the books.

    And she is pissed!

    --
    The cancel button is your friend. Do not hesitate to use it.
  160. If the Script was that Important... by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1
    The script was, to me, all-important, so Boyens' presence was the key factor in my decision to sell this group the option to the film rights.

    If the script was all that important, then you should have written it yourself. Telling a story in script form is different than novel form to be sure, but if it mattered to you that much, then learn!

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:If the Script was that Important... by warpup · · Score: 1

      Had you RTFAs she mentions that she had written the scripts herself, was aware of the difficulties, challenges and opportunities involved and that SciFi turned her away.

  161. that explains it by fearanddread · · Score: 1

    That explains why Luke Skywalk....er, I mean Ged acted like that.

  162. Suprise, Suprise by fm6 · · Score: 1
    I find myself pretty unsympathetic with Le Guin. Nobody put a gun to her head and said "Sell us your movie rights." Plenty of authors hold out for more creative input, though there is a financial cost. Instead, she found it convenient to believe her agent and the studio, both of whom had a vested interest in telling her what she wanted to hear.

    That they would wanted to water down her story is something she should have assumed as matter of principle -- has she been to any movies lately? In particular, she should not have assumed that they'd carry over the racial ideas of her stories intact. Except for shows and movies specially targetted at non-whites, it's pretty unusual to have to have a hero that "the audience can't identify with".

  163. Sell out, though by hacksoncode · · Score: 1

    I notice that her moral outrage didn't stop her from recording an "exlusive interview with the author" for SciFi.com. In which she doesn't, of course, mention any of her misgivings about the miniseries.

  164. She's played it pretty well, really by Control+Group · · Score: 4, Interesting
    There's an interesting discussion about this very topic over at FantasyBookSpot's forums.*

    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.

    --

    Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
  165. should have talked to Harlan Ellison.... by rbird76 · · Score: 1

    Harlan Ellison has multiple good stories about the TV industry, at least one of which discusses his experiences with it during the production of The Starlost, which was mangled into unrecognizability during its (short) run on TV. While Ellison received a writing award for the best script of the year for the opener, he had to avoid attempts by the studios to suborn him into scabbing. The story also describes the experiences of other authors who have had their work shredded on the gears of TV production (since Ellison might be viewed as cantankerous by people, he discusses others who might be considered more reasonable).

    As Stephen King said in a summary of Ellison's The Glass Teat, TV is a teat, but one that exudes poisoned milk. While King intended the summary to refer to the viewers, it may refer well to those who try to write for TV. In the movies, very few books remain unscathed; often the conversion involves someting like body-snatching where the soul of the book is removed but the form remains. while at other times the movies aren't so kind. The list of writings smeared into gelatin by Hollywood in legion, and LeGuin probably should have known of them. Money is nice, and perhaps the hope of a wider audience for your works, but the latter is probably only a hope.

    If you sell your books for money (I didn't RTA, so I don't know what her relationship to the miniseries was), experience should indicate that what they make will probably not be your work. If the money is good enough, that's OK, but don't expect integrity out of the production.

  166. If Shakespear was alive ... by orion024 · · Score: 1

    I had a prof a couple years ago give us this interesting quote (sorry, don't know the source)

    "If Shakespear was alive today, he'd just be another critic"

    In other words, it doesn't really matter what the author intended, what matters is what the reader gets out of it. If the author meant X, but I read it as Y, it is still Y to me.

  167. Re:Try other writers by pauls2272 · · Score: 1

    There is hard SF (dealing with technology and attempting to keep everything scientifically accurate) and soft SF (dealing with the effects of tech on people and peoples usage of technology).

    You only need science degrees if you are attempting to explain the technology. For Hard SF, Hal Clement is one of the best.

    For character development, plot, pacing, and story telling, many scientific writers suck. There are lots of great SF writers (Ellison, Le Guin, Zelazny) who know little of hard science but can tell a great story.

    Of Le Guin's, I like "The Word of World is Forest", the best. As I was reading it, I saw that she was a great writer. Her more famous books (Dispossed, Left Hand of Darkness) can be a little hard to follow. I think Earthsea is some of her weakest work.

  168. Re:Okay by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

    When he meets her later she has little magic of her own

    I don't have to book in front of me, but I think I remember her running hot lead into the bones of some guards. That sounds fairly significant. Anyway, I certainly did not get a clear view of the difference in magic for men and women in the first few books. It is strongly implied that they did not attend the school at Roke. The later books also drew some strong divisions between men and women, but it has been a long time. I seem to recall at the time thinking that they seemed rather femi-nazi and wondered if Miss LeGuin had just gone through a break up. Of course I think I was about 12 at the time, so I could be way off. She deals with gender issues in some of her other works as well. I have not yet decided whether or not to watch the TV series. After reading the reviews here, I am inclined to delete it.

  169. whiny by syrinx · · Score: 1

    I've never read any of her books, but I had always meant to get around to it. After reading her whiny rant about race on Slate, I no longer have any desire to read anything by her. If things like that are what she considers the "important" parts of her books, I can't see them being good.

    --
    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
    1. Re:whiny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm lazy what was her whiny rant about on slate all about

    2. Re:whiny by Daniel · · Score: 1

      Bear in mind that the books were written some 30 years ago. My impression is that Le Guin has become involved in some rather loopy politics since then.

      Daniel

      --
      Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
  170. A SciFi Original Mini Series: Expect the Worst by Mulletproof · · Score: 1

    If there is one thing people need to learn about the scifi channel it that they CANNOT be allowed to comission their own movies under ANY circumstance. There are very very few instances where such an event has produce anything close to a desirable series, and more likely than not, you get something along the lines of "Aracnaphobids 4", the 4 spider movie in a long and hallowed series of really BAD spider movies. Wing Commander Galactica comes to mind.

    From day one of their brainwashing advertisement blitz (they might as well have put a black and white spiralling swirl on the TV while they advertised it) it was super obvious that this was another of SCiFi's well abused formulas-- Rip it from the Big Screen and make it SUCK. In this case, Lord of the Rings was the obvious target, with a few other franchises mashed in for good measure. They should have just saved the money they spent licensing the the EarthSea name and spent it on a better script or something, because you could see it from day one: Suckage.

    That, and anybody else notice their fondness of polar opposite movie titles? Dark light? Earth Sea? There's a few more, but it's getting to be as silly as Steven Segal's prepositional phrase movies...

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
    1. Re:A SciFi Original Mini Series: Expect the Worst by Aga1nstFUD · · Score: 1

      Wing Commander Galactica? Surely you're not dissing SciFi's Battlestar Galactica, which is actually pretty good. Sure, it's an anomaly at SciFi, but it's a well-done show, and far and away better than the campy original.

      OTOH, I stopped watching EarthSea after about 15 mins.

  171. actually, it's a little different by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    there are those who complain, and those who do

    it's very easy to complain

    it's actually very hard to actually do something in this world

    so we wind up with a world where a bunch of lazy useless losers sit around whining about everything, and every time someone actually tries to do something positive, they get by all the whiny overcritcal losers, and so nothing ever gets done

    for most who complain i say this: shut the fark up, and actually do something instead

    otherwise, in my book, you are completely useless and contemptible

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  172. Can you feel the danger?!?! by trippcook · · Score: 1
    Quote from the Slate piece: "I hoped they were making no unnecessary changes in the plot or to the characters--a dangerous thing to do, since the books have been known to millions of people for decades." Like message boards aren't filled with nerds bitching about how Spider-man should have mechanical web-slingers like in the comic, but they still go see it. And Le Guin fans will still watch Earthsea, if only to have something to bitch about to fellow fans.

    I love the "dangerous" thing, though. Oh, no, run and hide SciFi execs! Earthsea fans with pitchforks and torches!

    What do you expect when you sell the rights to your book to a channel that made Boa vs. Python?

    1. Re:Can you feel the danger?!?! by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      "I hoped they were making no unnecessary changes in the plot or to the characters"

      That translates to:

      "I lacked the foresight required to anticipate this problem, and chose not to insist on specific language in the contract that would prevent it."

      Dealbreaker? Maybe. But the producers wouldn't have gotten the Earthsea franchise any other way, except by the hand of LeGuin, or her heirs.

      Not only that, she sold out her grandkid's inheritance to the lowest bidder, it looks like.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  173. When I sold the rights to Earthsea a few years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Says it all.

  174. From Elfland to Poughkeepsie^HIraq by argent · · Score: 1

    Toto, something tells me Earthsea isn't Iraq.

    LeGuin maintains her high standard for entertaining rants. I wonder if this is a conscious or unconscious reference to From Elfland to Poughkeepsie.

  175. Wouldn't be the first time... by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1
    That makes it particularly galling of the director to put words in my mouth.

    Wouldn't be the first time directors (critics, professors, other writers, students, readers in general) saw things in an author's work the author themself didn't realize/intend/understand.

    And it wouldn't be the first time they were equally right either.

    Some authors handle this more gracefully than others.

    Remember the apocryphal story of the incident where a famous author (the author differs depending on who tells it) attended a college discussion of one of his (or her) works incognito? After listening to a long and involved discussion about many hidden meanings in the story he (or she) approaches the professor afterwards and says it was a nice lecture, but he (or she) really hadn't had any of those thoughts or ideas in mind when writing that story. The priceless reply is: What do you know about it? You're only the author.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  176. You must be new here - MOD PARENT DOWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You must be new here.

    Since when do we mod up a post about moderators? If you complain about moderation, you will get modded down for off topic. There is nothing more off topic for any story than a comment to the moderators. This post belongs under a story about slashdot moderation.

    If I had the points right now, I would have modded you down for the use of your "colorful metaphor" without a second thought. Pray, learn to speak unlike a heathen. Moderation is first and foremost about separating the noise from the signal. The parent post is creating noise.

    -1, Flamebait
    -1, Off-Topic
    -1, Off-Topic

    ---
    Beer me...

  177. more commericals then normal? by blanks · · Score: 1

    Is it just me or did it seem like every 10 minutes they would have 5 minutes of commericals.

    1. Re:more commericals then normal? by Seedy2 · · Score: 1

      Repeat after me:
      Never watch the sci-fi channel live, always record.
      The more they advertise the show, the more they advertise IN the show.

      --
      Nothing to say here... move along
    2. Re:more commericals then normal? by bhima · · Score: 1

      I downloaded what I (little) watched. The commericals must have been the best parts.

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    3. Re:more commericals then normal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because at the begining of each show (hour?) they had like 30 straight minutes of the "movie"

  178. Never Read Earthsea, but it must be better.... by guidryp · · Score: 1

    Than this mini-series.

    Acting and story telling were below the average Xena/Hercules episode.

    Standard fantasy plot that would fit on the back of a napkin, terribly simplistic story telling, with cookie cutter evil villans. No depth whatsoever.

    IMO it was really quite a useless mess. I recommend if you haven't seen it, don't. I can't think of a redeeming feature.

  179. LeGuin's race-obsessed Slate piece by Alaska+Jack · · Score: 1

    1. Loved the books. In fact, I just went back and re-read them, and realized I had forgotten how good they are.

    2. LeGuin's loony, left-wing rant on Slate surprised me. Someone who hadn't read the books, but read the essay, would come away thinking the Earthsea books are tedious, race-obsessed stories of white imperialist subjugation. This is emphatically not the case. As a few others here have noted, there is simply no scene in the books where race comes significantly into play. Sure, she mentions at some point that the protagonist has "red-brown" skin, and the barbarians, the Karg, are pointed out to have "fair" skin, but honestly, that's it.

    "As an anthropologist's daughter," LeGuin writes, "I am intensely conscious of the risk of cultural or ethnic imperialism [you don't say! -ed.] --- a white writer speaking for nonwhite people, co-opting their voice, an act of extreme arrogance. In a totally invented fantasy world, or in a far-future science fiction setting, in the rainbow world we can imagine, this risk is mitigated. That's the beauty of science fiction and fantasy--freedom of invention."

    So outside of the fantasy setting, a white writer cannot use characters (or at least main characters) who are not white? Writers who are not sci-fi or fantasy writers do not have this "freedom of invention"? That's too bad: Huckleberry Finn isn't going to make much sense if we have to go in and make Jim white.

    Great books from a pretty screwy author.

    - Alaska Jack

    1. Re:LeGuin's race-obsessed Slate piece by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Sure, she mentions at some point that the
      >protagonist has "red-brown" skin, and the
      >barbarians, the Karg, are pointed out to have "fair"
      > skin, but honestly, that's it.

      At the time, even something like that would be perceived as roughly equivalent to writing with a favorable regard of Al-Quaeda.

      What seems laughably tame today was outrageous, and highly controversial 40 years ago.

    2. Re:LeGuin's race-obsessed Slate piece by Alaska+Jack · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hmm. I understand your argument, but I'm not sure it's correct. I mean, I simply don't remember any outrage at all about this. The protagonist of Starship Troopers was Puerto Rican, but I don't remember anyone getting bent out of shape about that, either.

      In any case, my feelings about LeGuin's Slate piece remain. One would have expected her to be outraged by the way they butchered the books' plot and meaning -- instead, she focuses on the races of the actors in a rant made baffling by the fact that the books have nothing to do with race, even as an allegory.

      Also, she loses a lot of sympathy I would otherwise have, due to the fact that she sold the rights of her own free will, without insisting on some sort of creative control. It reminds of Krusty the Clown's anguished line: "What was I supposed to do? They rolled up a giant dump truck full of money! I'm not made of stone, you know!!"

      - AJ

  180. Or by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Hugh Grant...we're not judging.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  181. Re:When I sold the rights to Earthsea a few years by stratjakt · · Score: 1

    Bitch wants to have her cake and eat it too.

    Guess what, this is what happens to your lifes work when you sell out.

    Anyone who expects Sci Fi to ever produce anything worth watching is a moron.

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  182. Mangling LeGuin's Work by Audrey+E · · Score: 1

    Looking through the comments, I'm struck by the number of people who either seem to think that she should have known this was coming and has no right to complain, and the race thing is no big deal anyhow.

    The first complaint seems unfairly harsh. I have a lot of sympathy for her optimism that they would come up with an adaptation that was reasonably true to the work. To me, the recent Lord of the Rings movies served as a sign that good book adaptations were possible. I might feel hopeful in her case, too.

    And for the second criticism: this is a writer who approaches her work like an anthropologist or sociologist, one who is most interested in the human aspects of her stories. To white-wash the characters, and on top of that, flatten her story out until it resembled generic European fantasy material, is an insult to her ongoing attempts to write about more diverse worlds. Part of what makes her best writing stand out for me, is that the people and cultures are never generic. It's a shame the producers of the miniseries couldn't see that.

  183. I shut down the nice lady's website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I had to turn the website off temporarily. 90% of you were getting errors, anyway. Sorry, but we're a little hosting company, and a single Slashdot mention can swamp our connection.

    Please get the article from Google's cache, or any of the mirrors mentioned in this thread.

    I'll bring www.ursulakleguin.com back up later.

    Jeffry Dwight
    Ursula's Administrator (among other chores)

    1. Re:I shut down the nice lady's website by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      Good luck, Dwight. Sorry if I helped to make your day a living hell.

  184. that reminds me of "back to school" by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Keith Gordon as Jason Melon: You got a major paper coming up on Kurt Vonnegut and you haven't read any of the books.

    Thornton Melon: I tried (someone knocking on door) I don't understand a word of it"

    Jason Melon: So how are you gonna write the paper then, huh?" Kurt Vonnegut Jr. as Himself ... "Hi, I'm Kurt Vonnegut."

    Thortons Melon's teacher gives him an 'F' on the paper.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  185. Uhhh. No surprise here. by crovira · · Score: 1

    SciFi series writers are hacks. They would make Othello be about two black people and have them living happily ever after on planet Rawndesia.

    What can you expect. You start with a fairly decent book and by the time the accountants are through with product placement you have something that you can only wipe your butt with.

    The days of Rod Serling or Harlan Ellison are 'way' over.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  186. Agreed by ktulu1115 · · Score: 1

    I loved Le Guin's Earthsea trilogy, read them many years ago and loved every second of it. In fact, I think it was my first exposure to a fantasy genre book. I would have to say they are comparible to LOTR as well - my only wish is that they were longer (the books themselves), I would have loved to read more about Ged's adventures.

    One of the things I love about Le Guin's fantasy world is that is there is significant character development (over longer periods of time), it's more of a long-term biography almost, than just a story about a particular quest. You can see how Ged ages, matures and learns new things. I also enjoy her approach to magic - most fantasy-style worlds (books/games/etc) prevent wizards and such from learning too powerful spells until they are able to - you can't learn it until you are advanced enough. In her world, any magic-user can cast almost any spell - allowing for the possibility for things to get out of control (ie: when Ged summons the gebbeth). I know it's a minor detail, but to me this seems more believable; I can envision a more realistic world based upon those rules.

    I was talking about Earthsea with my friend, and he mentioned a fantasy author by the name of Terry Brooks, can anyone suggest any of his books to start out on?

    However, I did watch the miniseries. I "walked" into it expecting it to be significantly altered, which it was. I watched it just trying to enjoy being able to see parts of the story on film, not actually attempting to take in the whole story from the film. I think I was pretty successful - I definately picked up on small things that I did not focus much on from the story, but then again I also noticed things that were completely different. All-in-all I don't think it was too bad, having read the books previously. I would recommend anyone to read the books first before watching the miniseries however.

    --
    # fuser -v /dev/attention | grep work
    #
    1. Re:Agreed by C0deM0nkey · · Score: 1
      I was talking about Earthsea with my friend, and he mentioned a fantasy author by the name of Terry Brooks...

      Terry Brooks is best known for his "Shannara" series: The Sword of Shannara, The Elfstones of Shannara, The Wishsong of Shannara, etc.

      The Sword of Shannara was his break-out novel but, I must warn you, it is essentially a retelling of the Lord of the Rings with different character names. The remaining novels in the series (at least as far as Wishsong) follow the descendants of the main character in Sword.

      Check out Terry Brooks site for a complete bibliography.

    2. Re:Agreed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you know, Earthsea is a pentalogy now.

      Fourth book is named "Tehanu".
      Fifth book is named "The Other Wind".

      There is also a collection of short Earthsea stories.

    3. Re:Agreed by ktulu1115 · · Score: 1

      I did not know that either. Amazon's description of "The Other Wind" seems to be quite interesting... Now it looks like I'll have to pick up a copy of both of them.

      Thanks for the info.

      --
      # fuser -v /dev/attention | grep work
      #
  187. Falling TV Audiences by weston · · Score: 1

    they aren't interested in Science Fiction. They want the tech-fantasy crap.

    The stuff that will be guaranteed to appeal to the 12 - 24 year old male audience.


    Is this the same industry that's worried they're losing their viewers to the Internet and Video games? Falling ratings on guys 18-34?

    I'm in that demographic, and I don't mind saying that that the bullsh** LeGuin describes is exactly why I continue to simply read books rather than turn on the tube.

    Note to producers: I know, I'm in the semi-intelligent demographic, which you've written off, but seriously, could it hurt to try?

  188. Asimov by hey! · · Score: 1

    There's a yiddish world for Asimov's "self-described arrogance": Shtick.

    The wacky, oversexed doctor who so vain he was beyond any form of embarassment, seems to me to be a persona, and one which was basically self-deprecating in intent. He was almost painfully self-effacing in any kind of "serious" situation (see Terry Gross's excellent Fresh Air interview over at NPR.ORG).

    I think I'm going to pick up his memoirs, but it makes me wish that a really good bigoraphy written by an independent third party existed. If anyone knows of one, I'd like to here. Clearly, the man was no Einstein, but he had a mind of great breadth as well as tremendous energy. He had to be pretty damned intimidating to most people.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Asimov by swv3752 · · Score: 1

      Err, When he was alive, he was considered the smartest man alive.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    2. Re:Asimov by sphealey · · Score: 2, Informative
      There are now two different autobiographies. The first is the In Memory Yet Green series, which is filled with facts but exactly as you describe: an effort at misdirection. You have to read some other biographies and autobiographies of SF and science authors and NYC literary people to allow some reading between the lines.

      Just a few weeks ago I saw another autobiography, written by Asimov shortly before his death and edited/annotated by Janet. This one seems to be a little more expressive on the human side, although with few facts (natch).

      sPh

  189. Mod parent up. by seffala · · Score: 1

    Insightful

    1. Re:Mod parent up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just curious why exactly this is insightful ? Aren't white's portrayed as the enemy or the outsider in most cultures ? (I know eastern and native american cultures portrayed them as such) Why is it that everyone expects one group (perhaps the one they dislike the most) to do all the changing ?

      If you read the LOTR and look at the map you can see by the location that where the story takes place is in the north. Most people from the northern parts of this world are white. I can't speak for all sci-fi but generally the writers seem to mix a "magic" within some type of midevil (euro) historical setting.

      She got the fact that most people in a tropical "earth like" environment would be of color. She is just pissed that they cast actors she didnt like in the lead roles. Then she goes on a rant about how white people are the minority on earth and that we should assume that we are going to be bred into non-existance soon. Yet she keeps mentioning black people as if they are going to take over the world based on population. Thats not going to happen given the current trends asians (indians and chinese to be more specific) will be the ones who dominate from a purely population standpoint. Yet she makes little/no mention of this. Throwing a jab at Kristin Kruek by saying she "looks asian" when in fact she IS asian. (Of mixed race no less, something this author claims to hold in high value)

      I am going to take a leap here and assume that the reason she favors black and hispanic looking people is because she was raised around them and is still involved with them. Hence she is writing based on her experience, no different than anybody else. Get off your high horse.

  190. Here I go again. . . by Moekandu · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Okay, lessee...

    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.

    --
    Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself; but talent instantly recognizes genius. -- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
    1. Re:Here I go again. . . by dcam · · Score: 1

      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.

      The biggest mistake the W brothers made was to make sequals. They should have made prequals. There were more options for material.

      --
      meh
    2. Re:Here I go again. . . by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      First, there was no implication of matrices within matrices. The architect spoke of five previous matrices

      That implication was at the very end of Reloaded, when Neo discovered he could use magic powers "outside" the Matrix.

      That's a resolution. And a damn fine one at that.

      It's not fine, because it doesn't even make any sense. The first movie was perfectly rational, and suggested thoughtful sequels would follow. They didn't. The whole concept of "each time, One creates a virus that will destroy everything unless he stops it an we reboot" is totally silly and unjustified.

      The whole matrix within a matrix just perpetuates the endless loop and IMHO is a cop-out ending.

      True. The Everquest-thing woudl've been the best ending.

    3. Re:Here I go again. . . by Moekandu · · Score: 1
      That implication was at the very end of Reloaded, when Neo discovered he could use magic powers "outside" the Matrix.

      Wi-Fi.

      Really, it's hard to say what was occurring in that scene because it had never happened before. The previous "Ones" never made it past the Architect and the Smith/virus. Somehow with his interaction with either the Keymaker, the Architect, or Smith, Neo gained access past the "firewall" between the Matrix and the rest of the machine world. I would say probably not Smith, just because that was something he desperately wanted as well. I personally had been waiting for Neo to pull something like that since the first movie came out, but then that's mostly because of my own personal world view.

      The whole concept of "each time, One creates a virus that will destroy everything unless he stops it an we reboot" is totally silly and unjustified.

      Neo/One didn't create the Smith/Virus. Neo and Smith are the anomaly that the Architect speaks about. They are two halves of the same whole. The Architect, at the behest of the machines, used it as a bargaining chip and a chance to update the algorithm of the Matrix programming. The anomaly is a bug in that programming. With a system that complex, it is possible that a virus or other odd phenomena will spontaneously generate and threaten the entire system.

      What I believe is that the flaw in the Matrix that caused it to create the anomaly was not a syntax error, but procedural. The algorithm itself was flawed. Mostly because, on some level, humans will reject a controlled environment.

      The plan that the Oracle put in place (using Morpheus, Trinity and Neo as pawns for the most part) was extremely risky for the Machines. There was a very real possibility of extinction. But it also had the potential to change the machine/human relationship so they could remove the flaw in the Matrix programming.

      Why is it so difficult for people to accept, "Can't we all just get along?" as a valid ending to a story? Why is it that we are not satisfied unless the "bad guy" dies? Do you have any idea how close we were to nuclear war during the Cuban Missle Crisis?

      An Evercrack ending? Come on, the ending to Evercrack is that you get bored and you stop playing the game. Because nothing ever changes.

      --
      Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself; but talent instantly recognizes genius. -- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
    4. Re:Here I go again. . . by srvivn21 · · Score: 1

      I like your interpretation of the Architect scene.

      I do feel that in this scene there is an implication of matrices within matrices. The Architect speaks of a small percentage of people that don't take well to The Matrix, and how a failsafe had to be devised. Where you indicate that Neo/Smith is the failsafe, I like to think that failsafe is the "real world" which is not actually real, but another matrix layer. After all, once the small portion of the population that doesn't take to The Matrix break out (of The Matrix) and make it to the "real world" they seem satisfied. Problem solved. They are still in pods, and still under the machines' control, but perceive that they are free.

      After all, how did Smith's persona make it into the "real world" (Bane). I concede it could be explained in the same Wi-Fi method you use to explain Neo's interaction with the squidies at the end of Reloaded. It's all a matter of perception, and preference. I don't feel that the matrix within a matrix is a cop-out.

      In any case, the Architect scene is one of my absolute favorites of the second two movies, and contrary to popular opinion around here, I don't think they suck. *shrug*

    5. Re:Here I go again. . . by Moekandu · · Score: 1
      I always thought that the failsafe was Zion itself. By allowing it to exist, they could basically ensure that humans who made it out of the Matrix would go there and not somewhere/anywhere else. Although we do find out that that is not necessarily the case in the Animatrix.

      Besides, why would it be so important to send a hundred thousand sentinels to wipe Zion off the map if it were just another Matrix? It seems harsh in design in a way that the Matrix is not.

      As for Smith/Bane, I always thought of it as a mass reprogramming on Bane's brain. Kind of an intense 30 second brainwashing over the phone. It's not a good fit, of course, but I figured that was why the Bane/Smith combo was crazier than either of the two by themselves.

      I think that the point of the story (two warring factions coming to peace), is stronger if there wasn't a multiple matrix buffer zone for the machines. It makes it makes the stakes higher for the machines.

      Stephen King in On Writing states that every writer has an "Ideal Reader", that person that follows all the plot twists, gets the in-jokes, and has the expected emotional reactions in each scene. He says that he is fortunate enough to be married to his Ideal Reader, Tabitha. It became clear to me after Revolutions that I am pretty damn close to the Wachowski Brothers' Ideal Viewer.

      --
      Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself; but talent instantly recognizes genius. -- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
    6. Re:Here I go again. . . by srvivn21 · · Score: 1

      I can't say that I've watched the Animatrix (or played the Matrix console game for that matter), so I may be missing something...

      My reasoning for sending mass sentinels towards Zion is that it keeps the illusion (for the "escaped") alive. If they "got out" of the Matrix, and the machines just let them be, there would be no sense of urgency for Neo to find the Source, and some of the escaped might just get the feeling that escape was a bit too easy. *shrug*

      As for Bane, assuming that the plugged in people are being used not just as batteries, but also as distributed processing power, the Matrix is running code on all connected people, be they in pods, or on ships inserting their pirated signal. It seems reasonable that if killing the avatar can terminate the mind, then brain reprogramming is not too far fetched a possibility.

      Perhaps I'm just "reading" more into the post-apocalyptic nature of the "real world, and Smith's statement that the Human's time is over, and the machines are the next dominating species of the planet, but I kind of feel that the machines had won, and Neo realized it by the end.

      He had lost the one person who made his life complete, realized that he was still stuck in a pod (as were all the inhabitants of Zion), or (even better) he realized that he is just a program himself, and that ignorance truly is bliss. He takes out Smith so the people who are satisfied with their life in the Matrix can continue unassailed, and the residents of Zion can get on with rebuilding their "real" city.

      Again, I shrug. I am enjoying the discourse in any case.

  191. What sex? by schickb · · Score: 1

    All they intended was to use the name Earthsea, and some of the scenes from the books, in a generic McMagic movie with a meaningless plot based on sex and violence.

    Maybe they ruined her story (I'd agree that the show was generic and boring), but I think the author is sensationalizing. The only "sex" I remember is a bit of kissing in the first scene and one kiss at the very end. I certainly wouldn't call that a sexual movie. Also there was some violence, but it certainly wasn't that prevalent considering the plot was about conflict. Did the book have zero violence or something?

    1. Re:What sex? by Daniel · · Score: 1

      Also there was some violence, but it certainly wasn't that prevalent considering the plot was about conflict. Did the book have zero violence or something?

      Well...umm...

      Not really zero violence, but little enough that I can enumerate it (see below). This might be because the book's plot is a coming-of-age story; it's not about a conflict. When Le Guin says they butchered the story, she's understating the case.

      (SPOILERS BELOW)

      .

      .

      .

      .

      .

      .

      * The raid on the village at the beginning, where Ged first shows his power, is fairly bloody. When Ged conjures the mist, a few Kargs fall off a cliff, but most run away. The rest of the force was trapped (via the burning of their ships) and killed; "the sands of Armouth were brown with blood until the tide came in".

      * When Ged looses the shadow, it attacks him and claws his face before Nemmerle drives it away with a spell (not by running up and whacking it with his staff). Incidentally, Nemmerle spends all his power to do this and dies as a result.

      * Ged kills a few (young) dragons with spells, by binding their wings together so they fall in the ocean. He also turns himself into a dragon to briefly fight with another of the young dragons, wounding it and driving it away. The old dragon never fights him at all; it just talks to him.

      * There's a scene where Ged confronts the gebbeth, but there's not much actual violence: he hits it a few times with his staff, and the staff burns up, then it chases him. In another scene he tries to grab it (when it's in spirit-form again) and can't touch it at all.

      * Ged fights the Servants of the Stone with his staff and is unable to save the daughter of Re Albi from them: she tries to fly away as a gull, but when he catches up in hawk-form, they have blood and gull feathers on their mouths. He flies close enough to confirm what happened, then escapes.

      Out of the whole book, then, that's 5 incidents of violence; only two involve the killing of a human, and only one of those (the Kargish raid) actually depicts the killing. I can't think of any other violent scenes in the first book, and yet it still managed to tell a gripping and meaningful story.

      On the other hand, the miniseries featured several brutal on-screen murders, constant sword-waving threats by the throwaway villain and his thuggish underlings, and the obligatory (if short) castle siege -- in short, a standard generic fantasy movie -- and yet somehow none of those managed to make the lousy story they came up with any more interesting.

      I don't know where she got the "sex" part from (there's no sex in the books, but what was in the miniseries was pretty tame), but I think she was right on the violence: it was severely amped up for the TV production, and not to the benefit of the end-product. Part of this might be due to the producers' (or whoevers') decision to graft a stock "evil and bloodthirsty king wants to rule the world" plot onto the core story, but that's just excusing one failing of the show by pointing to a different failing.

      Daniel

      --
      Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
  192. It's not free tv. by solios · · Score: 1

    It's on cable and satellite, which means you have to pay for it, and get a bunch of other channels you DON'T want in the package.

    You're paying for the channel, and the channel's getting paid by advertisers. You're paying for the privelege of getting ads rammed up your ass. :-|

    This is, in part, why shows like The Sopranos are so popular- not only is it a solid drama, it's COMMERCIAL FREE.

  193. Re:Okay by fracai · · Score: 1

    Ouch, sure told me. You find a need to point out the irrelevant. Now shut up.

    I guess people are allowed to post information when they think someone didn't get a joke, but posting back that you actually did understand the joke isn't allowed. That makes as much sense as your post.

    --
    -- i am jack's amusing sig file
  194. Re:Okay by YellowElf · · Score: 1

    Once again, you are correct.

    One problem I have always had with LeGuin's works, is that she says so much with so few words. It is easy for me to miss the impact of what has just occurred in the story, and that is what happened for me here.

    So at the risk of showing my ignorance again, I will state that she is the exception for most women in the series. I can think of no other woman who had such high power that was not also that weird dragon/human hybrid type like the scarred dragon/girl Therru or the mysterious Irian (the Dragonfly story).

    --dv

    --
    Insert witty saying or aphorism here.
  195. Re:Okay by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 1

    Sorry... I guess my quote was a little too obscure.

    --------------

    GRANDFATHER
    (off-screen)
    (still reading)

    It was ten days till the wedding. The King still lived, but Buttercup's nightmares were growing steadily worse.

    THE KID
    (off-screen)

    See? Didn't I tell you she'd never marry that rotten Humperdinck?

    GRANDFATHER
    (off-screen)

    -- yes, you're very smart. Shut-Up.

    --------

    I just thought it made a zingy comeback to your "I'm aware of those facts." No offense meant...

  196. Le Guin sold out!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Read her blog and it's clear she sold out and hoped for the best. If you are going to whore for the suits don't bitch about the out come.

    1. Re:Le Guin sold out!! by schickb · · Score: 1

      don't bitch about the out come

      Or the outcome!

    2. Re:Le Guin sold out!! by fishbowl · · Score: 1


      "Read her blog and it's clear she sold out and hoped for the best. If you are going to whore for the suits don't bitch about the out come."

      Her complaint appears to indicate libel, not copyright infringement or undue abridgement of artistic direction.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  197. My opinions on the series. by eadint · · Score: 1

    After reading the article and watching the movie I realised that the author and the movie made many serious mistakes.
    1) when any scifi book is trying to prove a racial point for a racial sake, it has missed the boat all together. Sci fi is not about elevating one race over another its about creating an environment where you can explore a certain idea or social trait.
    2) I don't care what colour the main character is I want a good intelligent character who can really engage my imagination.
    3) this movie is horrible. As I was watching it, I kept thinking that this is the abortion of some brain dead coked out movie producer who thought a) harry potter made allot of money b) LOTR made allot of money so if I make a movie that combines the two I will make a shit load of money " coke whores for everyone. I've got a great idea, now wheres my jew banker. !!!!"

  198. I Robot by ericdano · · Score: 1
    If anyone should be upset, it would be Isaac Asimov. Look how they butchered his "I, Robot" when they made a movie of it. I don't think there is ANYTHING like the story in there. But whatever....

    She should be happy they did as good as they did with her books.

    --
    It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
    I moderate therefore I rule!
    --
    1. Re:I Robot by iapetus · · Score: 2, Funny
      If anyone should be upset, it would be Isaac Asimov.

      Yes. I'd be pretty pissed off if I were dead, too.

      --
      ++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
      Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
    2. Re:I Robot by RapmasterT · · Score: 1
      If anyone should be upset, it would be Isaac Asimov. Look how they butchered his "I, Robot" when they made a movie of it. I don't think there is ANYTHING like the story in there. But whatever....
      If you'd paid attention to the credits, you'd have seen the movie "I, Robot" didn't claim to be "based on the book...", it said "Inspired by the book". That's a hollywood way of admitting that the movie has nothing to do with the book by the same name. This occasionally occurs when a story is sufficiently close to invoke a lawsuit by the book author if they didn't pay him money/credit, but they don't want to actually make a film of the book.
    3. Re:I Robot by ericdano · · Score: 1

      That is assuming I saw the movie, which I have not.

      --
      It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
      I moderate therefore I rule!
      --
    4. Re:I Robot by RapmasterT · · Score: 1

      Save your money. Whether you're an Asimov fan or not, it's just not a good movie.

  199. Writing is a collaboration of the writer/reader by Saanvik · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Every writer worth his beans knows that the experience of reading changes the work from being a individual effort into a collaborative effort between the writer and the reader.

    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.

  200. BSG rocks. by solios · · Score: 1

    And there's nothing "upcoming" about it- it's being run on SkyOne in the UK as we speak.

    It's easily the best television sci-fi I've seen in years, though I'm starting to wish they'd give their resource acquisition problems more than the coursory lip service of the first and second episodes- BSG is almost entirely sociopolitical drama at this point, and if the characters weren't so well-written and well-acted, it would suck. The fact that it doesn't is kind of a fluke- one I'm enjoying a great deal. :-)

  201. On a side note.... by ericdano · · Score: 1

    One book series that would be great to bring to Sci-Fi would Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman's "Death Gate" series......

    --
    It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
    I moderate therefore I rule!
    --
  202. I think it depends on the situation... by solios · · Score: 1

    You certainly can't do Roots with an all-white cast.... and if you did an adaptation of The Dark Tower with a white Susanna Dean who had all of her legs, you'd be missing the point entirely.

    Conversely, Avery Brooks would make a fucking AWESOME Lex Luthor. The guy can do the no-hair thing and exudes barely-repressed evil-rage at the drop of a hat. It rocks.

    Hollywood has always pandered to the audience- hence the profusion of tits and massive changes in character racial background. Some of that's actor availability... if you've read the Dune books, you know that the Fremen weren't exactly white.... yet they've been about as honky as you can get in every visual adaptation to hit the screen.

  203. They butcher the story... by sweisman · · Score: 0

    And she complains about race? Methinks the lady is a wee bit too race conscious. Shouldn't she be more offended about changing the intent and meaning of the story, rather than messing with skin color?

    Then she concocts charged insinuations of racism ("But I had endless trouble with cover art...Not on the great cover of the first edition...but all too often.") but can only mention a single instance where the skin color of the character was changed on the cover art, and then only the *first* version!

    Personally, I read the Earthsea series in college. It was entertaining but I didn't think it was all that great or memorable. I only happened to read it because a girl I knew and liked really liked the Tenar character to the point of adopting it as a nickname within my group of friends.

  204. Re:Okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YHBT HAND

  205. TV Series much better than the books by IHateSlashDot · · Score: 1

    Even though the miniseries was not great it was at least watchable. The books are unreadable. There's not much out there that's worse than a Ursula K. Le Guin book. In fact I don't think I can think of a single thing off the top of my head.

  206. Is anyone paying attention? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I keep reading posts along the lines of "she signed away her rights so tough luck" when what she doesn't seem to be upset about changes the producers made. She's upset that they made those changes AND claim they're being true to the books. I'd like to just say RTFA, but people appear to be reading it and misinterpreting it. Aaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh!

    1. Re:Is anyone paying attention? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      After RTFA, I'm convinced the only thing she is truly upset about was the libelous claim that quoted her as making statements that she never made. Which is quite entirely separate from the copyright/artistic control issue it's being conflated with.

      Libel is libel. If she has damages, she has standing to sue.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  207. Re:If the Script was that Important...QUIT GRIPING by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1
    Had you RTFAs she mentions that she had written the scripts herself, was aware of the difficulties, challenges and opportunities involved and that SciFi turned her away.

    Having Read The Fine Article and seeing her admit she knew the difference between writing a novel and writing a script (though I don't recall her saying she wrote any herself), she didn't have to sell it to SciFi Channel under these, or any other, conditions.

    Having decided to do so, and cash the check that came with it, she should quit griping about her own bad decision that didn't include retaining enough control over her property to keep her happy.

    (Actually as I've heard it, UKL is difficult to keep happy under the best of circumstances anyway, so I take her gripes less seriously than otherwise.)

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  208. her second trilogy began earthsea's demise by Jack+Stowage · · Score: 1

    I would feel more sympathetic to Le Guin if she hadn't already wrecked the Earthsea universe with non-canonical books of her own.

  209. Knew it by celticchrys · · Score: 1

    I figured Ms. Le Guin had been left out of this production while I was watching it. I really looked forward to a hopefully well-done Earthsea movie. As I watched it, and wondered what happened to the Nameless One, and where the Amulet came from, and where this sisterhood of goodness and light came from... etc, etc, I was more and more disappointed. Ms. Le Guin, I bow to your talent. The Sci-Fi Channel is failing to live up to it's potential. They have the potential to make millions of very loyal sf/f fans deleriously happy and loyal fans of their channel. But this sort of thing only plays to the uninformed masses. Oh, yes, I suppose there are more of those people to sell things too... I wonder if Peter Jackson likes Earthsea?

  210. Interesting story about artist intentions by Thagg · · Score: 1

    While I completely sympathize with Ursula Le Guin, and am horrified that the people behind the miniseries didn't see fit to work with her on the project, I do have an interesting story to relate that puts perhaps a different light on this.

    My daughter is the world's greatest young artist. Well, in the top ten, anyway. It's been years since she had an art teacher that she had much respect for. So, this year, she gets to high school, and on the first day she waltzes into her new art teacher's office and says "I think all those people who analyze artist's paintings for meaning and symbolism are full of shit! The artists are just painting pictures! People who say otherwise are just making stuff up!"

    Her new teacher says "OK, give me your sketchbook". My daughter carries it religiously everywhere, and hands it over. The teacher proceeds to tell my daughter everything about every detail of the drawings. The teacher explains in embarrassing detail my daughter's relationship toward each of the subjects -- things like "Hmmm -- you really like this person, but you just had a big fight with them." The teacher describes exactly what my daughter was thinking as she drew each part of each of the drawings. My daughter is, of course, thunderstruck -- the teacher got everything exactly right -- and my daughter had absolutely no idea that it would have been possible.

    With that kind of an introduction, perhaps it is surprising that they have a truly wonderful student-teacher relationship now, but they do. I expect great things.

    Thad Beier

    --
    I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
  211. Dune miniseries by felonius+maximus · · Score: 1
    UNfuckingWATCHABLE

    Amen to that! I hired the first part (of three) from my local videostore, and thought it was OK. Then I hired the second part, and my brother and I were forced to turn it off after about an hour - it was some of the worst TV I have ever seen (and that includes "Passions"). The sand dunes in this were quite clearly large slopes of chipboard with some sand on them - TERRIBLE.

    Don't watch it!

    P.S. I love Hercules (it is truly entertaining TV that doesn't try to be what it's not)

    1. Re:Dune miniseries by RapmasterT · · Score: 1
      The sand dunes in this were quite clearly large slopes of chipboard with some sand on them - TERRIBLE.

      I have to agree. It was clear that the Dune miniseries ran out of money before they were done because the effects kept getting progressively worse.

      There eventually reached a point where they had digitally whited out the eyes of the Fremem charactes, but didn't get around to putting the ridiculous blue glow effect they were using.

      Then there was a scene where there was a cityscape in the background that was such a poor quality painting that I wasn't sure if the characters were supposed to be standing in front of a painting of a city, or if we were supposed to think it WAS a city.

      all in all, it was pretty F'n bad.

      And this is coming from a person who has actually read ALL the dune books (that were written by FRANK Herbert) and thought they sucked ass. First two were ok, but the rest read like the man was looking for a paycheck.
  212. Not comparison of authors, and Taoist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, she didn't compare herself to Tolkien at all. You have a strange way of reading things, if you think that's the case. She drew parallels between the abuse of her story and a well-known ending to another well-known story. That's all.

    As for relinquishing control: she's a Taoist, and maintaining firm control is quite possibly against her beliefs. She's likely to have hoped for the best and been prepared for the worst, and accepted it. She's not complaining or blaming anyone either, just pointing out what she perceives to be the truth of the situation.

  213. They messed up the morals of power and magic, too. by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

    One line I was looking for was where Vetch's sister asks why they are packing food on the boat when they could just say 'meatpie' and have something to eat. Ged explains that they'd just be eating their words and then goes on to some details on how magic works in their world (been a few years since reading it). Nothing. Magic was just used as a plot conveiance, with scarely more meaning than in the Harry Potter books.

    I guess it's all through pop culture now, where nothing has any real moral challenges anymore. Why should I expect pop SF/Fantasy to be different. Only the dead live lives of fearlessness. Why are we trying to drain life out of our culture?

    --
    I drank what? -- Socrates
  214. I'm peeved now too: at the author. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read those books when I was a kid.
    I loved them.

    Apparently the author was trying to make some kind of grand statement about race. And according to the author, the fact that I missed some important racial commentary in the book(s) is because "i'm white and can afford to be racially blind" (my paraphrasing)

    I'm having a hard time taking that as anything other than a big $#@! you from the author.

    I still love the books. And have just become pretty disillusioned about the author.

    i do though, have some sympathy for her book getting mauled by the show makers.

    i guess im still pretty blind because i REALLY dont understand how the book would be any different if, when describing the color of the characters skin, the author had chosen a different color.

    IT WAS THE THOUGHTS AND ACTIONS OF HER CHARACTERS THAT MADE IT A GREAT BOOK, NOT THE COLOR OF THEIR SKIN.

  215. Black is ok in her books not in her neighborhood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to live in a black neighborhood in the States, then I moved to a Latino neighborhood, where I was the minority as an American of European descent, in both areas. If you think racism is not something whites have to deal with you clearly have never had the misfortune to live in a black neighborhood. Just try to make friends when you are one of the few whites kid in a black neighborhood. It is cool to dislike whites there. Remember that movie(I think it was Boyz 'n the Hood) which contained a very brief scene where some little black kids were playing touch football in the street and some older high school negroes came up and asked them to throw them the ball. Of course when they throwed the football to them they just kept it and walked off. I doubt a jerkoff pretending with "a little extra thinking what it is like to be black"(like Le Guin) can remember this scene, unless they have actually lived in a black neighborhood and seen how prevalent such behavior is there. Since I have lived that experience I can remember that scene even if I am unsure of the name of the movie, it brought back a past I wanted to forget. Sometimes they will ask you to throw the football and one of their friends who is with them will put out his hands for a pass, when he catches the ball he will throw it back to the little kids(alas a few nigga hoodrats are decent humans in spite of it all), knowing that his friend would have walked off stealing the football from much younger and smaller children. Regardless(a good percentage of the times they did take the football) I cannot remember how many times I lost a football in such a manner, and the terror I felt everytime as I was intimidated by one of these highschool or college age hoodrats asking me when I was in gradeschool to pass to them. I wanted to tell them "fuck you" but since they were bigger and faster they could have taken it from me anyway if they lacked scruples. When I moved to a white neighborhood(at least it used to be back then) of Boonton, NJ I was moving into a different world. Things like constantly preying on grade school kids as a supply of nerf footballs was not a hobby for Boonton teens.

    It is easy to fetishize being black, until you live in a black neighborhood. I wonder why Mrs. Le Guin does not move to Hempstead, New York on Long Island instead of white bread Portland Oregon, I guess it is ok for things to be black in her books, NOT HER NEIGHBORHOOD . Unlike her, for whom a rhetorical wonder why would be needed, I have lived in a black neighborhood, I do not have to wonder why she does not want to move to such a neighborhood and instead flagellate from afar. I guess a being black is good enough for me to experience while being in a black dominated community, but for her it is some fetish for her novels and to rant about in Slate, while she lives in the Midwest(we all know how White the Midwest is). I used to be a leftist/anarchist, then I turned 21. They harp too much about bullshit like: "As an anthropologist's daughter, I am intensely conscious of the risk of cultural or ethnic imperialisma white writer speaking for nonwhite people, co-opting their voice, an act of extreme arrogance.."(from her website tirade) I can say to Le Guin that the joy those letters brought are not equal to the joy I felt when leaving a once quaint neighborhood destroyed by the immigration of hoodrats from Hempstead. If she wants a real experience of the stuff she lionizes she can always move from the Midwest. Alas, she is but a paper polticially correct warrior. She does not hear police sirens I bet every night like I used to.

    I do not know how many minorities are so called. They are the actual majorities in their local area. It does not matter if you are "demographically oppressed"(terminology not above the use of anarchist jerk offs) nationally and whining about that when you are the local majority. For me what good is it if whites are the majority black when I was in a black hood? The latinos(not west coast barrio dicks) are not bad at all, from my experience. I interact wit

  216. Ursula LeGuin is bitchy, film at eleven by justins · · Score: 1
    Does anyone think that the Sci Fi channel will ever get actual decent Sci Fi authors to do their scripts and come up with series for them?

    That's not particularly important to making a good film, honestly, whether it's science fiction or some other genre. They need really good directors. I can think of a few films that had really good science fiction authors but still didn't accomplish much. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102800/

    The director controls almost everything during the making of a film, in any genre. The writer just gives a little fuel, the director isn't obligated to follow the screenplay. There are instances where the author and director work very closely together, like 2001, and the result can be pretty good. It's not a guarantee, though.

    One thing this incident brought to mind even before I read your comment: Ursula LeGuin bitching in her (awful) Norton Science Fiction anthology that Blade Runner "travestied" the book 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?' Blade Runner, one of the widely-recognized classics of adult science fiction.

    Philip Dick, unlike LeGuin, was pretty graceful about the fact that the film was very different than his book, and supposedly liked the movie.
    --
    Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
  217. Good Call (OT) by Embedded+Geek · · Score: 1

    In lieu of having any mod points, just let me say I like your comment. Civil but pointed. Once her site recovers from the slashdotting it's taking right now, you ought to put that question in an EMAIL for her. She seems like a reasonable sort - I wouldn't be the slightest surprised if she answered it on her site.

    --

    "Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."

  218. Call me a heretic, but... by curtlewis · · Score: 1

    I never though LeGuin was that great of a writer. If I could have gotten past her pretentious, stodgy writing style, perhaps I would have enjoyed her books more.

    The mini series was ok, not great but ok. To digress, a two part movie is NOT, at least to me, a mini series. But anyways...

    Any writer that's had their material made into a movie or television has experienced the changes that happen. The writer has to be willing to let go. Ms. LeGuin has yet to learn that. Most of her complaints were pointless whining about changes that made no difference to viewers.

    I'm sure if she keeps bitching and whining that fewer of her books will be adapted in the future.

  219. Re:Okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " A lot of them don't read, a lot of them don't read English, and a lot of them can't read."

    -- Terry Pratchett, on why his books do not sell well in the United States

  220. The "K" in Ursula K. Le Guin is kind of important. by Medievalist · · Score: 1


    It stands for KROEBER. She's Dr. Alfred Kroeber's daughter. Remember Ishi, last of the Yahi?

    Do a google search if you don't track science or history.

  221. Studio idiots. by ninejaguar · · Score: 1
    "I asked if they'd like to have a list of name pronunciations; and I said that although I knew that a film must differ greatly from a book, I hoped they were making no unnecessary changes in the plot or to the characters--a dangerous thing to do, since the books have been known to millions of people for decades. They replied that the TV audience is much larger, and entirely different, and would be unlikely to care about changes to the books' story and characters."

    It makes one wonder, if producers aren't going to respect the written work, why produce a film version of it at all? If the target isn't the readership, then why bother introducing a title to those who are "unlikely to care about changes to the books' story and characters"?

    It's almost like they took the success of "The Lord of The Rings film for granted, and didn't pay heed to the incredible fidelity Jackson and crew kept with the original work. Earthsea deserved better, and so did its fans. Le Guin is partly to blame. We can only hope that authors are more serious about retaining final say about changes in a film version of their work in the future.

    = 9J =

  222. Actually, yes. it does - if you're good by tm2b · · Score: 1
    It's a myth that people will pay artists through online contributions; it just doesn't happen.
    I'm sure that this will be a great surprise to people like Randy Milholland. who quit his job 6 months ago purely on the strength of contributions, in order to go full time on his comic Something Positive.

    There are a number of other web cartoonists out there who have gone full time, but they also make money by selling licensed products and web site memberships - so you could bicker about whether they could (I think they do, because you can still read their stuff for free, but whatever). Randy's an example where it purely worked through free-and-clear contributions.
    --
    "It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
  223. Re:New Series by stonecypher · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So even when an author says "I didn't mean to represent X as Y", it doesn't make it any less true that X is represented as Y

    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; }

    --
    StoneCypher is Full of BS
  224. How about you read both. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Number 1, the first comment she put out was on her site, and still is, and in fact talks about the bastardizing of her books.

    Number 2, she later makes another comment almost a month later, where she further expands on the idea of skin color which foreign to the movie.

    So, there you have it, she in 2 seperate articles says two different messages. God forbid, the average human being be forced to comprehend more than 1 idea at once. I believe only politicians are forced to stick to one idea, less they be accused of being flip-floppers.

    Now let's get out and stop them queers from getting married and go murder us some abortion doctors.

    1. Re:How about you read both. by EvilAlien · · Score: 1
      If I could have read the comments on her site, I would have. I tried. I actually try to RTFA before I post a comment, but in this case her site was truly, horribly, and completely /.ed.

      I'm quite happy to comprehend several ideas at once, unfortunately her site is on a host that can't handle several visitors at once ;)

      --
      perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
  225. Re:Okay by fracai · · Score: 1

    haha, that's actually hilarious. I got pissed that you were making a joke from the same movie I was joking that I was aware of, but apparently not familiar enough with...

    Funny joke
    -- Joke Comeback
    -- -- Joke Comeback pointing out movie origin
    -- -- -- Joke Comeback pointing out I know the origin
    -- -- -- -- Joke Comeback originating from the same movie
    -- -- -- -- -- Angry Comback misinterpretting the previous joke

    This could go on forever :)

    --
    -- i am jack's amusing sig file
  226. Re:If the Script was that Important...QUIT GRIPING by hastings14 · · Score: 1
    Well, she did say she only went public with her griping because in that Sci Fi Magaine article the producer represented that he thought he was being true to her work.

    In a sense she wasn't as much griping about the show itself, but about the statement from the producers. Then she had to provide context and explanation as to why it wesn't true to her work.

    Perhaps she figured she was had sold the Earthsea idea to them, but not the right for them to represent her endorsement of what they wound up with.

    I doubt the producers care. Controversy = Good Publicity, ya' know.

  227. To give them some credit.... by abb3w · · Score: 1
    They have done one or two cool things; the broadcast of the John DeLancie/Leonard Nimoy "radio" plays in their "Alien Voices" team up sticks out as something interesting and somewhat different. Of course, they had two of Trek's biggest actors pushing the thing, and it was shown on a low-demand timeslot, but they did the experiment.

    Mind you, the ratings didn't scream skyward like a rocket (so to speak), and so it was pretty-much a one-time experiment.

    The observation has been made that the SciFi channel is essentaially a B movie studio subsidising its production costs by running a cable channel.

    --
    //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
  228. 80-20 Rule by sckeener · · Score: 2, Informative

    Next time just round out to 20% is outright correct or something that rings very true.

    Anything less than or equal to 20% can use the 80-20 Rule

    Quote:
    The Pareto principle (also known as the 80-20 Rule, the law of the vital few and the principle of factor sparsity) states that for many phenomena 80% of consequences stem from 20% of the causes. Moreover, among those "top 20" it is also the case that 80% of consequences result from 20% of causes, and so on. Thus, for example, 20% of 20% of 20% is 0.008, or 0.8%, i.e., eight-tenths of one percent, and 80% of 80% of 80% is 51.2%, so 51.2% of consequences come from eight-tenths of one percent of causes.

    The principle was suggested by management thinker Joseph M. Juran. It was named after the Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto, who observed that 80% of property in Italy was owned by 20% of the Italian population. It is often applied to data such as sales figures (20% of clients are responsible for 80% of sales volume) or organizational productivity applied via aircraft bodies whereby 20% of an aircraft structure provides 80% of the lift (in turn would apply to 20% of individuals in an organization perform 80% of the work).


    It your case 80% of what people take away is junk and 20% understand or gain insight.

    --
    "Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
  229. Much Ado About Nothing by krgallagher · · Score: 1
    From the Slate Site:

    "When I sold the rights to Earthsea a few years ago, my contract gave me the standard status of "consultant"--which means whatever the producers want it to mean, almost always little or nothing. My agency could not improve this clause. But the purchasers talked as though they genuinely meant to respect the books and to ask for my input when planning the film."

    Is Ursula K. Le Guin that niave? More likely She is just trying to do a little image control with her own fans. The film and television industries have a long history of trashing literature for the sake of market share. If she could not get guarantees in the contract why did she sign? Obviously she was greedy and deserves whet she gets.

    --

    Insert Generic Sig Here:

  230. Spinning In Her Grave by Ranger · · Score: 1

    If Ursula were dead, she'd be spinning in her grave. I wonder how much energy could be generated by dead authors turning in their graves by Hollywood destroying their works. Asimov (I Robot), Heinlein (The Puppet Masters), Dick (Total Recall), Herbert (Dune miniseries) could probably generate enough energy to power a small city. Maybe Hollywood could reduce our dependence on foreign oil by churning out more awful adaptations of great novels by dead authors. We'll never run out of dead authors nor Hollywood's perverse zeal for trashing great works.

    --
    "You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
    1. Re:Spinning In Her Grave by Daniel · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, the laws of thermodynamics tell us that you'll only get as much energy out of this as you put into it. Having seen the miniseries, I doubt that enough energy was put into it to power even a small neighborhood.

      Daniel

      --
      Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
  231. Re:I dont like her. I like Brin, Efremov,Lem,Asimo by umrgregg · · Score: 1

    She has an extensive background in Anthropology you insensitive clod.

    --
    NMG
  232. Re:Sci fi "original series" --needs decent acting! by Moekandu · · Score: 1

    After sacrificing my own countless hours to "Sci-Fi Originals", I've come to the conclusion that it's not the actors, per se. Sure, they put out lackluster and sometime horrible performances, but I've seen some very talented actors do just as crappy a job as the "no-names".

    It's not the actors. It's the director. The director doesn't (or didn't) have the ability to pull the best performance out of the actors. Having a script that no one takes seriously doesn't help, either. But, then again, that ultimately is also the director's responsibility.

    I find it frustrating to watch a scene fall flat on its face and all the while knowing what the director should have told the actor to get them to understand the scene and where they needed to be emotionally. Which is probably why filmmaking is a hobby of mine.

    --
    Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself; but talent instantly recognizes genius. -- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
  233. It's simple - it's her book, she's right. by gmknobl · · Score: 1

    I read the books like everyone else. Through my cultural glasses, I changed the appearance of a few of the characters to make me feel more comfortable. Hey, I wanted to imagine naughty things with some of the females and I was in my early teens anyway, so of course I did this.

    But Ms. LeGuin is right. I watched the miniseries and, though it was enjoyable, much was missing or changed from the book. After all, a wise director would have been working with her as much as humanly possible. That obviously wasn't the case here.

    Now, for you people who say she isn't right in complaining about the color of the actors' skin, you are plain wrong. Why? It obviously was a concious choice of hers to set up her books with multiple "races." It made getting into the story a challenge at time for the young me but I did it anyway. She has every right to complain as she did.

    Hopefully, someone will make a better adaptation of the story in future years. One that is true to the original story.

  234. Quality is the exception, not the rule. by abb3w · · Score: 1
    The Lord of the Rings survived, largely because the whole operation was backed by a legion of obsessively deranged fanatics up to and including Peter Jackson, and because the money men had the balls to cough up over a quarter gigabuck to make the thing without choking. (I wonder if we could get a hyperdrive by putting Steve Jobs and Peter Jackson in the same room....)

    Some of Crichton's SF transitions smoothly... largely because his SF is even a best workmanlike but uninspired.

    Steven King's Firestarter did all right, but I attribute that in part to Drew Barrymore being talented even then (not to mention cute as a button). Several people without my Barrymore fixation have told me the movie is a turkey, so I may be reaching here.

    So, even reaching, I can name maybe three novels that did well in the transition. (Crichton wrote more than one? You obviously haven't read them closely.) If we add in the TV version of Dune and Children Of Dune, you might get one more author.

    Face it: "the intellectual capacity of an artichoke" is a normal state for a studio head.

    --
    //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
    1. Re:Quality is the exception, not the rule. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LoTR was really only 5% of the books, though. To its credit, that 5% was pretty close to the original plot, and very well realised...

    2. Re:Quality is the exception, not the rule. by Jormundgandr · · Score: 1

      The TV versions of Dune and Children of Dune were terrible translations of the books. Where did you get the idea that they were good? Their only distinction is that they didn't suck as bad as the De Laurentis film.

      I haven't seen either in more than a year, so it's hard for me to write a critique right now. Anyone else have a reason why the Dune miniseries sucked?

      --
      -sig removed for tax purposes-
  235. Re:Okay by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let me 'splain...

    > Funny joke
    > -- Joke Comeback
    > -- -- Joke Comeback pointing out movie origin
    > -- -- -- Joke Comeback pointing out I know the origin
    > -- -- -- -- Joke Comeback originating from the same movie
    > -- -- -- -- -- Angry Comback misinterpretting the previous joke

    No... is too much. Let me sum up.

    > This could go on forever :)

  236. Whereas LeGuin... by abb3w · · Score: 1
    ...merely has a Masters degree in Anthropology, and is the daughter of another noted anthropologist.

    Her physics stinks. Her anthropology, on the other hand, is brilliant enough that her novels have been used in undergraduate anthropology classes.

    --
    //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
  237. Le Guin's Views on Race by Londovir · · Score: 2, Insightful
    What I find more interesting in this whole article is not how Le Guin is upset about the producers taking the mini-series away from her visions. I can understand and appreciate that. Although I'm not an author, I have done some writing on my own that I'm proud of (even if it likely is of horrible quality), and I can only imagine what my reaction would be if someone were to take creative control over it, using my name to promote it, and then take it in a different direction.

    Still, though, what I find more interesting is Le Guin's attitude towards Caucasians. Just reading through the article I see phrases such as "petulant white kid", "honky", "lily-like", "whites...have the privilege of not caring". It's almost as though Le Guin is defensive about her own ethnicity.

    I guess I take offense at being lumped into the generalizations that Le Guin makes. For example, when I read novels I do indeed tend to overlook the ethnicity of the protagonists, unless it is considered a major pushing point of the novel. When I enjoy well written novels, I enjoy the plot and the development of the character's personalities, and the motivations for their actions. I could care less whether the main characters are Caucasian, African-American, Native-American, Asianiac, and so forth. I was taught as a child by my family that a person's ethnicity should not give or take away from their value as a person - it is the quality of their character that is the important element in their person.

    That's why I bristled a little when I read her reaction. I came away thinking that she put too much emphasis in the ethnicity of her characters. It's her prerogative, of course, and by her own admission it is a basis for her novels. In that sense, I imagine, she should be upset by how the story was changed. Of course, I seem to recall someone in a class I took once in creative writing telling the class that a sign of good writing was when you could take the characters and change their race, gender, ethnicity, etc, and the story would still be compelling and engaging. The point then was that you should focus on writing a strong story first, and use your characters to drive the story, not the other way around.

    In any case, I'm more disturbed by how Le Guin "gets away" with using the term "honky", which is a derogatory term. (Ironically, it is a derogatory term that is likely derived from the African Wolof term honq) Although I haven't read every single response here on /., I don't notice anyone taking offense to her language. I guess I'm personally irritated by the double standard in society where a person of one ethnicity can be punished for using an ethnic slur against another race, but you can get away with saying a slur against your own race. (IE, it's alright for African-Americans to say "n****r", but not okay for anyone else, and it's alright for Le Guin to say "honky")

    Oh, and in case anyone feels this is too off-topic, let me make one final observation. By Le Guin's own admission, one of the key factors in her decision to sell the group the option to the film rights was knowing Philippa Boyens was onboard as primary script writer. If that were true, she should have had it written into the contract that the rights were contingent upon Boyens' participation in the project. I've seen that happen many times, where an author won't let anyone but a certain script writer handle their stories. If you care about your stories that much, you will take that sort of care.

    --
    Londovir
  238. Re:When I sold the rights to Earthsea a few years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right on, man! Raise your fist, or something. 'Cause you, dude, know what you be talkin' bout!

    I'm not sure which is sadder - to have this gentlewoman's masterpeice turned into such a schlock-ful soap opera, or to watch know-nothing, artless twits like yourself braying your vocabulary-challenged criticisms of things you know nothing about.

  239. Waste of time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a lousy show - I love scifi but this was a dog - couldn't make all tha way through.

  240. I got you both beat. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    3rd grade after reading the autobiography of Fredrick Douglas, I decided to do an essay on Abraham Lincoln and abolishment of slavery. I called Lincoln a self-centered egomaniac who was more concerned with preserving the Union, then the freedom of men. And said had the South not seceded I would probably be a slave today.

    Well, being in a predominately white school from a predominately white/jewish town, I don't think it went over so well. I believe they wanted to send me to remedial classes after that one. Atleast my mom new better.

  241. look by geekoid · · Score: 1

    they are not de-facto censored. sheesh.
    Bottom line: Author wants to try and kame a million doaars from there work quickly, then they exchange there rights for that chance.

    If an author wants to take more time and do more leg work, then they can seek other means of distribution that take longer.

    Why any author who has become successfull continues to use the system set up by publishers is a mystery to me. Use it beyond the normal contracted anout of books, that is.

    This women is has a huge following, if she started the ULG publishing house, and only published her books, she could still sell a hell of a lot of books, and her costs would be less..no publisher commision.

    If she was so inclined, she could look at unknown authors and give them a better deal. say less money for the author, but the ability to retain there rights.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:look by fishbowl · · Score: 1


      "This women is has a huge following, if she started the ULG publishing house, and only published her books, she could still sell a hell of a lot of books, and her costs would be less..no publisher commision."

      Considering her age, she might not be looking at any long-term considerations.

      Hell, if I can still go to the bathroom by myself at age 72, I'll be happy :-)

      But you can bet your shirt I'll read any contract to the letter before signing, and I sure as hell won't be assinging the rights for any of my compositions over to anyone. I have the double luxury of knowing that I'll never make a penny off my music, and also the comfort of knowing that nobody is interested in my music anyway ;-)

      But if I were more successful, it would make me *more* inclined to stick to my principles, not *less*.

      She should have thrown the film offer back in their faces, and complained that it didn't go nearly far enough in specific language to protect the integrity of her work. Hindsight 20/20? I don't think so. Carelessness. An artist should consider the integrity of his or her work, first, foremost, and always.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    2. Re:look by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "Considering her age, she might not be looking at any long-term considerations.

      Hell, if I can still go to the bathroom by myself at age 72, I'll be happy :-)"

      true, but that doesn't invalidate my point. If she has the money abd inclination she could set up someint in her will.

      "But you can bet your shirt I'll read any contract to the letter before signing, "

      I hope you get a lawyers as well ;)

      "and I sure as hell won't be assinging the rights for any of my compositions over to anyone."

      what if you were paid a million dollar to sign the rights to someone for a specific period of time and events?

      like here's a milion dollars, and I get the rights to your composition for any movie that begins production in the next 3 years?
      Naturally you would get credit for the work, but I would get the money those movies paid, plus soundtracks.
      to me, that type of deal is fair. you get money up front, and I take the risks. My possible reward for the risk is to make more then the money paid.

      Mean while you could still sell your compositions as 'sheet music' otr whatever and still have an opportunity to make money.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:look by fishbowl · · Score: 1


      >I hope you get a lawyers as well ;)

      I'm embarrassingly close to that age, and I do indeed have a lawyer who is consulted on any contracts of any merit. And I do read every word of anything I sign.

      "like here's a milion dollars, and I get the rights to your composition for any movie that begins production in the next 3 years?"

      And I make sure there's a rider that stipulates specific damages against a requirement that it is not used under specific conditions that are objectionable -- whatever legalese is needed to prevent you from using it in a pro-nazi, pro-terrorist, or pron-ography film. Fair enough?

      Maybe I wouldn't walk away from your million dollar offer, anyway, but for the sake of argument, I probably would amend whatever contract you waved in my face. And I realize I might be pulling a Gary Kildall by sticking to my principles. So be it.

      (For the record, I'd actually be delighted to make your porn soundtrack, and my royalties would be much less than the hypothetical amount in your message :-) Do you want "smooth jazz" or "dark ambient?"

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  242. ROTFLMAO-- Intruder alert by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Intruder alert, intruder alert. Slashdot has been breached by AOL. Prepare photon torpedos.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  243. Not Buying It by dastardly_villain · · Score: 1
    I think Urs is doing a bit of damage control here to protect her integrity. Like many of you've stated, there's no reson why she wouldn't have known any of this was going down. She knew when she signed over the rights and became a "consultant" with no 'final say' clause, that --- worse case scenario -- they could have taken Earthsea and done whatever they wanted with it and still called it Earthsea. When she signed on the dotted line and cashed the check she basically said "do what you will".

    The problem here is that the producers did over step the boundries by "putting words in her mouth" in lieu of her silence. I think that pissed her off, and in order to save face ([1] for letting Holywood change the races of most of her characters and [2] being disappointed in the overall final product) she is now crying 'foul'.

    Basically, she wasn't happy, but when they pissed her off for the last time she decides to play the victim. In my opinion, she may actually have felt this way all along, but obviously bit her tounge until the hate mail started pouring in. She's certainly not winning any points with me for not having the foresigt to anticipate such a disaster or (if she did know) for not doing anything to prevent it from the 'get-go'.

  244. system isn't broken, the authors are by geekoid · · Score: 1

    listen, if the people creating these works would stop signing these contracts, they would change.

    It would be nice if well know authors would try to help new Authors by informing them of how they will be screwed.

    If we could get Authors to stop signing those contracts for 1 year, the contracts would become for more beneficial for the author.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  245. Re:When I sold the rights to Earthsea a few years by dastardly_villain · · Score: 1

    Guess what, this is what happens to your lifes work when you sell out. Well said.

  246. when discussing a book by geekoid · · Score: 1

    ". I actually start to tear when I recall the last stand of Syrio Forell,"

    perhaps a spoier warning?

    Yes I know, you can't mention any ofthe book without giving away a piece of some plot.

    There is the tragic scene in the first book that made me toss the book down. I almost drove to the persons house that lent me the book to return it right then, but it was very late.
    The next day I relized that no author had ever had me that emotionally attached to any character before. I finshed the book, and all the books since then. Man, Great stuff. He managed to make fanatsy new to me.

    The worse part of the series was, hands down, when I finish the third book and relized it wasn't a trilogy.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  247. A disapointing rebuttal by Magickcat · · Score: 1

    It's somewhat unfortunate that LeGuin's primary concern in her response about the miniseries was regarding the skin colour of the characters. As much as LeGuin is a good writer, it seems a shame that her article shallowly focusses almost completely on casting.

    She also entirely avoids her responsibility for having the story rights sold with so little care to ensure that it wouldn't be ruined:

    "When I sold the rights to Earthsea a few years ago, my contract gave me the standard status of "consultant"--which means whatever the producers want it to mean, almost always little or nothing. My agency could not improve this clause. But the purchasers talked as though they genuinely meant to respect the books and to ask for my input when planning the film."

    Unfortunately, it's not enough to feign surprise and indignation when one sells one's soul to the Devil to find that they have been cheated because they didn't read the fine print. If she could not get a satisfactory agreement, then it was plainly evident that it would not change at some time in the future. She attempts to absolve hereself of responsibility by claiming that she felt that they had the best of intentions, so at the very least, she was extrememly naive. Regardless, the onus to protect the integrity of her writing is upon her. Noone else is responsible for the travesty because she took the money, wished for the best and signed away.

    "All they intended was to use the name Earthsea, and some of the scenes from the books, in a generic McMagic movie with a meaningless plot based on sex and violence."

    Surely a writer should speak with more substance around interpretations of their work. Aside from ethnicity, I would have liked to see a more meaningful apraisal however bad it might have been. Some good could have come from the miniseries had she had written an thorough rebuttal.

    --

    Si tacuisses philosophus mansisses. If you had kept quiet, you would have remained a philosopher.

  248. Here's the status quo. by khasim · · Score: 1
    Luckily, a basic familiarity with the SciFi channel library will show very little status quo (you see, that phrase means "keeping things as they currently are," and barely even applies here) and recently a relatively small amount of mediocrity.
    And in the very next paragraph, you contradict that.
    As was done with Taken, both Dunes, PK Wars, battlestar galactica, etc etc etc. Which channel besides HBO puts this much effort into shows which aren't the same old NBC drivel?
    Dune was already made into a movie. Doing it again is "status quo".

    Battlestar Galactica was already a series. Doing it again is "status quo".

    PK Wars was a sequel to Farscape. Unless you believe "Return to Gilligan's Island" was "pushing the envelope" that is pure "status quo".

    Remakes and sequels are the status quo.
    Amusingly, the formula you're making accusations about - sticking to standard issue plots and franchises - was broken about nine years ago when it changed management inside Turner Networks, and that's when the channel began to become as immensely profitable as it now is. The further SciFi steps from traditional televised science fiction, the more profitable it becomes.
    Perhaps you should watch the mini-series under discussion, then.

    Strange how something could be broken 9 years ago, yet still be the recurring theme in their productions.
  249. Could similar botch happen to Ender's Game? by Swami · · Score: 1

    Hopefully, Ender's Game won't get shafted too badly in the screenplay.

  250. Color by ucblockhead · · Score: 1

    That reminds me: did you hear they're going to final do a movie adaption Elric of Melnibone? It's going to star Wesley Snipes as Elric.

    --
    The cake is a pie
  251. That explains it... by Snaller · · Score: 1

    ...i was trying to read the nice old ladies website and it was down... you rascals! *G*

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  252. Typical Portlander attitude. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Le Guinn's "I Hate White People. White People are bad" rant in slate is a pretty typical Portland, Oregon (Le Guinn's home) attitude. The irony of this self-righteousness is that Portland is the whitest place I have ever lived. One of the reasons Portlander's can sit around and brag about their never-ending "tolerance" is that they are all the same.

    "Latte Town" was coined a few years back and is the most appropriate term for the City of Portland that I have ever heard. A Latte town consists of mostly white, educated baby boomers and young single people. The inhabitants of the town are usually newcomers who have priced out all the original inhabitants. These towns are usually expensive, pretentious, abound in natural fibers and are laid back on the surface. Latte towns like Portland pride themselves on their most cherished concepts of diversity and inclusiveness. Most Portlanders accept this myth as Gospel but upon close examination Portland's dirty little secret is revealed. Portland is an overwhelmingly white, non-ethnic city. It is as vanilla as it gets so it makes one wonder what all the celebrating of diversity is all about. Drive through any neighborhood surrounding the downtown area and the impression that you get is that Portland is nothing more than a series of elitist ghettos compromised of rich white homosexuals, rich white yuppies, rich white hippies, rich white trust funders, and rich white kids from the suburbs pretending to be street people. Where's the diversity? Well it doesn't exist but the average Portlander likes the concept and in their eyes the different shades of rich whites all constituent diversity.

    I think it is highly hypocritical of Le Guinn to go on and on about how much she hates the racial changes in her novels, "her world," when in the real world she intentionally moved to an "all" white town.

  253. UNfuckingWATCHABLE by PateraSilk · · Score: 1

    You said it. I rented it on DVD and stopped, incredulous, after 45 minutes. It made me wonder whether they'd actually read the book. And that mannequin they dressed up like William Hurt and trundled around on a handtruck... I dunno.

    --
    Danke tres mucho, tovarishch.
  254. Re:I dont like her. I like Brin, Efremov,Lem,Asimo by Fortran+IV · · Score: 1

    So by your reasoning, Asimov's PhD in biochemistry qualified him to create the "science of psychohistory" and write some of the most highly-regarded SF books of the second millenium--books which contain, surprisingly, relatively few references to chemistry.

    Are you saying that Asimov's The Gods Themselves is a great story because of Asimov's understanding of the underlying constants of our physical universe and the atomic properties of tungsten? I think it succeeds because he shows realistic and understandable human characters in a tense situation, then likewise shows completely fantastic and alien characters in a tense situation and makes them realistic and understandable.

    The primary qualification for an SF writer--like any other kind of fiction author--is to be able to tell a hell of a good tale, and make you care about it. Larry Niven, for instance, is widely known as a "hard science" writer, but Ringworld depends heavily on highly imaginative superstrong materials and hyperdrive scarcely distinguishable from space opera. Ringworld succeeds as a story not because of Niven's (admittedly quite clever) central invention, but because he tells a tale that captivates and entertains the reader.

    That said, I'm sure Miss Le Guin's stories have been improved by her background in anthropology, but such a background does not automatically make her an imaginative or entertaining storyteller. The Lathe of Heaven has been on my short shelf almost since I discovered it, and not because of its several theoretical social structures.

    --
    I figure by 2030 or so my 6-digit UID will be something to brag about.
  255. The meaning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is that supposed to mean?

    It means:
    Racism is the sole property of my political party (the Democrats). You whites are not allowed to play that race card. I have a double standard and I am making sure you are not going to challenge me on it.
    This is my stick. Only I can use it. Only you can be beaten with it. It is my Honkey-Hatin' Stick. Don't try to use it against me.

  256. Re:Try other writers by mjc_w · · Score: 1

    That's "The Word for World is Forest", although a Google search for your "The Word of World is Forest" comes up with a hit (evidently a typo).

    --
    This is the Constitution.This is the Constitution under the Bush administration. Any questions?
  257. Keep an eye out for BSG by Snaller · · Score: 1

    Battlestar Galactica the new version (currently showing in the UK because Sky co founded it on the condition they could show it first - starts in january over there), includes radical concepts as:

    * Story arc(essentially its one long story)
    * Sensible continuity (for instance, a pilot gets hurt in one episode, is in the sickbay in the next episode and walks on crutches in the following eps)
    * People who need to work together even though they may not like each other and sometimes even hate each other.
    * The rare kid (very rare) who is rude and not a super genius (sorry will ;)
    * Non reset buttons
    * Stories which do not tell you everything but leaves room for questions, ambiguity and the pondering of what will happen next.

    So in all likelyhood it'll be cancled after 3 episodes..

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  258. an author's opinion is just that... by snStarter · · Score: 1

    ... an opinion. A work stands by itself, on in the company of other co-joined works. The rest is what YOU bring to it, and how you choose to share what you experienced with others. Then the work grows in complexity.

    In general authors add very little to this mix. You can hear what they understand and what they intended. But their intent has little to do with what your own mind does with the material.

    This is part of the great strength of art: your own experience informs the work.

    It's good for high school students to learn this essential fact.

  259. Good news by danila · · Score: 1

    I've wasted six minutes of my life reading the fucking comments by Le Guin only to find out her only complaint is that Earthsea is not the second Matrix, full of black and asian actors. That's surely a relief - I was afraid that the miniseries' creators butchered the book or something...

    I mean, I can certainly understand that some people care about the skin colour of characters in fantasy books, but I am not among them. I don't think I ever paid attention to the skin colours when reading Earthsea or, frankly, any other book.

    Really, I don't know what else to say. Haven't we had enough of this shit with Star Wars being racist to Yamaicans, Jews and Asians, Lord of the Rings being racist to everyone else, GTA being racist to Haitans and so on. I wonder why noone seems to care about all movies where blue eyed blondes are being cast as dimwits, villains and so on...

    --
    Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  260. she's racist!?!? by iamhassi · · Score: 1
    did anyone even bother to read the slate article before posting it??

    "My color scheme was conscious and deliberate from the start. I didn't see why everybody in science fiction had to be a honky named Bob or Joe or Bill. I didn't see why everybody in heroic fantasy had to be white (and why all the leading women had "violet eyes"). It didn't even make sense. Whites are a minority on Earth now?why wouldn't they still be either a minority, or just swallowed up in the larger colored gene pool, in the future?
    .... very gradually publishers may be beginning to lose their blind fear of putting a nonwhite face on the cover of a book. "Hurts sales, hurts sales" is the mantra. Yeah, so?"

    Welcome to reality, where people care about money, and although I agree the majority of the world is not of european descent, I still say the majority of the world is white, asian descent. And what science fiction books is she reading with names like bob and joe?

    --
    my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    1. Re:she's racist!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never come across such a race hating jew as ursula. I'm glad they made so many people white.

  261. Sci-Fi Shouldn't Try to Make Their Own by Greyfox · · Score: 1
    First off, there's a whole undertone of cheap production that permeates every film of theirs that I've seen. This was particularly bad in their cut of Dune, since I think a lot of us were holding it up to Lynch's version, which had cheaper SFX and STILL managed to do a better job of confincing us that it all took place on a completely different planet.

    Second, I've never read Earthsea (And I call myself a geek, bleh) but my room mate had, and was so pissed off by the cheap production and deviations from the storyline that she turned it off after 10 minutes.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  262. For those of us who haven't read the book... by Hobadee · · Score: 1

    For those of us who haven't read the book "Earthsea", is it worth reading? I hear it's good, but the mini-series kinda killed it for me. I liked the premise, but I think it was horribly executed.

    --
    ...Had this been an actual emergency, we would have fled in terror, and you would not have been informed.
    1. Re:For those of us who haven't read the book... by Daniel · · Score: 1

      Well...for starters...

      The premise of the books is pretty much completely different from the movie. The evil king out to rule the world was invented from whole cloth, and the priestesses...well, they have nothing to do with the story of Ged's initial training and the loosing of the shadow, and ... well, let's just say that they aren't quite like the movie portrayed them. In fact, only the Ged storyline was vaguely related to the books, and even that was chopped up and distorted.

      I enjoyed the original Earthsea trilogy immensely. The books after it are a bit questionable, and I've heard mixed reviews of Le Guin's other work. But "A Wizard of Earthsea", and to a lesser extent "The Tombs of Atuan" and "The Farthest Shore" are classics, hands-down. (although I see a few people here who disagree; you can ask them for their opinions, I suppose) The themes are universal, the prose is beautifully lyrical, and the plot actually makes sense. [0]

      I would suggest purging the miniseries from your mind before reading the books, though. A few characters were decently portrayed, but to turn Vetch into comic relief....gah!

      Daniel

      [0] all of these traits fall away after the (real world) 20-year gap between books 3 and 4.

      --
      Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
  263. book reviews, link to Le Guin discussion list by danny · · Score: 1
    Check out my reviews of the Earthsea trilogy, Tehanu and The Other Wind .

    The ekumen mailing list has been discussing possible adaptations of other Le Guin books:

    In the Halmi "Dispossessed", Shevek is so happy to be off of that horrible socialist prison planet that he applies for asylum on the mercy of the Urrasti government (they only have one) and happily goes off shopping. Of course he never returns to Anarres.

    Danny.

    --
    I have written over 900 book reviews
  264. Ugh, Kemo Sabe! by grikdog · · Score: 1

    I lost track of Ursula Le Guin when she "paraphrased" -- not to be remotely confused with actual translation of living, i.e., not remotely dead, languages like Chinese -- the Tao Te Ching, but I have to say the Sci Fi channel has kind of lost the mandate of Heaven on this one. Do the pop growl moguls who give you Fear Factor and Crossing Over in the same brown and lumpy output stream as Earthsea even understand the stuff they purvey? Futurama, yes, Cowboy Bebop, yes, GITS, yes, Aqua Teen Hunger Force, maybe, but Earthsea? No. No. No.

    --
    ``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
  265. actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we wrote to you, michael, pointing out leguin hated the series.

    but you act like you just figured that out on your own.

    i know i shouldnt expect more from you, knowing slashdot. but know this: i come here because its the lesser of the evils, not because it is good

  266. I liked the Earthsea stories ... but by j_w_d · · Score: 1

    ... to someone who had to read through miles of anthropological literature, it was obvious where much of the story derives from. Le Guin grew up the daughter of one of the single most influential anthropologists in North America and it shows. She was exposed to story, myth, ritual and material cultures from all over the world as child. The feeling for much of the story, especially Gont, is similar to myths and stories from the Northwest Coast culture area in North America, and also to Polynesia.

    I know that when I read the stories, my impression was that the "race" card was just background colour (no pun intended) to provide texture. The only strong cultural differences were between the pale, piratical, sea raiding Karg and the rest of Earthsea, and also the raft-dwelling society, and those differences are cultural, though they correlate with "racial" differences in the story. I thought her complaints were pretty self conscious, but perhaps she a better writer than a complainer.

    The real book-to-movie complaint to end complaints, especially if you are worried about race and cultural shifts is the transformation of Rico, in Henlein's Starship Troopers from a Tagalog-speaking Phillipino into Dolph Lundgren! That must have had Heinlein spinning.

    --
    ------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
  267. fat and dumpy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    bigot

  268. Can't have everything I guess by db10 · · Score: 1

    "Gee, well they trashed my story, but WTF, I made out like a bandit... woot! woot!"

  269. Lackluster Earthsea was a grave disappointment by mr.+mulder · · Score: 1

    To begin with, we must first understand the what SciFi channel is and what it delivers. SciFi is a channel dedicated to Science Fiction and the occasional early morning info-mercial (to pay the bills). SciFi channel has brought us some great original series and miniseries (Stargate SG-1, Atlantis, Farscape, and the soon-to-come Battlestar Galactica); however, SciFi only has a relatively small viewer-base and small budget. Due to these two major limiting factors, SciFi fills its weekends with class B films. They don't advertise these weekend films as the next Lord of the Rings - they are what they are: class B films. With that said, it's understandable that when SciFi begins to advertise a new miniseries months in advance, you had better listen up.

    Enter Earthsea.

    I saw the first Earthsea advertisement over two months ago. Sporting a cast of Danny Glover, Isabella Rosellini, and Kristen Kruek, Earthsea was poised for greatness. After seing the tenth commercial for Earthsea in a single day, I decided that I get on the bandwagon and visit my local Half Price Books to read Ursela K. LeGuin's books. I found the books lacking a lot of detail; however, they were captivating reads. After reading the books, I was finally ready for the Earthsea miniseries.

    Monday night came and went. After watching the first hour of Earthsea, I was so incredibly disappointed in the lack of honor it did to the original book series. To name a few things, the series changed people's names, the foundation of magic within Earthsea, and the histories and personalities of several major characters. In addition to the perverted storyline, the producers must have spent all of their budget on the main characters because all supporting actors and acrtesses were piss-poor.

    In other words, the first hour of Earthsea was just as bad as one of the Saturday afternoon SciFi class B movies. The only difference is that SciFi channel hyped Earthsea like it was a new Stargate movie.

    Someday, I may finish watching the remaining three hours, but I'd rather be spending my weekend cutting my toenails.

    Finally, I'm disappointed in SciFi. Whomever decided that this Earthsea script was SciFi channel worthy should be severly punished - even fired. SciFi is still a great channel, but I'll think harder next time before wasting my hopes on their next miniseries (except Battlestar Galactica :-)

  270. Kubrick by ucblockhead · · Score: 1

    Kubrick and Clarke wrote 2001 together based on an earlier Clarke short story, and then Clarke went and turned the movie into a novel. Kubrick was as much responsible for the "original content" as Clarke was.

    --
    The cake is a pie
  271. Re: Rights by I+Sil+Zah · · Score: 1

    From what Miss LeGuin has said of her publishing contracts she has a slightly better deal then current writers get today. Her publishing houses picked her up before they really had any credit to their name so she probably didn't get quite a screwed. She may have signed publishing rights away but you don't neccessarily sign away ALL your rights to a book to get them published. Especially the potential film rights.

  272. Re:New Series by bfields · · Score: 1
    So even when an author says "I didn't mean to represent X as Y", it doesn't make it any less true that X is represented as Y

    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.

    The original poster didn't say that all readings of a work are created equal. Some obviously make no sense.

    Nevertheless, it is sometimes the case that a reader interprets a work in a way that the original author didn't intend (and might not even agree with), but that is nevertheless insightful.

    --Bruce Fields

  273. Re:I dont like her. I like Brin, Efremov,Lem,Asimo by Catbeller · · Score: 1

    Isaac Asimov had a PhD in Biochemistry

    :) Nope. He had a PhD in Chemistry. He got a job teaching biochemistry, a subject in which he actually was not expert. In his autobiography, he explains that he read six chapters ahead in the textbook, and winged it.

  274. You took the money, so shut up by John+Jorsett · · Score: 1

    I'm always amused when authors start bitching about how their work was screwed over by the movie. If you don't want them pissing on it, don't sell the rights. Or demand an ironclad contract that gives you final script/director approval. Anything less, and you're signaling that you'd rather have the dough than maintain your work's integrity.

  275. The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas by wrecked · · Score: 1
    Ursula K. Le Guin is my favourite science fiction / fantasy author, so please excuse the gushing...

    Several other posts have mentioned Le Guin's other great works, beside the Earthsea series -- the Dispossessed, the Left Hand of Darkness, the Lathe of Heaven -- but the story that most clearly defines her literary motivation is The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas.

    Le Guin is fascinated by the concept of Utopia. In the Dispossessed, she conjectures "If anarchism / communism could work, what would it look like?". The Lathe of Heaven explicitly deals with the theme of Utopia, and how one person's utopia is another's hell.

    Omelas is more than a story: it's a thought experiment. What is most disturbing and haunting about it is how the utopian society of Omelas only becomes real and believable once Le Guin reveals the dark, horrible bargain that the denizens of Omelas made to have their perfect world. To paraphrase Mr. Smith in the Matrix, it's as if humans need suffering and evil in order to believe in existence.

    On topic, Earthsea is fascinating because she attempts to weave a mythology as different from the Tolkien motif as she could get. Tehanu, written 25 years after the original trilogy, is Le Guin's revisiting of Earthsea, after she embraced feminism.

    Le Guin is also notable in that she views science fiction with an anthropologist's eye, not a technologist. She is interested in the sociological impact of science and technology. Nevertheless, her stories are well grounded in scientific principles.

    No faster-than-light warp drives or hyperspace; her characters have to make do with near lightspeed. And because of relativity, even though it takes a spacefarer one night to go to another star system, 100 years pass by on her homeworld. In the 1960's, Le Guin also invented the concept of the ansible, which was inspired by the principle of quantum entanglement (she called it the "Principle of Simultaneity" because the term "quantum entanglement" hadn't been coined yet).

  276. Hmmm.... by Embedded+Geek · · Score: 1

    Excellent point. I'm sure the Tolkein estate saw a similar phenomenon, although they've always been *very* savvy, as evidenced by their actions against TSR's D&D and their own RPG licencee Iron Crown Enterprises (for those who don't know the tale, they basically forced ICE into recievership by demanding a specific royalty payment when the movies began production, allowing them to rebid the RPG licence [not that I can blame them - ICE probably couldn't represent them the way they needed after the movie]. I have a friend who actually had the oportunity to buy ICE out in the auction, but got outbid)

    --

    "Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."

  277. Le Guin has nothing to complain about. by Nyder · · Score: 1

    Look at the history of book-film conversions. 95% of them suck. allways. Yet, she was happy to accept the money they paid her for the rights to use earthsea.
    I first read her books when I was in 7th grade, and have read them many times since. I was sort of surprised to find that she conciously makes her characters non-white. I thought the 3 Earthsea books were good, but I never did read anything else she wrote.

    I just don't think she should be complaining. If you wanted a movie or mini-series to follow her story, she needs to produce it herself. But she didn't, she sold someone else the rights to it, and wasn't even smart enough to give her self more control in the decision makings. Wonder what they paid her for it?

    --
    Be seeing you...
  278. Re:Okay by Daniel · · Score: 1

    The strong gender divides and politics don't arise until book 4. There is some suggestion that they exist before that, but they aren't essential to the story -- you could make Roke coed and Ogion a woman, and the books would hang together just fine.

    Book 4 was written 20 years after book 3, and contains a number of other continuity problems (eg, characters that were alive that are dead with no explanation); Le Guin tried, fairly transparently, to paper these over in later books. My understanding is that she became involved in feminist politics in the interim, and that's part of the reason for the change in how gender is treated. (can anyone corroborate/deny?)

    Personally, I just treat all the later books (Tehanu onwards) as existing in a separate universe from Earthsea, and the question of women and magic as being essentially unanswered in the original Earthsea universe. It's the only way I could appreciate them at all.

    As for the TV series: I thought it was actually fun...as long as you realize that it's there to make fun of. Throw popcorn at the screen or something every time something painfully stupid happens. :-)

    Daniel

    --
    Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
  279. Re:I dont like her. I like Brin, Efremov,Lem,Asimo by realityfighter · · Score: 1

    Le Guin is also a linguist. The Earthsea series is, among other things, a metalinguistic treatise on the relationship between language, perception, and reality. The Left Hand of Darkness could easily be called a book about a single word, it's place in the language and it's complex meaning.

    One of my favorite and most reputable professors teaches a linguistics class which examines and evaluates the linguistic theories in LeGuin's writing. So yeah, even though I know nothing about actual degrees she holds, I can say she's a linguist at least as much as Tolkien was.

    --
    A strain of paranoid prevention can be worse than the disease, whate'er the intention.
  280. What about the plot? by hadamhiram · · Score: 1

    Most of the posts seem to be about LeGuin's reaction to the ethnic bleaching of her work, but what about the complete bastardization of her story? Earthsea is a classic because it is provactive, intelligent, and insightful story telling. Frankly I'm surprised that the sci-fi channel, which one would hope would be a bastion of smart entertainment, gave the thumbs up to the bullshit hollywoodization of a classic sci-fi/fantasy story. That seems like a formula for disaster rather than success. I mean, if it's mindless entertainment people want, they'll watch pro wrestling or nascar instead of science fiction. LeGuin's term 'McMagic' is particularly apt.

  281. Trying to have it both ways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously, if the reader is initially distracted by the character's skin tone, that is likely to interfere with the reader's ability to identify with the character. The strategy of letting the reader discoverer a character's differences (which may be as subtle as race or as extreme as species) later on in the story has long been used successfully in SF. Heinlein also used this device for a nonwhite character.

    I think this is a fine approach.

    But in these particular cases, the strategy is to narrate from a perspective that race is not considered important. Only gradually and incidentally do we learn from the narrator that Ged has dark skin, or that Juan Rico is Filipino-American (rather than Latino as many assume.

    So it seems quite hypocritical for Ms. Le Guin first to imply in her stories "oh, by the way, Ged's black, but you know, that doesn't really matter to the story," and then later to get all pissed off when some people actually take this seriously and visualize a Ged who isn't black.

    If she really thinks it's important for Ged to be black, then she really ought to have race somehow relevant to the story, rather than a trivial detail.

    1. Re:Trying to have it both ways by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      But in these particular cases, the strategy is to narrate from a perspective that race is not considered important. Only gradually and incidentally do we learn from the narrator that Ged has dark skin, or that Juan Rico is Filipino-American (rather than Latino as many assume.

      You are confusing reality and fiction. Writing a story about a world in which race is not important, or in which people who are minorities in our culture are in the majority, can be a way of highlighting the unconscious assumptions that we make about race. So the fact that the race of the protagonist is not important in the fictional world of the story cannot be taken as an indication that the races of the characters are not an important part of the story or critical to the intent of the author.

    2. Re:Trying to have it both ways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the fact that the race of the protagonist is not important in the fictional world of the story cannot be taken as an indication that the races of the characters are not an important part of the story or critical to the intent of the author.

      In a written story, the part which is actually written is the only essential part. Context is interesting, but not necessary to any work meant for the general public.

    3. Re:Trying to have it both ways by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      In a written story, the part which is actually written is the only essential part.

      And indeed, LeGuin's complaint is that the film changed an essential part of what was actually written.

  282. Re:Authors who sign away the rights by dallaylaen · · Score: 1

    Well, I'm in Russia (*strange* things with copyrights here), but I've heard about Dostoevsky who had to sign a "slavery" contract because of gambling.

    Why can't the Copyright laws be fixed? Like this:

    * No one can sign a copyright away. You can share it, not get rid of it.

    It BTW can be applied to patents (Buying patents away to stop unwanted innovations? No, impossible.)

    * The only exception is deliberately releasing *your* work to public domain, one must be proven author to do so.

    * Inexistent works have nothing to do with copyright law.

    I understand noone is going to be sponsored by PHBs for voting for such things, but seriously -- does it get the legal system into trouble?

    --
    WYSIWIG, but what you see might not be what you need
  283. Heinlein (Starship Troopers specifically) by Paul+Brown · · Score: 1

    Heinlein did the same thing in Starship Troopers as Ursula Le Guin did in Earthsea - introduce the character first, and then mention that they might not be white. Right at the end (blink and you might miss it) he reveals that Rico's native language is Tagalog.

    No comment on whether the film version was faithful to that book...!

  284. Yes, I do believe! by Ride-My-Rocket · · Score: 1

    And what is the cause for this newly-found belief? Battlestar Galactica. They took a well-thought-of series I barely remembered from my childhood, changed various elements of the story and cast, and made it into something interesting and current. The first two pilot episodes -- the mini-movies -- struck the same chord in me as the pilot of Stargate SG-1: the acting was good, the plotline was interesting, and the characters each had something that drew me to them, because they didn't feel like something sprung from a can.

  285. Re:SCI-FI is the most consistently disappointing T by eberry · · Score: 1

    I stand corrected. I can't wait to check out the new episodes.

    --
    Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Lois, this isn't my Batman glass. - Peter
  286. A side-question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    A little context may be helpful here. I know they adapted "Lathe of Heaven" to film. What was the consensus on the quality of that adaptation?

    -cmh

  287. Re:I dont like her. I like Brin, Efremov,Lem,Asimo by John+Seifarth · · Score: 1

    I loved Asimov's short story The Endochronic Properties of Resublimated Thiotimoline. It's a great spoof on the turgid style of scientific publications. IIR he wrote it before defending his doctoral thesis, and one of his professors asked a question on it at the end.

    Apparently, writing Science Fiction was something for a "real" scientist to be ashamed of back in 1948. I wonder if that attitude still holds today in academia.

  288. Re:Here I go again on my own by Sinner · · Score: 1

    Interesting theory. Complete bollocks, of course, but interesting. The Smith-virus thing never happened before. If you actually pay attention to what Smith says, this is perfectly clear. The Architect scene doesn't contain ALL the exposition.

    I think all you Matrix fanboys now have the exact same problem that religious adherents have had throughout the ages. You're having to ignore some bits and invent other bits just to turn it into a coherent narrative, whereas your time would be better served if you just accepted that it makes no fucking sense and bought the Animatrix DVD, which has some cool shit on it.

    --
    fish and pipes
  289. Re:Here I go again on my own by Moekandu · · Score: 1
    If you actually pay attention to what Smith says, this is perfectly clear.

    Dude, that's like asking the village idiot where babies come from. Smith may not be aware of all the details of what happened previously, and more importantly doesn't care. Smith is bugfuck crazy. He will filter out any data that doesn't agree with his psychosis.

    I find it interesting that you insist that the movie "makes no fucking sense" and then tell me to look at the pretty pictures on the Animatrix DVD. You could almost call it... crazy. And yes, I have seen The Animatrix. More than once.

    The story wasn't meant to be an avant-garde college film project filled with nonesense for nonesense sake and bitchin' F/X. It has a tight, cohesive plot and important themes. Just because you didn't get it (and refuse understand it further) doesn't mean it ain't there. Calculus looks like garbage if all you know is Algebra.

    --
    Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself; but talent instantly recognizes genius. -- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
  290. Re:Here I go again on my own by Sinner · · Score: 1
    Smith may not be aware of all the details of what happened previously
    Oh, do pay attention:

    Agent Smith: It's all happening exactly as before...
    Agent Smith Clone: Well, not exactly...

    It would be fair to comment as a counterpoint that this is not actually consistent with the events of the first movie.

    Smith is bugfuck crazy. He will filter out any data that doesn't agree with his psychosis.
    Interesting theory. I've got another one: Smith is a mindless automaton, who does whatever the plot requires him to do, even if it bears no relation whatsoever to the character established in the original movie.

    Actually, the best way to explain it may be that Agent Smith isn't the character from the original movie. He's something else, masquerading as Smith.

    I find it interesting that you insist that the movie "makes no fucking sense" and then tell me to look at the pretty pictures on the Animatrix DVD.
    My point is simple: there is still value to be had in the Matrix films as eye candy. But the first few minutes of The Matrix Reloaded confirmed that the original film was just a happy accident. Those of us, myself included, who saw something more in it, were mistaken.
    --
    fish and pipes
  291. SciFi Earthsea miniseries completely unfaithful... by fandyllic · · Score: 1
    ...and I've only watched up to the part where Ogion appears.

    The unhappiness fans of Earthsea feel about this miniseries is probably about a variety of divergences the miniseries has from the books.

    SPOILER ALERT (of both book and miniseries)!
    Here are the differences I can see from just watching the first 20 min or so (I couldn't stomach more in one sitting):

    1. The "amulet" referred to in the voiceover intro of the miniseries probably wouldn't have looked at all like the one they showed, since it was supposed to be called the Ring of Erreth Akbe and was more like a bracelet-like thing as described in the books. The miniseries shows a generic amulet like thing.
    2. The main character and his village are supposed to like deeply sun-tanned, Mediterranean people or darker which Ursula K. Leguin has already talked about in depth so I won't add more here. Needless to say in the miniseries they are the more pasty, northern European looking folks in generic Medieval garb. Also the Kargad warriors were supposed to be differently paler, but in the miniseries they look just like the villagers.
    3. Ged (who should be called Sparrowhawk) does not fall off a cliff in the book, but his use of magic puts him into a coma like state to be revived by Ogion. 4. The miniseries completely reverses the idea of use name and true name by calling the main character by his true name in the book and giving his use name as his true name. Very messed up.
    4. In the book Tombs of Atuan, the high priestess (played by Isabella Rosellini) and her temple are described as minimalist, primitive and ascetic sort of places with building build by the Kargad king as the only ornate sort of places, but int he miniseries the place is seen as a nicer more livable place with the priestesses outfits being very spare. Seemed very contrary to my imagining from reading the book.
    5. Lastly, the Kargad leader (I assume its the Kargad leader) doesn't really apear in the books at all, but is given a prominent role in the miniseries, so that is pretty much all made up.

    These comparisons are based on my recollections of Wizard of Earthsea, since I lent the book out and haven't got it back yet.

    This is from only the first 20 min... I'm sure if Ursula K. Leguin wanted to be fully and more thoroughly critical of the miniseries she would need multiple blogs.

    The character of the books seems completely perverted by the miniseries.

    From what I can tell, the Earthsea miniseries is turning out to be a stark counter-example to the Lord of the Rings movies and how not to adapt books to television or film.

    Oh well...

    - Fandyllic

  292. Moderator scores worthless.. by fandyllic · · Score: 1

    That's all I have to say.