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.

43 of 880 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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

    8. 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.

    9. 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!"
    10. 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"?
  2. Re:Maybe I should be more familiar, but... by Jameth · · Score: 4, Informative

    Le Guin is the author of the books.

  3. "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

  4. 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 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

    3. 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.
    4. 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.

    5. 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.

  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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...

  12. /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.
  13. 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.

  14. 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,
  15. 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?

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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.
  19. 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."

  20. 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."

  21. 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."

  22. 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...
  23. 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?
  24. 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.

  25. 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.

  26. 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)

  27. 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