In which I am a book snob and rant about the bestseller lists and the movie business
The Reasoning: Perhaps it's me who's abnormal. In today's fast-paced, electronic culture, I am one of a dying breed, enamoured of words and their ebb and flow; enticed and excited by the smell of ink and paper, comforted by the gentle, friendly weight of a book in my hand; completely at home and blissful with a pen between my fingers and an open notebook on my desk. I have always and forever loved words. I even taught myself to read somewhere between the ages of 2 and 4...and yes, I am feeling decidedly and proudly Matilda-ish today, thanks.
The Rant: Why is it that suddenly it seems like every popular book has to be made into a movie? Why not just let the words speak for themselves, in the way they were ment to? Why pass up the simple romance of paper and ink and words? There is, after all, nothing quite like curling up with a fuzzy blanket, a good book, and a hot mug of tea on a rainy afternoon.
The News: In summer '06, perhaps even as I was enthusiastically reading it, Fox 2000 optioned the rights to The Book Thief. I only just found out this evening. IMDB has the release date down as 2008.
The Problem: The execs must have just seen a popular book on the Children's Bestseller list (a whole 'nother rant, because it's not a kids' book and if it's done properly, it will be no kids' movie--*grumbles about silly adults who had to make a whole separate list and probably haven't even read some of the books that go on that list along with the picture books*), and thought $big bucks$. However, they have chosen a book that is so concerned with the love of books and the written word to the point that I would consider it to be unfilmable. Not to mention the length (552 beautiful pages), or the time span covered (a good 7 or 8 years). It relies so heavily on the quality of unconventional descriptions and the narrator himself is going to be difficult to pull off in a way that isn't cheesy.
The Book Thief has a very special place in my heart: In some ways, I *am* the protagonist, even today. Its beautiful, unconventional--quirky, even--descriptions make even the ordinary into the extraordinary, and the tone is hauntingly beautiful and elegaic from start to finish. If a book makes me cry (and this one did--buckets!), I can and will fall hard in love with it.
If they're after money, and they probably are, they're not looking in the right place. It'll sell, sure, but not before they've brutally murdered it. The only way I can see this movie being remotely successful, as adaptations go, is if it is made by an independent studio with a true interest in integrity, with a cast of complete unknowns, and a new director with a fresh vision who is willing to work very closely with the author (if, that is, Mr. Zusak should want to be involved, and I'd hope he would!)
*sigh*...I think I'm PMSing...and apparantly when I am, I rant about books and get mad at pop culture. Odd.
Follow the cut for...
A Whole 'Nother Rant: The New York Times created the Childrens' Bestseller List because their officials got frustrated because the Harry Potter books consistantly spent months on it, similar to the way the DaVinci Code did, only they didn't find a way to boot that one off. Closed-minded execs decided that Harry Potter was for kids, and therefore shouldn't be cluttering up the bestseller list alongside books for adults. The Children's Book List was born. It's been years since, and the HP books have become increasingly more complex and dark. Darkness was hinted at in the third, exploded at the end of the fourth, and progressed through the fifth, sixth, and seventh--as Harry aged, so did the target audience. Unique, since the first is great for 10 year-olds, and by the 6th, with all the romantic entanglements and the truly disturbing cave sequence, it's probably better suited for 16 year-olds, who sure aren't kids in my book.
Copied and pasted from the NY Times Website, it's the Children's Paperback Bestseller List! PAPERBACK BOOKS This
Week Weeks
On List 1 HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL 2, by N. B. Grace. (Disney, $4.99.) The crowd from “High School Musical” is working at a country club for the summer; a movie novelization. (Ages 12 and up)102 THE BOOK THIEF, by Markus Zusak. (Knopf, $11.99.) A girl saves books from Nazi book-burnings and shares them with a Jewish man. (Ages 14 and up)53 BEAUTIFUL STRANGER, by Zoey Dean. (Poppy, $9.99.) A New Yorker in Hollywood learns that looks can be un welcome; an “A-List” novel. (Ages 14 and up)44 SPECIALS, by Scott Westerfeld. (Simon Pulse, $9.99.) A girl is programmed to keep the social order in a dystopia. (Ages 14 and up)45 ELDEST, by Christopher Paolini. (Knopf, $12.99.) Eragon in the land of elves; Book 2 in the Inheritance trilogy. (Ages 12 and up)316 FABLEHAVEN, by Brandon Mull. (Aladdin, $6.99.) Two children learn their grandfather is the caretaker of a sanctuary for magical creatures. (Ages 9 to 12)17 SEALED WITH A DISS, by Lisi Harrison. (Little, Brown, $9.99.) The girls at Octavian Country Day find a secret room; a “Clique” novel. (Ages 12 and up)158 WE’RE OFF TO FIND THE WITCH’S HOUSE, by Mr. Kreib. Illustrated by R. W. Alley (Puffin, $5.99.) A Halloween odyssey. (Ages 4 to 8)49 THE LOOKING GLASS WARS, by Frank Beddor. (Speak, $8.99.) Alyss in Wonderland: a girl fights for her throne in a world very different from the one Lewis Carroll portrayed. (Ages 12 and up)510 STARDUST, by Neil Gaiman. (Harper, $6.99; Harper-Entertainment, $6.99; Harper Perennial, $13.95.) A young man promises his beloved he’ll retrieve a fallen star. (Ages 12 and up)
This is not even remotely balanced in terms of age group alone (quality notwithstanding--Eldest, is, in my rarely not-so humble opinion, not even worth the read, though I do want to check out Specials). Since when does a 14+ book belong in the same breath as a picture book meant for 4-8 year olds? I think Stardust, too, might be misplaced: one of my friends read it and was surprised to find far more innuendo than the movie included, though I have not yet explored it myself.
I just think it's a bit silly. Sure, it may be a bit helpful for parents to divide stuff up this way, but why not just recognize great literature for what it is instead of sneaking around? You know, keep it simple: Hardcover, paperback, fiction, non-fiction..Maybe it's just me, but I think such high rates of sale on a book like Harry Potter or the Book Thief means that it is cross-generational, that kids, teens, and adults can all find something to enjoy within the pages.
Or maybe--and this is just a thought, here--newspapers could publish *all* the lists. My local one from home just covers the hardcover and paperback versions of adult fiction and non-fiction, which prevents all the categorized great literature from reaching the widest audience possible. I had to go *looking* to see if Book Thief made the bestseller list back in '06 when I read it.
The ironic thing is that the reviewer ( here's the long link because I am lame with html: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/14/books/review/14greenj.html?n=Top/Features/Books/Book%20Reviews&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1193112922-Zi60RSVRzgg3q+AkAJN+1A) says that it wasn't even written as a Young Adult book, and in the author's native Australia, it was published as an adult book. I may not agree with his few criticisms of the book, but I do think he does have a point there.
I'm having a hard time saying this next thing in a non-snooty way, but I just feel like classifying something that isn't so clearly written for kids as a kids' book is a little restrictive. And that's really vague. I mean, everything is written for an audience, but there's a big difference between Harry Potter, say, and Amelia Bedilia or between The Book Thief and Gossip Girl (which I have never read and probably shouldn't judge) or whatever. It could be because I grew up reading everything I could get my hands on. I believe my parents' philosophy was that if I was old enough to take interest in a particular book, then I was old enough to read it. I'm so thankful for that--it made me who I am today. I remember getting snapped at by my kindergarten teacher because all her books were too easy and I just plain didn't want to read them. I was reading chapter books on my own and reading The Tempest with mom's help. When other girls were mired in teen romance novels (and I suspect many my age still are), I was curled up with Shakespeare, Tolkien, Madeline L'Engle, Jane Austen, and even a little Charles Dickens. Anyway...I think that if you classify something as for kids or even for ages 14 and up, many adults, and even some teens, won't even touch it because it is somehow beneath them. I know my mom is taking some convincing to read The Book Thief (it doesn't help that I have it with me here at school...lol). It also restricts in the opposite way, and I think it may stunt readers' growth, if they get it into their heads that teens read such and such a thing.
I dunno. It's getting late (I've been typing for over an hour) and I'm not sure what's gotten into me. I think I'm PMSing, and it makes me ranty, and in this situation, snooty about books. Tylenol helps the headache, but it does nothing for the irritated book snobbery, unfortunately. :P If you've somehow stumbled across my lj, I wouldn't want you to come away with the wrong impression. I do get a little ranty sometimes, but I'm definitely not normally this snobby. I'm just protective of things I'm truly passionate about, as most people are, I think. I'm also overtired and my sleeping schedule is out of whack so that probably doesn't help. Normally I'm very open-minded and I normally don't jump all over something. *sigh* Off to bed for me, before I embarrass myself further.