(no subject)
. . . I have just finished reading the strangest book I've ever had the misfortune to pick up.
It's set in the 1980s, which I suppose may account for some of the changes made, but others seem to have no justification. Many of the characters (strange, to refer to people I've known so long as "characters," although I suppose most people are fictional one way or another) are simply unrecognizable. Miss Vane would be the most obvious example, as she was replaced in the story by an addict named Herman. Alan was similarly warped, although he did keep his name and gender, I am glad to say-- I daresay he would make a most absurd sort of woman. He was changed into a sort of corrupt doctor from Australia, prescribing rather generous dosages for pay. It would have been vaguely amusing, except that it lacked the appeal of satire, which must come from truth.
Basil's representation was hardly any less strange. He was portrayed as a former addict (it seems the author was determined not to describe any single character without using the word "addict" at some point) with political motives behind his art. It's such a tawdry idea, involving politics in art. Politics are always ugly, and art never should be. I'd also like to note that, should I ever refer to him as "Baz," any one of you has permission to shoot me. Similarly, I'd like to know where ever the author got the idea that it would be appropriate to nickname Victoria "Batface."
Singleton was left out entirely. I can't blame the author for that-- given the overwhelming presence of addicts in the novel, there would be absolutely nothing to define him as a character. He's quite forgettable.
My own fictional incarnation was . . . interesting, to say the least. He had a few clever lines, but of course they were all spoken while doing lines, which rather ruins the effect. And I am not diseased!
As for Dorian, I doubt he'd appreciate his own portrayal. I won't go into detail. I'll only recommend that he avoid the thing if at all possible.
It's set in the 1980s, which I suppose may account for some of the changes made, but others seem to have no justification. Many of the characters (strange, to refer to people I've known so long as "characters," although I suppose most people are fictional one way or another) are simply unrecognizable. Miss Vane would be the most obvious example, as she was replaced in the story by an addict named Herman. Alan was similarly warped, although he did keep his name and gender, I am glad to say-- I daresay he would make a most absurd sort of woman. He was changed into a sort of corrupt doctor from Australia, prescribing rather generous dosages for pay. It would have been vaguely amusing, except that it lacked the appeal of satire, which must come from truth.
Basil's representation was hardly any less strange. He was portrayed as a former addict (it seems the author was determined not to describe any single character without using the word "addict" at some point) with political motives behind his art. It's such a tawdry idea, involving politics in art. Politics are always ugly, and art never should be. I'd also like to note that, should I ever refer to him as "Baz," any one of you has permission to shoot me. Similarly, I'd like to know where ever the author got the idea that it would be appropriate to nickname Victoria "Batface."
Singleton was left out entirely. I can't blame the author for that-- given the overwhelming presence of addicts in the novel, there would be absolutely nothing to define him as a character. He's quite forgettable.
My own fictional incarnation was . . . interesting, to say the least. He had a few clever lines, but of course they were all spoken while doing lines, which rather ruins the effect. And I am not diseased!
As for Dorian, I doubt he'd appreciate his own portrayal. I won't go into detail. I'll only recommend that he avoid the thing if at all possible.