Superficial, superficial, superficial ...
Google is trying to be clever and attempts to "guess" what our interests are. Literally every single day, for at least a week, I've been getting one or more alerts about various articles and posts related to the new BBC adaptation of "War and Peace"! Only today, for example, I got 2 alerts about War and Peace. :D
So, I read these articles, that Google "recommended" to me; since Google knows me so well!
First of all, it seems to me like some of those reviewing the show, either haven't read the book, or maybe have read it in a very superficial way; or maybe have misunderstood it.
Look at this small paragraph from the Telegraph, for example! It made me cringe.
Serena Davies writes: "War and Peace is ripe for adaptation. The novel is far too long, full of huge tracts of philosophising of which I defy any reader not to skip the occasional paragraph. Adaptations can skip the lot. The best version I’ve seen of War and Peace was the shortest: Shared Experience theatre company did it as a single play in the Nineties. There was no time for exposition, we were just thrilled and moved by the sublime suffering of heroine Natasha, the chilling control of femme fatale Helene, the sheer sexiness of Prince Andrei – all to the austere and terrible backdrop of war."
Oh my God!! I cringe, I cringe, I really, really do!
Look! Someone listens with great, great effort to some complete recording of Wagner's Ring. Now very proud of such monumental achievement, writes a review, let's say for the Telegraph:
"Wagner's Ring is ripe for adaptation. The cycle is far too long, full of huge tracts of tuneless singing of which I defy any listener not to skip the occasional passage. Adaptations can skip the lot. The best version I’ve heard of the Ring was the shortest: American musician, David Ocker's version of the operas, which lasts just under 1 second. And if that is a little bit too fast for your ears, I recommend you try the Lego adaptation, at just over 7 minutes. What's not to like? No time wasted on some impenetrable music!"
What's not to like...
(These versions really exist, by the way - all the notes from all the Ring operas are there, played in under a second, 16 octaves higher, etc! :D )
There is a superficial way to read War and Peace - a bit like you read some comic book. X fights in a certain battle, gets lost in a forest in utter fear, gets injured, almost by mistake becomes a hero. Y is in love with Z. Z is married but detests his wife. Complications. Z gets injured, dies. etc, etc. Y gradually and unexpectedly falls in love with Z's friend T. The little big scary N invades R. K retreats, and retreats. Refuses to offer battle. Nobody really "wins" at the battle of B. And so on and on. If you interpret War and Peace as some "regular" historical + love novel, that annoyingly happens to include too many (quite a bit harder to read) pages of philosophy of history every now and then, which break the flow of the story ... I am sorry, I believe you misunderstand the book!
In fact in some ways it is maybe the other way round. War and Peace seems more or less built around a "philosophical idea", which almost supersedes "the story". And in some ways, it is more important. It is almost as if the story is there to serve a purpose: to make you understand the philosophical thoughts behind it! Tolstoy being a bit like a "teacher" who gives you practical examples, so that you can understand some important concepts: the meaning of history, the real causes of "important" historical events, the influence of history in our understanding of human civilization, etc.
How then, do you "adapt" Tolstoy's lengthy meditations in War and Peace, on history, or patriotism, on (non)courage, on "greatness-or-not" etc, etc? These are NOT just little fleeting superficial thoughts you can just "truncate" and "plant" here and there as convenient in a TV drama. In fact you take them out of context and they will be misunderstood! And if you "adapt" them out, what you are left with is really no longer Tolstoy's War and Peace. Tolstoy himself wrote later: “What is War and Peace? It is not a novel, even less is it a poem, and still less an historical chronicle. War and Peace is what the author wished and was able to express in the form in which it is expressed.”
And can the BBC War and Peace really convey the utter Russianess of many of the characters? To understand them, their actions, their evolution throughout the book, you really need to understand that too. The "little big scary N." fatally fails to understand that too, and pays the price.
Anyway...
I was thinking, I read Lord of the Rings too. And I really enjoyed it, is not that I didn't. (by the way, Lord of the Rings is altogether longer than War and Peace!) Lord of the Rings, unlike War and Peace, has no "irritating" philosophising in it (maybe other than some subliminal "power corrupts"). Perhaps some of those who write reviews, should stick to that type of literature; if they read it a certain way, they may even find some elvish femme fatale, some sexy ranger king - "all to the austere and terrible backdrop of war."
Whatever!...
Superficial, superficial, superficial ...
Google is trying to be clever and attempts to "guess" what our interests are. Literally every single day, for at least a week, I've been getting one or more alerts about various articles and posts related to the new BBC adaptation of "War and Peace"! Only today, for example, I got 2 alerts about War and Peace. :D
So, I read these articles, that Google "recommended" to me; since Google knows me so well!
First of all, it seems to me like some of those reviewing the show, either haven't read the book, or maybe have read it in a very superficial way; or maybe have misunderstood it.
Look at this small paragraph from the Telegraph, for example! It made me cringe.
Serena Davies writes: "War and Peace is ripe for adaptation. The novel is far too long, full of huge tracts of philosophising of which I defy any reader not to skip the occasional paragraph. Adaptations can skip the lot. The best version I’ve seen of War and Peace was the shortest: Shared Experience theatre company did it as a single play in the Nineties. There was no time for exposition, we were just thrilled and moved by the sublime suffering of heroine Natasha, the chilling control of femme fatale Helene, the sheer sexiness of Prince Andrei – all to the austere and terrible backdrop of war."
Oh my God!! I cringe, I cringe, I really, really do!
Look! Someone listens with great, great effort to some complete recording of Wagner's Ring. Now very proud of such monumental achievement, writes a review, let's say for the Telegraph:
"Wagner's Ring is ripe for adaptation. The cycle is far too long, full of huge tracts of tuneless singing of which I defy any listener not to skip the occasional passage. Adaptations can skip the lot. The best version I’ve heard of the Ring was the shortest: American musician, David Ocker's version of the operas, which lasts just under 1 second. And if that is a little bit too fast for your ears, I recommend you try the Lego adaptation, at just over 7 minutes. What's not to like? No time wasted on some impenetrable music!"
What's not to like...
(These versions really exist, by the way - all the notes from all the Ring operas are there, played in under a second, 16 octaves higher, etc! :D )
There is a superficial way to read War and Peace - a bit like you read some comic book. X fights in a certain battle, gets lost in a forest in utter fear, gets injured, almost by mistake becomes a hero. Y is in love with Z. Z is married but detests his wife. Complications. Z gets injured, dies. etc, etc. Y gradually and unexpectedly falls in love with Z's friend T. The little big scary N invades R. K retreats, and retreats. Refuses to offer battle. Nobody really "wins" at the battle of B. And so on and on. If you interpret War and Peace as some "regular" historical + love novel, that annoyingly happens to include too many (quite a bit harder to read) pages of philosophy of history every now and then, which break the flow of the story ... I am sorry, I believe you misunderstand the book!
In fact in some ways it is maybe the other way round. War and Peace seems more or less built around a "philosophical idea", which almost supersedes "the story". And in some ways, it is more important. It is almost as if the story is there to serve a purpose: to make you understand the philosophical thoughts behind it! Tolstoy being a bit like a "teacher" who gives you practical examples, so that you can understand some important concepts: the meaning of history, the real causes of "important" historical events, the influence of history in our understanding of human civilization, etc.
How then, do you "adapt" Tolstoy's lengthy meditations in War and Peace, on history, or patriotism, on (non)courage, on "greatness-or-not" etc, etc? These are NOT just little fleeting superficial thoughts you can just "truncate" and "plant" here and there as convenient in a TV drama. In fact you take them out of context and they will be misunderstood! And if you "adapt" them out, what you are left with is really no longer Tolstoy's War and Peace. Tolstoy himself wrote later: “What is War and Peace? It is not a novel, even less is it a poem, and still less an historical chronicle. War and Peace is what the author wished and was able to express in the form in which it is expressed.”
And can the BBC War and Peace really convey the utter Russianess of many of the characters? To understand them, their actions, their evolution throughout the book, you really need to understand that too. The "little big scary N." fatally fails to understand that too, and pays the price.
Anyway...
I was thinking, I read Lord of the Rings too. And I really enjoyed it, is not that I didn't. (by the way, Lord of the Rings is altogether longer than War and Peace!) Lord of the Rings, unlike War and Peace, has no "irritating" philosophising in it (maybe other than some subliminal "power corrupts"). Perhaps some of those who write reviews, should stick to that type of literature; if they read it a certain way, they may even find some elvish femme fatale, some sexy ranger king - "all to the austere and terrible backdrop of war."
Whatever!...
Superficial, superficial, superficial ...
No comments:
Post a Comment