Beyond Selidor

Sorry it took me a little while to reply. I've been frantically writing a paper that I'm meant to be presenting at a conference in a week, so there has been much hanging around in libraries, and little time for Livejournalling... But you make a lot of really interesting points here, and it's fascinating to get your perspective on this.

I've always thought Pullman's attitude was an excellent lesson on how to handle these things. On the other hand, we've all seen adaptations that are such utter travesties... I've no idea if Susan Cooper, for example, is angry about what was done to The Dark is Rising, or if she's consoled by whatever she was paid and the new audience hopefully/possibly attracted to the books. But I'd find either attitude understandable, I guess. And Le Guin's anger about the various Earthsea adaptations - there was the racefail, of course, and I remember she was also upset about the plot being changed to a standard "find the bad guy and kill him" narrative. I suppose if nothing else it must feel as if an opportunity's been missed.

Who said that the adaptation of Northern Lights WASN'T a travesty (I haven't seen it)? But yeah, there's no excuse for that adaptation of The Dark Is Rising. One of the best things about the series was its Britishness, and the idea, post-Harry Potter, that American kids won't identify with non-American characters is clearly ridiculous. But I think if you allow your book to be adapted, you do open yourself up to these kinds of dreadful adaptations, and your only choice is to refuse to let it be adapted. I feel terrible for Le Guin and others, but it was the film industry they were working with, after all. But film adaptations do add another layer to the whole 'who owns a text' debate, don't they?

As I guess I've implied, I do feel conflicted about The Death of the Author. (Literary theory was never my favourite thing anyway, and is probably the thing I miss least about my own time in academia).

I used to detest it when I was an undergrad, mainly because I suspected a lot of people used it to cover their own ignorance or lack of originality. But now that I'm in a field of literature which doesn't really do theory, I find myself missing it. Not enough to want to introduce it into my field, though!

I mean, sometimes people take it to the point where it's more like the Death of the Text - you know, when it doesn't matter how completely unsupported and perverse a reading is, it's STILL VALID BECAUSE I SAY SO SO THERE. And I've seen fans claiming they knew more about a given character than the character's creator and while I do think it is possible for that to happen... I didn't think it had happened in any instance I saw it, put it that way, and thought the people concerned were being silly and indeed arrogant.

I absolutely get where you're coming from here, and I think in situations like this, it's better to leave the crazed fans to it. My principles ('everyone owns their reaction to/interpretation of' the text) mean that I have to support these people's right to believe what they want. I think as long as they don't start putting words into the author's mouth ('Hey, ~insert author's name here~ supports MY interpretation! She says so right here!') then nobody is harmed.