Speak Like You Want to be Written About

A friend once said that a person should "speak like you want to be written about." Something clever, profound or witty enough that would make a person want to immortalize it forever. I could quote that friend all day.  She speaks like she should be written about.  Nothing trite, cliche, or overrated - she was a natural at it.

It seems that there are people out there who try too hard.  They try too hard to be witty and clever.  It is forced, stilted and stale like month old bread.  Not necessarily only in speech, writers too fall prey to this as well.  They strive for the stars, for writing something that will be remembered, that will leave echoes.  Unfortunately, some of those efforts don't make it off the ground.  Trite and overdone, like acting when you can tell an actor is acting.  It ruins writing that has potential.

Not every writer falls prey to such fallacy, but there is a lot of writing out there that could have been something, but has amounted to nothing (by nothing, I don't mean to say they are unpopular - look at the Twilight series).  Some of these books have become quite popular.  They sell, and many sell well.  But, they lack something.  I have found, the more I read, the less and less patience I have with books and authors.  Books, that I once loved, I cannot stand anymore. I have realized just how overdone and cliche they have become, how authors had a chance to take it to the next level and fell flat into redundancy, absurdity, and taking the plot off in a direction that will irritate.

Yikes. I am heading into literary snobville.  But, I at least don't believe that genre writing isn't literature.  It is literature, some of it even great literature, like Dune by Frank Herbert. However, reading Rowling, Austen, Dickens, Eliot, and Poe enough can help ruin liking newer books.

There is indeed a major difference between literature and pop fiction.  Some popular books, i.e. Harry Potter, are well-written and original enough to make them good reads, not just overdone fluff.  Like romance novels.  Absurd plots (absurd in how much they have done before and the deliberate grief and misunderstandings - too much soap opera-ness), annoying characters that a person honestly can't sympathize with.

Literary fluff has its uses, just like completely stupid movies with no basis in reality or plot. It is for enjoyment and entertainment. Something to watch/read without really caring what it's about nor remembering anything afterwards. Harsh - probably. I know Twilight will probably never be considered fluff in the fact it's popular and the teens and tweens just love it - I can't really understand that.  They are readable, but not truthfully "good."

A Series of Unfortunate Events by "Lemony Snicket" is something new, experimental and actually works well.  The writer of the series strove to be witty and clever an actually succeeded without being overdone and trite.  Nothing formulaic or overdone, like these vampire huntress novels out there. *shudders* There are way too many of those books.  One author actually admitted that there hasn't been a plot in her books for a long time - how tragic!

I want to be a better writer than that.  Unfortunately, I am not doing so well in that department.  The more I read, the more I realize how much I have to learn. But that's the great thing.  Learning.  Some people will probably never be able to write well or speak cleverly - but that's fine.  Those vocations are definitely not everything - be good at what you like.

So, write, speak like you want to be written about.  Do your best, but don't try too hard - it is a shame to over-do something and end up with month-old stale bread.

Veracity of Dreams

Dream interpretation has been a hot debate, at least in certain circles.  How much stock can one put in a dream?  According to Freud, there are many subconscious desires and knowledge that comes out in dreams.  Of course, Freud was also a big proponent of recognizing sexual urges in dreams.  Sometimes a cigar is a just a cigar, not some weird phallic representation.

I have little faith, myself, in dreams.  They are silly things that are not memorable and I fail to see how they can actually relate to reality.  What does it mean to have a werewolf sitting outside your door or to go bowling with turkeys at your best friend's house?  Consult a dream dictionary and they answers are absurd.  Any reference to wolves/werewolves brings up sex.  Since children have such dreams, I highly doubt dreaming of such a thing represents suppressed sexual desire.

My grandmother, however, puts great stock in dreams.  In sooth, several dreams of hers have come true - the good and the bad.  She says that you know when those dreams will come true.  She has always had a good idea of which of her dreams will come to pass.  Now, nothing is exactly the way it is in dreams.  It is not a true account of the events that have come to happen.  It is eerie when she relates all that she dreamed and what happened later.

Should I believe her?  Well, yes.  I don't put much stock in dreams, but I do hers.  Mainly because I have heard her tell the stories months before such events actually occurred - many without the slightest hint that such events were actually on the horizon.  She has dreamt of deaths and joyous happenings, all of which have come to pass.

So, should I worry about recurring dreams?  Ones that don't seem to implausible?  Ones that worry me?  Grandmother says that recurring dreams prepare you for an event to come.  I believe that I don't want this event to come - it just doesn't seem right, or fair, to the parties involved.  So, I think I shall stick with believing that my dreams come to naught and will leave the "special" dreams to my grandmother.

Mansfield Park Delights and Horrifies

There are three feature film versions of Jane Austen's Mansfield Park.  Next to Pride and Prejudice, that particular Austen novel is my favorite.  So, I was happy to discover film versions - sad but true.  Now, I first saw the 1999 version before ever having read the book.  I absolutely loved it!  I loved Alessandro Nivola as the dastardly Mr. Henry Crawford and Frances O'Connor was a vivacious Fanny Price.  I still love that movie version.  It is a unique blend of biography (Austen's) and fiction (obviously, the book Mansfield Park). There are points where I wish it would follow the book a little more closely, but I really can't complain with the acting or the script.

Afterwards, I learned of another version.  This one made in 1983 starring Sylvestra La Touzel as Miss Price.  Now, I love this version because it follows the book so well, hence it's six hour length.   However, I do not like the fact that there is a lot of over-reacting.  Too much, in fact.  Mostly on the part of Ms. La Touzel.  I think that her histrionics are over-the-top and unbelievable (such as when Sir Thomas chastises Fanny for not wanting to marry Mr. Crawford).  That is really the worst part of the entire film.  Other than that, there really is nothing else to detract from the greatness of a good adaptation of the book.

Now, I caught part of Mansfield Park (2007) on PBS one night.  Bad reception deemed I would not get to watch it.  But I recently acquired the film and must say I could not get through it at all.  Which, I suppose, is horrible to say since it was only 1.5 hours.  The reason?  Bad acting, bad costumes, bad make-up and, most importantly, a bad Fanny.  Miss Price is not some wild girl with unkempt clothes and hair (her corset was always peeking out of an extremely low cut bodice) and her hair looked like it never saw a brush in it's life.  Now, the 1999 version had a more outspoken Fanny, but that worked for the film and the actress.  It seemed to fit just right.  In this film, it seems scandalous.  Maybe because it was so atrociously done. Also, Lady Bertram's character is horribly rendered as a gossipy, holier-than-thou matriarch.  Heaven forbid! Making Tom Bertram and Mr. Yates into one character is deplorable (especially since Julia Bertram becomes attached to Yates).

One must wonder what the writers were thinking.  There are enough Jane Austen aficionados still today who will descry the '07 version.  If you cannot remain true to the characters and you employ bad acting, the wrong clothing of the time and a too-swift moving plot, I doubt there is anyone who can enjoy it.

I do find that after watching the 4-6 hour versions of book adaptations, I lose interest in the 1.5-2 hour versions, mainly because they do not follow the books so well and cut out sometimes integral (at least in my eyes) scenes.  However, I still enjoy the '99 version after seeing the '83.  I don't know how anyone could like the '07 version.