s.penkevich’s review of What We See When We Read > Likes and Comments
82 likes · Like
Ted wrote: "Lots to consider in this review. I've always thought that most books are "better than the movie" pretty simply because there's so much more of the book, so much that has to be left out of the movie..."
Very true, I think it is what is left out that ruins it for me Recently I saw Inherent Vice, which is possibly the closest book-to-movie adaptation I have seen (that I can think of right now), but even then I was bummed by what was left out. Even if I see a film first and read the book second do I prefer the book. There are a few example to the contrary though. I much preferred the film Fight Club to the book, though mainly because I think he is a terrible writer and that the changes in the film did the story better justice (however I am still inclined to point out the themes of the book left unsaid despite not really liking the book). I also prefer the film Clockwork Orange to the book, though I read that when I was 14 so I am likely wrong. When I read it I thought 'the language experiments are cool but I am tired of them'. Anna K is way too complex to put into a film! I think Cloud Atlas is a good example of that too, the movie is terrible but how could it be anything but? I wonder why there aren't more mini-series adaptations of books? At least then you have the time to let things grow and breathe. I read recently that James Franco is working on a film of McCarthy's Blood Meridian and I was very disheartened. That book is too good to film. And even if it were a mini-series it would likely fall flat if you couldn't highlight the incredible violence that spoke to the heart of the book Great points, Ted, and thank you.
s.penkevich wrote: "Ted wrote: "Lots to consider in this review. I've always thought that most books are "better than the movie" pretty simply because there's so much more of the book, so much that has to be left out ..."
The movie review in the New Yorker of Inherent Vice said yes it has its faults, but it's probably the best movie that will ever be made of a Pynchon book. (Ie, I think agreeing with your point that Pnychon's writing is way too literary and complex to ever be able to simplify for a film.)
On the other hand - I liked Cloud Atlas the book a LOT. But I though the movie was absolutely BRILLIANT. (I see very few movies, but I went to see that one the afternoon it opened here. I did feel sorry for people watching who hadn't read the book - they must have been asea.)
Fascinating stuff Spenks. You not only addressed the workings of imagination but also the subconscious mental processes that take place in the mind of readers when they transform flat words into three dimensional images, which vary depending on each reader's peculiarities and on how the authors' writing styles come across... I don't think I will ever get to read this book but I can't be gladder to have bumped into your review!
Excellent review, Sven. I have this book on tbr and it's apparent that there's so much for a reader to ponder upon here or even debating with the author. And as you mentioned many of my favorite people and books in your review, it's only a matter of time that I click on the 'order now' button.
I've had this one sitting next to the place I do most of my reading for almost a year...sooner or later, probably sooner after reading this review. This does get me wondering, though, thinking myself more word-attentive than image-attentive, and knowing that, on occasion, I arbitrarily impose various people I know onto the characters in various novels, just what might be expected, say, should I read this and then reread, oh, I don't know, let's say Suttree. Care to make a prediction, s.pharrogate?
Great review! I sometimes wonder, if we could extract, combine, and display a thousand readers' thought-pictures of a book, or even a scene, what would the combined, overlaid product look like? I suspect it would be a mess!
Ted: I'm actually glad to hear you enjoyed the film version, I thought it was a lot of fun. I think they did a good job with what they had to work with, I mean its six stories in one! That said, right around two thirds in all the big changes from page to screen came about and I was bummed they removed my favorite parts of the Frobisher story (which was my favorite story in the book). I felt that one could have benefited from being a mini series. Those who hadn't been the book were likely confused though.
Dolors: thank you! Yea, there were some really cool points in here that really got me thinking about how I visualize a book. It made me wonder about in my mind do I picture character in 1800s novels wearing modern clothes? Ha.
Garima: thank you! I actually made sure to mention the Calvino contributions just for you ha, glad you caught that!
Mike: gracias! It's more one to flip through over time than plow through (I finally finished it after six months). Ha, funny, when I read Suttree I had a specific friend I pictured as that character (melon mounting not included) and pictures the whole jail scene on the Cool Hand Luke set.
Forest: thanks! Quite true. He mentions that if we averaged all readers image of Anna K, it still would probably be nothing like Tolstoys own vision
Great review! I've had this one on my shelf for a while so I should get to it soon!
Melanie wrote: "Great review! I've had this one on my shelf for a while so I should get to it soon!"
Thank you! I hope you get a chance to give it a go, it's pretty entertaining and thought provoking
Well you've convinced me! Sounds very interesting, I'm definitely keen to read this book now.
Francesca wrote: "Well you've convinced me! Sounds very interesting, I'm definitely keen to read this book now."
I'm glad! It's a pretty interesting book, and its also pretty to look at ha
From your review, it sounds as if this book might be a fine companion piece to read alongside E.H. Gombrich's great classic Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation. Mendelsund demonstrates how the human imagination (key word here) represents pictorially what it reads and interprets, while Gombrich analyzes in brilliant and readable prose how humans both create and comprehend pictorial art. One writes about how we picture and understand what our words say and the other writes about how we talk about and understand what our pictures show. Very interesting, and now I'll have to take a look, as it were.
Excellent job, once again, Spenx! (You'll let me know if you ever get tired of me saying that, right?) As fascinating as this topic is, it seems disappointing that this rates only 3.5 stars. BTW, I now feel deprived that I have such a hazy picture of what Esther Little should look like.
I was in a bookshop a couple of weeks ago with time to kill and spent half a morning sitting in one of their leather armchairs leafing through this book - I had the best time.
It really is a book you look at more than read!
But it makes you think about how you read and that's always good.
I love the Bone Clocks anecdote. If you'd discovered the older woman had also read TBC, would you have been tempted to tell her?!
Sorry for the delay
Margaret: Woah, that does sound like an awesome combination. I'm pretty sure we have that book at my store, I'm definitely going to check it out now. That is a fascinating combination that addresses things from all sides.
Steve: Thanks, I'd never tire of that haha. 3.5 only as it was more amusing and interesting rather than mind-blowing and 'go by this now'. I don't know, I'm trying to be more conservative with my ratings though letting the stars stay higher. Its my way of saying a 3.5 at 4 stars is better than a 3.5 at 3 stars, if that makes sense. Come to Holland, we have the real Esther Little haha. We both talk about how much we hope she one day offers us tea.
Fionnuala: Isn't this one fun to glance through? I've been seeing more and more books like this. It reminds me of the digipack versions of CDs that had all sorts of cool visuals and extras to encourage people to buy the physical album instead of downloading it. Murakami's Strange Library is similar in that aspect, seems a way to get you to want a physical book to have sitting about rather than just on the e-reader.
Cecily: Ha, thanks! I'm glad someone would get this: we have this ongoing joke that we want her to offer one of us tea. And I totally would, she would probably find that amusing. My co-worker actually admitted to her that we both talk about how she is a character from a book we read ha.
Ooh, it sounds as if she's a delightful character and that you really need to find a way to introduce her to Mitchell. Mind you, in my experience, when you see a really close parallel between a fictional character and someone you know, the real person rarely sees the links as strongly (regardless of whether it's a flattering or worrying comparison).
Ha, true. Recently a good friend of mine read Suttre by McCarthy. I told him one of the characters reminded me of him while I was reading it and he wrinkled his brow and said 'oh. Really? Why?' We had a good laugh but still. In the early stages of dating I recall my ex-wife describing me to a friend as reminding her of a certain character in Lost. I said 'why him!? Damn that's not who I'd want to be!' Haha oh well
I once told a college friend after reading a short story by the Marquis de Sade that I was reminded of him. When everyone laughed, I had to add, only in the best way.
Isn't the best way bad, from Sade's point of view? ;)
Good point, Cecily, but I'm not sure my friend was going to like my comment no matter how I conditioned it. :-)
Your review makes me more eager to get the book. I’ve had it on reserve at the library for ages now…
Interesting points being made about books and their film or TV counterparts. What happens in the visualization calculation when one has read and watched both versions, or when one has seen the movie first and goes back to the book? Fun to ponder…. I also thought Cloud Atlas the movie was a pretty decent flick, though felt the visuals never quite matched up with what I saw in my mind’s eye when I read the book. And then there are movies like LOTR where the films’ visuals completely monopolized the images I originally had reading the books (not to mention actors’ voices becoming the voices from the page).
Cecily wrote: "And are you still friends?"
Nah, he left school to become a pornographer specializing in S&M. (Sorry, after April Fool's Day I kind of got in the habit of lying.)
Oh, and re: The Bone Clocks—so which form of Ester Little? I guess the little old lady that gives Holly tea in the first section always sticks in my mind... The Horologists changed bodies so often that I never could quite pin down a visual identity for any of them really. Makes me think more about how Mitchell plays with the idea of ‘characters as ciphers’ in that book.
Genevieve wrote: "Your review makes me more eager to get the book. I’ve had it on reserve at the library for ages now…
Interesting points being made about books and their film or TV counterparts. What happens in th..."
It is definitely worth checking out. And good point, some films become so iconic that it is nearly impossible to separate. When I read Name of the Rose, I had heard Sean Connery played the lead character. It was impossible not to hear his voice while reading dialogue after that.
And great point about the Horologists, I hadn't really thought about that but they really work as ciphers. Which plays on Cloud Atlas too where the 'reincarnations' were more metaphors on the progression of language and character tropes.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
Ted wrote: "Lots to consider in this review. I've always thought that most books are "better than the movie" pretty simply because there's so much more of the book, so much that has to be left out of the movie..."Very true, I think it is what is left out that ruins it for me Recently I saw Inherent Vice, which is possibly the closest book-to-movie adaptation I have seen (that I can think of right now), but even then I was bummed by what was left out. Even if I see a film first and read the book second do I prefer the book. There are a few example to the contrary though. I much preferred the film Fight Club to the book, though mainly because I think he is a terrible writer and that the changes in the film did the story better justice (however I am still inclined to point out the themes of the book left unsaid despite not really liking the book). I also prefer the film Clockwork Orange to the book, though I read that when I was 14 so I am likely wrong. When I read it I thought 'the language experiments are cool but I am tired of them'. Anna K is way too complex to put into a film! I think Cloud Atlas is a good example of that too, the movie is terrible but how could it be anything but? I wonder why there aren't more mini-series adaptations of books? At least then you have the time to let things grow and breathe. I read recently that James Franco is working on a film of McCarthy's Blood Meridian and I was very disheartened. That book is too good to film. And even if it were a mini-series it would likely fall flat if you couldn't highlight the incredible violence that spoke to the heart of the book Great points, Ted, and thank you.
s.penkevich wrote: "Ted wrote: "Lots to consider in this review. I've always thought that most books are "better than the movie" pretty simply because there's so much more of the book, so much that has to be left out ..."The movie review in the New Yorker of Inherent Vice said yes it has its faults, but it's probably the best movie that will ever be made of a Pynchon book. (Ie, I think agreeing with your point that Pnychon's writing is way too literary and complex to ever be able to simplify for a film.)
On the other hand - I liked Cloud Atlas the book a LOT. But I though the movie was absolutely BRILLIANT. (I see very few movies, but I went to see that one the afternoon it opened here. I did feel sorry for people watching who hadn't read the book - they must have been asea.)
Fascinating stuff Spenks. You not only addressed the workings of imagination but also the subconscious mental processes that take place in the mind of readers when they transform flat words into three dimensional images, which vary depending on each reader's peculiarities and on how the authors' writing styles come across... I don't think I will ever get to read this book but I can't be gladder to have bumped into your review!
Excellent review, Sven. I have this book on tbr and it's apparent that there's so much for a reader to ponder upon here or even debating with the author. And as you mentioned many of my favorite people and books in your review, it's only a matter of time that I click on the 'order now' button.
I've had this one sitting next to the place I do most of my reading for almost a year...sooner or later, probably sooner after reading this review. This does get me wondering, though, thinking myself more word-attentive than image-attentive, and knowing that, on occasion, I arbitrarily impose various people I know onto the characters in various novels, just what might be expected, say, should I read this and then reread, oh, I don't know, let's say Suttree. Care to make a prediction, s.pharrogate?
Great review! I sometimes wonder, if we could extract, combine, and display a thousand readers' thought-pictures of a book, or even a scene, what would the combined, overlaid product look like? I suspect it would be a mess!
Ted: I'm actually glad to hear you enjoyed the film version, I thought it was a lot of fun. I think they did a good job with what they had to work with, I mean its six stories in one! That said, right around two thirds in all the big changes from page to screen came about and I was bummed they removed my favorite parts of the Frobisher story (which was my favorite story in the book). I felt that one could have benefited from being a mini series. Those who hadn't been the book were likely confused though.Dolors: thank you! Yea, there were some really cool points in here that really got me thinking about how I visualize a book. It made me wonder about in my mind do I picture character in 1800s novels wearing modern clothes? Ha.
Garima: thank you! I actually made sure to mention the Calvino contributions just for you ha, glad you caught that!
Mike: gracias! It's more one to flip through over time than plow through (I finally finished it after six months). Ha, funny, when I read Suttree I had a specific friend I pictured as that character (melon mounting not included) and pictures the whole jail scene on the Cool Hand Luke set.
Forest: thanks! Quite true. He mentions that if we averaged all readers image of Anna K, it still would probably be nothing like Tolstoys own vision
Great review! I've had this one on my shelf for a while so I should get to it soon!
Melanie wrote: "Great review! I've had this one on my shelf for a while so I should get to it soon!"Thank you! I hope you get a chance to give it a go, it's pretty entertaining and thought provoking
Well you've convinced me! Sounds very interesting, I'm definitely keen to read this book now.
Francesca wrote: "Well you've convinced me! Sounds very interesting, I'm definitely keen to read this book now."I'm glad! It's a pretty interesting book, and its also pretty to look at ha
From your review, it sounds as if this book might be a fine companion piece to read alongside E.H. Gombrich's great classic Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation. Mendelsund demonstrates how the human imagination (key word here) represents pictorially what it reads and interprets, while Gombrich analyzes in brilliant and readable prose how humans both create and comprehend pictorial art. One writes about how we picture and understand what our words say and the other writes about how we talk about and understand what our pictures show. Very interesting, and now I'll have to take a look, as it were.
Excellent job, once again, Spenx! (You'll let me know if you ever get tired of me saying that, right?) As fascinating as this topic is, it seems disappointing that this rates only 3.5 stars. BTW, I now feel deprived that I have such a hazy picture of what Esther Little should look like.
I was in a bookshop a couple of weeks ago with time to kill and spent half a morning sitting in one of their leather armchairs leafing through this book - I had the best time. It really is a book you look at more than read!
But it makes you think about how you read and that's always good.
I love the Bone Clocks anecdote. If you'd discovered the older woman had also read TBC, would you have been tempted to tell her?!
Sorry for the delayMargaret: Woah, that does sound like an awesome combination. I'm pretty sure we have that book at my store, I'm definitely going to check it out now. That is a fascinating combination that addresses things from all sides.
Steve: Thanks, I'd never tire of that haha. 3.5 only as it was more amusing and interesting rather than mind-blowing and 'go by this now'. I don't know, I'm trying to be more conservative with my ratings though letting the stars stay higher. Its my way of saying a 3.5 at 4 stars is better than a 3.5 at 3 stars, if that makes sense. Come to Holland, we have the real Esther Little haha. We both talk about how much we hope she one day offers us tea.
Fionnuala: Isn't this one fun to glance through? I've been seeing more and more books like this. It reminds me of the digipack versions of CDs that had all sorts of cool visuals and extras to encourage people to buy the physical album instead of downloading it. Murakami's Strange Library is similar in that aspect, seems a way to get you to want a physical book to have sitting about rather than just on the e-reader.
Cecily: Ha, thanks! I'm glad someone would get this: we have this ongoing joke that we want her to offer one of us tea. And I totally would, she would probably find that amusing. My co-worker actually admitted to her that we both talk about how she is a character from a book we read ha.
Ooh, it sounds as if she's a delightful character and that you really need to find a way to introduce her to Mitchell. Mind you, in my experience, when you see a really close parallel between a fictional character and someone you know, the real person rarely sees the links as strongly (regardless of whether it's a flattering or worrying comparison).
Ha, true. Recently a good friend of mine read Suttre by McCarthy. I told him one of the characters reminded me of him while I was reading it and he wrinkled his brow and said 'oh. Really? Why?' We had a good laugh but still. In the early stages of dating I recall my ex-wife describing me to a friend as reminding her of a certain character in Lost. I said 'why him!? Damn that's not who I'd want to be!' Haha oh well
I once told a college friend after reading a short story by the Marquis de Sade that I was reminded of him. When everyone laughed, I had to add, only in the best way.
Isn't the best way bad, from Sade's point of view? ;)
Good point, Cecily, but I'm not sure my friend was going to like my comment no matter how I conditioned it. :-)
Your review makes me more eager to get the book. I’ve had it on reserve at the library for ages now…Interesting points being made about books and their film or TV counterparts. What happens in the visualization calculation when one has read and watched both versions, or when one has seen the movie first and goes back to the book? Fun to ponder…. I also thought Cloud Atlas the movie was a pretty decent flick, though felt the visuals never quite matched up with what I saw in my mind’s eye when I read the book. And then there are movies like LOTR where the films’ visuals completely monopolized the images I originally had reading the books (not to mention actors’ voices becoming the voices from the page).
Cecily wrote: "And are you still friends?"Nah, he left school to become a pornographer specializing in S&M. (Sorry, after April Fool's Day I kind of got in the habit of lying.)
Oh, and re: The Bone Clocks—so which form of Ester Little? I guess the little old lady that gives Holly tea in the first section always sticks in my mind... The Horologists changed bodies so often that I never could quite pin down a visual identity for any of them really. Makes me think more about how Mitchell plays with the idea of ‘characters as ciphers’ in that book.
Genevieve wrote: "Your review makes me more eager to get the book. I’ve had it on reserve at the library for ages now…Interesting points being made about books and their film or TV counterparts. What happens in th..."
It is definitely worth checking out. And good point, some films become so iconic that it is nearly impossible to separate. When I read Name of the Rose, I had heard Sean Connery played the lead character. It was impossible not to hear his voice while reading dialogue after that.
And great point about the Horologists, I hadn't really thought about that but they really work as ciphers. Which plays on Cloud Atlas too where the 'reincarnations' were more metaphors on the progression of language and character tropes.
And that in those occasions when the movie is judged "better", it's because the person making the judgement thinks that the book, while a good read, is very amenable to compression by the film-making art.
Examples: A book like Anna Karenina has way too much wonderful stuff to ever get into a movie; but movies like the Bourne movies are based on stories that are simply thrillers, which in the hands of a deft producer/director can pack a punch far surpassing the written word.