Criticism about Literature Studies

I’ve been thinking about the way in which we tend to study literature in the UK (and from what I’ve seen, the US, too). Our cultures tend to mark out certain types of historical literature that are ‘worthy’ of study and overanalyse them. The result is a very narrow definition of what counts as ‘real literature’, and generations of people who think that reading isn’t for them, all because they’ve only been exposed to a comparatively narrow range of texts.

If you had only ever heard classical music, or seen independent films, you might be forgiven for thinking that music or film wasn’t something you were interested in, either. Being exposed to just one small section of any artform doesn’t do the art as a whole justice. You may like that particular niche, but many more won’t, and will see the small amount being represented as an indication of the entire art.

I've worked with intelligent people who proclaim that they 'don't do books' in the same way that I don't do live television; other people do and they don't judge them for that, they just don't see the benefits for them. On talking to them (because I certainly wasn't going to let that topic die out there!), I learnt that they'd never really read books as a child, and their main exposure to literature was through formal study. Given that, I cold hardly blame them - if I thought every book would demand a level of concentration akin to Shakespeare, I wouldn't be an avid reader, either.

The problem is that most literature teachers (and courses) in schools are deeply analytical of classical texts themselves, but not the culture of the time that produced that text. Things that would have seemed obvious to an Edwardian audience will not be obvious to a modern audience, whether it's a reference to food, politics or even slang. Over hundreds of years, these references become easily dated and often bewildering to a student.

For example, do you know the difference in how to pronounce "covered" and "cover'd" in a 19th century poem? It's critically important to the rhyme and meter of poetry that you are reading the poem in the way the poet intended, but all too often, small details like this are omitted by teachers - if they even know of them themselves! (Answer: if the full '-ed' suffix is used, it adds an extra syllable, so "covered" is pronounced "cover-ed", whereas "cover'd" would be the modern pronunciation of "covered")

How about the fact that many of the characters suffering various torments in Dante's Inferno were contemporary politicians and religious leaders. No casual student can be expected to understand the nuances of 14th Century Italian politics and so, much of the satire Dante's original audience would have perceived is lost without careful study of the history and culture surrounding him at the time. Inferno also suffers from being a translation - no matter how faithfully it has been translated, the rhyme and rhythm is lost in translation.

Shakespeare's plays were always intended to be seen and experienced as entertainment and spectacle, not read falteringly from a book in small chunks. While often deeply profound, they can be whimsical and very funny; students deserve to see that side of the Bard, too. Some of his comedies have just as much to say about the breadth and depth of human nature as his tragedies, and yet all too often, it's Romeo and Juliet, or Hamlet, or Macbeth that is studied, simply from the book, or if very lucky, a filmed adaptation.

The narrow range of literature choices often intimidates students, too. As an introduction to the world of literature, it's woefully restrictive. Some students only read fiction through school, for various reasons (parents not placing an emphasis on reading for leisure, the expense of books, lack of a reading culture in their family and/or peer group), and to be met with dry material that isn't relevant to them often puts students off the idea of reading as an enjoyable thing to do. Reading becomes seen as a chore, not the joy it should be.

For me, the greatest tragedy is that, as a writer, I hope that people enjoy my work, not analyse and debate why I've used one particular word or phrase ad infinitum. In light of this, I'd like to leave you with the wise words of Mark Twain:

“Persons attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot." - Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn

Gaming Rec: Tales of Symphonia

Confession time: I love the Tales of series of games. I bought Tales of Symphonia back on the Gamecube knowing nothing about the series, but it had been reviewed really well by a magazine, and I had some Christmas money to spend...and I loved it. It took embarrassingly long for me to play anything else in the series, but when Tales of the Abyss got rereleased on the 3DS, I was all over it and it did not disappoint me.

Since then, I've played through Tales of Graces/f, which unfortunately wasn't the best offering, due to budget and time restraints; and Tales of Xillia/2, which I regard as a good couple of games, with some really good strengths, and just a couple of weaknesses that are unfortunate, but not a dealbreaker for me. I'm really looking forward to getting my hands on Tales of Xestria soon, as it looks like they've ironed out a few things I found disappointing with Xillia.

I've been picking apart why I fell so completely in love with Symphonia lately, thanks to a replay I've been doing with my fiancée on Chronicles. I love the little new additions to the game - the trophy system helps to further reward my completionist streak and point out little sidequests I'd missed/forgotten about. The extra scene in Altamira will definitely secure a few more replays in my future. I question some of the wisdom of the casino, mind, but I know I will be aiming for the extra goodies in there despite the criminal exchange rate of money to chips. The bonus costumes are a nice touch, and I love how they have tied together characters with similar story elements via the costumes. I audibly gasped when I realised Kratos' similarity to Ludger, and then had to play it off as nothing, as my fiancée has yet to play Xillia/2. In short - Chronicles helps to shine a new light on some older elements without overshadowing what made Symphonia so good in the first place.

The thing that really surprised me about our recent playthrough is that we both knew the game ridiculously well, having played it many times over many years, and yet we both had different events and knowledge to share with each other, and new scenes to show each other. It astounds me how complex the narrative of Symphonia is, and how well it rewards you for purposefully taking events out of order with extra snippets and side information. Even aside from that, the vast wealth of sidequests and extra titles, achievements and scenes that you can find definitely warrants multiple playthroughs (actually, it is impossible to see and do everything in one runthrough).

The big draw of this game for me, all those years ago, was the plot. It still is. Symphonia is a beautifully crafted story with a cast of genuinely loveable characters and a refreshingly complex plot. It feels wonderfully paced, starting with introducing the characters and world and the aims of the characters; then in true Tales style, it subverts the expectations of the player and begins revealing new and often surprising information about the world and even the characters themselves. To say anymore would spoil one of the best aspects of the game. However, I will say that a lot of additional details about character motivations and fleshing out the world are included as part of sidequests, so it's well worth exploring the world thoroughly for those little gems.

Symphonia isn't afraid to ask the big questions, either. The characters are constantly questioning elements of their world, such as racial discrimination, classism, the power structures inherent in religion (without throwing the pure intentions of religion away), the history and myths of their cultures. This a something that has been carried through the Tales series with varying levels of effectiveness, but it's a narrow fight between Abyss and Symphonia as to which tackles the complex issues best, but both do it with such empathy and skill that it barely makes a difference.

The fighting system is a refreshing change to most JRPGs, too; no turn-based battle, but an active, free-flowing system that's simple enough for beginners to hack and slash their way through, but complex enough that experts can refine a fighting style that works for them. There are truly challenging post-game elements, such as an optional dungeon and a lot of sidequests to sink your teeth into. Exploring the world fully always feels like it's encouraged and rewarded, rather than funnelling you through a strict progression of plot events.

I thoroughly recommend Tales of Symphonia for any gamers that like an engaging, complex story and want something a little different from a typical JRPG. While original Gamecube copies are rare, it is available on PS3 as part of Tales of Symphonia Chronicles (where the sequel is also included...just don't raise your hopes too high for it, okay?), a different anniversary bundle that also includes Tales of Graces/f (not the best game, either) and it will be available on Steam as a digital download for Windows in 2016.

Digital Revolutions

I'm always irrationally angry every time I see an article about a 'new media' killing a more traditional form of media. Partially because it's usually just another way of the writer saying "the world is changing and I don't like it" and partly because it's simply untrue, and their argument is based on a very shallow understanding of the media in question.

Back in the 1950s and 60s, the increasing popularity of television began to scare the film industry - if people have access to entertainment in their own homes, why would they pay to see a film in theatres? Later, in the 70s and 80s, Betamax and Videocassette Recorders meant that people could record television to watch and rewatch at any time - including films that had been broadcast. Again, the film industry were concerned that people would simply record films off the television and would not buy a copy for themselves.

Why am I mentioning this? Well, six decades after their initial concerns, the film industry is still alive and producing content. Thriving, even. Now, however, their big concerns are over digital streaming, downloads and pirating media.

Digital streaming will not kill television or film. In fact, Netflix and Amazon have gone beyond simply being a content streamer, and have become substantial producers of new content. Pirating won't even kill media, despite the scaremongering. Figures used to show massive losses to the film and television industry work under the impression that every pirated copy is a loss of one legitimate sale. Yet many people pirate things they have no intention of buying, or intend to buy at a later date but cannot currently afford. Many people also pirate media that is unavailable for a legal purchase in their own country.

A small example using the long-running CW show, Supernatural. At the time of writing, the 11th season has just begun to air in the US. In the UK, season 9 has been airing on Freeview television stations (stations that require no additional subscription service, such as cable or satellite to view), and season 10 will be made available at roughly the same time for Brits as season 11 will be for Americans. Previously, it was only televised by Sky, requiring an additional costly subscription to view. Season 9 was only made available in the UK on DVD and Blu-Ray in June 2015, and there is no release date for season 10, despite being released in the US on DVD and Blu-Ray. In short, there has not been a legal way to catch up to the current season of the show in the UK, unless you have an extremely expensive subscription to satellite television. This is just one of many television programmes, from the perspective of just one country.

In a similar way, eBooks will not kill physical books and even if they did, stories would still be told. Authors will still write, novels will still be published and people will still read it. Digital music isn't killing the music industry, either - if anything, the ability to buy single tracks instead of entire albums has boosted music sales, not diminished them.

Essentially, my argument is that new technology will never change the media being created, only the way of consuming that media. Digital downloads don't require physical space, and are easily portable. I can carry a library of books, a few dozen films and many hours of music in my pocket, and entertain myself literally anywhere - how is that a bad thing? It's an amazing sign of how quickly we've developed technology; twenty years ago, we could only just send short text messages from phone to phone; now we can stream media from anywhere with a semi-decent signal or internet access.

If anything, digital media of all forms is diversifying media as a whole. Digital publishing has made self-publishing obtainable for the vast majority of writers; streaming services have made it possible for musicians to record and release music independently of a recording label; film makers can release their work on video streaming sites. If anything, the digital revolution has cut out the middle man - the producers, the distributors, the publishing houses and the record labels. This is what large companies should be more afraid of; technology giving artists the tools to produce and distribute their own work on their own terms. As more and more independent success stories happen, how long will traditional media cling to their current business models? Will they adapt with the times or become relics of the past?

The truth is, things are always going to change. Technology doesn't remain stagnant for long, and with technological advances come cultural shifts. People and companies need to adapt to and embrace these developments, not shun them simply because they are new.

Piggate and British Politics

By now, the claims of David Cameron's initiation exploits have hit every corner of the online world, regardless of how true or not they actually are. It's important to mention that this story is likely not true, but at this point, the truth isn't exactly the important element of this story.

The fact of the matter is, most of the British public know that this is likely a fabricated story from a bitter politician in order to tar Cameron's name. Lord Ashcroft, the person behind the claims raised a vast amount of money for the Conservative party, and thus felt he was owed a more senior role (whether this was implied by dealings with Cameron or not is besides the point, but it was likely an informal agreement based on past political convention). When he was passed up for this role, details of this story were leaked to the biographer working on David Cameron's life story. There's certainly a motive for fabricating this story.

The British public want to believe this story based on David Cameron's politics. For those outside the UK, here's a very brief primer of what's going on. The Conservative party is a right wing political party (somewhat like the US Republicans), primarily made up of privately schooled, middle and upper-class career politicians. The majority of their politicians come from very wealthy, privileged backgrounds, and there is a wide-spread feeling that they alienate themselves from poorer and working-class families because of this. Their policies include: increasing tax thresholds for the very wealthy, separating from the European Union, 'competitive' taxes for large corporations, reducing immigration rates, scraping the Human Rights Act and increase military spending. In short, if you have money, it'll be easier to keep it; if you don't, it'll be more difficult to earn it; if you want to live and work in the UK having come from anywhere else, it will be more difficult; you lose the basic human rights that have been internationally agreed upon; and more money will be spent on waging war. These policies were taken from their 2015 manifesto - i.e. these are the policies they will openly admit to aiming for.

Keep in mind that they had already spent 4 years in power prior to this. When David Cameron was re-elected as PM, amidst some controversy, protests immediately started outside 10 Downing Street. In short, in quite a broad section of Britain, he isn't popular and he is seen to be damaging the most vulnerable people in society to the benefit of the wealthiest.

The British public aren't exactly strangers to political controversy, either, from Members of Parliament claiming ludicrous expenses on behalf of the taxpayer; Andrew Mitchell allegedly insulting a police officer by calling him a 'pleb'; and the 'Cash for Access' scandal where politicians allegedly accepted money in exchange for individual's access to influential politicians. This is all within the last five years, and is just the scandals that have enough proof to be reported on without newspapers and media outlets put in danger of being sued for libel. If something more nefarious were going on, without very significant proof, it could not even be hinted at within news outlets without risk of being libellous.

The fact of the matter is, whether or not it's true, people want to believe that the Prime Minister has taken part in a clandestine ritual involving a dead pig in exchange for acceptance into the rich and powerful 'elite' because it's easier to believe that there's this metaphorical deal with the devil that the rich need to do in order to get the power that they have. There is certainly an element of 'otherness' in how powerful people see poor and working class members of their own society, and this is a way in which that can almost be turned around, and see politicians and influential people as 'other' to them. It's a dehumanising act, and it's almost easier to believe that a person that is so instrumental in cutting support and benefits for vulnerable members of society isn't truly 'human' in the way that many of us would think of humanity.

It's easier to paint people as inhuman monsters than accept that people like this do exist, and are not only accepted in society, but run it. Piggate isn't the problem, but the fact that we can all look at Cameron and think "yeah, he totally could've"...that's the problem, and unfortunately, it's not one that has a simple solution.

How Not To Adapt Books to Films: The Golden Compass

I may have mentioned a few posts ago that I prefer to focus on positives over negatives in media. But every once in a while, there comes a film so terrible, so badly thought out and so insulting to its viewers that it sends me into a frothing rage just thinking about what could have been, yet sadly wasn't. So, with that in mind, let's talk about The Golden Compass.

In 2007, New Line Cinema took a stab at adapting Phillip Pullman's epic children's fantasy 'The Northern Lights' for cinema. What it achieved, like so many book-to-film adaptations, was a mediocre family blockbuster. It lacks the controversial and darker tones of the books in order to maintain both funding and a PG rating. That's not to say there weren't things I enjoyed in the film.

Dæmons were handled particularly well, both in the way actors reacted/didn't react to them and the meticulous CGI used throughout - in fact, the film's only Oscar was for Best Achievement in Visual Effects. My only nitpick is the occasional use of real animals, presumably to cut down costs, which jarred me out of the world a little bit. I'd prefer one method or the other, not a mixture.

Dakota Blue Richards as an actress deserves high praise, and indeed many of the awards the film has received have been specifically for her. She is a pitch perfect Lyra; gifted liar, often proud, yet selfless and brave despite being convincingly terrified. Given how difficult it is to find gifted child actors and to work with them around schooling and ethical concerns, this was no easy feat, and they deserve the credit that is due for this.

What a shame it is, then, to contrast that with Nicole Kidman's bland performance. Every single line she delivered felt obviously 'acted' and lacked all the subtlety of her character. Since when can you get Nicole Kidman to fail at being a simmering, manipulative seductress? She was, however, let down by some of the scripting, but I felt as though she almost anticipated how the film was go and was distancing herself from it as soon as she could.

I winced every time a character said 'Golden Compass' as an obvious name drop, usually immediately before or after the device's real name - alethiometer. I was all ready to go into a rant about American publishers/producers changing names to make it simpler for American audiences, too (like Harry Potter's Philosopher's/Sorcerer's Stone), but apparently it's a very subtle reference to Paradise Lost (let's not argue that it refers to 'golden compasses' as in the geometric tool instead of the navigation one). The fact that it just happens to be easier to remember than alethiometer is a coincidence...anyway, in this particular case, I am willing to give them a pass. This is the only one they're getting.

I'm aware that this is such a minor thing to be irritated over, but the music is so bland I've already forgotten it. I love collecting and recognizing various movie soundtracks, but if you were to play me any part of that soundtrack, I wouldn't be able to remember where it was from. It doesn't have anything instantly recognizable about it, in the same way that The Lord Of The Ring's score would instantly link you to Middleearth, or Harry Potter's score takes you to Hogwarts. This is a shame, mostly because a lot of care has been taken to give Lyra's world a very distinct visual feel which is so different to our world, but it's not supported by the music. It's just incredibly generic and of no consequence, good or bad.

The small exposition scene with Lord Asriel in the Arctic honestly adds nothing to the plot, and only serves to show off Daniel Craig's action movie credentials. The book didn't need it, so I'd have preferred the screentime and budget to have been spent on...almost literally anything else.

There's one line: "the alethiometer says they'll hurt Roger" added purely to add suspense. Apart from being very lazy writing, if it was asked about anything in relation to Roger, the whole 'being sacrificed to form a gateway between worlds' would definitely have come up, even in vague terms. Of course, in the film, they never actually get to that point, which makes me wonder how they were planning to tackle the second and third books without covering Roger's death. Or, indeed, any of the darker themes of the books in general.

There is exactly no mention of Stannislaus Grumman (AKA Jopari, AKA John Parry, AKA Will's father) at all, most notably in the retiring room. I can understand why they wouldn't want to whip out a frozen decapitated head in the opening sequence of a family film, but not even hinting at his existence would have made things problematic come the second film. It would have made things seem far more coincidental than they already were. "Oh, so Will's father was missing because he was in Lyra's world? Didn't see that coming. And Lee Scoresby just happens to be bringing him to the right place to be reunited with his son? Pft."

All the complex characters who had complex motivations or situations had them changed to either paint them as wholly good or wholly evil. Iorek gets his own section below, but off the top of my head: Lord Asriel does terrible things in the books, but here he's painted as a heroic adventurer capable of no wrong. Similarly, the Master at Jordan College no longer has any part in Asriel's attempted poisoning, blackmailed or otherwise. Mrs. Coulter is just a straight up villain, now, whereas the book portrayed her in more shades of grey - doing villainous things, certainly, but there are some hints about more complex reasons as to why. Her motivations are something that is completely glossed over in the film.

Oh, Iorek. Poor, proud warrior king, what did they do to you? You were exiled for being beaten by another bear? (for non-book readers, or those in need of the refresher, he was exiled because he killed another bear by accident - while fights are common to establish hierarchy, murder is against their laws. More specifically, Iofur drugged the other bear, so he didn't give in where he would have done normally. Resulting in Iorek – the rightful ruler of Svalbard, but that got glossed over in the movie – being exiled and Iofur taking control) Aside from being an insult to his very character, it makes no logical sense. If 50% of all bears who have ever been in a fight get exiled, why aren't more of them wandering lonely around the Arctic? How is Svalbard still populated, what with them being a proud warrior race where fights are fairly frequent? And of course, it makes armored talking bears a lot less cool. All this, presumably for the sake of the PG rating. Again, I wonder how they would have handled such themes as death, all out war between worlds, killing God, original sin, etc. in the later films...it's almost lucky this film was as bad as it was, because the films could only diverge more from the books from here on out.

In the vein of panserbjørne, how did Iofur (now name changed to Ragnar) gain power as a bear king? By poisoning the previous king. Let's not think about the fact that panserbjørne cannot be tricked unless they're acting like a human. Between this and the way the circumstances behind the exile changed, Iorek has no more claim to rule the bears than any of the nameless bears of Svalbard.

Many things have been sacrificed in order to keep the PG rating as low as it is. Here's some things that weren't: Iorek punching off Iofur's/Ragnar's lower jaw, Iorek ripping Iofur's/Ragnar's throat out, Lyra almost having her soul cut away, Mrs Coulter being violent and abusive, and Lyra's dæmon being touched without consent. Oh, and the massive fight with the gyptians, witches, bears and kids verses the Bolvangar guards.

Changing the order of events in the plot isn't necessarily a bad thing. When done well, it's seemless. This was decidedly not. Essentially, when Lyra is kidnapped, she is taken to Svalbard instead of Bolvangar (which makes no sense; at Bolvangar, they would have been greatly rewarded, whereas at Svalbard, she's merely 'a gift for the king'), the events happen sort of similarly to the book, then Iorek takes Lyra over to Bolvangar. This means the bears get involved in Bolvangar in a way they didn't in the book, and weren't holding Asriel captive as per Iofur's agreement with Coulter, and so, essentially, the bears aren't part of the film's plot in any meaningful way. They could have been removed entirely, if they weren't the best selling point of the film.

The whole thing is a mess, really. It boils down a thoughtful, intricate children's series with layers of complex themes, imagery and symbolism to the most basic of storylines, relying on beautiful imagery over a well-thought out script. It's nothing short of an insult to the books and the people who love them. I can't help but be thankful that they never got around to butchering the entire trilogy.