THE JAMES MASON COMMUNITY BOOK CLUB discussion

I'm with you, Ivan, as far as Hollywood and them screwing up storylines and characters from books...I still don't understand the need to change something when it works just fine as it is. I will let you know what I think of the book.

It's also baffles me when filmmakers take a novel/play/short story and change it completely. I understand that as an author your only limitation is your imagination. Filmmakers have to worry about time and budget restrictions. Sometimes in adaptating material for the screen changes have to considered, characters consolidated, scenes compressed or deleted. However, when they change damn near EVERYTHING, one is left to wonder what it was about the source material that made them want to adapt it in the first place. It drives me bonkers when they change the setting from one era to another, or from one country to another; the character was married with children and now he's single with pretty girlfriend; or he died in the book, but lived in the film. This infuriates me most when it's a TRUE story. In Brian de Palma's terrible "The Untouchables" Kevin Costner's Ness throws Frank Nitti off the roof of the courthouse. WHAT?! Frank Nitti was a real person - he ran the mob in Chicago for years afer Capone went to prison. It's always kinda surprised me that no one in Hollywood ever made a bio-pic of Lincoln where he lived!

I know! I would much rather have them say "inspired by" whatever book and give the movie a totally different name. It's the same in the movie Red Dawn, the main character is American in the movie but was British in real life. What? I wouldn't have rooted as hard for a Brit?! Why did it matter?!

I agree...it drives me crazy, but I must have sounded off about it too much as my daughter usually preempts me by saying "I know, I know". A novel that has the entire point changed (as in for example the newest movies based on Tom Clancy's novels or the The Bourne Identity "adaptions"). It leaves me pulling my hair out.

Story: When I was in college in a history class there was a girl (she always sat in the back row) who constantly used movies as a source. She'd been corrected several times (and the source of more than a few laughs) when she asked "if it's not true why did they put it in the movie?" Good question, though odd from a college student.

Ok, Devil's advocate here.... I saw the movie numerous times before I ever read the book. The book is fantastic,and I have read many things by Capote,and think he's one of the best American writers ever. However, even tho the book is totally different then the movie, I love the movie. I think it's very charming, funny,and heartfelt. I also like all the actors involved. I laugh a lot at the movie. I also love the soundtrack so much, I bought it on CD. I totally agree that Hollywood changed the original story, and I know Truman hated it, but I love the film,and always will. I personally feel it's the best film Hepburn was in,and she was hilarious in it. It's the film that truly made her a star! I bought the movie on dvd,and recently watched it again!

Mike wrote: "I agree...it drives me crazy, but I must have sounded off about it too much as my daughter usually preempts me by saying "I know, I know". A novel that has the entire point changed (as in for examp..."
This girl in your class sounds like a complete idiot. Why do you always get someone like that in a lit class, that truly doesn't "get it."?? Drives me crazy.

Oh sorry, history class.... I had lit class on my brain!

Reading Drop City. By T.C.
Boyle. Why? Really enjoying it,and also met the author this past week. He was great! He was very friendly, down to earth,and cheerfully signed all 8 of my books. I have 5, my son had 3 he wanted signed. T.C. was great!

Will be starting The Long Fatal Love Chase by Louisa May Alcott.

I visited Alcott's house in Concord, Massachusetts. So cool!

Gary wrote: "I visited Alcott's house in Concord, Massachusetts. So cool!"

I'm jealous!! How cool is that?! =)

I'm reading Little women, The Historian, and Anna Karenina.

Believe it or not, this will be my first Alcott book. I don't know how I got through my childhood without reading any of her books, but I did!

Sadie, if you lived in a city with library rules like the ones I lived with, they didn't own any "trash" like Alcott. The New York City library system truly would not buy her books, but the librarian at my Jr. High did buy them, so that is where I read them.

What rules, Starling??? I am curious to hear why this is so.

That is amazing Starling! I've never heard of Alcott referred to as "trash". What could be their reasoning? I will say that I was kind of on my own when it came to reading as a child. My mom would buy me books, but she is not a reader herself, so I didn't have much direction. I hadn't even heard of Alcott until I was older.

If I'm not mistaken (and please correct me if I am) I believe it was Starling who chose the descriptor "trash" for Alcott. That was my impression anyway, I simply thought she wasn't....overly impressed with Alcott.

Others I believe might disagree on that score...possibly.

Reading Michael Palin's 1980-1988 Diaries (very interesting), and finished S. Maugham's "Christmas Holiday" - an excellent book. One of his later books, and my favourite of the four I have read so far.

I'm going to read M Lewycka's "A Short History of Tracors in Ukranian". Not really sure why I picked it, but hopefully it will be a good read.

Gary wrote: "What rules, Starling??? I am curious to hear why this is so."

I have no idea what was going on, but as an adult I realized that there were some things that were missing in the children's libraries that OUGHT to have been there. No Alcott, although it is possible they were "hidden" in the adult section which we were not allowed in. No OZ books. None of the Nancy Drew series, or any other popular series books.

I can't imagine what they thought they were protecting us from, or why.

They did have Mary Poppins, and I read it when I was in the 6th or 7th grade. But if there was more than one Mary Poppins book, I never saw it.

And all of the YA collection was shelved in the adult side of the library. By the time they let me look at those shelves, I'd outgrown YA books.

Mike wrote: "If I'm not mistaken (and please correct me if I am) I believe it was Starling who chose the descriptor "trash" for Alcott. That was my impression anyway, I simply thought she wasn't....overly impre..."

No, I don't think Alcott is trash. Far from it. I loved 8 COUSINS when I was a teenager. But I think the library system saw most popular books for younger readers as trash. We had some really weird school principles in the Bronx, and some equally weird head librarians.

I had trouble with the idea of a librarian using the word "trash" for Alcott. Impolitic at best.

Sorry if my assumption bothered you, it was just the way it seemed to read to me. I stand corrected.

Mike, she never used the word in my presence. In fact, considering that she was head librarian in a tiny two room annex library in the basement of a project building I don't think I ever spoke a word to her which to my adult eyes was pretty weird.

She retired when I was in the 7th grade. The YA collection was in the adult room and the new head librarian could NOT give me permission to look at those shelves. But she COULD tell her assistant to look at the shelves and choose 3 or 4 books for me every time I came, which I did at least once a week. Totally different kind of woman and who knows what she bought for the children's collection once I no longer was reading children's books.

By the way, not talking to the children was pretty normal in my part of the Bronx in the 1940s and 1950s. I NEVER saw my Elementary School Principal. We had 6th grade graduation and she was NOT there. The Jr. High Principal came to graduation; I think that is who that person was. My High School Principal belonged to a different generation. He not only walked the halls and was a presence, he knew my name. I almost fainted when he called me by name. And unlike the Jr. High Principal, he gave a wonderful graduation speech mainly congratulating the parents in the audience for supporting their children through high school, and handing the graduates a big "atta-boy" for finishing.

Starling wrote: "No Alcott, although it is possible they were "hidden" in the adult section which we were not allowed in. No OZ books. None of the Nancy Drew series, or any other popular series books."

Alcott was probably in the teen section, which, as you say, was hidden from children.

It used to be standard pretty much everywhere for libraries to not have "series" books. Things like Oz and Nancy Drew were not bought by libraries for a very long time because the prevailing "wisdom" among children's librarians was that they were, as you say, "trash" and offered no lasting value. They were presumed to have been written poorly and have no useful lessons or message, and because of these defects would more likely harm their young readers than help them. The fact that they were easily the most popular books of their day meant nothing. Popularity has never meant much to children's librarians (look at the list of Newbery Award winners).

The fact that the Oz books were, for decades, HATED by librarians (and in some quarters still are, since this attitude has not completely gone away), is still regarded as something they should be embarrassed about by many, since the series is full of true gems and has resulted in so many fans and so much true scholarship over the years.

But the fact is, that children's librarians still have this debate. Harry Potter is still questioned by them for the same reasons and many refused to carry it for quite some time (although most do now, if for no other reason than to deal with demand). The world of children's librarians is full of oddnesses. And kids not being even allowed out of the children's section used to be normal. Thank goodness it no longer is!

As to Alcott, if her adult writings had been known in the first half of the twentieth century, children probably wouldn't have been allowed to read her at all in many places (not even from the teen section)!

I grew up out in the country (I mean really out, I only saw the nearest small city maybe once a month when we went in for groceries etc.) The small town about 2 miles from our farm had a small grocery, a barber shop and hair dresser a couple of filling stations (one of them with a small store) and our school. If there was a public library nearby I never saw it.

We moved for my dad's work when I was 13 and I finally had access to a library system, in Dayton Ohio. I always used the adult section without any restrictions. As My kids grew I went with them and made sure they had access to books regardless of what the librarians thought if I thought they were appropriate (though I all our librarians were friendly and helpful and the children's librarian is still there though my kids are grown...I don't ask her age). The attitude you mention is so foreign to me I can't really express it. Happily I'm still running into a lot of overt "censorship" here yet (I live in Nashville now). The only censorship I see now seems to be in "ordering and purchasing" of books.

I suppose I'd say parents need to be more involved in what their children read and helping them have access to those books.

Mike wrote: "I grew up out in the country (I mean really out, I only saw the nearest small city maybe once a month when we went in for groceries etc.) The small town about 2 miles from our farm had a small groc..."

MIKE- REALLY TOUCHED BY YOUR POST
GREAT STUFF

I have recentlypurchased a Smiley Film- a British Detective-
with Denholm Eliot as Smiley- I very much enjoyed it
has anyone read a Smiley book or heard of Denholm Elliot? the actor?

Condemning series books just for *being* series books does seem like an odd idea to most people now, but it was a very prevalent idea for a long time. The primary advocate that started the movement was Anne Carroll Moore, who was the children's librarian in the New York Public Library system from sometime early in the 1900s (I want to say 1906, but don't quote me on that) to the 1940s. She is one of the women who basically invented children's librarianship - children's rooms, children's collections, and children's libraries. They basically didn't exist before her time. She's incredibly well respected and did a lot of great things for advancing children's books and publishing, but she also had some very strange and strict ideas, which were opposed by other pioneers in the field. She was the one in the official, high ranking position, however, so her views carried a lot of weight and are still affecting how children's librarians are taught to think about books for kids today in many ways.

That seems to be par for the course. That when someone starts something they hold control tightly. The entire idea of children's books is quite new. It took a while to spread, probably the 1950s were when it became actually main-streamed. I was a child in the 50s and the idea of a child's book was still Black Beauty, Old Yeller, or Where the Red Fern grows (the Marquis de sade school of childhood reading). It was a totally different world before this...not necessarily better or worse, but totally different.

Children's books have actually been around for a long time - over three hundred years (and there are even some medieval children's books remaining). But what is considered appropriate for children changes constantly. It did change a great deal throughout the twentieth century, but it wasn't limited to simply books like Black Beauty and Old Yeller. There were picture books, poetry books (everything from nursery rhymes to more elaborate poetry like Stevenson's), and lots of easier and lighter books that appealed more to younger readers, among them things like the Oz books, Nancy and the Hardy Boys, the Little Golden Books, the picture books of Margaret Wise Brown (Goodnight Moon, etc.) and many, many others. What was really new in the twentieth century was the idea of leveled beginning readers followed by easier, "transitional" chapter books - at first things like Dick and Jane, but now a wide variety and things like Cam Jansen and the Magic Tree House books for kids who are beyond beginning readers, but not quite ready for full-length novels yet.

Katie wrote: "Children's books have actually been around for a long time - over three hundred years (and there are even some medieval children's books remaining). But what is considered appropriate for children..."

VERY INTERESTING POINT, KATIE

Katie wrote: "Starling wrote: "Alcott was probably in the teen section, which, as you say, was hidden from children...."

Actually, although I didn't say it, Alcott, if any of her books were there at all, was hidden from the teenagers. The younger ones anyway.

Katie wrote: "The primary advocate that started the movement was Anne Carroll Moore, who was the children's librarian in the New York Public Library system from sometime early in the 1900s (I want to say 1906, but don't quote me on that) to the 1940s...."

OK, so now I know WHO to blame. We are, after all, discussing a New York City Public library in the late 1940s and very early 1950s.

Mike wrote: "That seems to be par for the course. That when someone starts something they hold control tightly. The entire idea of children's books is quite new. It took a while to spread, probably the 1950s we..."

Maybe it was Beatrix Potter. I recall a film about her a few years back which intimated that a short story with pictures collected in a single volume was a revolutionary idea - one that was doomed to fail according to her publishers; alas, she enjoyed the last laugh.

I just loved "Babar," "Courious George," "Where the Wild Things Are" and the Dr. Seuss books as a kid. Plus I had a book of Bible stories with wonderful illustrations, and a book called "The Goose Girl." Later it was Beverly Cleary and E. B. White ("Stuart Little" is still one of my very favorite novels).

I grew up in small towns - Livermore then Tracy, both in California. I liked to hang out in the library and knew the librarians by their first names (it was a small town). I spent a summer with my father in Washington DC - he lived in a studio apartment a block from The Library of Congress (which is "the" Library of America and like Disneyland for me).

It's funny, I'm planning a trip to NYC and one of my destinations is The Jefferson Market Branch Library in Greenwich Village - it's a fascinating building with a wonderful history (having once been a court house). There is a large spire with a clock - it's a magical looking building (Hogwarts on the Hudson) Google it and then click on images and you'll see. The good folks at Three Lives Book Store have recommended a great hotel in the village. Who wants to go?

Gary wrote: "Ok, Devil's advocate here.... I saw the movie numerous times before I ever read the book. The book is fantastic,and I have read many things by Capote,and think he's one of the best American writer..."

You go to far Sir :o) Audrey - our lovely Audrey - was a star long before "Breakfast at Tiffany's" came along in 1961 - she won the Oscar for "Roman Holiday" in 1953, was nominated for "Sabrina" (1954) and "The Nun Story" in 1959, starred with Astaire in "Funny Face" and Gary Cooper in "Love in the Afternoon" in 1957. She won a Tony Award for "Ondine" in 1954. No, no, I appreciate that you love Audrey and the film of "Breakfast at Tiffany's" - but she was a star long before (and is still a star to me - and to you too if I'm not mistaken).

Ivan wrote: "Gary wrote: "Ok, Devil's advocate here.... I saw the movie numerous times before I ever read the book. The book is fantastic,and I have read many things by Capote,and think he's one of the best Am..."

wasnt Audrey Hepburn in a movie with Efrem Zimbelist Jr in which she played a blind woman?

The only movie I know of where she is blind is Wait Until Dark, which a love! So suspensful!

Yes, Efrem was in "Wait Until Dark." I only remembered Alan Arkin. FYI - on Broadway it was Lee Remick and Robert Duvall.

I have just started The Count of Monte Cristo. It will take me a while to read through the book, because it is so big. I am still reading The Screwtape Letters.

Winter in Madrid by C.J. Sansom I am reading this novel as it is the current one for my offline book club. I am also enjoying it in it's own right.

Catamorandi wrote: "I have just started The Count of Monte Cristo. It will take me a while to read through the book, because it is so big. I am still reading The Screwtape Letters."

love DUMAS- thats a great book- as well as THE THREE MUSKETEERS and the 4 follow-up books Dumas wrote using those characters.

I think The Count Of Monte Cristo is my favorite Dumas book.

I knew she was a star before then, I was just commenting that I personally felt the film established her even further as a great actress,and star. I personally don't think Marilyn Monroe could have pulled off the elegance,and grace nearly as well, as Audrey.
(Marilyn is who Truman wanted in the part, but sometimes authors aren't always correct.) I just feel Audrey was the best choice, because she seemed the mostly unlikely actress to play the part of a high class hooker.... so to speak.
She was an unexpected delight in the part.

It certainly showed how versatile the woman really was... not sure marilyn was nearly as much... my opinion. I actually like Marilyn too,and think she was great in her own way.

Wait Until Dark is Audrey as a blind woman in a thriller. She was great,and also great in Charade,and the one movie with Shirley McClaine where they were lesbians, can't think of it's title right now,and they both got flack for that. Controversial, but Audrey dared to do it!

"when she and Gregory Peck were making Roman Holiday- Peck called his agent up and asked what the billing clauses were for the film- they were Gregory Peck in Roman Holiday- intoducing Audrey Hepburn..."
- Peck told his agent "George- that simply wont do- this picture is going to make her a star and she is going to win the Oscar-and I am going to look like a damned fool- I want her name above the title too"
So her name was put above the title, she won the Oscar and the rest is history

Rick wrote: "I always read two books at the same time! Usually a current thriller or mystery and a classic- Right now I am just finishing up- The Elusive Pimpernel- the sequel to The Scarlet Pimpernel- so my mi..."

Currently reading the No. Ladies detective agency by alexander Mccall smith
and Until Proven Guilty --JA Jance
and my own Dead comic standing which will be on amazon and or Barnes and noble.--reading all 3 for a 144 in 2010 challenge

I just finished Drop City by T. C. Boyle. Wow!!!! What a book, folks!

I'm reading To Ride Hell's Chasm for a book discussion in another group, I'm also in the middle of Thomas Sowell's A Conflict of Visions simply because of my interests (a couple of meanings of that word as it happens). I have a couple more I've laid out to start(they're library books and get moved to the top of my "to read" list so I can take them back).

I think I'll be limiting things to these two for a while as I'm also close to finishing a short story that I plan to start submitting fairly soon. It'll be my intro back into attempting to get into print after several years on the side lines.

I'm reading High on a Hill by Dorothy Garlock because I understand it's a novel about the era of Prohibition in the USA which represents historical fact and I want to get a novelist's perspective from realistic characters.

I'm still reading "Howard's End is on the Landing" by Susan Hill - it's a wonderful read, a book about books and reading.

I'm ready W. Somerset Maugham's Of Human Bondage while taking a break from Dumas' The Count of Monte Cristo which I'm about 70% through.