Very good point. I agree that an adaptation that ignores the original is more an original work than an adaptation, definitely no arguments there and like I said we can discuss the relative merits of each adaptation and I think we can draw a few conclusions as to how 'canonincal' (for want of a better word) an adaptation is.
As to relevance; to speak for a wider selection of people, well as much as it pains me (no really, it kills me dead!) some people probably don't find a lot of relevance in Victorian novels. As much as we in these parts love the original stories, some people will just not be that interested. So the films have to appeal to those people too (because we must not forget that, although an artform, the movie industry is a money making machine as well). The new film (from clips I've seen) seems to be much faster paced and more dramatic than the stories in canon, appealing to the action-adventure audience of the 21st Century.
Yet for every little moppet that bounces out of the cinema squealing about how kewl that film was, there will be some people genuinely interested in canon, and that will be in no small way down to the fact that the film appealed to them on a base, cultural level and will probably in some way colour their perception and interpretation of the canon.
And thus the story has been preserved. I imagine this has been happening ever since those early adaptations, and the canonical stories are still going strong. Many novels don't survive time, as they are rejected by a culture whose morals and values have changed. I know it annoys a lot people, but I actually find comfort in the fact that even people who've never picked up a Holmes book in their life, could indentify him by his deerstalker and pipe. It means that he still carries some cultural capital and is therefore, far from dead.
As for interpretation...well unless I'm the reincarnation of ACD (unlikely, I'll admit), I'm pretty sure I'm not privy to the original information, I only have my interpretation to go on. I cannot guess at his intentions when he wrote a certain thing in a particular way, I will merely interpret it in accordance with my world view. It's why literature lovers meet and discuss books, because interpretation is fascinating and actually says a lot about the reader.
Anywho, I hope that made a little bit of sense, lol. I know that when I'm in full flow I've got a pretty smart mouth on me. It comes from smart-arsed people, like the one from the beginning of my essay, trying to prove they're cleverer than me. Hence my call to arms a the end! XD
no subject
Very good point. I agree that an adaptation that ignores the original is more an original work than an adaptation, definitely no arguments there and like I said we can discuss the relative merits of each adaptation and I think we can draw a few conclusions as to how 'canonincal' (for want of a better word) an adaptation is.
As to relevance; to speak for a wider selection of people, well as much as it pains me (no really, it kills me dead!) some people probably don't find a lot of relevance in Victorian novels. As much as we in these parts love the original stories, some people will just not be that interested. So the films have to appeal to those people too (because we must not forget that, although an artform, the movie industry is a money making machine as well). The new film (from clips I've seen) seems to be much faster paced and more dramatic than the stories in canon, appealing to the action-adventure audience of the 21st Century.
Yet for every little moppet that bounces out of the cinema squealing about how kewl that film was, there will be some people genuinely interested in canon, and that will be in no small way down to the fact that the film appealed to them on a base, cultural level and will probably in some way colour their perception and interpretation of the canon.
And thus the story has been preserved. I imagine this has been happening ever since those early adaptations, and the canonical stories are still going strong. Many novels don't survive time, as they are rejected by a culture whose morals and values have changed. I know it annoys a lot people, but I actually find comfort in the fact that even people who've never picked up a Holmes book in their life, could indentify him by his deerstalker and pipe. It means that he still carries some cultural capital and is therefore, far from dead.
As for interpretation...well unless I'm the reincarnation of ACD (unlikely, I'll admit), I'm pretty sure I'm not privy to the original information, I only have my interpretation to go on. I cannot guess at his intentions when he wrote a certain thing in a particular way, I will merely interpret it in accordance with my world view. It's why literature lovers meet and discuss books, because interpretation is fascinating and actually says a lot about the reader.
Anywho, I hope that made a little bit of sense, lol. I know that when I'm in full flow I've got a pretty smart mouth on me. It comes from smart-arsed people, like the one from the beginning of my essay, trying to prove they're cleverer than me. Hence my call to arms a the end! XD