Dante's Inferno: 14th Century to 2007

Dante's Inferno is the epic first part of the Divine Comedy following a man on a quest through the nine circles of hell, written and narrated by Dante Alighieri sometime in the 14th century.  Alighieri in 34 cantos (chapters) basically designs every concept of Hell that we have in our heads when asked to imagine it. Furthermore, he creates every punishment for every sin from 1st circle atheism all the way to 9th circle treachery.  The novel is very serious, very frightening, and just a wild story in general.

Fast forward to the 21st century,  Sandow Birk and Marcus Sanders re-tell Alighieri's tale in terms of 2007 through their puppet-based film by the same name.  They establish a modern setting with modern idealism and utilize a humorous prose while holding true to the original Inferno.  If the book is too difficult to read with it's verse format, I'd venture to say that the film could give you a detailed grasp on everything within Alighieri's writings.

I feel that books usually become movies whenever some film maker is an avid fan of a work, or when a writer sees the potential movie within an author's work.  I can't imagine any writer creating novels with the intent that his pieces end up on the big screen.  This is why the film people have to be the ones to see the movie potential within a book, because they have much more feel on the length of movies, budgets, actors, etc.  Upon reading the book or getting an adapted script, they have to choose what's the most important, what to omit, think about scenes and what have you.  The makers of the film adaptation of Inferno had an apparent interest in the book, and decided that they would remake the story for their time and their voice.  And they actually do a great job in adapting the writing to a movie.

Which brings us to books vs. movies.  Books will always have the upper hand in that there's no time limitations, and therefore every detail needed is in the story.  They also allow you to make your own ideas in regards to the imagery of each scene, of each character, and of the general setting.  Movies on the other hand cannot be 5 hours long, and they spoon feed you the faces, the places, the things.  So you might miss out on some key parts.  Since Alighieri's work is written in it's verse format,  the film makers where actually able to take the story and dumb it down to common 21st century language.  Because of this, the film does well in capturing every circle of hell, every demon creature encounter, and so on.  The only difference is, is that some of the creatures and scenes are portrayed in a modernized way, compared to the book.

With this specific example,  I feel that someone who has seen the film interpretation of Dante's Inferno before reading the book may not seek out the actual book. And even if they did, I could see them seeing the way it is written, getting frustrated and calling it quits.  The film is also much more comical than the novel, so some audience may even be lost on that principle alone when it comes down to actually reading Dante Alighieri.

The Crucible Vs. The Crucible

The Crucible, written by Arthur Miller, is both a play and a movie (made based off of the play).  Now whenever a movie is made based off of some text, the question is always asked, “Will the movie stay true to the text?”  And in the case of  The Crucible, a large number of people on Amazon.com agree the movie adaptation was incredibly well done and very historically accurate.  Granted Miller wrote the screenplay so already there was a good advantage of the writing staying true to the text in the script, and since the text was also a play, the formatting is already similar to a screenplay making it that much easier to include as much original content as possible.

Of course not all book-to-movie adaptations are successful in terms of being equal in quality to the original text.  There are many movies out there that butcher a book by completely changing  either the ending or simply leaving out so much of the novel’s original contents that it’s difficult to follow anything super intimate or detailed in a storyline (can anyone say Eragon?).  Which is really unfortunate because movies are the opportunity of taking something readers could only imagine in their minds and turning those images into a tactile moving picture. Now don’t get me wrong, I understand that a movie usually can’t be a carbon copy of the original novel, and that there are aspects of a book that must be sacrificed because they don’t translate well into movies.  But still, when key, important details such as the ending or random plot twists that weren’t in the story are thrown in, I usually get angry because it demolishes the integrity the original text.

Even though I love the freedom of imagining the contents of a book however I so choose, it’s always so interesting to see a director’s vision, actor portrayals,  and special effects that bring something that was once only available to visualize in my mind into something I can actually look at and make my own judgments as to whether or not the movie was everything I dreamed it would be.  Isn’t that why we want books become movies anyways? It fulfills a vision we had; when other people in the world say they also envisioned a novel in a similar way we did, it’s empowering to know weren’t officially not alone and also can give the feeling we were right… even though we know we can’t really say another’s imagination is really wrong if it was different…

Now let’s ask ourselves if we’re likely to read a book if we watch a movie based off of a book? Quite honestly, I don’t know if I’ve ever read the book a movie is based off of after seeing a movie, but I know that I LOVE to see the movies that are made about books I’ve read and loved.  So does that support the whole reason our earlier reasoning as to why these movies exist?  I think it does. These movies are an entertaining short investment of time compared to reading most books, so it’s easier to watch a movie about a story we may only be mildly interested in but haven’t read the yet. And of course, if we loved the book originally, it’s the opportunity to see the words we loved on paper come to life.

Questions:

1) Do you usually read the book a movie is based off of after you see a movie (obviously assuming you’ve never read the book before seeing a particular movie)? Why or why not?

2) How much liberty should a storyline be given because it’s being translated from a novel to the big screen?

The Wizarding World Once Again...

I constantly use Harry Potter references, get used to it. I'm going to use the reviews of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (The Seventh Book) On Amazon and evaluate the importance and flaws of these reviews.

When I looked up the book, I was very relieved to see that they had illuminated directly underneath the product the most helpful FAVORABLE REVIEW and the most helpful CRITICAL review. I feel that this is a great way to showcase the reviews, rather than just having uneducated or biased jumbled messes of reviews that would obviously contort the buyers. THANK GOODNESS, is what I must say. Users can deem reviews "helpful" if they wish, and that's awesome, so we aren't just caught in a sea of bewilderment and confusion when we are looking for a decent review of a book we are potentially going to buy or read.

The first gives it 5 stars. (<- click to view)

This review is, I believe, on point. He gives a lengthy, appealing, justified review that credits JK Rowling and the plot and characters for being awesome, and the writing for being better than ever, but this isn't the universal point of view about the book.

Review 2: 3 Stars (<- click to view)

This review is rather critical, and has absolute relevance, he says that the book is good, but can’t receive a five-star review because Rowling uses many clichés and shortcuts to make her story work, and also includes many plot holes in her novel.

While both of these reviews are indeed helpful, and seem to be written by intelligent people, I don’t believe that we can entirely base our opinions or desires to read a book solely on these reviews from users who don’t necessarily do this professionally. I'd like to say that I absolutely LOVE Harry Potter, and would say that I'm moderately obsessed in comparison to most. So, obviously I'd give the book five hundred stars on a 5 scale, but that's just me. Based on complete and total literary aspects of the book? Hell no. And that's where we have a problem: average joes like myself rating books and others basing their opinions or purchasing of the books on user reviews entirely.

Do I think that these reviews are a step in the right direction? Absolutely. One can look and see how favorably a book is generally reviewed by an audience of his own people, and it helps to get a more realistic idea of how a book is reviewed by the intended audience. I like New York Times reviews and all that get posted on the back of the books, but they aren’t always realistic and don’t sway me in either direction. Real people with real reviews are important in today’s world. I was also happy to see that when I was browsing on the page for the book, it first lists literary critiques and reviews from other sources before I could even find the link to user reviews, this gives the users the ability to first see what professionals think of the book before they are thrust into an environment where thousands of normal people give their “two cents.”

So, overall I think that the way that Amazon has their reviews constructed is helpful and logical. There’s always going to be positive and negative feedback for books and other entertainment or educational products, and one must be prepared to encounter these and still go into the use or reading of it with an open mind. I know that I’m guilty with biasing movies based on Rotten Tomatoes movie reviews, because I end up agreeing with the critics 90% of the time, but if we are capable of open-mindedly entering the world a book creates, and not continuously recalling reviews and other’s perspectives when reading, these reviews are very helpful and can help us to avoid reading things that are generally unfavorable, IF they are unfavorable for good reason and by those that we seem to be able to relate to on an intellectual level.

So, I suppose my questions are: Do you think that it is helpful or harmful (or both) to read book reviews BEFORE reading or purchasing the actual book? Why or Why not? Should we leave the critiquing up to the experts? Or ignore them entirely?

Twilight

I chose to look up Twilight on Amazon because I was sure there would plenty of reviews to choose from - and I was right. Over 5,000 people wrote critiques of the first book in the series and over 3,000 of these people gave it 5 stars. I think this says something about who's writing the reviews. If someone is going to write a critique, they probably either loved it or hated it. In this case, most of them loved Twilight.

In my opinion, Amazon invites book reviewers for this reason. Books like Twilight will get thousands of great reviews, only further spreading the hype that accompanies fantasy novels. Also, customers would much rather here the thoughts of their peers than professional critics. Who cares what these journalists think when fellow thirteen year olds think Twilight is amazing?

Although I'm not a die-hard fan, I have to admit that I've read the entire series. It was a nice way to wind down the day with a non-challenging page turner. The storyline was good enough, and the writing wasn't distracting enough to stop me from reading. Overall, I wouldn't give it five stars - but thats just me.

I found an interesting review that provided a good amount of insight. The critic basically stated that Meyer's book needed more time and editing to achieve literary merit. She said it felt rushed, that it should've been looked over more carefully and condensed to exclude the unnecessary details. She also explained that the storyline gave a bad message to its audience: the only way to get a guy is to give up everything for him. Meyer should've targeted girls older than thirteen if she wanted to use this theme. This reviewer gave Twilight 4 stars because of the character development and addicting storyline.

This review does a good job of analyzing the Meyer's novel, but the rating seems a little too kind. The critic spends all this time on what is bad, and little time on what is good. Giving the book a good rating makes it seems like she is trying to please her audience of commenters rather than give an honest rating.

Overall, I think reviews can be helpful at times but mostly they can distract you from creating your own opinion, especially if they are read before purchasing the book. I like to read them when I'm finished to see if I agree or disagree with the general opinion of whatever I'm reading, but reading reviews beforehand can sometimes ruin the story.

So here are my questions:

1. Do you agree with Amazon critics that Twilight deserves over 3000 5 star ratings? If so, is it because of literary merit or cultural influence of the series?
2. Since you have the ability to reply and comment on these reviews, is this just another form of social networking?

The Hunger for Book Reviews

Recently The Hunger Games has taken the nation by storm as the newest book and  book-to-movie series fad. So naturally when a book becomes incredibly popular, it also means everyone who is reading will have something to say about it.  On Amazon.com it’s incredibly easy to leave a review about any book even if we didn’t purchase it from their website.  Which is perfect, because then reviews aren’t as biased towards the people who wanted to purchase a desired book anyways.  Currently, on Amazon The Hunger Games has 4.6 out of 5 stars from 7,588 votes, and some of the top reviews range from the book being spectacular to below average and overrated.

Amazon and other popular book websites always encouraging reviews is a huge marketing tool.  People get an outlet to vent their excitement or frustration about the book itself (and possibly can divert any annoying complaints to a company for a poor book that distributors like Amazon and Barnes and Noble may not know really sucks).  Also, reviews are literally a “consumer insider.”  Leaving reviews on a largely used Internet shopping site is the best place to see what people really think void of situational peer pressure to not completely rave about or destroy a book. And that means free reviews for Amazon for other customers to read and determine if they were helpful.  A lot of the time it’s easier to trust a review for an everyday Average Joe than some presumptuous bookworm who has a PhD in Literature.

I personally take into consideration book reviews (or at least the number of stars it has) if there are a large number of reviews (a larger sample of people is indeed more reliable and accurate versus only a handful), mostly because I don’t want to necessarily invest time and money into a book if it’s going to end up being an awful experience.  But at the same time I don’t like the let them dictate my reading selection, but rather a suggested guideline and maybe shift my expectations to a more appropriate level.  Besides, usually only the people who felt passionately (either positively or negatively) about a book are the ones who write reviews.

Now do I actually take the time to write reviews? Nope.  I suppose when thinking about the impact that such a decision(a.k.a. to not write a review) contributes to the literary culture, American culture, and most importantly Internet culture, I realize  it’s actually a lack thereof.  But at the same time, I feel like there are larger ways to impact the thinking of others and the Internet culture than solely writing book reviews on various online bookstores.  So the balance already in place is a pretty good one; those that currently write reviews will continue to write, and I will continue not to (unless I was reallyyyyy bored or feel super passionate about a specific story I suppose).

Granted though, the more experience a person has in writing, even if it’s simply writing many book reviews or blog posts, greatly contributes to overall, individual writing ability.  A person can definitely exploit these opportunistic outlets to develop a unique voice and become more comfortable with a lot of the nuances that are apart of the writing process, which honestly are probably the most important parts of writing academically anyways. The question is whether or not writing is more influenced by Internet or the classroom.  I personally think the classroom still influences writing in individuals more so than the Internet.  And that's primarily due to the fact that most people don't write papers on the Internet.  The Internet has actually caused us to condense a lot of our writing to short statements and hashtags instead of developing and supporting incredibly complex thoughts.  Now I only mean this as it applies to the majority of people I observed in my life.  For those who make a living blogging and writing reviews on the web, the Internet and the people on the Internet most likely influences those people a lot more in their writing.

Regardless of what category any of us falls under, we must also appreciate the significance that the Internet has given everyone the opportunity to write whatever we want about whatever books we read (and really any topic at all) through reviews and blogs and other countless writing options.  We can't deny that in allowing anyone to be critic online we've actually challenged people to step up and voice opinions to the world where they may not have said much about a book or any sort of topic otherwise.

Questions:
1) Is it progress for book reviews to be dominated by ordinary, everyday people instead of literary critiques? Granted literary critiques still exist and are always writing reviews as well, but what other differences can be noted about reviews done by anyone?
2) Do book reviews on the Internet impact literary culture? American culture? Internet culture?
3) Does English composition writing get more influence primarily from the Internet these days or is the classroom still the place writers develop their voice and unique style of writing?

Engine 2

*sorry about the late post. I had to come home on Thursday due to a family emergency.

Last summer, I found myself reading as many nutrition books as I could get my hands on. One in particular was called The Engine 2 Diet, by Rip Esselstyn. This particular diet is all about being "plant-strong"  - aka vegan (no animal products). It presents a plant-based diet in a positive light as a cure for obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and any other weight-related diseases. Esselstyn is a firefighter who first started this diet at his station and then proceeded to perform studies about its outcomes on volunteers of all ages.

Esselstyn and everyone working at this project rely on social media for success. Their facebook page is a constant stream of recipes and success stories. Through this medium, many people are able to get support on their weight loss journeys. It is also a great way to find new and interesting recipes from all over the internet that people have posted to this page. Engine 2 is seen as a great way to become healthy, lose weight, or whatever your goals may be. The facebook profile does a good job of representation, based on the ideas and support that is updated constantly.

Of course, Engine 2 has now become a company and needs to advertise. What better way than through social networking? Esselstyn and his team put on conventions called "Engine 2 Immersions" where they provide healthy food, exercise classes, and speakers. They last a few days and turn over great results. Advertising for these events is done through facebook and twitter. It must be successful if they are still able to host the conventions almost once a month. Esselstyn is using social networking in a positive way to help people get healthy and raise awareness of the dangers of unhealthy lifestyles.

All of this started with Esselstyn's original book, and its growth was surely a surprise for everyone involved. It appears as though the book is interacting with social media to produce the most effective means of communication. In situations like these, it is easy to see how this is possible because diets are about a lifestyle change - something which needs constant attention. This attention is available when social networking is involved; however, that is not always the case.

With novels, or other literary forms, social networking plays an entirely different role. Advertising can still be used to market the product, if so desired. However, from there on it seems that facebook and twitter are used more often to critique the work. There are fan pages and communities in support of novels, but it is more about discussing the novel than creating something outside of the novel itself. In cases like that of Twilight, social networking can create things like the "Team Edward" vs. "Team Jacob" war, however. So here are my questions:

1. What does it take for a novel to go beyond a simple fan page, to become more than words on a page? It has got to be more than a story involving to two boys competing for one girl.

2. Should companies have to pay for a facebook or twitter account because of all the advertising? If so, would it be by post, monthly payments, or a one time fee?

Pottermania

Good ole J.K. Rowling is one of the most influential literary figures of our generation. She has formed such a wide array of fans, not only from her seven books, but from 8 movies that have swept our nation. And, though many of us picture the “Potter-crazy” geeky, nerdy, fan base, she has acquired so many diverse fans of all ages and countries that it seems almost impossible to have done so without the help of the internet and media. I, of course, follow her on Twitter, like her on Facebook, and loosely follow other websites and blogs concerning the author. That’s the beauty of J.K. Rowling, she has so many loyal followers that they have made websites concerning her and the Harry Potter fandom. She is also helpful with the website www.pottermore.com, where you can actually get exclusive content concerning each book while you virtually journey through the storyline and the Wizarding world,  chat with other users, and create and online profile based on your favorite characters, spells, etc. I just recently joined this site to see what all the hype was about, and it’s a really interesting atmosphere that can further your reading experience that much more. Harry Potter fans will never be disappointed or run out of activities or things to talk about. Harry Potter has many other fan sites, fan fiction, literature assessing the novels so deeply that other fans find the need to purchase these readings on Kindle and such, YouTube videos, video games, even characters from Harry Potter have parody twitters that are widely followed by users. I just think that Harry Potter is something that would be much less widely-known without the internet and social networking, and the hype may have died or been stifled without the use of these networks.

            As far as J.K. goes, she doesn’t even really have to create her own public persona, as her fans are so avidly doing it for her, and in a sense worshipping her as some literary goddess. Now, I don’t think that Harry Potter books are the best written books I’ve ever read, but they are my favorite, and they are appealing to children, teens, and adults internationally, so she’s obviously onto something here. Nonetheless, I think it’s important to follow the actual author on social networks to get her personal thoughts and tweets, rather than be completely biased by how the fans and social media have constructed her. J.K. Rowling has only tweeted 12 times, simply to indicate that it is in fact the REAL her on this twitter page, and that people have been tweeting on her behalf. She says that “pen and paper are still (her) priority” several times. Even with this, she has over 1 million followers. She refers fans to the Pottermore site and her own personal author website jkrowling.com. She really seems like a humble individual with little concern for the happenings of today and being in others business, or at least doesn’t voice her opinion much. I have great respect for her in this sense, as she is diverting attention away from tweeting and constructing an internet persona, and shines through mostly based on her writing and relies on her fans to keep her popular and strong in the social world. And boy, do they do an amazing job at that. Without the internet, Harry Potter may not still be such a worldwide obsession.

            So, is the internet helping or hindering the literary world? If both, in what ways does is do so? And do you think that it is a safe or smart move for an author such as J.K. Rowling to put her persona in the hands of her fans rather than her own self?

Our Therapeutic Internet

In America we have brothers, sisters, parents, children, friends, and other family that suffer from eating disorders, anxiety, or maybe are just in need of a good therapy session to talk out current problems and issues.  Amy Hanson-Akins is one of those selfless people who gives her time to help all sorts of people with any issues that can’t always be solved or worked through alone.  She is a Psychotherapist who specializes in treating eating disorders and anxiety for all age groups for both men and women.  She has written countless eating disorder and anxiety presentations and seminars in and around the Toledo-land area in Ohio. She is also someone who networks heavily with the help of facebook and twitter so she can spread her knowledge, gain knowledge from others in her profession or similar professions, and reach out to countless individuals, which would otherwise be impossible without the help of social media sites. 

The second you access either of her profiles, it’s obvious she is someone who cares about making life a meaningful experience where we are happy with who we are and are able to focus on the positives in life.  Granted her profiles are only limited to those who already follow her or are her “friends,” or those who willing go out of there way to find her profile.  But just having the huge number of connections she has between both websites, anything she posts, reposts, or tweets about is sent out to everyone she is connected with.  And hopefully there will be at least several people who will be affected enough by the positive messages she puts out there about anxiety and eating disorders will be reposted and resent through her contacts to people she probably doesn’t even know.  I could continue on about the internet is like a pool of water, and anything that is posted on the internet is like the ripples created from dropping stuff into the pool (posting on the internet), and how those ripples continue to expand and reach further and further towards the edges of the pool, but this analogy alone seems to serve my point. We all know that knowledge has never had the capability before to travel as fast as a simply click of a computer mouse, but now since it does, it redefines the traditional notion of “literary culture,” by making it less formal and able to expand upon itself exponentially.

I suppose it could be debated that simply networking over the internet isn’t really “literary work.” But remember she has written and led numerous presentations and seminars about the issues her profession deals with.  And also any sort of networking and spreading ideas over the internet during a period of time, and trying to make the world a better place (however that is defined for an individual), is similar to writing a series of short anecdotes and ideas. Honestly, I’ve always thought literature and literary works’ main purpose to be a catalyst for new thoughts and ideas that are presented in a way in which readers can still interpret many aspects of the text freely, but a core ideology or criticism is still evident and apparent.  And that’s exactly what using facebook and twitter to spread knowledge and awareness about issues that are import to us is all about.  So while Amy Hanson-Akins may not always be posting original thoughts but reposting ideas and extensions of ideologies she already believes in, she has been able to become an exceptional therapist and enhance her seminars by exploiting the possibilities social media sites have been able to offer.  And honestly, what author has ever has an idea or plot in their story that was 100% original? We use literature to expand upon our core ideals, just as Amy Hanson-Akins has, which is why she is one of the many public “literary” figures that exist on the internet today.

Questions:

1)  How far do you extend your definition of a “literary” figure? Can we define it as general as someone who has been able to write about an issue intelligently and bring awareness to any criticisms they have about society?  Or perhaps should we really leave it at that someone who published some fiction/nonfiction story that has been published by a well-known publishing company?

2)  In today’s society we can find literary works in digital form and download with the click of a button instead of needing to go to a library or bookstore to purchase what we need. So how has the internet changed literary works?

Frontmen and Twitter

Nathan Williams is the bratty, pot-head, used-to-live-in-his-mom’s-basement-until-his-macbook-recordings-were-deemed-“rad”-by-the-hipster-blogs frontman of his now esteemed beachy, punk-pop band, WAVVES.  Regardless of being brilliant or just being uncreative and lucky at the same time, Williams is an excellent writer in terms of catchy, simple lyrics that swept him up out of his mom’s basement and into MTV and celebrity-hood.  In this age of social networking, Nathan turns out to be some sort of pioneer, in that he has always been constantly tweeting.  At 44,806 followers, the kid has his audience well informed on his drunkenness, his drug usage, his drunken drug use at the VMA’s (read this: http://www.thefader.com/2011/08/29/wavves-wins-the-vmas/), etc.

As a fan of his, as well as many other tweeting frontmen (the excellent lyricist Alex Kapranos of Franz Ferdinand got drunk two days ago and answered an infinite amount of questions from his followers: http://www.nme.com/news/franz-ferdinand/63686?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=fanpage-nmenews-franz#5), I love that fact that the audience can now be so close to the artists.  The mystique of these talented people leaves and soon the follower is left only to their glamorously intoxicated lifestyles, allowing for more “nobodies” to feel more confident in their own abilities.  Not to mention, it’s a blast to get to see a glimpse of the exact person a popular musician is.

Literary culture to me is simply any form of writing that delivers entertainment and worth.  As far as this specific post goes, I would say that guys like the previously mentioned Alex Kapranos or Alex Turner of the Arctic Monkeys are all to be considered masterful in the literature field seeing as they write fantastic melodic poems that connect with many people who listen to the music daily.  Even so, on the other end of the spectrum you have somebody like Nathan Williams or Jake Orrall of JEFF the Brotherhood who write explicitly “punk” lyrics that may not be the most intelligent (baby please/can’t you see/I think you are so sexy/won’t you mellow out with me?), it’s still considered impressive because it’s simply relatable, albeit in a low-IQ fashion.  Literature, like art, is subjective. It all depends on the spectator.

These literary figures do not make any attempt to state that they are in fact literary figures or that they write well or anything like that.  Instead, they just explain their lifestyles, their thoughts, and what they do, which is interesting because you can have their every day average joe dialogue and then see their works post-facto and make links between the two.  Before these social networks, there was no such capability.  David Bowie was actually Ziggy Stardust, Jimi Hendrix was insanely mystical and enchanted, Jim Morrison was on a different level mentally and spiritually.  If the people of those writers times had access to Twitter, then maybe more songwriters would’ve popped up once they realize that Bowie, Hendrix, and Morrison aren’t gods or extra terrestrial beings.  They’re just people (with different tolerance levels for different drugs).

To answer the question about the digital age being a red herring: Facebook friends are not real friends at all.  Everybody’s a creep, and Facebook is a haven where everyone can stare at everyone else without bothering anyone.  All the same with Twitter, except you hang on words rather than images.  I would not consider any of the before mentioned musicians as my friend just because I follow them on Twitter and know what they’re up to.  Even as some artists follow me, that’s not a real life friend.  It’s just a network.

 -Jon @JonnMac