Dawn Treader a Little Off Course

Perhaps you know from previous posts how excited I had been to see next Narnia movie, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. I adored the last two movies. Both The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and Prince Caspian, in my opinion, had been brought to the screen in amazing glory – even with the rewrites, additions and changes. For these tweaks only served to strengthen and smooth out the story C.S. Lewis had put down on the page. Very little had been sacrificed to allow the revisions… and what had been brought to the tale fit in as if it had always been there. In short, I thought the film managed to improve the original books while keeping them primarily intact.

I had to wait longer than I thought possible to see the new film (after filling with such joy when I saw the trailer back in June). For the reason of trying to coordinate a few friends who wanted to see it with me: Cassidy, Buttercup and Bart’s sister Lage. Sadly, Lage couldn’t make the time that worked out for the rest of us, but she knew that might happen and offered from the get-go to opt out if need be. So as it turned out, we saw it a week and day after its release.

I liked it. No, I didn’t love it. I liked it very much. It’s quite good. But no, I didn’t go over the moon as I had with the first two. Why? Oddly, the very thing which made me adore those is what killed the joy in Dawn Treader. Rewrites. This one proved quite heavy on the alterations. Sure, the others shifted scenes and incidents and added much – but all the while it never felt as if anything had been lost from the book. Here, it did in fact feel like parts of the story were noticeably missing. Why? Because they were. What I imagine must have been time/length constraints, many chunks of many scenes did not occur. And some parts vanished completely. And then we had the problem of scenario overlap. Lewis’s narrative takes us across the sea and the ship and characters stop at many islands along the way, looking for the lost Lords of Narnia (the friends/supporters of King Capsian’s father who had been exiled by the villainous Miraz when he stole the throne.) Well, in the movie about three or so of these islands had been combined into one (and again, other parts didn’t make it in at all.)

One of these removed sections can be found on The Lone Islands, the place of the slave traders. As I expected from the trailer, they punched up this scene with some action/fighting. But unlike the others, when the extra peppering of action had been sprinkled into the tale, it didn’t enhance but rather negate the original intention of the book. Yes, it’s true they had a bit of fighting to free themselves, but in the film it’s an all-out battle. I wouldn’t mind that – except the entire conversation between Bern, the ruler of the island, and Caspian is gone. In it, the young king shows his forceful nature. In a grand and tempered manner he berates the misuse of power and speaks of the importance of freedom for all peoples. [It’s really not as heavy handed as it sounds!] I’d been looking forward to hearing/seeing the harangue played out. Nope. The issue is resolved with that bigger battle only. I just didn’t think that right… it went against the character of Caspian and the message of the book.

Besides taking out entire chunks of the Magician Coriakin's island, they even rewrote the reason the Dufflepuds are invisible… so as to help bolster the major change implemented into this tale. In the movie, they must gather the seven swords of the seven lords and place them on Aslan’s Table near the edge of the world to prevent the “evil” green mist from the Dark Island from stealing all the light in Narnia. In the book, breaking the enchantment is only about the three sleeping Narnia Lords asleep at the table and although there is an island in/of darkness, the green mist and sword gathering does not exist. Apparently the quest to discover what happened to the lords didn’t seem enough for the filmmakers. So they restructured the story around this “evil mist” concept…throwing in a “save the villagers who where lost to it” along the way. I could have done without that addition, especially the stowaway little girl who wanted to see her mother again.

I won’t delineate all else that had been axed or rescripted, but suffice to say it had been way too much.

And yet… I liked the rewrite on its own. Truth be told, it really did work well (except for the rescue of the people and the little girl.) Keeping the dragon around, for instance, so as to fight the Sea Serpent… a wonderful thought. And nicely executed. Plus, the circumstances surrounding that revision caused a much more compelling and powerful redeeming of Eustace. Admittedly in Lewis’s book it could use a little more oomph to his character development. And since he goes on to be in Narnia and is one of its best heroes, this new story twist made that even more plausible. Here, the “overlap of scenes” made entire sense, then, and didn’t seem merely a time constraint.  Even Coriakin sending them on the sword-gathering quest had been a nice touch, giving him a little more reason to be there than just one of the adventures they had along the way.

Another tweak I especially enjoyed is the doorway home. I think it’s much better than what Lewis wrote.  It ties it to the entrance much more logically and had been very fun to watch. And yet – it’s not entirely different from Lewis.

I looked up who the writers were for each film. For The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe it had been: Ann Peacock, Stephen McFeely, Christopher Markus, Andrew Adamson. Peacock dropped out for whatever reason and the other three penned Prince Caspian. But for The Voyage of the Dawn Treader it had been just McFeely and Markus from that group with newcomer Michael Petroni. I should note that Andrew Adamson had also directed the first two films, whereas Dawn Treader had been helmed by Michael Apted. Hmm. Had Adamson had been the one keeping the stories in check?

So, all in all, it’s okay. It’s a very good movie. I just wish it followed suit with the other two and kept closer to the book (while allowing rational additions and changes.) Assuming that they continue on with The Silver Chair, here’s hoping Adamson will return at least as a writer.

To PRE or Not to PRE?

A while back in the comments of this post, I started to ponder the idea of “prequel.” It’s a curious thing, a prequel. For in order to be a prequel for the audience, the “original” needs to have come first. That sounds like a no-brainer. But consider some examples.

As I’ve said before (and also re-posted links to Danny Pitt Stoller’s great articles as such) The Chronicles of Narnia by C.S. Lewis are often [and I feel erroneously] read in chronological order. Technically, of course, The Magician’s Nephew is a prequel to The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. But for many, it’s not seen/understood that way, though it is most definitely a prequel as far as Lewis is concerned — he didn’t know the events himself when he wrote LWW!

George Lucas’s epic saga of Star Wars is famous for having prequels. But let’s face the facts. It’s a bit different than with C.S. Lewis. Here, they are not really prequels. Lucas had written out the grand scheme of the story he wished to tell from the start. Granted, it received rewrites and drop-outs, but on the whole, he knew the spine of the story. Due to feasibility concerns he began his tale in the middle. (Also because Episode IV - A New Hope is the only part that can manage to stand alone [in case it had been a flop.])  I cannot confirm that it is true, but allegedly Hayden Christensen wants to one day show his kids the episodes “in order,” meaning beginning with Episode I - The Phantom Menace. (I think that would ruin the suspense of the saga, just for the record.) Either way, the “prequel trilogy” is only such because they came out secondary to the “original” set.  According to Lucas’s musing and composition, they’re not — at least not in the same sense as Lewis.

Those are but two examples of this "phenomenon."

When I’d been writing Peter Pan: Betwixt-and-Between I always thought of it as an interquel (a sequel to one story and a prequel to another). I had just assumed that people would already know the story of Peter Pan (a.k.a. Peter and Wendy.) Anon pointed out to me that someone, however, just might not know that story and read the adventures of Peter Pan from “the beginning,” starting with Barrie’s Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens (or The Little White Bird), moving on to my interquel and then on to the story most of us know. It didn’t really occur to me that someone wouldn't consider it an "adventure before." (To quote Slightly in Hogan’s version: Stupid of me.) But seriously, although unlikely, it’s bound to happen. Thus, in that sense, I did not write an interquel/prequel.

The status of “prequel” is relative.  Something to think about, eh?

REVENGE of the SEQUEL: PART II

OK, yes. I am actually going to talk about sequels.
Certainly I do think they have merit, lest I wouldn’t have written Peter Pan’s NeverWorld. In this post I explain a little about the wherefore of having written it.

I’m not speaking out against them. But a conversation with Clara and Banky a while back comes to mind.

Banky had finished my novel Midnight Chaser and still thought about it many days after reading it. (Yea, me!) Now, the thing is, which I’ve said many times, even on this site, that I really want Midnight Chaser to stand alone in book form. I don't envision a sequel…and I wondered if there could be one. Readers told me it certainly can go on…lots of adventures could still happen for some of the characters. So, why not write those? Because there is no substantial and plausible conflict to drive the story. Sure, seeing what else the characters get into would be fun… but not as amusing as for readers to think about on their own. Me writing it would just be a series of anecdotes. And where I can see that being appealing, again, in this instance, anything I could come up with is going to pale in comparison with the reader’s imagination.

But that didn’t stop Banky. He’d come up with a new scenario every so often. Complete with support from the text. But I’d always say no. Not in a cold “shoot first” way. I’d mull them over with him. But again, the compelling factor that would drive me to write it just did not exist. Banky seemed to agree each time. Even he admitted he'd been reaching. It would just be forcing it out.

That’s when Clara spoke up.
“Why are you TRYING to find a sequel to it?”
“Banky is, not me,” I said with a smile.
She then threw my protestations at me, pointing out that I’d go around asking people if they found a sequel in it. As if I wanted to find it…thou protest too much? Well, as I assured her, I can assure you, that adage doesn’t apply here. I really would like it to be self-contained. I’d ask people if they could continue it because I put effort into making it airtight other than the proverbial “leave them wanting more."

Clara, gladdened that I actually wanted a singular book, then expressed her displeasure at the sequel boom. If a book or movie is successful, BAM! there’s a sequel. Sure, it’s lucrative. But that’s a double edged sword. Is it always a good idea to create a sequel just to squeeze out more cash? No, of course not.

Now don’t get Clara wrong, she does see that in some cases a sequel is necessary. Or deserved. Or worthy. Or just happens. I pointed out The Chronicles of Narnia. C.S. Lewis didn’t know at first that there would be more. Whereas J.K. Rowling knew the arc of seven books in advance. Some stories expand.

But doesn’t it, just sometimes, seem like enough is enough? She's concerned that we're doing it "because we can." Art for profit, rather than profit from Art. Okay, as I type all this out, it no longer seems as profound as I once pretended it might be. Downright cliché. But if you could have heard the disdain and longing in Clara’s voice, maybe, just maybe, you’d be ponderous right now.

To cap this up, where did my intense wish that Midnight Chaser remain one book stem from? Being both the perpetrator and the victim of sequel crimes. I’ve wound up with a few series that I've set to finishing. And like Lewis, I had no idea there would be more to each book at the time. Yet like Clara, I felt overrun. But believe me, if the subsequent stories weren’t worth writing, I wouldn’t waste my time.

Sequels. A blessing AND a curse.

Hook-ed on Villains...

Penguin Group polled 600 readers as to the Top Ten Scariest Villains.
Sir J.M. Barrie’s Captain Hook made second. Not too shabby!
He falls just under Jadis the White Witch of C.S. Lewis.

What I find interesting is that both of them are known to behave sweetly occasionally. Yet the undercurrent of villainy remains, even ironically intensifies. Take this line from Barrie:

He was never more sinister than when he was most polite…

Quite a statement on “bad guys,” wouldn’t you say? I suppose it has to do with the deception. The ability to pretend to be nice. Knowing cruelty lurks beneath is somehow scarier than a villain who is constantly mean.

I have to wonder, though, about the last one on the list - Robert Louis Stevenson’s Long John Silver. Yes, he’s a nasty man. But by the same token, he can be quite caring. And not in the way that Hook or Jadis manifest. The complexity of Silver is one of the aspects of Treasure Island that makes it one of my favorite books. I don’t know that I would dub him a villain. I mean, he’s only after the treasure and will do anything in his power to get it. But is that so different from Squire Trelawney in the novel? Greed motivates all the characters, except, I would say, the main character Jim Hawkins. As far as I remember, he’s in it for the adventure. And his designs on the treasure are such that he’s interested in making a better life for his mother.

And I’ve mentioned it before, but I’ll mention it again. Long John Silver and Hook knew each other. The evidence is right there in the texts. (Plus, Stevenson and Barrie were great friends.)

Also notable is that Roald Dahl produced two baddies who made the list. As did the collected stories of the Brothers Grimm.

1 White Witch (The Chronicles of Narnia by C.S. Lewis – 1950)
2 Captain Hook (Peter Pan by J.M. Barrie – 1904)
3 The Grand High Witch (The Witches by Roald Dahl – 1983)
4 Wicked Stepmother (Snow White by Brothers Grimm – 1810)
5 Cruella De Vil (The Hundred and One Dalmatians by Dodie Smith – 1956)
6 Voldemort (Harry Potter Series by J.K. Rowling – 1997)
7 The Child Catcher (Chitty Chitty Bang Bang by Ian Fleming – from the 1968 film. Not the original book)
8 Miss Trunchbull (Matilda by Roald Dahl – 1988)
9 The Wolf (Little Red Riding Hood by Brothers Grimm – 1810)
10 Long John Silver (Treasure Island by Robert Louis Stevenson – 1883)

Good to see badness prevail!

Is there anyone you'd have put on this list instead?

A -bit- of a Drag...

I’ve begun reading a book I’ve had on my shelf for a long time. I bought it because upon hearing the premise, it stirred curiosity. I believe I had been reading one or more of The Chronicles of Chrestomanci by Diana Wynne Jones (author of Howl's Moving Castle) at the time. Eventually the book became one of the daily fixtures that barely get noticed.

But I recently read what is contained within the sequel to this book, which made me after all this time, reach for Here, There Be Dragons by James A. Owen. The story revolves around Jack, John and Charles who find themselves in possession of a magical book and thrust into an adventure into the Archipelago of Dreams to stop the Winter King. The twist is that these gentleman are none other than C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien and Charles Williams. It’s based on the fact that they were all Oxford men, so what if they all met, had a supernatural adventure and returned to write fantastic tales? Intriguing.

Even more intriguing is that I find myself reading another book that fictionalizes real people.

What I read that prompted me to pick it up, finally, is that reportedly J. M. Barrie and Peter Pan himself are in the next book, The Search for the Red Dragon. All right. Now I have to be involved in reading it.

First let me say that Barrie is already alluded to in this first novel: Jamie, who liked playacting in Kensington Gardens. Who else could it be?

I am not wholly impressed so far, but then I am not wholly disappointed either. There are some rather overused conventions coming together to make this tale occur. A stormy night, a mysterious stranger, a sudden upheaval into another world… Not that these elements can’t be used effectively. But here they seem a bit too contrived to create a fairy tale . Perhaps this is part of the goal. To make our own world feel and seem as if it could turn into a fairy tale at any given moment. A concept dear to my heart, as my profile indicates. But here it doesn’t yet feel cohesive. I’m too aware of the conventions. Maybe it just lacks atmosphere. Perhaps I would feel more immersed and willing if it did not go so quickly. Rapid action has its time and place, too, of course. But here these elements here just don’t seem to mesh.

Also, it’s a bit obvious where and how the story pieces from the three authors are woven into their adventure. For instance, the Winter King obviously becomes Jadis, the White Witch and Ruler of Narnia for a century. Forced, perhaps.

And then there is the, for me, gratuitous use of literary characters. For example, what should sail up and along to help them out in a dire situation at sea? Verne’s Nautilus, complete with Captain Nemo. He exists in the Archipeligo of Dreams because….well…anything can….actually, I’m not really sure. That aspect hasn’t fully explained to satisfaction.

But I am not disliking enough that I’m not turning pages. The premise is still fun. It may be too early to judge. I am only going into Chapter Six of Twenty-Four. A lot can happen in that time. I’ll see where it leads and get back to you.

Sound the Horn, Caspian!

Tonight Cassidy and Dragonfly will join Bart and I for a scrumptious Pan-Asian feast, after which we will be attending The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian. As can be guessed, I am very excited. Not only am I a Narnia fan, I am a fan of Andrew Adamson & his crew. Quite pleased with their adaptation of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, I am curious to see what they do with the plight of Caspian. Long ago I read their assessment of the novel and how they planned to tackle it. At first skepticism loomed as I read of their desire to include more action and other such touch ups. So I re-read the novel...and agreed. The book is primarily walking and talking. Coupled with their incredible job at punching up LWW without losing any of Lewis' story, I realized I should trust Adamson again. I cannot be the first to note this, but how fitting that Adam-son is so passionate and skilled at bringing the vision of Narnia to life. If you've read the books or saw LWW, you'll understand.
I'll be sure and let you know how I liked it.
Long live the Lion!

A Chronicle of a Regret

A literary regret of mine is not having read C.S. Lewis’ The Chronicles of Narnia as a child. I remember picking it up. I started with The Voyage of the Dawn Treader at the school library. Maybe because I knew it did not come first in the series, perhaps the language proved too thick for me at the time or I just didn’t click with it. I’m not sure. But it’s moot anyway, as I have read them many times since. I’m not going to gush about how much I enjoy them. But I will say that part of my regret is not having come across the philosophy of life, if you will, contained within The Last Battle. One that can only be fully grokked by experiencing the whole series. If I had been presented with these ideas as a child, I think I would be much better adjusted than I am now. I’m not suggesting that I’m maladjusted. I just know that its wisdom struck a chord with me and it would have been nice to have been hearing that music all this time. Before anyone attaches the Christian influence associated with the books let me say yes, allusions to spiritual icons and themes exist in the chronicles. Notice I did not specify. The philosophies I speak of are actually much more influenced by Eastern faiths. No matter what, the fact is it’s a grand adventure with much to say.

I must say that I am put off by the reordering of the books into a straight timeline. I prefer the published order. Here’s why: It’s my understanding that when Lewis wrote The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe he did not realize more stories would arise. He discovered as he wrote. My feeling is that reading them “in order” decreases the enjoyment of that discovery process. For me it’s more fun to let stories unfold the way they did for the author. But, you probably could have guessed.