| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| sidony |
Posted - May 18 2003 : 10:57:58 PM
Do you like the book or film more? I prefer the film. It's been ages since I've read the book, and I have no particular desire to repeat the experience, but I can watch the film ANY time!:) |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Lurking Huron2640 |
Posted - May 22 2004 : 8:25:18 PM
I found the following critique by Twain to very rough, but interesting:
Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offenses
by
Mark Twain
"The Pathfinder" and "The Deerslayer" stand at the head of Cooper's novels as artistic creations. There are others of his works which contain parts as perfect as are to be found in these, and scenes even more thrilling. Not one can be compared with either of them as a finished whole. The defects in both of these tales are comparatively slight. They were pure works of art.
-Professor Lounsbury
The five tales reveal an extraordinary fullness of invention. ... One of the very greatest characters in fiction, Natty Bumppo... The craft of the woodsman, the tricks of the trapper, all the delicate art of the forest were familiar to Cooper from his youth up.
-Professor Matthews
Cooper is the greatest artist in the domain of romantic fiction in America.
--Wilkie Collins
------------------------------------------------
It seems to me that it was far from right for the Professor of English Literature at Yale, the Professor of English Literature in Columbia, and Wilkie Collins to deliver opinions on Cooper's literature without having read some of it. It would have been much more decorous to keep silent and let persons talk who have read Cooper.
Cooper's art has some defects. In one place in "Deerslayer," and in the restricted space of two-thirds of a page, Cooper has scored 114 offenses against literary art out of a possible 115. It breaks the record.
There are nineteen rules governing literary art in domain of romantic fiction -- some say twenty-two. In "Deerslayer," Cooper violated eighteen of them. These eighteen require:
1. That a tale shall accomplish something and arrive somewhere. But the "Deerslayer" tale accomplishes nothing and arrives in air.
2. They require that the episodes in a tale shall be necessary parts of the tale, and shall help to develop it. But as the "Deerslayer" tale is not a tale, and accomplishes nothing and arrives nowhere, the episodes have no rightful place in the work, since there was nothing for them to develop.
3. They require that the personages in a tale shall be alive, except in the case of corpses, and that always the reader shall be able to tell the corpses from the others. But this detail has often been overlooked in the "Deerslayer" tale.
4. They require that the personages in a tale, both dead and alive, shall exhibit a sufficient excuse for being there. But this detail also has been overlooked in the "Deerslayer" tale.
5. The require that when the personages of a tale deal in conversation, the talk shall sound like human talk, and be talk such as human beings would be likely to talk in the given circomestances, and have a discoverable meaning, also a discoverable purpose, and a show of relevancy, and remain in the neighborhood of the subject at hand, and be interesting to the reader, and help out the tale, and stop when the people cannot think of anything more to say. But this requirement has been ignored from the beginning of the "Deerslayer" tale to the end of it.
6. They require that when the author describes the character of a personage in the tale, the conduct and conversation of that personage shall justify said description. But this law gets little or no attention in the "Deerslayer" tale, as Natty Bumppo's case will amply prove.
7. They require that when a personage talks like an illustrated, gilt-edged, tree-calf, hand-tooled, seven- dollar Friendship's Offering in the beginning of a paragraph, he shall not talk like a negro minstrel in the end of it. But this rule is flung down and danced upon in the "Deerslayer" tale.
8. They require that crass stupidities shall not be played upon the reader as "the craft of the woodsman, the delicate art of the forest," by either the author or the people in the tale. But this rule is persistently violated in the "Deerslayer" tale.
9. They require that the personages of a tale |
| Miss Munro |
Posted - May 06 2004 : 3:53:34 PM
I read the book few years before I saw the movie.It's so much different,but not in the bad way...
I like the movie more but I also like the book (I didn't like only the way it was writen,I mean the old fashioned way;litle bit too hard to read;I don't undrestand how they put it under childrens books category?!?)
I'm deffenetly going to read the book again some day...
So the book is good,but the movie is much better 
Hawkeye  Cora
|
| Kurt |
Posted - September 27 2003 : 08:30:06 AM
I prefer the book but I will admit there are a few tricks to make the reading more enjoyable.
When Mr. Cooper was writing, books were the only mass produced home entertainments. One trick is to approximate the time as much as possible. Shut off the TV and any other mechanical sound reproduction equipment. Mr. Cooper's writing will take all of your concentration.
Most books at the time were sold "by the chapter" to magazines. Don't expect to finish in one sitting (unless it's a long, long snowstorm).
Many times I will skip to and read the descriptions of the landscapes like the description of the Escapment Trail near North South Lake campground and launch into daydreams of my last visit or plans for the next time.
Just because life today is rush-rush-rush doesn't mean entertainments have to be also. |
| English Trader |
Posted - September 26 2003 : 7:57:38 PM
THAT IS SO EASY! The movie. I enjoyed the book for what it was, but Chatty Natty drove me bananas. How could someone who talked incessantly like that prompt a movie like LOTM? In the book, he came across to me as silly rather than sensitive, as confused rather than controlled, and as full of hot air rather than heroism.
YHOS,
English Trader
quote:
Originally posted by sidony
Do you like the book or film more? I prefer the film. It's been ages since I've read the book, and I have no particular desire to repeat the experience, but I can watch the film ANY time!:)
|
| wlogwihlas |
Posted - September 26 2003 : 10:50:41 AM
i prefer the movie due to the ideas it gives me as a reenactor. i like to see all the different outfits and paint jobs. sometimes i get ideas from the movie for my own clothing. the historical accuracy in the covie is pretty good compared to alot of the historical movies coming out these days. |
| susquesus |
Posted - September 26 2003 : 12:57:10 AM
Tough, I wouldn't have read the book if I hadn't seen the film. And of the books it's not even my favorite, I liked Deerslayer, Pathfinder, and Prairie more than LOTM. It could have never happened but maybe in some parallel universe Michael Mann made a four hour version of the film that included the rest of the storyline. There's some sweet action not in the film, Hawkeye, Chingachgook, and Uncas tracking Magua all the way into Canada, Chingachgook re-united with the Delawares, Uncas bare-chested in paint sporting the tattoo on his chest striking the war post and leading a fierce Delaware war party against Magua. It's great to see Uncas take on the mantle of war captain, he's fierce and magnificent. There is some excellent ACTION in that book. Of course our short attention spans would have never allowed it and Mann's adrenaline pumping style might not have worked so well in a longer format. |
| Lurking Huron2924 |
Posted - June 01 2003 : 10:13:29 PM
Cooper is very hard to read. The Spy for instance was exciting for its day but today is dry as a bone in most parts as Cooper continues to drone on and on never completing the sentence at an opportune time the way I have done now. He repeats himself often too. He often repeats himself. For instance, in the Deerslayer, he often repeats himself.
|
| Scott Bubar |
Posted - May 28 2003 : 8:44:43 PM
WarAngel! That takes me back.
Adrian's been out of the closet, so to speak, for years now.
Then he outed everyone else by imposing a real name rule on the forum. |
| daire |
Posted - May 28 2003 : 09:26:52 AM
AH! WarAngel's site...I'm acquainted with the "Exclusive Pictures". LOL Thanks for the links! |
| Scott Bubar |
Posted - May 27 2003 : 10:35:25 PM
Daire, this is the "root" of Sword Forum: Sword Forum International.
However, it's virtually impossible to get from there to the forums without registering, so if you want to peek go to: Forums.
Here's the acorn from which it grew: Highlander Shopper's Guide. |
| daire |
Posted - May 27 2003 : 12:11:33 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Bubar
Daire, I notice you seem to be a Highlander fan. Are you familiar with Sword Forum? It started out a few years ago as a Highlander forum, but is much more than that now.
Oh, I'm a HL fan.  I've heard of the Sword Forum, and may have been there once upon a time. I don't think I have it bookmarked though. I usually hang around the Holyground forum set up by fans when the official site was closed.
If you've got the URL, I'd love to check it out. 
|
| Scott Bubar |
Posted - May 24 2003 : 05:06:23 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Wilderness Woman
[quote]Originally posted by Scott Bubar
... I think I get the gist of what you are saying, but can I pull a "Huggy" here... and ask for clarification? Perhaps "elaboration" would be a better word, especially on the phrase "a reflection of 1990's America."
Hmmmmmmm.....
Wilderness Woman, I wrote a thoughtful and witty post yesterday in response to this, in which I neatly avoided actually answering your question.
Unfortunately, I don't see it here. Perhaps I neglect to hit that final "Post" button?
I'm just making my insomnia rounds at the moment, but if I find I have a surfeit of mental energy sometime this weekend, I'll give it another crack. |
| Scott Bubar |
Posted - May 24 2003 : 04:56:18 AM
I haven't had much time for reading myself the last few years.
But the funny thing is, when there's something I really want to read, I seem to find the time.
I'm not big on vampires, but I loved Rice's Feast of All Saints.
Daire, I notice you seem to be a Highlander fan. Are you familiar with Sword Forum? It started out a few years ago as a Highlander forum, but is much more than that now. |
| daire |
Posted - May 23 2003 : 7:57:01 PM
True, but we're also able to see what's described quicker ... what can take 2 pages to describe we can see in a few seconds. :) I get antsy with books bogged down in description, they just seem to drag.
I don't usually read books *after* I've seen a movie, but I recently (last 6 months or so) read the LOTR books and The Hobbit. Usually, because I like seeing the characters and surroundings in my mind's eye. I've read the Outlander series by Diana Gabaldon and have such a clear picture of everything, I don't WANT them to make a TV miniseries (there was an option bought) and a casting director telling me what THEIR version of the characters look like. All these years I've heard the LOTR title, but never much about them...I knew there were Hobbits that were smaller than normal people, Gandalf, and a ring (and yet, somehow managed to figure out what the trailer was for before they said what it was lol). The Hobbit didn't do much for me, to tell the truth, and the others were good, though I kept seeing the movie versions because that's what has been put in my head. And the movies have been fairly close to the books, though things are left out, probably for time even though they are already 3 hours+. You'll probably miss a lot if you catch it on tv, more if it's network. There is an extra 45 minutes(?) on the extended version of FOTR.
Basically, in this fast paced world of hours...movies are quicker than a book. Doesn't mean that I don't read...I love reading. Just not when I have to trudge through the prose. Like Anne Rice... *Oy*
|
| Scott Bubar |
Posted - May 22 2003 : 7:54:29 PM
quote:
Originally posted by daire
... We have tv now that shows us what books describe, so I think we are a bit spoiled in that area. ...
For me, TV, or even a movie puts limits on what you can do with a story. A good book, or even a not-so-good one is more interactive, in the sense that you have to bring something to it. The flesh and bones, color, images, intonations, sounds, are more of your own creation.
For instance, when I was young I loved the Tolkien books. It was like entering my own world. I've resisted going to see the recent popular and acclaimed Lord of The Rings Movies. By all accounts, they're fairly "true" to the books, so my concern isn't that they took liberties with Tolkien. But "my" Middle Earth wasn't just Tolkien's, and I've seen enough to know that the movies don't come close to how I saw it. I also revisited "The Hobbit" a few years ago when I thought my son was old enough to hear the story. It wasn't the same. No magic. I believe my son has since found some of the magic on his own. I bought him the books, and he's seen the first movie.
I'm content to let my Middle Earth live where it belongs--a happy memory. But I suppose one of these days I'll relent and watch the movie when it comes around on TV. |
| daire |
Posted - May 22 2003 : 5:55:09 PM
Film. I couldn't get past page 5 of the book when I tried. I know some differences between the two, but I can watch the movie quicker than read the book. heh heh Don't get me wrong, I love to read, but not when I have to reread pages. Perhaps if I'd lived when it came out, I would have been able to read it. lol We have tv now that shows us what books describe, so I think we are a bit spoiled in that area. :)
|
| CT•Ranger |
Posted - May 21 2003 : 10:26:35 AM
"I believe Mann followed the plot-line of the book fairly closely, but has altered the characterization and spirit to the point where the film is truly a reflection of 1990's America filtered through his perception, just as the book was a reflection of 1820's America filtered through Cooper's perception."
Scott, as a trained historian and archaeologist I must say you hit it right on. In fact all history is altered by the viewer's perception. We can dig up all the straight facts we want, but the way we put these facts together as narrative, as history, is directly affected by our perception as 21st century peoples. This applies not only to the historian, but also to the author writing about fictional events in a historical setting. Cooper's writing was a direct reflection of his 1820s perception of what women's roles were, who Indians where, who the ideal American hero was, what was important about the American landscape, etc. The differences between the novel and the film, is the difference between how Cooper in 1820s America viewed 1757 with his values and understanding, and how Mann and his 1990s understanding and values viewed 1757.
I really enjoyed reading Cooper. I read LOTM when I was in 8th graade, then in high school read The Deerslayer and The Pathfinder. I also read one of Cooper's first novels written before the "Leatherstocking tales", The Spy, about an American spy in New York during the Revolution. There were several things about the plot in Cooper's LOTM which I liked better than the film. |
| Wilderness Woman |
Posted - May 21 2003 : 08:08:37 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Bubar
I believe Mann... has altered the characterization and spirit to the point where the film is truly a reflection of 1990's America filtered through his perception, just as the book was a reflection of 1820's America filtered through Cooper's perception.
Hmmmmmm..... Scott, you really got me a'thinkin on that one! 
I think I get the gist of what you are saying, but can I pull a "Huggy" here... and ask for clarification? Perhaps "elaboration" would be a better word, especially on the phrase "a reflection of 1990's America."
Hmmmmmmm..... |
| richfed |
Posted - May 21 2003 : 06:00:45 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Bubar
Rich pointed out on another thread here that Mann based the film more on the 1936 film version than the book.
Actually, IIRC, he stated somewhere that he based the film on his memories of the '36 film, which were his earliest film memories. (Though I'm sure he had the script and film itself to 'refresh' his memory.)
Scott, he might have been inspired to do the project by his memories, but he actually purchased the rights to that film - and that becomes obvious if one compares the two ...
One thing to remember, obviously, when discussing "book or film". Without the book, there is no film ... |
| Pen |
Posted - May 21 2003 : 12:15:53 AM
I tried to read LOTM recently, but just couldn't get into it at the time. You're right, Scott--you do have to be in the mood for it. I also found, because the style is um...antiquated, for lack of a better word right now , that I had to really concentrate on the material. I'll try again when things aren't so stressful for me.
On a lighter note, I think it was part of the Leatherstocking Tales that I read back in high school American Lit class. It was weird being the only person on campus who could pronounce the name 'Chingachgook'. Everytime we came to the name, the teacher would point at me to have me say it  !
Pen |
| Scott Bubar |
Posted - May 20 2003 : 10:04:53 PM
Rich pointed out on another thread here that Mann based the film more on the 1936 film version than the book.
Actually, IIRC, he stated somewhere that he based the film on his memories of the '36 film, which were his earliest film memories. (Though I'm sure he had the script and film itself to 'refresh' his memory.)
I read the book, along with the rest of the Leatherstocking Tales quite a ways back (25-30 years ago, I think), and enjoyed them greatly. I've considered re-reading at least LOTM, and have gone to some of the tales a few times for references, but I think I would have to have a lot of time on my hands before I did any extensive re-reads. Ya really've got to be in the mood!
I believe Mann followed the plot-line of the book fairly closely, but has altered the characterization and spirit to the point where the film is truly a reflection of 1990's America filtered through his perception, just as the book was a reflection of 1820's America filtered through Cooper's perception.
|
| Karen W |
Posted - May 20 2003 : 7:20:15 PM
I have to agree with Ellie about this. I really did love the book (and I know I'm in the minority here!), but obviously I also love the movie. I just don't think you can really compare them as the movie is so different from the book. I liked all of the Leatherstocking books and have actually read LOTM twice since first seeing the movie about 4 years ago! Karen
|
| Ellie |
Posted - May 20 2003 : 07:30:30 AM
I think in a lot cases you have to seperate the book and the film and not compare them. If the film was accurate to the book, I dont think it would have worked as well, when making a film from a book you need to use your own artistic interpretation of how you see the stroy working on film and adjust it to work on screen as they are such different genres.
One of my favourite books, The Horse Whisperer is interpreted very differently by the film made by Robert Redford, however I love the film as much as I love the book and I understand that it would have been impossible to stay true to the book completely as it would not have worked, plus the film would need to be about 6 hours long and very boring in places.
|
| Scott Bubar |
Posted - May 20 2003 : 07:02:54 AM
Don't knock old guys, LH8169, there's a lot to be said for them. ;) |
| Lurking Huron8169 |
Posted - May 20 2003 : 12:36:22 AM
Its all about the book! It was hard as hell to read but it was worth it. The most important part was when Cora begged the chief to let her sister go in peace b/c "she is fair." I was not a hawkeye fan in the novel. I fact he was just this old guy while Uncas was the strong warrior who fell in love with Cora. I say that the novel makes more sense. The film is fun to watch. |
|
![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]")
