14th July 2010, 7:32 PM
I can't say much about Twain beyond Tom Sawyer, Huck Finn, and Connecticut Yankee, I really have never much liked 19th century fiction... or most of the books, plays, short stories, whatever that you read in English class, really. Probably the best books I can remember reading in high school English classes were 1984 and Brave New World... both sci-fi. :)
As for Connecticut Yankee, it really is quite good. That book is the originator of the entire "person from the present gets sent back to the past" genre, as far as I know -- if there were any such stories before it, I don't know about them. That plotline has of course since then become one of the most cliche of fantasy-story cliches, but even considering that, Connecticut Yankee is original and different first because of how great a writer Twain is and second because the story doesn't go the way you "expect" it to going by modern "person from today goes to the past" stories... Really, it's more like the more recent subgenre that includes books like the series that includes "Against the Tide of Years" and "On the Oceans of Eternity" that I forget the name of offhand, or the 1632 series -- stories with no magic aside from whatever sent the people into the past, and, in the modern ones particularly, a real attempt for historical accuracy in the places they go (I really love both of the serieses I just mentioned, they're just fantastic... though the 1632 universe particularly really is written for people who love both history and political history. They're fantastic books and stories which I love, but I'm sure some people won't like the degree of detail they go into...).
The Connecticut Yankee isn't quite like those, it is going to King Arthur's court after all, but ... well, it's not the Mallory version of King Arthur (On that note, Mallory's Morte 'd Artur is a great book, read that one in highschool and really liked it -- though of course the Middle Ages have always fascinated me)... but I won't spoil anything. :)
The Lord of the Rings movies expanded the roles of several of the major female characters, the 2000s Battlestar Galactica series changed one (or more?) of the major characters from female to male to better balance the genders, etc... that's something that's often done now. Is it less accurate? Yes. If you're making a movie which is actually trying for real accuracy to the original story, don't do it. But if you're making a modern adaptation, I think it's a good idea... it compensates for the biases of the writers, hopefully without hurting the story. That, of course, depends on how good the adaptation is, which is a different issue.
As for Connecticut Yankee, it really is quite good. That book is the originator of the entire "person from the present gets sent back to the past" genre, as far as I know -- if there were any such stories before it, I don't know about them. That plotline has of course since then become one of the most cliche of fantasy-story cliches, but even considering that, Connecticut Yankee is original and different first because of how great a writer Twain is and second because the story doesn't go the way you "expect" it to going by modern "person from today goes to the past" stories... Really, it's more like the more recent subgenre that includes books like the series that includes "Against the Tide of Years" and "On the Oceans of Eternity" that I forget the name of offhand, or the 1632 series -- stories with no magic aside from whatever sent the people into the past, and, in the modern ones particularly, a real attempt for historical accuracy in the places they go (I really love both of the serieses I just mentioned, they're just fantastic... though the 1632 universe particularly really is written for people who love both history and political history. They're fantastic books and stories which I love, but I'm sure some people won't like the degree of detail they go into...).
The Connecticut Yankee isn't quite like those, it is going to King Arthur's court after all, but ... well, it's not the Mallory version of King Arthur (On that note, Mallory's Morte 'd Artur is a great book, read that one in highschool and really liked it -- though of course the Middle Ages have always fascinated me)... but I won't spoil anything. :)
Quote:I wouldn't have minded a female character (but the point you bring out is a good one), it was just... so... cheesy. Did they have to add that completely pointless subplot? I probably wouldn't have even minded if it was well done, if the characters were fleshed out and interesting, not just Arronax's daughter saying "oh golly gee I'm in love with Ned but Nemo's in charge and he wants me and I don't want him what do I do ". Ugh.
The Lord of the Rings movies expanded the roles of several of the major female characters, the 2000s Battlestar Galactica series changed one (or more?) of the major characters from female to male to better balance the genders, etc... that's something that's often done now. Is it less accurate? Yes. If you're making a movie which is actually trying for real accuracy to the original story, don't do it. But if you're making a modern adaptation, I think it's a good idea... it compensates for the biases of the writers, hopefully without hurting the story. That, of course, depends on how good the adaptation is, which is a different issue.