Anime, Fantasy, etc...

I took the liberty of copying most of the last two Anime comments here to start it off.

Comments

[Glimmung]

Meant to toss in my ¢.02 here. Sure, Jennifer Garner strains my incredulity. But so does 95% of everything else I see on TV or at the movies. Why single her out?

Speaking of fantasy battles, apparently there's a Predator vs Alien movie in the works. With Mothra as special guest referee, no doubt.

[Gryka]

Glimmung's right on the money. I just wanted to add this: how come Jaws status as a man is not questionable and Agata's status as a woman is?

BTW, Chen Xiaomin, quite the cutie in the weightlifting world, is probably the size of Jennifer Garner, OK, a "bit" heavier, and she jerks 290 lbs (see her picture next to Agata's). I'd feel much safer with Chen walking me home than with Ahnuld. Eeeek! Esthetic dissonance! Please take that last image away, please!

And speaking of Agata – she's also a published poet. Is it possible for a poet to beat up on her partner? Probably, but very unlikely... Having that settled – she can walk me home anytime she wants to... :^)

So, what does make a woman? Any volunteers? ;^)

[michael]

No, Jaws is not a guy, he's a cyborg, Gryka! Just like the Terminator. That's why it would be interesting to see them pitted against each other. That could be fun. Lots of broken down walls! :D) I actually thought about Alien vs. Predator too, Glimmung.

Most girls didn't really fight (physically) in their lives - not seriously with a guy anyway, so when you see them kicking some big guys on the screen it's just not very credible. When you see a guy fighting you are more prone to believe he can handle the other guy (I'm not talking about legions of attackers), because it is more possible that he had some "battle experience". There is also the matter of strength. On average guys are stronger so the odds are more even. Not that I mind watching gals giving the badguys their comeuppance. I know it's just make-believe and that's fine with me. Chuck Norris in Texas Ranger btw also falls into the category of make-believe. Then there is Kelly Hu, Michelle Yeoh... both definitely feminine AND great fighters.

As for Agata, I just judged her looks and she looks like a macho guy to me. She can be the most pleasant and sensitive person in the world but I doubt she qualifies as most guys' dreamgirl or the embodiment of femininity.

I don't actually know what exactly my definition of femininity would be. I don't have a mental model of the essence of womanhood. I guess a woman should be herself. The same goes for guys, doesn't it? I know that's vague but everyone is different, so you can't use a yardstick approach. I can just tell if a girl is pretty or not imo and that's all. That said I think men and women are different not only physically, which is obvious, but psychologically as well. Why would the differences stop at the most visible, physical level, right? I don't think the differences in behavior are just culturally determined. It's not a matter of one part of the human race being better than the other, I'm not a covert misogynist, but just being different. How different - that is another, large topic. So I guess we should look for the answer to your question, Gryka, in biology, neurology and psychology. What would your definition of femininity be, Gryka?

[Yeti]

Wait a minute.

Jaws is not a cyborg. Remember in Moonraker when the "bad man" (I forget his name) is up on the space station and Bond goes into his discussion about how anyone who is not genetically perfect would be eliminated. At which point, Jaws decides to help Bond escape and destroy the "laser". Jaws then escapes with some short chicky in an escape module.
So I don't think he's a cyborg. (I'm not exactly an officionado of James Bond, so if someone out there knows for sure, feel free to enlighten me!)

I always wanted to look like Jaws. I'd bet he gets all the women off-camera.

Now, what is womanhood? Well, I'm with Micheal. You can't use a yardstick because every person is different. However, I would also argue that there are certain trends among women and men. As Micheal could no doubt tell you better than me, boys and girls develop differently as they grow, with a majority of boys tending towards "tinkering" with toy cars or blocks, and girls imagining fantasy characters in the form of dolls. Girls are generally more emotional than men, and can therefore better relate to people and understand the subtlety of human behavior better than men. Most girls, however, tend to be less mechanically inclined. It's uncommon to see a woman mechanic. Some of that is environmental/society, but I think there's a certain amount of basic gender differences too.

As for my own opinion? Well, let me qualify this, as Michal did, by saying that there is no absolute definition of womanhood. (Belive me, if I understood women, I'd be a millionare for all the advice I could give to the rest of us men.) However, some characteristics of womanhood as I see them would be a woman who is intelligent, sensitive, motherly, imaginitive, and sentimental. I also think some important femenine charactheristics are being polite, and being self-controlled. But that's just me.

A muscle-bound woman hefting barbells over her head is not feminine. A woman bent over a giant beer-ball barfing at a college party is not femenine. A woman operating a jack-hammer on a dirty construction site --- not femenine. That's not to say they aren't "women", they just aren't "femenine". And, a woman kicking a huge guy in the groin and then shoving him through a glass window -- again, not femenine, but good TV.

Yeah, Gryka, what's YOUR definition of womanhood?

[Gryka]

Wow!

Well, Yeti and Michael, my definition of femininity: it's the quality of a person whose sexual organs are those of the female. I don't mean to minimize the importance of gender, but hey, the reason I don't beat up on people is not that I'm lacking a p... (can I say it out loud, Glimmung?), but rather because I'm a geek.

The bottom line is that whatever I do is feminine simply because I'm a female. Of course I realize that having defined it that way femininity means nothing. The bottom line: it means nothing. It's another of those constructs under which we hide our prejudices and biases. Of course we have to dress them up first in some psychologically or biologically justifiable "reasons". And the more "reasons" I hear, one phrase keeps ringing louder and louder in my head: "equal but separate".

Michael, I was teasing you when I posted Agata's picture, although, I admire her a lot. It takes a big person – in more than one way – to challenge preconceptions of such conservative and close-minded society as Polish society. Perhaps I'm idealizing her because I know her as a poet. Yet, the girl has guts. She's not a sports icon as the Polish ski jumper Adam Malysz, who can easily rival her in his ugliness and represents equally obscure sport. However, unlike him she doesn't get to do TV commercials, in fact, she's considered an unnatural phenomenon. Poles are not proud of her. When she started winning I visited many Polish internet forums to see what people were saying: and most were saying, unsurprisingly, that she wasn't a woman any longer... Oh well, it's not the first time that my countrymen disappointed me.

Again, I would stress lot more the unexamined cultural gender differences over the physiological or biological ones, which, even if they truly exist, don't yield themselves to any legitimate generalizations. Just look at the young generation today – the word "effeminate" has very positive meaning to them. We are slowly going back to the beginnings when we recognized four genders and those often changed for the individual depending on the age and role they played at the moment in their society.

Let me ask you guys something else: think of your partner, present or past, who really mattered in your life: someone without whom you'd be a lesser person than you are today. Knowing what you know today, would you notice them that day when you saw them for the first time, if they were different gender? Don't answer that... Just tell me what you would have lost if your answer is a definite NO.

P.S: I'm sure Glimmung will know this – as he is all knowing ;^) – what was the title of Delany's sci-fi novel about a man who couldn't exist fully in his society because of his height (people who were tall were considered stupid), which led him to slavery and accidentally waking up hundreds years later in a totally new reality where he’s praised for wisdom. There were stars in my pocket or something like that in the title... Anyway, in the same novel there is an unusual definition of gender, something that really appealed to me. Apparently in that futuristic society one was a male or female depending on a role that one played in the current sexual encounter. BTW, we are not PG here, I can speak of works that are for adults only, right?

[Glimmung]

The only Delany I ever read was Babel-17. I started Dhalgren and gave up.

[ruefully discards acoutrements marked "all knowing" and slinks off to corner of forum]

[Glimmung]

I have to say, the second part of your description sounds like LeGuin's Left Hand of Darkness. (Which I liked, but not nearly as much as Lathe of Heaven or The Dispossessed.)

On the topic of gender, Glimmung hereby assigns as homework the collected stories of James Tiptree Jr. Tiptree wrote many superb, provocative, award-winning stories, but no one but author/editor Fredrik Pohl had ever met him. Many agreed with a noted sf author who remarked on the ineffable masculinity of Tiptree's writing, recalling that of Hemingway.

No doubt you can guess the punchline, if you didn't already know. Tiptree was a woman. She both preferred anonymity, and, knowing the public's biases, wanted the stories to be experienced by readers without the baggage accompanying their coming from a "female" author.

I agree that there are no clear lines to be drawn around the qualities "feminine" and "masculine". Where does genetics leave off and imposed societal expectation take over? Even physically, things are sometimes unclear. Some babies are born in that gray area between gender, and the parents must make a choice of whether to raise it as Him or Her.

What's feminine? Gryka's tautology is as good an answer as you'll get. Alternatively, feminine is what ever you think it is. You know it when you see it, but I may not agree with you.

I do find something off-putting about massively muscled women, but muscles alone do not equal "unfeminine" in my mind. I react the same way to similar male specimens. I guess there's a mental connection with the primitive reliance on strength, which I hate, and wish humankind could shed. Strength can be misused so casually and so horribly - by individuals or nations.

And yes, we are adults here, Gryka. So, penis. Penis penis. Anyone remember the SNL skit (early 90's) which was basically an excuse to say "penis" as many times as possible?

[michael]

As far as I can recall James Tiptree Jr.'s real name was Alice Sheldon. Wasn't she in some secret services? I think she decided with her husband to end their lives - I don't know whether because they were getting old or sick or something - and she first shot her husband and then herself. I'm not sure that's exactly how it went down... it was so long ago that i've read about that.

Anyway I've read her "Houston, Houston" in highschool and there is this one story I loved about aliens getting rid of humans from the surface of Earth by turning all men into killers of women. The history is told from the viewpoint of the last surviving woman. That was an incredible story! The Polish title of that story would translate into English "The method for erradicating flies". Do you know Glimmung, what story I'm reffering to?

Gryka, I'm certainly not covering any prejudices, when I say that I believe that men and women are equal but different. It is a simple observation. We have different physiologies and this determines who we are - including our psychology. Psychology is the emergent property of our physiology after all. I think that saying that the differences between men and women stop at the most obvious, reproductive level, is a politically correct and unscientific outgrowth of the myth that body and mind are separate. I can understand why this tendency to deny the differences exist - after all, men for centuries treated women like second class citiziens and told them what they are and what they are supposed to do in life, so no wonder women have a bad reaction to anything that remotely smacks of that attitude but I can assure you, Gryka, that I'm not trying to reenforce unhealthy stereotypes. The problem, as already stated, is to determine what we think about those differences is culturally biased and what is biologically defined.

Yeti, I doubt being sentimental is a good way to define femininity. Sentimentality is hypocritical. Are "real women" sweet little hypocrites? Nah. Real women are well... real.

I haven't watched that SNL but, returning to Jennifer Garner, I just loved the very abstract and funny "Wal-mart" skit on SNL.

[Glimmung]

Michael,

You have that exactly right as near as I can recall. I don't recall the second story you describe, but I do remember "Houston, Houston, Do You Read". I also fondly recall "The Women Men Don't See" and "The Psychologist Who Refused to Do Awful Things to Rats". Also her contribution to Harlan Ellison's Dangerous Visions project "The Milk of Paradise". I love Ellison, btw.

[Glimmung]

Back to Tolkien for a minute.

Here is a FOTR review that I largely agreed with.

Now that I have seen FOTR some dozen times, and the extended version about three times, the movie has started to assume its own concretized identity in my mind. This has allowed me to view it with more generosity, and enabled me to separate it from Tolkien's work to a greater extent. And the extended version does repair the Lorien/Galadriel sequence noticeably.

Here is what I wrote to my nephew at the time:

I agree that many of the failures are only solvable thru added running time. But, I also agree that there was too much time spent showing off special effects which could have been devoted to plot exposition and character development. I know we’ve been over some of these before, this particular essay served as a forceful, eloquent reminder. My list, in no particular order:

- Merry/Pippin. It’s often remarked that, in the film, they were nothing more than a bit of interchangeable comic relief. When reading LOTR, they are rarely more than that until you reach TTT and ROTK. It’s the extended bits in the Shire which give them what little depth they have, and establish why they would ever wish to share this dangerous journey with Frodo, and why he would accept them. Recall, they knew about the ring from having seen Bilbo use it to avoid Lobelia, and they were the ones who set Sam to spying on Frodo. This background is completely absent from the film, which makes it seem that they just happened to run into Frodo and Sam as they fled.

- Gratuitous Special Effects. The reviewer mentions the cave troll and the crumbling staircase (did Jackson put that scene in just so he could use the funny-on-the-surface but ultimately stupid line about dwarf-tossing? It’s a terrible mistake to litter these movies with pop-culture references). I’ll add: the orcs swarming up and down pillars as if they all had sticky pads instead of hands & feet, the whole Galadriel-morphing thing, the orc birthing pods, the wizard-battle.

- Recognizing the passage of time. We have no sense that nearly 20 years separate the Party from the Flight. That several days separate Hobbiton from Bree. That many weeks separate Bree from Rivendell, Rivendell from Caradhras, Lorien from Rauros. That almost a month was spent in Lorien.

- Council of Elrond. What a lost opportunity for backstory and character development. Balin and Moria (and the dwarf-rings), Gollum and the Wood-elves, Faramir and Boromir’s dream. This last one was as crucial an omittance as anything in FOTR, IMHO. It sets up Aragorn vs Boromir, Boromir vs Faramir, accounts for Boromir’s very presence, is crucial when Frodo meets Faramir.

- Galadriel. Sheesh, where to start? Jackson seems to have done a bunch of his trimming in Lorien, so perhaps the DVD will help a bit. Mistake to have her always speaking in such mysterious, inflected tones. Mistake to have her morph into a whatever-the-hell-that-was and distort her voice (Darth Galadriel?) during the mirror scene. Mistake to remove Sam from that scene. If (as some have said) Elrond was too prosaic, Galadriel was way too far to the other extreme - perhaps my biggest disappointment.

- Gimli/Legolas. No quarrel with casting or appearance, but (see above) who are they? Where did they come from? Why were they at Rivendell? Why do they distrust each other? See book for answers - you’ll get none in this movie.

- Aragorn. Too much of a self-doubting wuss at times, but overall pretty good. BTW, several reviewers have singled out his “Let’s hunt some orc” line for special condemnation. Didn’t bother me, but wish it had been “orcs” - no hint in the books that “orc” is plural, so the phrasing may have struck some as modern/slangy. When Aragorn meets Eomer, he says “I am hunting orcs.”

- Frodo. See review. Maybe he’ll display some guts in TTT/ROTK

- Sam - pretty good.

- Gandalf and Boromir. The two most fully realized performances. Boromir’s sacrifice and redemption was one of the strongest events in the book, and was beautifully portrayed in the film.

I hope Jackson will have read the criticisms, and will take them to heart. The next two can be even better than the first. Trust Tolkien’s dialog and plot choices, trust the audience...

And Glimmette said:

While I agree with most of what the writer has to say (especially the part about Frodo, whose shrinking and whimpering did grow tiresome), I'm not as angry about it as he appears to be. I do find myself wishing I could ask Jackson "Why oh why did you . . . ?” But in most cases I already know the answer.

The movie is not the book. No cinematic experience (even a nine-hour one) could have the same effect the book had on us. I plan to keep the two experiences separate.

But here's the rub: What I think bothers fans is the seeming misrepresentation of something we love. To us, it's not just another book. When you hand the trilogy to a friend, you're saying "This is a part of who I am." We want others to value it as we do-- and for the same reasons, goddammit! The "you're not REALLY seeing it until you see it the way I see it" mentality is especially rampant among people who have claimed "ownership" of something even slightly esoteric. So here's another real truth: we don't even WANT to let just anyone into "the club."

Alas, viewers of this movie will have a somewhat distorted image of Tolkien's work. But this is hardly a philosophical "wrong" and impedes not one iota my enjoyment of the trilogy. If I'm honest, that is, and resist the urge to pooh-pooh the masses who enjoyed the movie and now think they've "experienced" Tolkien. My ego does not require that I set them straight.

But Peter, why oh why did you . . . ?

I will say again that upon repeated viewings the intrusive score becomes more of an irritant, not less.

I expected better from the director of Heavenly Creatures. But overall, it is still a remarkable achievement. Count our blessings - coulda been James Cameron!

[Glimmung]

I found an index to the various LOTR parodies. I still recommend scrolling through the straightdope threads, but this is quicker if you want to read one in particular.

I found this one to be brilliantly done and deeply touching.

"Flowers for Sméagol" by Daniel Keyes

by Topcat

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

3d progris riport

martch 5 -- Mr Gandalf and Mr Elrond say it dont matter about the writin on the ring. I tolld them i dint carv the words in it and I coudnt see anything on it. They said maybe they will still use me. I told Mr Gandalf that Bilbo never gave me tests like that only riting and reeding. He said Bilbo tolld him I was his bestist pupil in the Baggins family of retarded hobbits and I tryed the hardist becaus I reely wantd to quest I wantid it more even then hobbits who are smarter even then me.

Mr Gandalf askd me how come you want to go to Mordor all by youyrself Frodo. How did you find out about it. I said I dont remembir.

June 20 -- Perhaps I should have waited before going to see Bilbo; or not have gone to see him at all. I don't know. Nothing turns out the way I expect it to. With the clue that Bilbo had gone to Rivendell to finish his book, it was a simple matter to find him.

How could I tell him? What was I supposed to say? Here, look at me, I'm Frodo, the nephew to whom you left the One Ring? Not that I blame you for it, but here I am, all fixed up better than ever. Test me. Ask me questions. I speak twenty languages, living and dead; I'm a tactical whiz and I'm planning a stealthy invasion into Mordor that will make Middle Earth remember me long after I'm gone.

How could I tell him?

I wasn't his nephew. That was another Frodo. The Power of the Ring had changed me, and he would resent me - as some others from the Fellowship resented me - because my growth diminished him. I didn't want that.

June 29 -- Before I go back to Hobbiton I'm going to finish the projects I've started since I left the Cracks of Doom. I visited the New Age of Man Institute for Advanced Study, about the possibility of utilizing the pair-production nuclear photoeffect for exploratory work in biophysics. At first he thought I was a crackpot wizard, but after I pointed out the flaws in some of his older scrolls he asked me to come back to the Institute to discuss my ideas with his Council. I might take him up on that after I've finished my work at the lab -- if there is time. That's the problem, of course. I don't know how much time I have. A month? A year? The rest of my life? That depends on what I find out about the psychophysical side-effects of bearing the One Ring.

Nov 18 -- prof Elrond was very nice when I came back to Rivendell. Frist he was very suspicius but I told him what happened to me and then he looked very sad and put his hand on my shoulder and said Frodo you got guts.

Evrybody looked at me when I walked into the room and started working in the chamber pot sweeping it out like I used to do. I said to myself Frodo if they make fun of you dont get sore because you remember their not so smart like you once thot they were. And besides they were once your frends and if they laffed at you that dont mean anything because they liked you to.

Nov 21 -- I did a dumb thing today I forgot I wasnt in the Felloship any more like I used to be. I went in and sat down in my old seat in the circle and he lookd at me funny and he said Frodo what are you doing. So I said hello Mr. Elrond Im redy for our talk today only I lossed the ring we was using.

Mr Gandalf started to cry and run our of the group and everbody looked at me and I saw alot of them wasnt the same pepul who used to be in my Felloship.

Then all of a suddin I remembird some things about the Cracks of Dum and me getting smart and I said holy smoke I reely pulled a Frodo Baggins that time. I went away before he came back.

Thats why im going away from here for good to the Gray Havens. I dont want to do nothing like that agen. I dont want Mr Gandalf to feel sorry for me. I know evrybody feels sorry for me back in the Shire and I dont want that eather so Im going someplace where there are a lot of other litl pepul like me and nobody cared that Frodo Baggins was once a ringberer and now he cant even reed a book or rite good.

Anyway I bet im the frist dumb person in the world who did something inportent for Middle Erth. I did somthing but I dont remembir what. So I gess its like I did it for all the dumb litl pepul like me in the Shire and allover the world.

Goodby Mr Gandalf and Samwise and evrybody...

P.S. please tel Sauron not to be such a grouch when pepul take his stuff and he woud have more frends. Its easy to have frends if you let pepul share your stuff. Im going to have lots of frends where I go.

P.S. please if you get a chanse put some flowrs on Smeagols memoreal in the bak yard.

Here are some general thoughts about film adaptations that I have picked up from several books. This is not necessarily about LOTR but some things will apply.

I would just like to ask this: what if a director has an idea that was actually better than the one in the book (even if only in his/her own opinion) or one that would convey the same message in a more film-friendly manner? Should the director still hold on to the book? Is textual fidelity the most important criterion of the adaptation's worth? What criteria should be used to decide whether the filmmaker can depart from the novel? The matter is much more complicated than you probably ever imagined.

The book Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove" is based on is a completely serious story, yet Kubrick turned it into a satire. Why? Because he thought people would "swallow" the message better in that form. Was he right? I think he was and the author, from what I understand, agreed with him.

About the staircase sequence in "The Fellowship": Jackson did it inspired by the incredible drawings he got from Alan Lee. It wasn't about dwarf tossing. I think the stairs were beautiful. They reminded me of Piranesi. The dwarf tossing joke was somewhat crude but did it really change anything? Wasn't the magnificence and scope of the novel after all preserved?

Remember, a film has to be told in a relatively short period of time and in such a way, that everyone will perceive and remember the information presented to them, so they can follow the plot. That is why films must be both tighter and more vivid in their presentation than books.

OK, now to the quotations:

Summing up his major intentions in 1913, D. W. Griffith was reported to have said, "The task I'm trying to achieve is above all to make you see." Whether by accident or design, the statement coincides almost exactly with an excerpt from Conrad's preface to “Nigger of the Narcissus” published sixteen years earlier: "My task which I am trying to achieve is, by the power of the written word, to make you hear, to make you feel - it is, before all, to make you see." Aside from the strong syntactical resemblance, the coincidence is remarkable in suggesting the points at which film and novel both join and part company. On the one hand, that phrase "to make you see" assumes an affective relationship between creative artist and receptive audience. Novelist and director meet here in a common intention. One may, on the other hand, see visually through the eye or imaginatively through the mind. And between the percept of the visual image and the concept of the mental image lies the root difference between the two media.
Because novel and film are both organic - in the sense that aesthetic judgments are based on total ensembles which include both formal and thematic conventions - we may expect to find that differences in form and theme are inseparable from differences in media.(…)The seeming concurrence of Griffith and Conrad splits apart under analysis, and the two arts turn in opposite directions. That, in brief, has been the history of the fitful relationship between novel and film: overtly compatible, secretly hostile.
On the face of it, a close relationship (between literature and film) has existed from the beginning. The reciprocity is clear from almost any point of view: the number of films based on novels; the search for filmic equivalents of literature; the effect of adaptations on reading; box-office receipts for filmed novels; merit awards by and for the Hollywood community. (…)
Such statements as: “The film is true to the spirit of the book”; “It's incredible how they butchered the novel”; “It cuts out key passages, but it's still a good film”; “Thank God they changed the ending” - these and similar statements are predicated on certain assumptions which blur the mutational process (przemiany literatury w film). These standard expletives and judgments assume, among other things, a separable content which may be detached and reproduced, as the snapshot reproduces the kitten; that incidents and characters in fiction are interchangeable with incidents and characters in the film; that the novel is a norm and the film deviates at its peril; that deviations are permissible for vaguely defined reasons - exigencies of length or of visualization, perhaps - but that the extent of the deviation will vary directly with the “respect” one has for the original; that taking liberties does not necessarily impair the quality of the film, whatever one may think of the novel, but that such liberties are somehow a trick which must be concealed from the public.
What is common to all these assumptions is the lack of awareness that mutations are probable the moment one goes from a given set of fluid, but relatively homogeneous, conventions to another; that changes are inevitable the moment one abandons the linguistic for the visual medium. Finally, it is insufficiently recognized that the end products of novel and film represent different aesthetic genera, as different from each other as ballet is from architecture. [1]

The question of textual fidelity ignores the wider question: Fidelity to what? Is the filmmaker to be faithful to the plot in its every detail? That might mean a thirty-hour version of "War and Peace". Virtually all filmmakers condense the events of the novels being adapted, if only to conform to the norms of conventional theatrical release. Should one be faithfu1 to the physical descriptions of characters? Perhaps so, but what if the actor who happens to fit the description of Nabokov's Humbert also happens to be a mediocre actor? Or is one to be faithful to the author’s intentions? But what might they be, and how are they to be inferred? Authors often mask their intentions for personal or psychoanalytic reasons or for external or censorious ones. An author's expressed intentions are not necessarily relevant, since literary critics warn us away from the "intentional fallacy," urging us to “trust the tale not the teller.” The author, Proust taught us, is not necessarily a purposeful, selfpresent individual, but rather "un autre moi." Authors are sometimes not even aware of their own deepest intentions. How, then, can filmmakers be faithful to them? And to what authorial instance is one to be faithful? To the biographical author? To the textual implied author? To the narrator? Or is the adapter-filmmaker to be true to the style of a work? To its narrative point of view? Or to its artistic devices?
Much of the discussion of film adaptation quietly reinscribes the axiomatic superiority of literary art to film, an assumption derived from a number of superimposed prejudices: seniority - the assumption that older arts are necessarily better arts; iconophobia, the culturally rooted prejudice traceable to the Judaic-Muslim-Protestant prohibitions on "graven images" and to the Platonic and Neoplatonic depreciation of the world of phenomenal appearance; that visual arts are necessarily inferior to the verbal arts; and logophilia, the converse valorization, characteristic of the "religions of the book," of the "sacred word" of holy texts. [2]

(…)what novels and films most strikingly have in common is the potential and propensity for narrative. And narrative, at certain levels, is undeniably not only the chief factor novels and the films based on them have in common but is the chief transferable element. (…)Nevertheless, much of the dissatisfaction which accompanies the writing about films adapted from novels tends to spring from perceptions of tampering with the original narrative. Such dissatisfactions resonate with a complex set of misapprehensions about the workings of narrative in the two media, about the irreducible differences between the two, and from a failure to distinguish what can from what cannot be transferred. [3]

More difficult is fidelity to the spirit, to the original's tone, values, imagery, and rhythm, since finding stylistic equivalents in film for these intangible aspects is the opposite of a mechanical process. The cineaste presumably must intuit and reproduce the feeling of the original. It has been argued variously that this is frankly impossible, that it involves the systematic replacement of verbal signifiers by cinematic signifiers, or that it is the product of artistic intuition, as when Bazin found the pervasive snowy decor in “Symphonie Pastorale” to reproduce adequately the simple past tense that all of Gide's verbs bear in that tale. [2]

What can be moved without changes onto screen:

Those elements of the original novel which are transferable because not tied to one or the other semiotic system – that is essentially, narrative. [3]

Generally film is found to work from perception toward signification, from external facts to interior motivations and consequences, from the givenness of a world to the meaning of a story cut out of that world. Literary fiction works oppositely. It begins with signs (graphemes and words), building to propositions that attempt to develop perception. As a product of human language it naturally treats human motivation and values, seeking to throw them out onto the external world, elaborating a world out of a story.
Since signs name the inviolate relation of signifier to signified, how is translation of poetic texts conceivable from one language to another (where signifiers belong to different systems), and how is it possible to transform the signifiers of one material (verbal) to signifiers of another material (images and sounds)? It would appear that one must presume that the global signified of the original is separable from its text if one believes it can be approximated by other sign clusters. Can we attempt to reproduce the meaning of the Mona Lisa in a poem, or of a poem in a musical phrase, or even of a musical phrase in an aroma? If one accepts this possibility, at the very least one is forced to discount the primary articulations of the relevant language systems. One would have to hold that although the material of literature (graphemes, words, and sentencesl may be of a different nature from the materials of cinema (projected light and shadows, identifiable sounds and forms, and represented actions), both systems may construct in their own way, and at higher levels, scenes and narratives that are indeed commensurable.
The strident and often futile arguments over these issues can be made sharper and more consequential in the language of E. H. Gombrich or the even more systematic language of semiotics. Gombrich finds that all discussion of adaptation introduces the category of "matching.” (…) We can and do correctly match items from different systems all the time: a tuba sound is more like a rock than like a piece of string; it is more like a bear than like a bird; more like a Romanesque church than a Baroque one. In the system of musical instruments the tuba occupies an equivalent position to that enjoyed by the Romanesque in its system of architectural styles. Nelson Goodman has treated this issue at length in “The Language of Art”, pointing to the equivalence not of elements but of the position elements occupy vis-a-vis their different domains. Adaptation would then become a matter of searching two systems of communication for elements of equivalent position in the systems capable of eliciting a signified at a given level of pertinence, for example, the description of a narrative action (…)
A basic assumption I make is that both words and images are sets of signs that belong to systems and that, at a certain level of abstraction, these systems bear resemblances to one another. More specifically, within each such system there are many different codes (perceptual, referential, symbolic). What makes possible, then, a study of the relation between two separate sign systems, like novel and film, is the fact that the same codes may reappear in more than one system... [2]

What happens, therefore, when the filmist undertakes the adaptation of a novel, given the inevitable mutation, is that he does not convert the novel at all. What he adapts is a kind of paraphrase of the novel - the novel viewed as raw material. He looks not to the organic novel, whose language is inseparable from its theme, but to characters and incidents which have somellow detached themselves from language and, like the heroes of folk legends, have achieved a mythic life of their own. (…) That is why there is no necessary correspondence between the excellence of a novel and the quality of the film in which the novel is recorded.
Under these circumstances, we should not be surprised to find a long list of discontented novelists whose works have been adapted to motion pictures. The novelist seems perpetually baffled at the exigencies of the new medium. In film criticism, it has always been easy to recognize how a poor film "destroys" a superior novel. What has not been sufficiently recognized is that such destruction is inevitable. In the fullest sense of the word, the filmist becomes not a translator for an established author, but a new author in his own right. [1]

Academic writing on adaptation (…) continues to waver back and forth between the two approaches exemplified by (George) Bluestone and the auteurists. The Bluestone approach relies on an implicit metaphor of translation, which governs all investigations of how codes move across sign systems. Writing in this category usually deals with the concept of literary versus cinematic form, and it pays close attention to the problem of textual fidelity in order to identify the specific formal capabilities of the media. By contrast, the auteurist approach relies on a metaphor of performance. It, too, involves questions of textual fidelity, but it emphasizes difference rather than similarity, individual styles rather than formal systems. [2]

But the experience of reading a novel is quite different from watching a film. And it's exactly this difference that fights translation into film. When we read a novel, time is on our side. It is not just a chronological experience, where someone else determines our pacing, but a reflective experience. Rarely do we read a novel in one sitting. In fact, part of the joy of reading is going back to the book. The reading, putting it down, thinking about it, sometimes reading a page twice is part of the pleasure. It is a reveling in the language as much as reveling in the story. [8]

Novels, unlike films or plays, communicate all their information through words. The words express much more than story and events, images and character - they express ideas. Occasionally you do see a novel that is purely story - usually a short novel that's not particularly known for its literary merits. All of the great novels, however, and most of the good ones, are not just telling a story but are pursuing an idea. They are about something significant, and this theme is just as important as the story line, if not more so.
The best films also have strong themes, but in a film the theme serves the story. It's there to reinforce and dimensionalize the story, not to replace it. In a novel, the story often serves the theme. (…)
Film is much faster. It builds up its details through images. The camera can look at a three-dimensional object and, in a matter of seconds, get across details that would take pages in the novel. Film can give us story information, character information, ideas and images and style all in the same moment.
When we read a novel, we can see only what the narrator shows us at that particular moment. If the narrator puts the focus on action in those pages, then we folIow the action. If the narrator talks about feelings, then we focus on the feelings. We can receive only one piece of information at a time. A novel can only give us this information sequentially.
But film is dimensional. A good scene in a film advances the action, reveals character, explores the theme, and builds an image. In a novel, one scene or an entire chapter may concentrate on only one of those areas (…)
As we read a novel, someone is taking us by the hand and leading us through the story. This narrator is sometimes a character (if the novel is in the first person) or the storyteller (usually the writer's alter ego), who explains to us the meaning of the events. When the narrator in “Gone With the Wind” tells us about the "pleasant land of white houses, peaceful plowed fields and sluggish yellow rivers... a land of contrasts, of brightest sun glare and densest shade," the white columned house isn't there just as descriptive image; rather, the narrator is slowly giving us the details to help us understand what the world was like, and what the world would be losing. The cinematographer might show the exact same detail, but there is not the explanation with it to help us understand its deeper symbolic meaning. The narrator, however, is explaining and clarifying the connections (…)
In a novel, the narrator stands between us and the story to help us understand and interpret events. When we watch a film. we are an objective observer of the actions. What we see is what we get. Even if characters tell us their feelings through a voiceover in a film, we may not believe them. Without the narrator to guide us, we may not know whether characters are lying or not.
Does it matter? Yes, because we can trust the narrator in a novel, but we don't always trust the character. The narrator is omniscient. If the narrator of “A Room with a View” tells us that Lucy is really in love with George, we believe him. After all, he knows her better than we do, probably even better than Lucy knows herself. But in the film, if Lucy tells us that she doesn't love George, we don't know for sure whether to believe her. Perhaps she doesn't understand her own motives. Perhaps she's lying. Perhaps she only thinks that she doesn't love George in order to justify her engagement to Cecil. Lucy is not a trustworthy source. The narrator is.
Any attempt to translate this interior understanding into film usually meets with failure. Film doesn't give us an interior look at a character. A novel does. [8]

As the narrator leads me through the book, she or he is also able to help me understand the connection between details, ideas, and information that may appear in different chapters. The narrator can help me connect the past, present, and future.
Most novels and short stories are written in the past tense. Authors write "she said," "he went," "she thought," and only rarely write "she says," "he goes," "she thinks." In most cases, the narrator is looking back on events that have already happened and is both telling and interpreting the events to the reader (…)
In a novel time is fluid. It moves back and forth among past, present, and future. A character in the present can give us information about the past (…) Backstory enriches a novel. Rather than proceeding chronologically, through words the novel moves deeper and deeper into an event, showing how any one event has meanings that encompass both the past and the present(…)
In novels, this movement between the past and the present is fluid and not disruptive. The flashback is part of the movement of a story.
In film, this kind of flashback to a backstory can stop the flow of a story. Film takes place in the present. It's immediate. It's now. It's active. A novel may be reflective - emphasizing meaning, context, or response to an event - but a film puts the emphasis on the event itself. Film works in the present and drives to the future. It's less interested in what's happened than in what's going to happen next. In some films this movement to the future is a slow unfolding. In others we almost feel ourselves catapulted forward toward the inevitable and important climax. When we watch a film, we are in the same position as the characters. We, like they, don't know what will happen next. There's no time to think about what's happening. There's only time to experience, to be involved in the unfolding of events. [8]

Adapting a novel, book, play or article into a screenplay is the same as writing the original screenplay. “To adapt” means to transpose from one medium to another. Adaptation is defined as the ability “to make fit or suitable by changing or adjusting” – modifying something to create a change in structure, function and form, which produces a better adjustment.
Put another way, a novel is a novel, a play is a play, a screenplay a screenplay. Adapting a book into a screenplay means to change one (a book) into the other (a screenplay), not superimpose one onto the other. Not a filmed novel or a filmed stage play. They are two different forms. In essence (…) you are still writing an original screenplay. And you must approach it the same way.
A novel usually deals with internal life of someone, the character’s thoughts, feelings, emotions and memories occuring within the mindscape of dramatic action (…) a screenplay deals with externals, with details – the ticking of a clock, a child playing in an empty street, a car turning the corner. A screenplay is a story told with pictures, placed within the context of dramatic structure. [6]

The original material is source material (…) Don’t just copy a novel into a screenplay; it must be a visual experience. That’s your job as a screenwriter. You must remain true only to the integrity of the source material (…) [6]

Syd Field (a screenwriting guru that is hated by many but he is actually right even if he is somewhat rigid) writes about his student:

As a novelist, she was used to working by researching the idea and then finding her story and characters through writing. She lets the story lead it where it wants to go.
Not screenwriters. A screenplay follows a certain, lean, tight, narrative line of action, a line of development. A screenplay always moves forward, with direction, toward the resolution. [5]

A screenplay is a story told with pictures, placed within the context of dramatic structure (…) Structure is a tool that lets you shape and form your screenplay with maximum dramatic value. Structure holds everything together; all action, characters, plot, incidents, episodes, and events that make up your screenplay.
Screenwriting is a craft; one scene builds upon another, and the visual information we receive is cumulative; it is that relationship between the scene and the dramatic need of the story that keeps it moving forward. As mentioned before, each scene must fulfill one of two major functions in the storytelling process: A scene either moves the story forward, or reveals information about the main character(s). And if that doesn't happen, and you wander off in some side directions that are unrelated to the main narrative line, then the gravity of dull will gradually drag your story to a standstill. [5]

This is from me (michael): As someone once said: In life things happen one after another, in screenplays things happen BECAUSE of the others before them.

A screenplay is a story told in pictures, and there will always be some kind of problem when you tell the story through words, and not pictures. It seems obvious, but I have had this experience over and over again: some of the writers I’ve worked with forget that a screenplay is a story told in pictures. They feel that if the character can explain their particular thoughts, feelings, or emotions, the story line will somehow move forward through characters’ dialogue, not action. Through words, not pictures. They think because the character talks a lot there will be insight and dimension; but the truth is that we must see the character in a situation that reveals his/her personality, no matter what the conflict or obstacle, whether it is an internal, emotional one, or an external, physical one (…).
Evolution of science and art is creating a new language of film, a more visual way of telling stories for the screen. The language of film is becoming more visual; scripts filled with pages and pages of great dialogue are now considered “too talky”. Two people talking in an office or restaurant, explaining things to each other, rarely works any more.
This seems to be the most common problem in screenwriting (…) The characters talk and talk, and this only leads to a story that is dull and boring, developing through events that need to be explained. Talking heads. That’s not screenwriting, that’s stage writing. An essential part of all screenwriting is finding places where silence works better than words, finding the right visual arena, or image, to tell the story.
Today’s films are much more visual, the character’s emotional arc expressed through the character’s actions and reactions. “What is character but the determination of incident?” says Henry James. “And what is incident but the illumination of character?”
How people react to incidents and situations of story tells us something about who they are: in other words, what they do is who they are. [4]

Unclear motivation, or lack of it, is one of the most common problems in films. We’ve all seen many films where we keep asking “Why?” “Why is the character doing that? Why don’t they do this instead?” (…) We go to the films to see a good story and to see characters doing, not just talking. Yet some characters are passive characters. This can be workable for part of the film, but if the main character remains passive for most of the film, we lose interest. If they don’t care enough to exert effort to achieve the goal, we don’t care. Somewhere by the midpoint of the script (if not before), the character has to begin acting upon the story rather than being victimized by it (…) A strong film needs a clear story line without becoming predictable. It needs an integration of plots and subplots. And it needs that clear and concise character spine of motivation, action, and goal.
The goal is an essential part of drama. It’s not unusual to hear an executive say, “But what does the character want?” Without a clear goal in mind, the story will wander and become hopelessly confused. Without a clear goal, it will be impossible to find the spine of the story.
The goal ties the character in with the climax of the story. The climax is reached by the character going after the goal and achieving it. But not just any goal will do.
First of all, something must be at stake in the story that convinces the audience that a great deal will be lost if the main character does not gain the goal. If we don’t believe in the necessity of the character gaining the goal, we won’t be able to root for that character. Of course, stakes can be anything from survival stakes (Star Wars) to belonging stakes (Places in the Heart) to self-esteem stakes (Tootsie) or even the survival of someone else (Cocoon). But we need to clearly understand the goal and understand that it’s essential for the character’s wellbeing that it’s achieved. (…)
The strongest characters will achieve some extra dimension by this journey. In some way they’ll be transformed, because the goal cannot be achieved without some kind of character change. The movement toward the goal will have its effect on the characters involved. It will make demands of them. And the only way they can gain what they want will be to allow those changes to happen (…) Without achieving some kind of character change, the goal would not be possible.
The methods by which the character achieves the goal demonstrates the strength and sincerity of the character. People who say that they want something, but won’t do anything to get it, are not sincere. These characters are difficult to believe in. They lack credibility. So the character has to take specific actions in pursuit of the goal. The stronger the actions and the stronger the barriers to achieve the goal, the stronger the character.
Naturally, obstacles and actions come in many different forms. Actions can range from investigating and trying to find out (North by Northwest) to shooting (Dirty Harry) to capturing and destroying (Ghostbusters) to tearing down and the building up of land (Gone With the Wind). In each of these, the action is clear, dramatic, and each beat moves closer to a final goal.
Ask yourself the following questions of your script: Is my character motivated by action or by talk? Is there a clear moment when my character enters into the story? Do we know why s/he begins to act? What is my character’s goal? Is it sufficiently compelling to move my characters through three acts? Is my character active or passive in achieving the goal? Does the action meet the needs of the storyline? (…) If I’ve used flashbacks, long expository speeches, or backstory, is it absolutely essential? Whenever possible, do I condense or cut this material? Can I clearly discuss my character spine in a few words? Is it clear how the character spine intersects with the spine of the story? (…)
Motivation, action, and goal will give drive and direction to a script. But there’s another element that needs to be added. That’s the lifeblood of drama – conflict.
Conflict is the basis of drama. It’s the stuff by which drama is made. A novel can be interior and "soft", a poem can be flowery and appreciative, but drama needs grit, punch, and “fight”. (…) In good drama, characters enter into a dynamic relationship that emphasizes differences (…)
Conflict happens when two characters have mutually exclusive goals at the same time (…) There are different types of conflict, and some conflicts are better material for drama than others (…) Good scripts have a wide range of conflict expression and play more than one type of conflict throughout the story. [7]

Dramatic conflict can either be internal or external; an emotional story like “How to Make an American Quilt”, or “Sense and Sensibility” has internal (and external) conflict. External conflict is a story where the conflict is outside the character, and the characters face physical (and of course, emotional) obstacles, such as “Apollo 13” or “Jurassic Park” (Michael Crichton and David Koepp). Creating conflict within the story, through the characters and events, is one of those simple, basic "truths" of all writing, whether it be novel, play, or screenplay.
In my seminars and workshops, no matter what the language or culture, I find that many screenwriters do not understand the importance of conflict in their stories. And their screenplays reflect that. So many times the characters seem listless, the scenes slow, taking too much time to develop; there is little or no direction, and it boils down to a screenplay that is dull and boring to read.
So what is conflict? If you look at the word it means to be "in opposition"; and the hub of any dramatic scene is having the character or characters be in opposition to someone, or something. Conflict can be anything, a struggle or a quarrel, a battle or a chase scene, internal or external, any kind of confrontation or obstacle, and it really doesn't matter whether it's emotional, physical, or mental.
Conflict must be at the very hub of your story, because it is the core of strong action and strong character. If you do not have this conflict, this foundation to your writing, you'll find yourself more often than not caught in the quagmire of dull writing. [4]

Problems in conflict are particularly prevalent when translating a novel into a script. Most novels are narratives. The novel takes us into the psychology of the character. We learn what they think and feel, what they value. We see how they grapple with issues. And we get insight into their insecurities and obsessions and concerns. This makes for interesting reading and interesting characters, but it also causes problems in the translation to film.
In most novels, the conflict is inner rather than relational (…)Being true to the book often means balancing subplots and plots in a new, more dramatic way. It means bringing out conflicts that are only implied in the book. It means reordering scenes so that the conflict is clear in each act. And it means constantly texturing each scene so that the conflict is a clear through-line throughout the story. [7]

Literature:

[1]: “Novels into Films”, George Bluestone
[2]: “Film adaptation”, edited by James Naremore
[3]: “Novel to Film: An Introduction to the Theory of Adaptation”, Brian McFarlane
[4]: “The Screenwriter’s Problem Solver”, Syd Field
[5]: “The Screenwriter’s Workbook”, Syd Field
[6]: “Screenplay, The Foundations of Screenwriting”, Syd Field
[7]: “Making a Good Script Great”, Linda Seger
[8]: “The Art of Adaptation: Turning Fact and Fiction into Film”, Linda Seger

[michael]

Looks like again I forgot to put my name in the post. The message above is from me of course.

[Yeti]

The bottom line is that whatever I do is feminine simply because I'm a female. Of course I realize that having defined it that way femininity means nothing. The bottom line: it means nothing. It's another of those constructs under which we hide our prejudices and biases. Of course we have to dress them up first in some psychologically or biologically justifiable "reasons". And the more "reasons" I hear, one phrase keeps ringing louder and louder in my head: "equal but separate".
--Gryka

I have to ask. What's wrong with equal but separate? Why is there such a push in society to make us all homogeneous?

I, for one, am thrilled that there are separate bathrooms for ladies and for gentlemen. Now I could start to protest by asking why the men can't use the nice, clean ladies room like the ladies, or why is the men's room so dirty and full of graffiti, but the ladies room is clean. You guys even get that couch to sit on. (At least you used to.). But, in general, I'm thankful that I can walk into the john, pop my cork and leave a big smoker in there without the embarrasment of thinking that I might open the door and see a lady there. Similarly, I choose not picture a lady doing the same.

My point is simply that we should be proud to be men and proud to be women. Why be afraid to admit that we all have notions about what we percieve as femenine and masculine?

[Gryka]

I have to ask. What's wrong with equal but separate? Why is there such a push in society to make us all homogeneous?

Do you really think that my aim is to make the world homogenous, Yeti?

The statement "equal but separate" applied to a subset constitutes a division of the set and implies different rules for the subset. It's obvious intellectually, it has been proven empirically, and I don't think it needs to be elaborated further. In simple terms, the act of separation makes the subset "unequal" in comparison to the rest of the set. You can't have both, neither in theoretical world nor in practice.

This isn't about making the world homogenous. In contrary, it's about letting individuals be free in their choices and adding to variety, not taking away from it. And BTW, I wanted to use this opportunity to thank the urban planners for the couches in the women's public bathrooms. This is exactly what I wanted from my life (as a proud woman that is)! :rolleyes:

My point is simply that we should be proud to be men and proud to be women.

What does that mean exactly?
I'm 40 years old with no children and no desire to be a mother. Am I not feminine?
I never had a problem with my weight and I don't think I'm ugly. Am I feminine?
I don't go to public bathrooms with an escort. Am I not feminine?
I don't remember ever barfing into beer. Am I feminine?
I was always good at math, the best in the class in all grades except for college, but then I was in a group with a genius (no kidding). Am I not feminine?
Like my father I was always bad at physics. Am I feminine? Is my father?
I can paint a house, change a tire, weld, and I exercise a lot (with weights), I can ride, ski and fence. Am I not a woman?

The problem, as already stated, is to determine what we think about those differences is culturally biased and what is biologically defined.

To what purpose, Michael? (You're right about the danger of stereotyping, so be careful how you answer this question, we really don't want to sieve thru bias and legitimate concern.)

And so you don't misunderstand me, I'm a realist (philosophically speaking) with all its consequences. Hence, I always accepted that there is a causal interaction between matter and form or as you put it "body and mind".

Glimmung, I found Delany book: "Stars in My Pocket Like Grains of Sand". I'm rereading it now. You may be right that I confused it with LeGuin (I read the Hand of Darkness long time ago). Or it may be in both. It isn't that far fetched idea. Delany is hard. He tells the story while withholding the key piece of information till the end. To make you see your own prejudices I think. Very clever. I never read anything else of his, but this is a good book. And today – since I'm reading it again – I can say without sentiment that it's not only because it was the first book I read in the US (I remember I bought it on my arrival at the airport, using almost all the money my communist country allowed me to bring with me).

P.S.: Sorry Yeti for the cheap shots, I couldn't resist them. If it's any consolation, I edited out many, many more...

[michael]

I boy, did I laugh after your post, Yeti!

I think the problem is in defining what Gryka's question was really about. If it meant: what defines a woman, as in what makes her different from a man, then the answer is: this is a question really for a biologist, neurologist and psychologist. You cannot say: if a person of female gender doesn't look or act a certain way, that means she's not a woman. That is a yardstick approach and very a dangerous one, because it fosters old prejudices and stereotypes. On the other hand, if the question really is about what you, as a male, like in women, what is your ideal of a woman, then you can say: I like tall blondes, that look like Claudia Schiffer, have a good sense of humor, are smart, have a kind heart and are gentle.

I have no doubt that there are psychological differences between men and women but I'm not going to get into the biology of that now. The thing is that many traits that are thought to be feminine or masculine are culturally imposed and do not stem from biological differences. I agree that we shouldn't pretend that those differences don't exist, because that, in a subversive way, is an acknowledgement that if women don't behave like men, they are worse than men. In fact, this is the same problem we had before (that women are supposed to behave in certain ways and know their place) but with an opposite sign. The task is to change the way we value and perceive people of both genders and induce social changes that will be more accomodating to the psychological truth about both men and women.

[michael]

Gryka,

Sorry but your post appeared after i wrote my reply to Yeti.

I am not going to define the differences between male and female behavior. You are right that we should be raised to be whatever nature intented us to be, not to fullfill some rigid roles imposed by arbitrary guidelines. What I am saying is that the fact that your inner workings are different - your hormones for example - will have an effect on your behavior. This goes both for men and for women. The point is to understand that those differences don't imply a difference in value. What we consider to be better or worse is culturally imposed in a large part. I don't have time to write now more, so please wait with any responses.

[Glimmung]

Yeti,

You’ve raised a bit of a straw-man argument here. I don’t recall Gryka or anyone else here requesting unisex bathrooms. And we’re not seeking homogeneity - just relief from gender-related expectations that are culturally based. Gryka is not to be assumed responsible for washing the dishes, and I am not to be assumed responsible for fixing the plumbing.

The wide variety of roles assumed by women in various cutures over the centuries suggests that culture accounts for just about all of the possible roles - I’ll grant you a pass on the bearing and nursing of children, and the differing multiple-occupant bathroom architectural requirements.

Frankly, I’d prefer always having a private bathroom. That’s not practical in public.

And I find it ludicrous to equate gender-differentiated restrooms with the whole “separate but equal” issue. Solitary bodily functions as opposed to things like employment, housing, education? Leaving aside the fact that all we ever had was the “separate” part - majoritarian white society never came close to getting around to the “equal” part (still haven’t). You might ask why gender-differentiated restrooms are any different than race-differentiated. Primarily, I would say it’s that that both parties are in near-total agreement with the former.

Were you intentionally baiting us? You must have known what the reaction would be. Of course most everyone has notions about what “feminine” and “masculine” are - the point is that no single notion is “correct”. That sort of liberation was one of the good things we accomplished (temporarily, I fear) in removing the Taliban from control of Afghanistan. You agree with them that women should be constrained to a particular role, you just disagree about what exactly that role should be? Please tell me I’m wrong about that!

It’s so much more important to be proud of what sort of human you are than what sort of man or woman you are. And you’re a good human, Yeti - that’s why we enjoy your company.

OK - I just saw the other responses. More to follow, I’m sure :^)

[michael]

Okay, I'm still busy and don't have time to get into a serious discussion but I guess we should try to find a workable definition of femininity. Would it be correct to say that femininity, in its purest form, is a set of biological and psychological (but not psychological in a sense as imprinted by society and culture just stemming straight out of physiology) characteristics that in a statistically significant manner differentiate women from men.

Gryka wrote that the fact that her own traits do not conform to the good old traditional view of femininity does not mean she is not feminine. Well, I think they do not imply that Gryka is not a woman but I think that this is not a good example because when we consider femininity we should look at it in a statistical manner. There is no denying that Gryka is a woman but femininity is not about traits of individual women but about traits that are commonly observed in women as a group and differ in form and/or quantity from the traits of a statistically average man.

That is why you cannot say: if Gryka is a woman, she has to be non-agressive, empthatic, people-oriented and have no mechanical skills. That is complete BS. But you can say that women, ON AVERAGE, are different than men, though I completely agree that the extent and character of this differences should be very carefully analyzed, because I am very aware of how nurture influences nature.

As for Yeti - Yeti, in typical Yeti style just threw in a bomb and waits what will happen next... ;)

[Yeti]

First of all, let me apologize up front if I offended anyone. I'm really not trying to irritate people or belittle anyone or anything like that. We were having rather a fun discussion about, what I thought, was our own opinions about what we percieve as masculine or femenine. I don't want to get into an emotionally charged debate. That's not my goal. I just thought we might, perhaps, dissect this issue a little.

That being said, let me try to distill a clearer picture of what I was getting at before. I personally think that women are just as capable of doing anything men can do. (Aside from the obvious gender-related biological fuctions). That's not to say that every single woman can lift 500 pounds, just like every single man can't lift 500 pounds. On the whole, given any situation, in the gene pool of humanity, I believe that for any given human endeavor, there exist individuals of both genders who are equally capable of completing the given task.

Now, I'm only human. I was raised in an environment from which I harvested various social biases and preconceived notions, just like each and every other person. It's a part of who we are as individuals. Consequently, each of us has a different opinion on what is "femenine". I think we can all agree on what makes up a "female". Female carries an absolute definition that can be explained scientifically. Femenine is a relative term that, as Gryka points out, has no absolute definition. It's sort of a dynamic term whose definition can vary widely from person to person and from society to society.

A Taliban might consider a human sitting in the library reading a book to be non-femenine. The class bully in high school, however, might consider that human to be highly femenine! In both cases, the human in question is likely to be punched if they are not of the "appropriate" gender. Same situation, but vastly different definitions of "femenine".

Now, my original goal, or rather, my perception of the earlier conversation was that Gryka was looking for our own personal definitions or opinions about what we percieve as womanhood. That is to say, how does each of us, as an idividual, define "femenine". So, I offered up a few traits that I percieve as qualities that would be ascribed to a femenine woman. I thought perhaps she was having fun with us to see how we all would respond. Maybe I misunderstood the question, and if so, I apologize.

As for the bathroom example, I intentionally used an absurd example to illustrate that there is nothing wrong with the "separate" portion of the statement "separate but equal" in certain instances. As Glimmung said, in this particular case, men and women both prefer (I think) this arrangement. It was never my intention to bundle the various employment, education, opportunity issues into that example, because as you said, it doesn't apply.

I'm not advocating inequality here, and I'm not advocating traditional male-female roles either. (I do the dishes at home, by the way). I know of at least one woman who changed the transmission in her husband's car while he took the other car to work, and I never thought of her as masculine in any way.

What I meant by the statement that men should be proud to be men and women should be proud to be women is simply that we shouldn't let society dictate what is expected of us based on our gender. Now, not only does that mean that society shouldn't tell us that a woman's place is in the home, but it also means that there is nothing wrong with a woman who CHOOSES to stay home and be a house wife. I personally think that society puts more pressure on women NOT to assume "traditional" roles. Similarly, as men, we shouldn't feel pressured to be the "bread winner", although society still looks down on stay-home dads.

Really. I don't want to stir up bad feelings here. If this is too emotionally charged, then let's stick to something less controversial, like the Iraqi occupation.

[Gryka]

But you can say that women, ON AVERAGE, are different than men, though I completely agree that the extent and character of this differences should be very carefully analyzed, because I am very aware of how nurture influences nature.

Forgive me Michael, but this is a self-defeating argument: if the difference is statistical in nature then it is by definition accidental not essential and you have proven my argument for me.

No doubt that marketers, medical doctors, psychologists, sociologists and teachers ought to read up on differences between genders. But seeking far reaching generalizations explaining how things work in general based on accidentals is never warranted. The fact that women "on average" are more verbal than men, doesn't lead anywhere. The same way as wooden tables are not essentially different from metal or plastic tables. (I'm not even sure that the conclusion on women's verbosity isn't a cultural bias, anyone is aware of similar studies done in Africa or Asia?)

Glimmung, don't yell at Yeti too much. His objective was obviously designed to be a two-edged sword: he was after me but he was equally after Michael. There is subtlety to Yeti as he sets his nets, if you watch very closely that is... ;^)

A short point about unisex bathrooms: whether you like it or not Yeti, they're here. And there is going to be more and more of them. There is nothing you can do. So, I suggest, you either plan your life better so you don't have to use them, or live with them. You can, of course, create a movement under a banner Citizens Against Unisex Bathrooms but, I think, it would be better if you spared the humiliation to your family. To use the Borg phrase: "Resistance is futile". ;^D

[michael]

Where is this discussion is supposed to lead anyway? The objective as stated by me was to show that differences on a large scale between women and men exist. When talking about characteristics of males or females it makes no sense to define them per person as there is to much variance between single samples. Every scientist trying to discover those differences will use many samples to find repeating patterns. Only then those differences emerge in a way that shows a regular pattern. Femininity is a large scale, statistical phenomenon. There is plenty of evidence to show why women ON AVERAGE have more linguistic skills, have higher general intelligence, worse spatial skills, feel pain 10 times more than men and so on. These are traits that appear time after time in research and are reflected in the structure of the brain. This is stuff not made up by some misogynists but serious scientists and some of them are women - therefore trying to define femininity makes sense, because men and women are different after all, so you can point those differences out.

[Yeti]

I have to agree with Michael on this. Statistically speaking, women and men, on average, are different. Perhaps marketers might be the best example of a group of researchers who focus on those differences. They are able to target men or women quite successfully based on their research. What about all the so-called women's magazines out there. If there were not trends among men and women, we should expect that magazines like Redbook, Cosmopolitan, and Women's Day would have a 50% mens readership and a 50% women's readership. Same with Sports Illustrated and Field and Stream.

--By the way, I really do enjoy these discussions. I'm not just trying to snag all of you, although I think you all know me pretty well. You give me much credit, Gryka, for stirring things up so strategically.

[Glimmung]

Well, I think marketers target a wide range of attributes which fall into the "non-innate" category.

In fact, most advertising should be quite ineffective against this group. To quote Michael...

"...more linguistic skills, have higher general intelligence, ...feel pain 10 times more than men..."

:^D

[michael]

Well, I might add that one of the traditional (stereotypical) traits of femininity is actually confirmed by science - that the female brain in general is more geared toward empathy than male brains. There is a whole book on that subject written by an Oxford professor who is the director of research on autistic children and that finding is confirmed in other research as well.

There actually is a fair amount of truth in stereotypes of femininity and that blurs the issue. The problem are the other, visible and hidden parts that are not true and the reasons why people use stereotypes in the first place. I think it is important to try to stay objective, recognize the real problems, and not throw out the baby (the truth) with the bath (the damaging side of stereotypes). So if someone says "women are more empathic", we shouldn't just throw that away because we suddenly begin to think about "Kinder, Kuche, Kirche" as the Germans put it (children, kitchen, church). The thing is that stereotypes presume the "yardstick approach", turn the stereotyped people into a faceless mass without a distinct personality and inner life and go even further (this is the most dangerous part, because from that is born hatred) by using the stereotyped as the trashcan for the unwanted parts and feelings of the person that is doing the stereotyping. Yes, stereotyping is also about splitting and projection.

In fact women are just as guilty of stereotyping as men - just look at the extreme cases of feminists who turn all men into the boogeymen-oppressors. That is just another side of the same coin. Germans scapegoating the Jews, whites stereotyping blacks. The psychological mechanisms are the same and are not limited to any gender or nation.

I once talked to this woman, she had two sons and a two year old girl. Apart from other toys there was only one shabby ragdoll in the girl's room. This woman said she wouldn't buy her daughter a Barbie doll (really any other dolls as I have guessed) because she didn't want her child to become a "prissy little princess". Now if that isn't misogyny, then I don't know what is... The worst thing you can do is try to raise a kid to meet any of the parent's expectations. What makes a parent think they know better in the first place? That's a surefire way of producing a narcissist. BTW those expectations are in fact nothing more than an expression of the parent's unfullfilled ambitions and insecurities and indicate that the parent does not see the child as an autonomous, separate human with his/her own needs but as an extension of the parent him/herself. Narcissism in a nutshell.