Could you elaborate on your idea that in the current day one should actually have a presence if one wants to be an "author"?
it goes against the common cliches, and I can see the logic, especially with art allways being beholden to the material realitys of commerce and patronage.
Still it kind of seems, and maybe this is to my own man-childish warped view of "authenticity" or "not selling out" that by becomming overly opinionatend and "brand consious" one kinda diludes the point of the work (no matter how trivial the work actually is)
Like what I mean is that it easily becomes more about trying to get an audience, one becomes a marketer that adjust the "content", for a lack of better word", and sells it, even if that takes compromises.
But maybe thats too obvious of an argument - what may be worse that the authors get lost in the trill of becoming a personality, of "being in the process of writting the book" of reyifing the identity of "being an artist" in itself with the work becoming secondary.
Ofcourse this may be nothing new, atleast the dream of being a bohemian is hundreds of years old, with the modern form being a cliche for both the hippys and their grand children, so eh maybe I'm just wasting time.
Still maybe what my point is, that atleast personally, I by engaging in the "discourse", by spreading scattered thoughts in hopes of raising some cache or clout, even if it is a self-justification for the audience of one, seem to just get further from the point of actually making the thing I wanted to make.
Especially when direct arguments and snide remarks seem to lead only to problems and headaches in the end (but maybe thats my problem of being both hyper-confrontational and wanting to have my opinion heard and justified, while being thinner skinned than a butterfly, having a pavlovian submisive response to any scolding and naively wanting for everybody to get along, as if I was the stalker at the end wishing for peace and love for the whole world.)
Anyways, enough auto-psycho analaysis, appreciate your posts, even if I don't allways agree - and if you don't reply do to enjoying easter with family or friends or even a good movie (or even a rauncy 90s comedy) - I won't carve a woodoo doll.
God Bless
Thank you! Ideally, your online presence is itself a work of art, shaped as any work is by carefully chosen inclusions and omissions, symbols and motifs, not the simple expectoration of your opinions. (I really try not to "opine" when I have nothing useful to add!) Even if you do opine a lot, though, I don't think this is that different from the model of literary celebrity forged in mass culture as early as the days of Dickens; it's just moved online. From a recent post by Katherine Dee:
Culture isn’t stuck. Old media is dead, and we under-appreciate the new forms because they’re somehow ‘less legitimate’ than the old ones. The collaborative storytelling that goes into creating an Internet persona, algorithms, mood boards, and even certain types of uniquely online sketch comedy are all new or evolved art forms. And they’re thriving. We just don’t take them seriously.
I agree with this. I don't agree with Katherine's follow-up on X that, "Literature has been replaced by the role play nature of the internet," because, as I've said, the internet is too ephemeral, and we need to get some works deserving of permanence into book or otherwise solid form. I don't think literature (in the broad sense) can be replaced, not even if we are replaced by AI or aliens or whatever, but this is also where I disagree with McLuhan: language, whether spoken or written or printed or digitized, is not one medium among other media but the meta-medium that allows all other media to converge and converse. Literature in that sense is the highest art. Maybe not the prettiest or the most emotive or the most beautiful, but the one that contains and transmits all the others.
My sisters, we are gathered here to speak your names.
We are here because we are your daughters as surely as if you had conceived us, nurtured us, carried us in your wombs, and then sent us out into the world to make our mark and see what we see, and be what we be, but better, truer, deeper because of the shining example of your own incandescent lives.
We are here to speak your names because we have enough sense to know that we did not spring full blown from the forehead of Zeus, or arrive on the scene like Topsy, our sister once removed, who somehow just growed.
We know that we are walking in footprints made deep by the confident strides of women who parted the air before them like the forces of nature that you are.
We are here to speak your names because you taught us that the search is always for the truth and that when people show us who they are, we should believe them.
We are here because you taught us that sisterspeak can continue to be our native tongue, no matter how many languages we learn as we move about as citizens of the world and of the ever-evolving universe.
We are here to speak your names because of the way you made for us.
Because of the prayers you prayed for us.
We are the ones you conjured up, hoping we would have strength enough, and discipline enough, and talent enough, and nerve enough to step into the light when it turned in our direction, and just smile awhile.
We are the ones you hoped would make you proud because all of our hard work makes all of yours part of something better, truer, deeper.
Something that lights the way ahead like a lamp unto our feet, as steady as the unforgettable beat of our collective heart.
Cover photo by Ruby Ray of Da Dee and Katherine Kato, artists who made the infamous hammer and sickle t-shirt for the Dils - San Francisco, 8 July 1977
"LITTLE WOMEN" (1933) Review
There have been many adaptations of Louisa May Alcott's 1868-69 best-selling two-volume novel, "Little Women". And I mean many adaptations - on stage and in movies and television. I have personally seen three television adaptations and four movie adaptations. One of the most famous versions of Alcott's novel is the 1933 movie adaptation, produced by Merian C. Cooper and directed by George Cukor.
Although I have seen at four adaptations more than once, I had just watched this version for the very first time. Judging from the reviews and articles I have read, Cukor's "LITTLE WOMEN" seemed to be the benchmark that all other versions are based upon. So, you could imagine my anticipation about this film before watching it. How did I feel about "LITTLE WOMEN"? That would require a complicated answer.
"LITTLE WOMEN" told the story of the four March sisters of Concord, Massachusetts - Margaret (Meg), Josephine (Jo), Elizabeth (Beth) and Amy - during and after the U.S. Civil War. Since second daughter Jo is the main character, the story focuses on her relationships with her three other sisters, her parents (especially her mother "Marmee"), the sisters' Aunt March, and the family's next-door neighbors, Mr. James Laurence and his grandson Theodore ("Laurie"). Although each sister experiences some kind of coming-of-age throughout the story, the movie focuses on Jo's development through her relationship with Laurie and a German immigrant she meets in New York City after the war, the charming and older Professor Friedrich Bhaer. Jo and her sisters deal with the anxiety of their father's involvement in the Civil War, genteel poverty, scarlet fever, wanted and unwanted romance, and Jo's fear of dealing the family breaking apart as she and her sisters grow older.
I must saw that the production values for "LITTLE WOMEN" were certainly top-notch. One has to credit producer Merian C. Cooper in gathering a team of excellent artists to re-create 1860s Massachusetts and New York for the movie. I was especially impressed by Van Nest Polglase's art direction, Sydney Moore and Ray Moyer's set decorations and art direction team of Hobe Erwin, George Peckham, and Charles Sayers. However, I simply have to single out Walter Plunkett's excellent costume designs for the film. I doubt very much that Plunkett's costumes were an accurate depiction of 1860s fashion, I believe he came close enough. Plunkett's career also included work for 1939's "GONE WITH THE WIND", "RAINTREE COUNTY", from 1957 and the 1949 version of "Little Women". I suspect that this film marked his debut for designing costumes for the mid-19th century. I did have a problem with the hairstyles worn by three of the four leads. A good deal of early 1930s hairstyles seemed to have been used - with the exception of the short bob. At least three of the actresses wore bangs . . . a lot. Bangs were not popular with 19th century women until the late 1870s and the 1880s.
Until the release of the 2019 film, George Cukor's adaptation of Alcott's novel has been considered the best by many film critics. Do I agree with this assessment? Well, I cannot deny that I had enjoyed watching "LITTLE WOMEN". One, producer David Selznick and director George Cukor did an excellent job in their selection of the cast - especially the four actresses who portrayed the March sisters. All four had excellent chemistry. The movie's portrayal of the U.S. Civil War and the years that followed it immediately struck me as pretty solid. And although there were moments when the film threatened to border on saccharine, I must admit that Cukor and the screenplay written by Victor Heerman and Sarah Y. Mason kept both the narrative and the film's pacing very lively. And finally, I enjoyed how the movie depicted Jo's friendship and romance with Professor Friedrich Bhaer. I found it warm, charming, romantic and more importantly . . . not rushed.
However, I do have a few issues with "LITTLE WOMEN". There were times when the movie, especially during its first half hour, seemed in danger of wallowing in saccharine. I get it. Alcott had portrayed the Marches as a warm and close-knit family. But Alcott had included minor conflicts and personality flaws in the family's portrait as well. It seemed as if director George Cukor, along with screenwriters Sarah Y. Mason and Victor Heerman were determined to whitewash this aspect of Alcott's novel as much as possible. This whitewashing led to the erasure of one novel's best sequences - namely Amy March's burning of Jo's manuscript in retaliation for an imagined slight, Amy's conflict with her schoolteacher, the development of Amy and Laurie's relationship in Europe, and Meg's conflict Aunt March over her relationship with tutor John Brooke. These deletions took a lot out of Alcott's story. It amazes me to this day that so many film critics have willingly overlooked this. Do not get me wrong. "LITTLE WOMEN" remained an entertaining film. But in erasing these aspects of Alcott's story, Cukor and the two screenwriters came dangerously close to sucking some of the life out of this film. Ironically, Mason and Heerman repeated their mistake in MGM's 1949 adaption with the same results.
Most critics and movie fans tend to praise Katherine Hepburn's portrayal of Jo March to the sky. In fact, many critics and film historians to this day have claimed Hepburn proved to be the best Jo out of all the actresses who have portrayed the character. Do I agree? No. Although I admired Hepburn's performance in the movie's second half, I found her portrayal of the adolescent Jo in the first half to be a mixed bag. There were times when I admired her spirited performance. There were other times when said performance came off as a bit too strident for my tastes. I honestly do not know what to say about Frances Dee's performance as Meg March. My problem is that I did not find her portrayal that memorable. I barely remember Dee's performance, if I must be honest. I cannot say the same about Joan Benett's portrayal of the youngest March sibling, Amy. Mind you, Bennett never received the chance to touch upon Amy's less pleasant side of her nature. And it is a pity that the screenplay failed to give Bennett the opportunity to portray Amy's growing maturity in the film's second half. But I have to admit that as a woman who was roughly three years younger than Hepburn, she gave a more subtle performance as a pre-teen and adolescent Amy, than Hepburn did as the teenaged Jo. The one performance that really impressed me came from Jean Parker's portrayal of Beth March, the family's shyest member. I thought Parker did an excellent job of conveying Beth's warmth, fear of being in public and the long, slow death the character had suffered following a deadly bout of scarlet fever.
I can honestly say that Mrs. "Marmee" March would never be considered as one of my favorite Spring Byington roles. Mind you, the actress gave a competent performance as the March family's matriarch. However, there were times when she seemed too noble, good or too ideal for me to regard her as a human being. As is the case in most, if not all versions of "LITTLE WOMEN", the Mr. March character barely seemed alive . . . especially after he returned home from the war. I cannot blame actor Samuel S. Hinds, who portrayed. I blame the screenwriters for their failure to do the character any justice. On the other hand, I did enjoy Henry Stephenson's portrayal of the complicated, yet likeable Mr. Laurence. I enjoyed how Stephenson managed to slowly, but surely reveal the warm human being behind the aloof facade. Edna May Oliver gave a very lively performance as the irascible, yet wealthy Aunt March. In fact, I would go as far to say that her performance had breathed a great deal of fresh air into the production. Not many critics were impressed by Douglass Montgomery's portrayal of the March sisters' closes friend, Theodore "Laurie" Laurence. I can honestly say that I do not share their opinion. Frankly, I felt more than impressed by his portrayal of the cheeky, yet emotional Laurie. I thought he gave one of the film's better performances - especially in one scene Laurie reacted to Jo's rejection of his marriage proposal. I thought Montgomery did an excellent job of reacting emotionally to Jo's rejection, without going over the top. I also enjoyed Paul Lukas' interpretation of Professor Bhaer. There were moments when his performance threatened to get a little hammy. But the actor managed to reign in his excesses - probably more so than Hepburn. And he gave a warm and charming performance as the romantic Professor Bhaer.
Yes, I have some issues with this adaptation of "LITTLE WOMEN". If I must be honest, most of my issues are similar to my issues with the 1949 adaptation. This should not be surprising, since both movies were written by the same screenwriters - Sarah Y. Mason and Victor Heerman. However . . . like the 1949 movie, this "LITTLE WOMEN" adaptation proved to be a solid and entertaining adaptation of Louisa May Alcott's novel. One can thank Mason and Heerman, director George Cukor and the fine cast led by the talented Katherine Hepburn.
britcom comedians & panel show personalities who share your sign
AQUARIUS ♒ dara ó briain • frank skinner • glenn moore • guz khan • hugh dennis • lucy porter • maisie adam • mark watson • phil wang • vic reeves
PISCES ♓ aisling bea • alan davies • dave gorman • ed gamble • jenny eclair • katy wix • michael mcintyre • rose matafeo
ARIES ♈ andy parsons • desiree burch • ed byrne • gary delaney • jamali maddix • john kearns • josh widdicombe • josie long • roisin conaty • romesh ranganathan • rory bremner
TAURUS ♉ al murray • alex brooker • catherine tate • greg davies • joe wilkinson • john robins • mae martin • milton jones • morgana robinson • rhys james • rob brydon • sally phillips • sandi toksvig • sean lock • stephen mangan
GEMINI ♊ alan carr • bob mortimer • david baddiel • fern brady • judi love • julian clary • london hughes • mel giedroyc • noel fielding • paul sinha • rich hall • richard ayoade • sara pascoe • sarah millican • shappi khorsandi • sindhu vee • tom allen
CANCER ♋ adam hills • alice levine • david mitchell • katherine ryan • harriet kemsley • ian hislop • jack whitehall • joe lycett • paul merton • peter serafinowicz • phill jupitus • rosie jones
LEO ♌ bridget christie • cariad lloyd • chris ramsey • daisy may cooper • frankie boyle • isy suttie • lee mack • jo brand • nish kumar • victoria coren mitchell
VIRGO ♍ alex horne • dane baptiste • darren harriott • ivo graham • jimmy carr • johnny vegas • lolly adefope • miles jupp • nina conti • stephen fry • sue perkins • tim key
LIBRA ♎ diane morgan • harry hill • jack dee • jon richardson • limmy • nick helm • rhod gilbert • robert webb • tiff stevenson • zoe lyons
SCORPIO ♏ angela barnes • chris addison • elis james • ellie taylor • holly walsh • liza tarbuck • jonathan ross • kerry godliman • kevin bridges • matt forde • mike wozniak • sofie hagen • susan calman
SAGITTARIUS ♐ adam riches • david o'doherty • jessica knappett • larry dean • miranda hart • richard osman • seann walsh • simon amstell • steven k. amos
CAPRICORN ♑ ahir shah • angus deayton • bill bailey • claudia winkleman • james acaster • mark lamarr • paul foot • rob beckett • suzi ruffell
Sorry, just found the DF Xeet per last post. I agree with her insofar as culture war and political war are exhausted, and actual literary people seem more content these days to be literary people again and not political people. I'm not sure if people who aren't already literary will pretend to be or genuinely strive to be. Maybe they will. I certainly wish the latter would happen. (Ethel Cain was making BookTube-like moves earlier this year, for example, and that kind of thing would be a positive trend.) I don't think the specific alt lit 2.0 aesthetics will be making much of a comeback, however; that phenomenon seemed to be tied to the Dimes Square moment. With Major Arcana, I have obviously made my wager on a turn away from autobiographical minimalism and back toward expansive imagination. But maybe Honor Levy will prove me wrong.
Jason Todd’s book recommendation list? Or at least a list of his favorite Jane Austen books in order? Also, which Pride & Prejudice movie version would he prefer?
Jason's book recs besides Jane Austen and Willy Shakes:
The Catcher in the Rye – J. D. Salinger
Fun Home – Alison Bechdel
The Kite Runner – Khaled Hosseini
The Social Cancer – José Rizal
The Picture of Dorian Gray – Oscar Wilde
Invisible Man – Ralph Ellison
The Outsiders – S. E. Hinton
A Wrinkle in Time – Madeleine L'Engle
The Scarlet Letter – Nathaniel Hawthorne
Persepolis – Marjane Satrapi
The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time – Mark Haddon
The Handmaid's Tale – Margaret Atwood
I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings – Maya Angelou
Bridge to Terabithia – Katherine Paterson
The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian – Sherman Alexie