Quote:
Originally Posted by ProfCrash
I am find with the movies but talk about wanting her stories read in a specific manner to preserve the experience when she has made millions by allowing the experience to be altered is just silly.
Again, she is the owner, creator, author. She gets to be silly and make decisions that she feel is right for her. That doesn't mean that I can't scratch my head and wonder what she is thinking.
|
It doesn't have to be all-or-nothing. Some authors would allow their name to be slapped on anything that generated money. She doesn't, though she comes close. You think she should draw the line elsewhere, fair enough, but ultimately the "OK/not OK" determination is subjective. To each her own.
I don't think it's hypocritical, per se, because movies aren't a reading experience; they're an entirely different art form. She didn't give the OK to scroll the text on a movie screen. She's opposed to one particular means of delivery of the original text because she feels that the written work itself, the original product of her imagination, is not properly experienced on an electronic screen.
Sure, it's an emotionally based decision based on a romantic notion of what a book should be. Not a big surprise from someone whose fictional world is populated with candlelit rooms and magic. To be honest, I share that notion a little (obviously not fully, since I own a Kindle). I can't defend that rationally, nor can I make a purely logical argument for reading stories about wizards.
Frankly, I prefer the movies. I don't particularly like her writing, but the story is good enough for a fun viewing.