Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
Presumably then, by the same token, you'd criticise Bernstein and Sondheim for "dumbing down" Shakespeare by writing "West Side Story"? You could apply precisely the same argument to that: "modern theatre-goers can't understand the language of the original play and can't use their imaginations to relate to the situations in the time period depicted, so it has to be presented to them in a way that doesn't strain their brains or cause them to want to learn more about a culture/historical period."
I would strongly disagree with this idea. "West Side Story", although it is indeed an adaptation of "Romeo and Juliet", is a work which has artistic merit in its own right.
I haven't read Joanna Trollope's book, and I don't know whether or not it is a work that has literary merit, but what I'm not prepared to do is condemn its mere existence on principle, as you're doing. That's really no different to the idea of "book burning", is it?
And this comment merely proves that she's "damned if she does, and damned if she doesn't", given that several posters earlier in the thread criticised the book for having Austen's name on it (even though it doesn't!).
|
"West Side Story" is not named "Romeo & Juliet", though, is it? So I'm not criticizing Bernstein at all. Bernstein used a unique name for his adaptation to distinguish it from the original. You are comparing apples with oranges.
I can condemn something's existence on principle. That, however, does not correlate into me wanting to burn the book. Less hyperbole, please.
My point of the "head smack" icon isn't a "damned if they do, damned if they don't" moment. It was a comment on the hypocrisy of making money off of Austen's work without giving her visible credit on the cover.