Le 06/01/2013 14:35, Kenneth nous fit lire :
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> 
>> >
>> > The original book is for children...
> Ooh, I disagree. I didn't read the book until I was an older adult, and it just
> seemed *spot on* as to style and characterization. I never felt like it was
> talking down to me, or that it was 'juvenile', so to speak. I also got a real
> kick out of its droll humor. And, (at odds with the movie), Bilbo comes across
> as a rather quiet and somewhat serious 'everyman'--if a bit eccentric--lacking
> the overly-comic traits that are way overused by his film counterpart. If
> anything, it seems to me that the film itself is more aimed at the kiddies than
> the book is. Yet it does have a playful atmosphere, certainly more so than the
> darker and more serious LOTR trilogy (which I've actually never read.)
> 
> 
Different times, different approaches. It did have to be childish to be
for children.
Previously, "for children" was aimed at making them grow and move to
adulthood. Children are excellent at adopting the underlying
expectation: If you treat them like worthless bandits, they will turn
into worthless bandits. If you expect them to be gentle & fair, so would
they evolve.

You can elevate the expectation from your childish readers, and it was
so at the time of the Hobbit, or you can lower your language to reach
the lowest possible level.

Look at the Harry Potter saga. It was not using simple words because it
was for children... and it did not describe a beautiful pinky fluffy
world either. Children needs a bit of darkness in their stories, it
makes the happy ending brighter. (now, the 2 last tomes of the HP series
are just not on the same level as the previous ones... it feels "end of
service-get me out of there": one main line, few side tracks)

Same goes for "political": it's easier to have a "simple" yes/no
position... but the world is never that black or white.

Post a reply to this message