Honestly, when I saw Tron, it was fine, but there were two things I wanted from it. First is MORE RIGHT ANGLES! I expected right angles in the light motorcycle battle, and there weren't any. Second, I want the old guy to be a complete BAD ASS. From what I saw in the movie, he created the world, so he is like the god of it, and if your a god, I want to see some complete bad ass god powers. He showed them twice in the movie by turning everything black, so why can't he just make blocks and throw them at his clone or something more than just sitting passively looking at everything.
Ethan Fromeis just pointlessly grim and is irrelevant in a modern context.
Yay! Respect for not understanding literature! Why should we care about any story that doesn't prominently feature Pokemons or lightsabers?
Seriously, "irrelevant in a modern context"? Oh yeah, I forgot: longing, loneliness, despair, wanting something you know you can't have, the feeling of being trapped, and fate itself have all been excised from the modern world because we are all so smart now, all we care about are Pokemons and muppets.
We've been around this countless times before, but I'll go over it again. In short, the social stigmas that prevented Ethan and Mattie from being together no longer exist in any appreciable form. Divorce your miserable shrew of a wife if you want to. Really, it's OK. You can do it. In today's world, he could have Mattie. There would be no real conflict.
I could go on and on, but really, the kind of isolation that served to shape Ethan's character no longer exists, not unless you go out of your way to make it so.
Hence, the novel is irrelevant to a modern reader. There's nothing to connect to, so it just doesn't do anything.
If that's your test, then all of Shakespeare, Chaucer, Milton, Dickens, Twain, etc. is irrelevant. It doesn't matter why Ethan can't have what he wants. You don't need to read it so literally. If you're that literal, how can you enjoy a muppet fantasy movie when magic doesn't exist?
Is Shakespeare irrelevant because kings don't have as much power as they once did? Is Twain irrelevant because people don't raft down the Mississippi?
Is Twain irrelevant because people don't raft down the Mississippi?
People raft down the Mississippi all the time.
Is Shakespeare irrelevant because kings don't have as much power as they once did?
There are plenty of autocrats about the world.
Name the last person to build a raft to escape slave bounty hunters like Huck and Jim. in fact, under Pete's test of irrelevance, we shouldn't read that story because Jim's status as a slave was central to the plot and, since there are no more slaves in the U.S., the story is therefore irrelevant.
Name the last modern European autocrat to invade France due to a colorable ancestral claim to fuedal territory like Henry V. In fact, if you go far enough afield in the world, as you did by saying that autocrats still exist, you must realize that there are places in the modern world where people cannot obtain easy divorces of the sort Pete says makes Frome irrelevant.
Further, if stories are irrelevant because their central conflicts are obviated by the realistic conditions of modern society, where does that leave fantasy movies made with muppets? Surely they are even more irrelevant since muppets are inanimate and crystals are not magic.
My major problem withEthan Fromewas his suicide attempt. If you are going to commit suicide, why do it in a way that will most likely not kill you?
If you've ever thought about suicide, you must have thought about making it look accidental. Didn't the story make it clear that people had died that way in the past? I'm not sure - that's just how I remember it.
Of course, any discussion of suicide is irrelevant to modern society since no one commits suicide anymore.
Of course, any discussion of suicide is irrelevant to modern society since no one commits suicide anymore.
If Ethan Frome was the pinnacle of literary discussions of suicide, you might have a point.
If that's your test, then all of Shakespeare, Chaucer, Milton, Dickens, Twain, etc. is irrelevant.
Not necessarily. Much of Shakespeare still has relevance, though I agree that some of it is irrelevant today. Macbeth is still an excellent story about the pitfalls of hubris.
But you know what? Dickens sucks and always did. Twain was cutesy but again, the world he discussed is largely gone today.
William Gibson discusses themes of isolation in all of his works, and he does so with far more relevance to a modern reader than you can find in Ethan Frome. Talking about isolation when the world was isolated is all good and well, but now we live in a world of pervasive connectedness - one where privacy and seclusion are rare treats.
Gibson often discusses the power of being able to remain isolated in a world where you can't help but be connected to others. That's infinitely more relevant today than a novel discussing societal issues from 100 years ago.
But we've already done this dance, and I know you won't change your mind. It is necessary as society advances that some works lose relevance and discussion of those works will be less critical or will head in a totally different direction.
Themes have universal applications, that's why they're themes. A good theme stands the test of time because it works and resonates with people beyond the literal context of the story. That's why we still like Greek mythology. That's why we still like science fiction. What you're basically saying in this argument is that none of us can relate to Ender because we've never been to Battle School. Feelings of isolation and pressures of society still exist and will continue to exist for a long time and are clearly relatable for people like me and HungryJoe who actually liked Ethan Frome. They're just not relatable in the literal context that they're presented, which is true for pretty much any work that is set in a specific time and place setting that isn't our own, past or future, fictional or real, but one of the fundamental necessities of understanding literature is recognizing the parallels.
Try appreciating the beauty of the craftsmanship that went into constructing a book from the English language instead of whether or not something is relevant to modern society.
I hated Ethan Frome because the character himself was a pathetic sod of a man who didn't accomplish anything in his life, because he was too afraid to do so from his hypochondriac wife. That's why he married her in the first place, that's why he couldn't just run away with Mattie, and it's also why he couldn't even fulfill his suicide attempt, because of his overwhelming, pointless fear of his wife and loneliness which he didn't do anything about.
It is art. People have differing tastes and reactions to it. Discussing the various merits and weakness is a great academic exercise, but in the end to attempt to say in any definitive way that it is good or bad/relevant or irrelevant is simply impossible.
They are currently only writing the story for TRON 3. I wouldn't expect any sort of teasers to come out for another year at the earliest.
My understanding was that they were in a similar place on the process of writing the script for Legacy when the comic con preview footage was unveiled, just to gauge fan reaction. Maybe it's the same here? The Sark shots near the end are what lend credibility to me...
Comments
Have you seen Meet the Feebles? It's certainly not a good movie, but it does have a wonderfully non-standard use of muppets.
Best Daft Punk music video ever!
Seriously, "irrelevant in a modern context"? Oh yeah, I forgot: longing, loneliness, despair, wanting something you know you can't have, the feeling of being trapped, and fate itself have all been excised from the modern world because we are all so smart now, all we care about are Pokemons and muppets.
I could go on and on, but really, the kind of isolation that served to shape Ethan's character no longer exists, not unless you go out of your way to make it so.
Hence, the novel is irrelevant to a modern reader. There's nothing to connect to, so it just doesn't do anything.
Is Shakespeare irrelevant because kings don't have as much power as they once did? Is Twain irrelevant because people don't raft down the Mississippi?
Name the last modern European autocrat to invade France due to a colorable ancestral claim to fuedal territory like Henry V. In fact, if you go far enough afield in the world, as you did by saying that autocrats still exist, you must realize that there are places in the modern world where people cannot obtain easy divorces of the sort Pete says makes Frome irrelevant.
Further, if stories are irrelevant because their central conflicts are obviated by the realistic conditions of modern society, where does that leave fantasy movies made with muppets? Surely they are even more irrelevant since muppets are inanimate and crystals are not magic.
Of course, any discussion of suicide is irrelevant to modern society since no one commits suicide anymore.
But you know what? Dickens sucks and always did. Twain was cutesy but again, the world he discussed is largely gone today.
William Gibson discusses themes of isolation in all of his works, and he does so with far more relevance to a modern reader than you can find in Ethan Frome. Talking about isolation when the world was isolated is all good and well, but now we live in a world of pervasive connectedness - one where privacy and seclusion are rare treats.
Gibson often discusses the power of being able to remain isolated in a world where you can't help but be connected to others. That's infinitely more relevant today than a novel discussing societal issues from 100 years ago.
But we've already done this dance, and I know you won't change your mind. It is necessary as society advances that some works lose relevance and discussion of those works will be less critical or will head in a totally different direction.
I'm not sure how much I like the idea of light cycles IRL...
How would that even work?