Last lines from famous books

[Intelligenthamster]

Now he was master of the world, and he was not quite sure what to do next.

But he would think of something. - Arthur C. Clarke, the novel 2001 A Space Odyssey.

 

[swee'pea99]

Anyway, it's easy enough to compile a list of one's own. Not so easy to answer someone else's list. Anyone care to place these? (not in the DM's list). I have censored out some obvious names. No googling!

• ...but now there was a sombre satisfaction on the round and ruddy face of ********* - First Speaker. Nope.
• So the ascetic Ebionites used to turn towards Jerusalem when they prayed. Paul made a note of it. Quite right to suppress them. Then he turned out the light and went to his bedroom to sleep.Nope.
• The gun, ********** had finally convinced himself, was after all a dream.Nope.
• ...together they slipped away, running easily down through the wood, where the first primroses were beginning to bloom.Nope.
• And ***********, standing on his hind legs, before the window, peering out into the night, gave a short bark of decided concurrence with the toast.Er.....nope.

So that's....let me see now (consults fingers, fumblingly...)....none. Ah.

 

[marinyork]

Were you watching TV last night by any chance, marinyork?

Spoiler

I don't really get this Heathcliff in his Yorkshire accent. Sorry. But maybe my view is clouded by memories of the 1930s Hollywood edition (Olivier/Oberon) where everybody - but everybody - speaks with US accents...

Not sure what to make of it, it seemed a bit disappointing but not for any of the superficial reasons bandied around - Yorkshire accents or Heathcliffe given a wig. I thought tinkering around with the order of events and flashbacks a bit of a flawed idea. Although Catherine (jr) and Hareton come across very well the playing around with the order and start means it has a very different feel from the film, infact perhaps trying to put as much clear blue water as possible between it and the most famous film version. Not one I object to in theory but one that will go down badly with tv audiences that expected glamourised hollywood versions.

 

[661-Pete]

I thought tinkering around with the order of events and flashbacks a bit of a flawed idea.

..which is exactly how Bronté herself presents the story. Remember that, in the book, you first meet Heathcliff very late in the timeline after Edgar's demise. Virtually everything else in the main narrative is told in flashback. So if that's the way Emily does it, why not the adaptation?

Personally I think the entry into the story in this latest version, at the point in time where young Catherine and Linton meet up, is quite acceptable, once you appreciate the dropping of the unnecessary Lockwood character.

Every dramatisation of a classic novel is going to be a disappointment, especially if you know the novel. You're always going to think 'why was that bit dropped?' or 'why was that changed?'. On the whole I quite enjoyed it.

 

[661-Pete]

Come now! They're all very well-known books, almost certainly at least one of them is on your bookshelves. Let me supply the genres, though not necessarily in the same order. Children's book/Victorian humour/Early 20thC satire/SF/Thriller.

 

[ASC1951]

• ...but now there was a sombre satisfaction on the round and ruddy face of ********* - First Speaker.

Last line of the dreary Azimov's cowboys-and-indians Foundation series, I think. Give me Arthur C Clarke any time; or if you want American authors, Ray Bradbury.

 

[swee'pea99]

Come now! They're all very well-known books, almost certainly at least one of them is on your bookshelves. Let me supply the genres, though not necessarily in the same order. Children's book/Victorian humour/Early 20thC satire/SF/Thriller.

Ah...that explains much. Do I read....Children's books Nope/Victorian humourNope/Early 20thC satireNope/SFNope/ThrillersNope.

 

[marinyork]

Nope[/B]/Victorian humourNope/Early 20thC satireNope/SFNope/ThrillersNope.

What sort of thing do you like?

 

[swee'pea99]

Oh, all sorts. Apart from those. Just read Travels with my aunt by Graham Greene, just about to read Stuart, a life backwards by Alexander Masters, Alan Bennet's The Uncommon Reader is hanging around on my desk, along with David Nobbs Going Gently, David Mitchell Cloud Atlas and The Road by Cormac McCarthy. Mostly modern fiction, but the occasional oldster too - read Middlemarch for the first time this summer - great stuff!

 

[661-Pete]

Last line of the dreary Azimov's cowboys-and-indians Foundation series, I think. Give me Arthur C Clarke any time; or if you want American authors, Ray Bradbury.

Yup: Second Foundation. The 'missing characters' read 'Preem Palver'. I suppose we're about to launch on the great Asimov v. Clarke v. Heinlein debate! For the record, I plump for Clarke too: but I still think the others wrote some brilliant stuff...

 

[marinyork]

I didn't get on too well with Cloud Atlas.

 

[marinyork]

Well my post wasn't particularly well thought out, we don't normally talk books on here. It might have sounded a bit negative as it was diplomatically put to try and not put off purists or the many Wuthering Heights haters who will still nevertheless have exacting standards as to what the main two characters should be like.

..which is exactly how Bronté herself presents the story. Remember that, in the book, you first meet Heathcliff very late in the timeline after Edgar's demise. Virtually everything else in the main narrative is told in flashback. So if that's the way Emily does it, why not the adaptation?

Personally I think the entry into the story in this latest version, at the point in time where young Catherine and Linton meet up, is quite acceptable, once you appreciate the dropping of the unnecessary Lockwood character.

I did actually choose flashback deliberately as in film and book they tend to mean very different things. Flashbacks in older novels are nothing like flashbacks in many modern films.

I don't think Lockwood is unnecessary, I think it adds to the atmosphere of outsiders looking in and sort of brings together the cyclical nature of things. I can understand him being dropped, the way the adaptation was done and the limited nature of film flashbacks gave it a flavour being very much along the lines of the second half of the book which is an interesting idea. I just don't think they pull it off, least of all because I didn't think Charlotte Riley was much good. Yes, you can argue it's not so different from the book, in reality the emphasis is quite a long way away and is more focused on the second half. I think they suffered a bit as ITV tend to go for 90 minute extended dramas, with adverts this is a big problem.

Every dramatisation of a classic novel is going to be a disappointment, especially if you know the novel. You're always going to think 'why was that bit dropped?' or 'why was that changed?'. On the whole I quite enjoyed it.

I'm not a purist. It's possible to give a production kudos - originality, the production itself and that it was shot in high definition and getting on prime time tv and still think yeah was a bit of something missing.