[deleted]

If you haven't read the book, how can you say the movie is as good? Or do you mean you haven't read the rest of the trilogy?

There are so many books that I wish were movies, but not a lot of movies I wish were books. I was thinking earlier bored at work, JR by William Gaddis would make a fantastic film if one could condense 770 pages of dialogue into a 2.5 hour flick.

In my opinion Circe is even better. You’re going to love it 😊

It’s mostly a push from conservatives to make sure disability payouts don’t increase. People with very low empathy and enough short-sightedness to not consider what would happen if they found themselves chronically ill with LongCovid…

Pirate's II: Stagnetti's Revenge

Circe is waaaay better imo. More fascinating, maybe because it's a less-told tale. And more beautifully poetic. I read it first and was knocked out by it. Achilles was meh.

[Edit: Not knocking your appreciation for Achilles. Just saying, if you liked Achilles, you'll really enjoy Circe.]

I would like to see The Silmarillion and Kalevala as movies. Both are epic stories that would make amazing movies due to their rich and detailed worlds, complex characters, and grand themes of creation, destiny, and heroism. Maybe too difficult to make though...

I love both Howl's Moving Castles, the movie and the book, but I do love the book better. Lately, I've been thinking about the book, Gunnar's Daughter by Sigrid Undset. I think it would make a fantastic movie, or even a limited series might be better.

Don't have many books that I'm sad ended, cause I wanted to stay in that world a little longer, SoA was definitely one!

You found the ending devastating?

The movie is amazing, the book is every bit as good, in a slightly more 'British' way.

My wife and I both read SoA at the same time, we both enjoyed it very much also. It is heartwarming to see so many of the same thoughts.

[deleted]

That’s a great breakdown.

I think the problem lies in how most information is communicated, electronically. I think this mode of transmission conditions people to react very quickly. This quick reaction does not bode well for any sort of in depth discussion, on any topic, let alone a very complex topic.

Howl’s Moving Castle is actually a part of a trilogy by Diana Wynne Jones it’s a bit different but also great!

The book was brave new world by Aldous Huxley. I just didn't enjoy it. It just wasn't for me. I had read A Handmaid's tale, 1984, Fahrenheit 451 and I preferred those.

the SoA audiobook is free on spotify and REALLY good!

I did not realize SoA was going to be a romance, which is NOT really my cup of tea, so her writing was phenomenal which allowed me to finish, but I was a bit bamboozled wanting more of the actual retelling, lol.

I have Circe as well and look forward to reading it!

Probably why I loved Circe so much! I’ve been a Greek mythology freak since 3rd grade.

>In your opinion can a straight white man know what it’s like to be a woman?

A person can make an attempt to divorce themselves from their default programming to try to empathize with the lived experiences of other people on an emotional level. It's not about some didactic correct answer of whether anyone can truly "know" so much as it's about how people approach art and how people think about this stuff. In the US at least, people of color tend to have a better ability to do this, because it's a skill they've had to cultivate growing up in a landscape where the majority of the popular media they consumed was very much not directly speaking to their lives and experiences, in a multitude of small and sometimes big ways.

I'm a white dude, and for much of my life I was pretty much the default target audience for the majority of popular culture, but even back then (and more so now): not every single piece of art exists with the objective of pointing itself directly at me all the time, because I am not the center of the universe. Now, could I simply encounter this stuff and write it off because I perceived that gap between the art and my immediate connection to it, and dismiss it as some flaw on the part of the art itself? I guess so, but that would be pretty lazy. The more rewarding thing to do is to try to bridge that gap, to meet the art where it's at and put in the effort to think about the ways in which it might speak to experiences that are unlike my own, and then try to empathize with those experiences to the best of my ability. Engaging with art and storytelling should not be a passive process.

We all have default programming, and pre-prescribed ways of looking at the word and constructing meaning from experience. But part of the process of growing up and becoming a well-adjusted person is making the active effort to break away from that default programming, and to cultivate a more broad-minded perspective about the world and the lives of people around you.

In your opinion can a straight white man know what it’s like to be a woman? Or a person of color? Or trans? If the answer is no. Why wouldn’t they see themselves as default? It’s all they possess the capacity for. If I can’t understand what it’s like to be these petiole of course I reject art that depicts those groups of people. What could art that I can’t understand possibly do for me?

not about books, but people say that to me every time i say that inception was stupid.

You'll love Circe! I liked Song of Achilles a lot, but Circe is far superior. Enjoy!

>The idea that white men only possess the capacity to understand what it’s like to be a white man and nothing else

I don't think this is true at all, but what I have encountered time and time again is white men who have little to no interest in putting in the effort to understand what it's like to be a non-white person. Their white-dudedness is the default POV for everything, and if a piece of art doesn't speak to them in that capacity, it must be the fault of the art.