Howl's Moving Castle

[Chimera]

You'll definitely want to read the book. It was the first DWJ I read, so I'm quite partial to it. What ones of hers have you read? I expect Fire and Hemlock, since that is a folklore retelling. If you haven't, you should. Have you read the Chrestomanci books?

[stacer]

I have Fire and Hemlock and the Dalemark quartet. I've also read most of the Chrestomanci books. I also have The Power of Three, which is actually my favorite of hers. Very nice. You should read it if you haven't. I'll have to find the book description on the back of book and share that with you--I can't describe it for fear of giving away something important.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

We saw the movie yesterday. We liked it.

[Chimera]

I know this is kind of degenerating into a discussion of DWJ, but she *did* write the book, and there wouldn't have  been a movie without the book, so I guess it is okay. I'll be happy to discuss the movie more, but I feel like I already commented on it.

So I have been slowly making my way through all of Diana Wynne Jones's books. I started with Howl's and then read its sequel Castle in the Air, then made my way through the four Chrestomanci books, which I all highly recommend (Witch Week might have been my favorite, but you need to read The Lives of Christopher Chant and Charmed Life before you read Witch Week or Magicians of Caprona if certain characters are to mean anything to you). There is a new Chrestomanci book that I haven't read yet, so I can't recommend it. DWJ is very prolific--I've read Dogsbody, The Darklord of Derkholm, Witch's Business, Aunt Maria, Eight Days of Luke, Fire and Hemlock, The Time of the Ghost, The Ogre Downstairs, Mixed Magics, and The Tough Guide to Fantasyland (although the last is more of a spoof dictionary, not a novel).

I haven't read the Dalemark quartet or The Power of Three. If the latter is your favorite, stacer, I will definitely have to pick it up. I've also heard that Archer's Goon is the best, and I still want to read Homeward Bounders, A Tale of Time City, Year of the Griffin, Deep Secret, and the Merlin Conspiracy. And the new Chrestomanci book. She has so many good books!

I don't know if I could pick a favorite of DWJ. The one thing I can say of her is that I have yet to read a book of hers that I did NOT like--and considering the amount she has written, that is saying something.

[stacer]

Dalemark is second on my favorites list of hers, though it has internal consistency problems. If you search the boards sometime in the last two years for "Dalemark," I'm sure you'll find the thread we had about it some time back. I can't remember how long ago now.

[stacer]

Review on Slate: http://slate.msn.com/id/2121089/

Warning: lots of spoilers in that review.

I think that the reviewer has a point about Sophie not being her own woman in the film. Nevertheless, I still enjoyed it. I probably will enjoy the book more, when I get around to reading it.

[Sigyn]

I'm not overly fond of Dalemark except for Spellcoats, which I loved. The new Chrestomanci book, Conrad's Fate, is quite good though it seemed to end a little too quickly.  I don't often finish a book and feel like it needed to be about fifty pages longer.

I really liked the movie, though I think I like it better as a separate thing from the book.  I wish Miyazaki had kept in more of the book, especially with Sophie and Howl's relationship.

[Chimera]

I really liked the movie, though I think I like it better as a separate thing from the book.

After taking a film and literature class in which we discussed adaptation, this is the way I view movies adapted from books. You kind of have to--the techniques used in literature are not entirely transferable to the visual medium of film, and vice versa. I know that at times I am alone in this. My professor called the people who are horrified by any change made from book to film as "guardians of the text." I will admit straight up that I am not one of those guardians. I actually liked *gasp* the LoTR films better than the books! (I know, I know, some of you will cry blasphemy.) And Ella Enchanted--I loved the book. But I have found that I am one of the few people who also liked the movie. And usually the complaint I hear against the movie is not that it was poorly done or badly acted or that there were holes in the plot (all of which I would be interested in listening to and discussing), but that it wasn't like the book. Oh, big waa.

An adaptation, I feel, should have the mark of the director--the "new" author. If it is exactly the same as the book, than read the book. Books are usually better. A film is a different medium, and it deserves to be viewed as such. Not that I think a director can't keep the spirit of the book--in fact, he should. But he doesn't have to be a slave to every detail. There needs to be room for creativity.

I found the review at slate interesting. I can see where she is coming from, but it still seemed a little bit of a fangirl complaining because her favorite book has been "desecrated."  (Note: I am taking the liberty of assuming that Bidisha is a woman's name.) She said that the book was more Miyazaki-esque than the film, and she had some basis for it. However, I still found that funny. Wouldn't whatever Miyazaki does be Miyazki-esque, rather than some other author's work? Can't Miyazaki do something different, rather than what he has done before? Isn't what he is doing right now Miyazaki-esque?

Now, I love the book. And I really enjoyed the movie. And the movie was not without flaws. But I don't think that the fact that the movie is not exactly like the book is a valid criticism. Perhaps I misunderstood the reviewer's argument, but once you got to the heart of it, that seemed to be her complaint.