Original Works, Piracy, Copyrights, Adaptations, Adoptions and DNA

I had often wondered about how anyone could say to someone else "now she is the mother, you are not the mother" as if legal papers is where parenthood is at, much less specifically motherhood.

A father's role is far more about providing of needs of the child post birth, while taking care of the mother during and after the birth is imporatant too - but it all can be done by someone who was not present at conception at any point, and so one could with meaning say, "he is far more a father of the child than the genetic donator of the dna", in many situations.

But a long journey of conception to birth with risks to organs, work, and one's very life, cannot ever be held without meaning; and even if the mother who gave birth hated the whole procedure and the fetus with a rage and a venom, nevertheless her bond cannot be negated, even if it is poison to the child that is unwanted with a vengeance wich most children including those of rape are not - every child is after all a part of her for better part of a year, feeding on her body, carried under her heart, with their experiences and emotions and thoughts intertwined (never mind what you think about ability of the woman and fetus to think or feel).

The only parity is between the genetic and the birth mother, if they happen to be separate, as is now possible with ivf procedures; and a third person, woman or man or even one of third - that is, no - gender, taking care of the child post birth, can equal the other - genetic and biological - mother, but not negate their importance, much less replace the dna or whatever else went into the growing of the embryo into the born child.

The often read or heard (tv, films) sentence "you are not the mother now, she is" has led me to suspect that it was indeed about the rights and legalities involved, and parenthood was seen as a right while the child was not an adult - notice the absence of such rights when the grandparents are denied rights to the grandchild, by the generation in the middle; as if becoming parents has automatically cancelled the rights of the parents of those that now became parents.

What is this concept of rights, of legality and ownership? People who are so very gung ho about copies, piracies, copyrights, how do they negate rights of parents, reality of so basic a kind? Is it all about who has money, who pays - albeit no one pays for the baby officially, still, the underlying logic being, the adoptive parents paid the expenses and moreover have the paper signed and authorised? Thus too the hurry to copyright and patent someone else's heritage across the world so the original ones can now be denied while the copiers profit?

At one time I had had a conversation with someone about a director held to be great, whose most popular work is adapted from a great writer's story and distorts the original considerably, so as to change the whole portrayal of a delicate story into one that can only be described as bordering on stink. The person I was then conversing with was one of the many fans of this director, which really is a fan following based on world wide recognition and a lack of concern for half the world or a perception broader than mind, and I had simply said, you have not read the original. Since the original writer is held greater in esteem by same logic by most for same reasons without even reading him, although many indeed do read and follow and sing his works - he wrote prose, poetry, set his own songs to music and brought a revolutionary university into being - this was unanswerable. Fortunately so, too.

This following conversation happened more recently and brought out a bit more of what is involved in people's thinking about all this, and it tells a tale of attitudes about various issues involved, about copyrights and righteous indignation of some people, nations, cultures against copies and adaptations, while they accept any distortion whatsoever of the original just so long as money has been paid and a contract signed by the original creator if he or she is not dead and copyrights not lapsed.

It explains, too, the theft of Basmati and turmeric medical properties and other ancient knowledge some attempted to copyright so the original populations could stand to lose the heritage of millennia.

.............................
.............................


Dr. J. G.

.. Glass Palace is a good one especially with the historical and geographical details, very evocative. I like to read things that give one information about such things - different places, culture, how people think and live, and often it is more informative to read it in story forms where main characters are supposed to be fictional. Even in such supposedly trivial read as Perry Mason or PG Wodehouse or Agatha Christie, one gets something of this nature (California law or England). When it is merely titillating it is not all that worth - and in this one (The Glass Palace) I found the titillating bits irritating, they were out of tune, a bit like ugly patchwork, as if some editor at publishing or something made the writer do it for sake of selling, or he once in a while felt he had to muck about - but such bits are about one percent or less, and mostly it is very worth reading.
................................


Bill C
I love the works of W. Somerset Maugham. I have not read his early plays but his novels Of Human Bondage, The Moon and Sixpence, The Letter, Rain and his last work, The Razor's Edge, were wonderfully written and insightful.
I even thought the movies of each one of these books was also excellent with Bette Davis and Leslie Howard in Of Human Bondage; Joan Crawford and Walter Huston in Rain; Tyrone Power and Gene Tierney in The Razor's Edge; Bette Davis and Herbert Marshall in The Letter and The Moon and Sixpence with George Sanders.
.............................


Dr. J. G.

I did not know Razor's Edge was his last work, but it does make sense. I thought the films were not as good as the books, especially the Razor's Edge, since they changed the stories a lot - just as they did with The River by Rumer Godden, too. But perhaps there is more than one version. I am unsure of which one I saw, the latter (River) had someone like Harrison Ford or Mel Gibson and the setting was changed to a middle of US mill town with workers homes rather opposite from the original.
Many films do change a lot of details, often enough to lose the main point or make the original story unrecognisable. That includes some of the most renowned directors too.

I rather liked plays of Maugham, the one memorable I can think of is Constant Wife - begins similar to Women by Claire Booth Luce, but goes on to be very different. Luce's work was safer and sadder, more acceptable to conservatives. Maugham had no fear of being different - radicals and eccentrics were not merely allowed but prized and much feted in Britain, so the success of Shaw as well to the level of being a great celebrity.

I have often wondered if others notice the differences between the two versions of the film Man Who Knew Too Much by Hitchcock and see the differences of the two societies he lived in when he made them, the two versions are so very different in various details.

I think I have read almost everything by Maugham, but cannot be sure of course, didn't buy a complete works, - don't remember Letter but think I read it. Problem is when I think of that title what comes to mind is the story by Stephan Zweig!
...................................


Bill C
I agree that the movies of Maugham's work do not replicate the books but I thought the movies were well done simply as movies, not as recitals of the books. I think Braveheart is a good movie but there is hardly a lick of truth in it beyond the basic generalities.
...................................


Dr. J. G.

Yes, I see - but sometimes a great work of literature is far too alive to be remoulded, and while you might not feel that way about these you might about others. There are probably other films that deviate from the original work that I might not disapprove of as much either. I do find that the Razor's Edge loses a great deal in cutting corners and staying short of lofty peaks. So does River, and some others.

Sometime though the film might rise higher and I thought Grapes of Wrath did that.

I am not sure you have thought over logical implications of replacing "authenticity" with "mere recitals" though. This line of reasoning might lead to disparaging of original creators be they writers or musicians or poets or whatever, with a free for all piracy and distortions and an attitude of "it was paid for wasn't it" which really downgrades any original or creative work.

My take on this - a copy or an adaptation is fine and an honest admission of the due to the original is to be appreciated, but a payment however high does not entitle the buyer to change the original much less distort it out of all its meaning any more than an adoption entitles the adoptive parents to change the blood, the dna of the adopted to their own. Keeping the original title is really unnecessary when so much is changed that the work is no longer the same but is a copy.

There are perhaps hundreds of love stories across the world with feuding clans, yet it would be chaos if everyone called theirs Romeo And Juliet, there would be some complaints from the original heritage proud connoisseurs, righteously and with outrage. Another example, it was better for the Kon - Tiki voyager to name his travel story Kon-Tiki rather than Odyssey, even though the voyage across Pacific with the sort of boat he used was of no less importance for the understanding of world history, anthropology, social sciences, navigational sciences, and so on.

And the differences in the two versions of the Hitchcock films made with a gap of time and geography tell their tale of the societies he lived in.
................................
................................


That last is of course for anyone to see if only one can open eyes and not be blinkered against admission of reality. Both versions of The Man Who Knew Too Much are available for anyone to see, and I wonder if Hitchcock not only was concious of the very visible, very clear difference and the implications, but retained it starkly with a toungue in cheek for all to see with what it meant about his social milieu and the change therein from pre wwII UK to cold war US.

I wonder if it was only geography, at that, and time was of less importance in the difference brought about. Was time a factor at all, at that?

Scarlett O'Hara And The hatred Lesser Women Bear For Her

This is a conversation that could have happened a hundred times without coming to blows, but happened this once with explosives going off and I found it difficult to comprehend why, until I closed it unilaterally and looked over in the act of storing it for reference, and realised it was all about their egos being wounded and my dislike for the pompous, illogical "but"s from kiki. She wanted a recognition and went about it the wrong way, and floundered and failed to acknowledge her mistakes of thought and emotion while others joined in when it clearly seemed (to them) like a young woman had successfully finished throwing her shoes at the head of a far more learned, capable, clear-sighted person. None of them debated my points - instead they went on to attack personally as a hoard of jackals would seeing a far larger prey downed or in flight.

.....................................
.....................................

Diane
I can't believe I actually read all 1024 pages of Gone With the Wind. Scarlet does not have one redeeming bone in her body. I did not like this classic book.
...................................

Dr. J. G.

Someone who went out of her way to feed, protect and generally support a bunch of people she did not need to, with hard physical work and much else, at the age of nineteen and with a war raging around? If it were a male you would be swooning at his feet. Do stop the gender blinders and see people for what they are. A woman who does not pretend or parade helpless stupidity and instead goes about to manage what this young one did is indeed a hero. The people she took care of included all of Tara inhabitants with Wilkeses thrown in, her aunts who had little to live on and she sent them money (which allowed them to help out Mrs Butler the mother of Rhett), later the sister of Ashley who lived with Melanie until Melanie threw her out for being ungrateful, and Aunt Pittypat, too - instead of all this, working herself to bones as Melanie puts it, she could have been the helpless rich widow - she had ownership of half the house in Atlanta and the money managed well by uncle Henry - and had everyone sympathise with the single mother of a small boy. But no, she refused to allow Tara to go for taxes or to have the sisters farmed out to relatives and the slaves go about scrounging for food and Wilkeses starve too, and went out to do more than anyone could to save it all. Cotton picking included.

Or perhaps that is the basis of your hatred - cotton picking? Someone working to save two dozen people from starving to death rather than refusing to let happen any soiling her gloved fingers and protecting them from acquiring callouses? A woman who did achieve and did not hit people on the head with what they owed her?
Melanie was no fool, and was honest enough to give Scarlett her due.
...................................

khabira
I just want to address Gone With the Wind. I am a femininst and you must remember that at the time the novel was written the fact that Scarlett survived at all with her sanity attested to her toughness. She would never give up. At that time, unlike now, that was a lot to find in a woman. In Scarlet's world she would never have been allowed to even wear bloomeers which feminists wore to break through the censorship so we today can enjoy wearing pants. Scarlet had no vote. She was practically as owned by her father, husband as were the slaves on the plantations. I hope this will make the novel easier to understand. Historically, women have had to do anything possible to take care of themselves and their children. They had no rights
....................................

Gayle M
Ah, you should have been born when the suffragettes were in action. That was a really fascinating time. There are several books out about that period, don't remember names, but one of them was about the women's conference in Seneca Falls, NY.
...................................

bookwormerin
I love the bumper sticker "Rarely do well behaved women make history"
...................................

Gayle M
Yes, that is sooo very true. I think that any woman who stood out in her time, and was not well behaved, usually got into trouble quickly, and that's why we know who they were and are.
...................................

Dr. J. G.

It is much more than that, Scarlett is really a true high heroine in her saving all those people from starvation to death and protecting people from Melanie to inhabitants of Tara during the war. The negatives come from minds of the likes of those Melanie cast out when push came to shove, including her own blood, for being ungrateful to Scarlett in spite of everything they owed her.

Judging a woman by different scales only to attack her is at the base of such negative light thrown on Scarlett, who would be a hero if she were a male with the same actions and same life. Such gender biases are unseemly at the very least and belong to times of plenty when there is no other concern for anyone except who is attracted to who. And for all that Frank need not have married Scarlett, he might have remembered his obligations and was not forced by anything more than his being dazzled by someone he never hoped to attract. He married her because he wanted to. As did Charles, or Rhett. Men are not toys and if a woman is able to marry one without a shotgun wielding father or a knife brandishing brother to force it, it is because the guy wanted it.

Of course, when such shotguns and knives are brought out, the guy usually deserves it - men protect each other far more than women they are obliged to protect, since they are always aware of themselves being in the same boat another time.
...................................

Kiki68
I love GWTW--one of my all time favorites! Melanie...I just love her. And Scarlett. You may not like them, but they are great "characters."
...................................

sainomoore
The author of GWTW herself was surprised anyone liked Scarlett. she was tying to make her unlikeable. JK Rowling had the same problem with Snape. she was like 'errr..you're not supposed to like him"

Scarlett was a carpetbagger, really. she was what a true southerner hated.
one of the questions is "are we willing to become what we hate to survive."
ironically, Rhett, who was seen as a rogue and dishonorable, was the most true and honorable character. the one person whose respect he wanted was mammie. again, crazy idea for the time. he even bought her a pretty red slip. the respect was hidden, his like and respect for her had to be hidden.

Melanie was very strong and she remained a true lady, giving strength even to her husband when he was realizing the society he respected was crumbling.
I think the novel came out just before WW2. this was an era when women came out if force to stand by their man and support their country. i really hate the "GI jane" heroines. Women have always been strong.
...................................

Kiki68
Except that Scarlett wasn't really a carpet bagger--because she was no Yankee! I like to think of her as a survivor, a phoenix rising from the ashes of complete and total devastation. Sometimes people really do dislike those fighters, especially when they are successful, but you can't help but admire them, as well. And she is the exact opposite of Ashley Wilkes, who let his life force disintegrate with the world he knew around him dying as well, instead of fighting to create a new life.
I totally agree with many of your observations, very true.

Melanie is so great because she is a voice of reason in the storm of the war--she sees people as people, regardless of what side they are on, or their business (Bell Watling, for example).
...................................

nina d
I'm with you. Melanie is best character. She the type of person I wish I could be. But her character does not make for good drama. Scarlet is spoiled and self-centered and always stirs the pot, and all the other characters have to survive the turmoil she creates. For me, I like the scenes with Melanie and Rhett.
...................................

Dr. J. G.

Spoiled and self centered? What stopped her from saving her own self with the boy, depending on the money and the house left her by the husband, and being the genteel helpless widow who men would rush to protect? Anyone can play those games.

Instead she went to save Melanie by staying with her through bombings, took her along to Tara rather than leaving her, worked her fingers to bone to do farmwork (try it without the machines before you talk nonsense about someone who did it) only to feed the whole lot at Tara including the servants, fed the sisters and the Wilkeses and the stragglers too, sent money to her aunts who in turn helped Mrs. Butler to survive, and was the only indirect support of the sister of Ashley who lived with Melanie until thrown out by Melanie for being ungrateful to Scarlett.
It is all very well wishing to be like Melanie, but a Melanie needs a Scarlett to survive much as the Ashleys of this world do too - the Rhett Butlers won't support them, they would allow the lesser men to be winnowed out. The true worth of Melanie is in standing with Scarlett, not in just being sweet. Careen is sweet too, but not a heroine of history. Grandma Fontaine recognises the spirit and worth of Scarlett as much as Melanie does, and gives value due.

As for the writer, the character of Scarlett was based on her grandmother or great grandmother, from what I read.

And Scarlett's own grandmother was far more scandalous, only she did not work physically and expected to be maintained in wealth by the men and hence was called a lady.

If those are your values, anyone, you do stand to be winnowed out when push comes to shove. Working and doing everything humanly possible to help your near and dear survive is a great value of humanity, and anyone disdaining it is either fraud or is going to let one's own family starve just to maintain lily white palms without callouses. Dishones or despicable, or both.
...................................

Kiki68
Hi Dr. J. G.--I too, have always been a big fan of GWTW and Scarlett as well. But we do need to examine her true motives a little here!

Scarlett does not save Tara or Melanie or her sisters because of her deep and abiding love and devotion to them, truth be told. Yes, she loved her parents, but Ma is dead by the time she arrives at Tara after escaping Atlanta, and Gerald is out of his mind. She never wants to go hungry again, never wants to wear rags again, and never wants to be afraid again. She is determined to preserve her own hide. Doing so will involve helping other people survive--and she needs them too. And Rhett pretty much knows this and tells her as much. I am not saying that Scarlett doesn't love her family or Tara, but I would say helping them is not her primary motivation. Also, many of her actions are motivated by her unrealistic devotion to Ashley.

I am not saying Scarlett is not an admirable or strong or even not a feminist character. All I am saying is that it is wrong headed to prescribe to her a lot of compassion for others. She doesn't learn this until the very end, when Melanie dies.
Melanie and Scarlett balance each other so nicely in this novel. You just can't have one without the other, I say. Melanie longs to be strong and "smart" like Scarlett , while Scarlett spends so much of the novel dismissing Melanie and completely misunderstanding her, until the end! That's when she learns to appreciate Melanie. When that balance in her life is gone.

So, sure, I love Scarlett too, for her feisty behavior and gumption. That's why Melanie loves her so, in fact. But Scarlett is not fighting for everyone, she is fighting for herself, and dragging everyone along with her. It is survival of the fittest--and Scarlett is the fittest!

Just my thoughts!
...................................

Dr. J. G.

You are missing the point - it is not about selflessness and compassion, again virtues sought in women but allowed to be absent in men, a gender biased view. Scarlett did not wish to be hungry, or wear rags, but honestly do you? What stops anyone from being hungry or wearing rags if they so desire? And NO she did not need to carry them with her, none of them. She could have very well survived as a single widow with means, with a little boy - if only she had never left Atlanta, never cared what happened back home, survived with the same wit and talents that she used to help others survive. She could just as well have played a helpless mother of a little boy and batted her eyelids at every single soldier and kept her virtue in the bargain too, and let everyone else die.

If pride of an O'Hara is what made her take care of all those that looked up to her, that pride also made her go ready to sell herself just so they all survive. That she married someone instead was a part of not her design as much as the turn of events.

The people should be compared are not Melanie vs Scarlett, although they complement one another and work together and Scarlett admires Melanie with her - Scarlett's - honesty, not a common quality at that in women who fit into the accepted mold of virtue for women. Scarlett would love to hate Melanie but saves her since she did promise to do so, again and again, and admires her when Melanie stands with her holding a sword she dragged down over the dead union soldier, and suggests they check his pockets for money.

If you demand virtues of Buddha then most humanity stands condemned including all of men in any non communist country, and judging all women who achieve anything in realms other than home by the standards that will precisely bring them down is an evil of the society that demands women be kept down, not that far from taliban at that.

Scarlett's virtues are neither selfless social service nor a fitting into norms required but an ability and a self-demand made by honour and pride that she not abandon those she is responsible for - and yet this responsibility is of her own choice. Women normally are required only to care about their own children, and if a woman keeps her virtue and her children starve she is not faulted. This standard of virtue is that of looking at a woman as a glass object, and you are blaming a woman who achieved much by leaving the concern for fragility of glass behind and attempting steel standards. She was not unbreakable, and Melanie's virtue is in recognising Scarlett's worth and the debt of gratitude she owes to her, for all the times Scarlett risked her own self and saved others including the Wilkes family. Melanie's virtue is not in being sweet to everyone which most women do as long as their own interests and needs to throw muck on some other woman are taken care of; Melanie's virtue is in standing up to the whole society along with Scarlett, when Scarlett is in need.

You do not question if a man supports his family and others out of compassion, you celebrate his achievements and demand gratitude from those that benefit, whether family or children or wife. A woman is supposed to love and serve and offer gratitude as long as there is food on table and clothes on back, for her and her children.

The twist in GWTW is that Scarlett is a man - not sexually but in terms of mind and achievements - and Melanie the woman, with Ashley the helpless gentleman who knows what Scarlett is up to and does not stop her from going to Atlanta; hence the scorn of Rhett who is in rage at him, saying he - Rhett - would have gone and done highway murder to stop Scarlett from going to sell herself in order to support them all.

Taking of the gender blinkers is required here for a realistic evaluation. Going about looking for a set ready made bunch of values from either gender is something that belonged to the era of feudal-serf society, and to the minority of upper middle class at that. All those days are gone with the wind. Upper class always did what they pleased (Scarlett's grandma Robillard) and poor did what they had to, and neither could afford artificial values. A person's worth is what he or she is capable of achieving, in any field, all summed up without demands of what their gender makes you expect.

Or else most of non soldier males are deficient, would you say? No, because you would not fault men no matter what. This is your servitude to men, whether you are man or woman, mentally. Let it go.

A spoilt and selfish woman would let everyone else starve and have males around support her with nothing but batting of eyelids to reward them while gathering her skirts from any possibility of someone else's mud sticking to her, which neither of the two women do in this story. If anything it is Suellen who would let others starve while she is taken care of by Frank, an assessment not denied by the man who marries her, the worthy Will Benteen (is that his name?) who knows the worth of Scarlett without being charmed (she did not set her cap at him, or she could have had him do the highway robbery for her while they waited to have him bring the moolah back!) - and hence is her friend.
...................................

Kiki68
Who is demanding the virtues of Buddha? And who says compassion and selflessness are not important qualities for anyone to have, of any gender?

I think you are missing my point, actually.

Instead of hiding under the bed and letting it all go (kind of like Ashley, a man, does throughout the book), Scarlett takes action--she is motivated by many things, but most importantly, by survival.

Scarlett is an excellent character because she is a woman, ahead of her time.
"You do not question if a man supports his family and others out of compassion, you celebrate his achievements and demand gratitude from those that benefit, whether family or children or wife. A woman is supposed to love and serve and offer gratitude as long as there is food on table and clothes on back, for her and her children."--No--I never, ever said that! You are really twisting the whole thing! I totally disagree with your statements here, I think you are talking yourself into a corner--we agree more than we disagree!

"Women normally are required only to care about their own children, and if a woman keeps her virtue and her children starve she is not faulted."--really? I think at even during the Civil War, this would be questioned, especially with a women like Scarlett. Sure there are societal norms, but this is not a normal time. Scarlett is moving forward while Ashley is stuck in the past.

And of course no one wants to starve or wear rags,but some people are tougher than others and are able to fight, where others just can't, due to no fault of their own (physical weakness/illness/lack of smarts to put it plainly), regardless of gender! Scarlett is also not an in the box thinker either--she is always "scheming" (so pejorative), and thinking ahead, trying to determine her next move.

Yes, it is Will Benteen. And Scarlett realizes she has no one to turn to--she has to do something because no one else is capable. It is just that simple. Sure, there are feminist leanings in the book, but I believe they are there accidentally. Statements are being made about the time period and Scarlett comes through as an extraordinary character. This kind of person existed, I am sure (yes, yes, Mitchell's grandmother/Scarlett's grandmother, I know!), but not just them. There were women during the Civil War that went above and beyond to survive, to help the war effort (on both sides) and there always have been everywhere.

Anyway, let's agree to disagree, although, I think we agree more than either of us think!

I certainly do not hold all these gender bias you seem to be accusing me of ("Or else most of non soldier males are deficient, would you say? No, because you would not fault men no matter what. This is your servitude to men, whether you are man or woman, mentally. Let it go."--wow, how insulting of you to say this to me--I never said this in any way! And I've found much fault in many men, fictional and real! I certainly have a problem with Ashley, and although I think Rhett a great character, I do not see him as a real hero in any way--he does what is convenient for him to survive--why he and Scarlett are so very similar.)

I am in no way in servitude to any man or woman, thank you very much!
...................................

Dr. J. G.

Here is a clearing up of the reason for my last post - you in your post previous to the one above pointed out that Scarlett did not help anyone out of compassion or selfless motives, and my thrust mainly was to say that this does not in any way detract from the effect of her having supported a whole lot of people whom she need not have.

My main point in the post previous to this is that virtues of people ought to be seen individually instead of pointing at a woman for not behaving like what is expected of a woman strictly speaking.

If anyone is compassionate there is no reason for me to dislike or berate this, but someone supporting a whole clan or three can be lauded even if the motive is pride and honour.

I was not in any way addressing you or anyone else personally, it is always a post and its implications and so forth that I deal with. If you agree with me fine, if you still think "but Scarlett is not nice" your choice.

And no, I doubt any woman will be socially ostracised for not selling her body if her child died of starvation in any war, but those that did use this route for supporting their near and dear, including the white slavery victims of today across border from Germany who are brought there by cheating and kept there by force and blackmail, are seen and spoken of by settled fortunate women (and their husbands who refute any criticism of the clients of those brothels) as "that sort of women, one cannot blame men" and so on.

Whether or not anyone has a prejudice is really something each one ought to examine for oneself - and others can only see it in the writings, posts, debates, arguments put forth by the person.

Finally for Ashley, such men and women might not survive primitive times as war usually brings but the value of those is not negligible either - he has some excellent qualities that many women would be glad to find in a man. Education for example seems irrelevant when one is building a log cabin but eventually society needs to rise above that and progress, and a researcher in an academic seeming subject is not without value, as indeed a true gentleman is not either. But when in trouble and need someone with the resourceful strength of Rhett is very good to have on your side, in sheer survival need.

I hope this clear up the animosity you obviously felt - however if you still feel hurt, take care.
...................................

Kiki68
"you in your post previous to the one above pointed out that Scarlett did not help anyone out of compassion or selfless motives, and my thrust mainly was to say that this does not in any way detract from the effect of her having supported a whole lot of people whom she need not have." I never said it did, my dear!

I never said it detracted from her as a person, I am just being honest about her motives in the book, I said as much several times. I am not looking at her "virtues' as gender based/biased, although that is clearly how she is viewed by her peers and elders in the novel.. She is the toughest character in the book, and one of my all time favorites.

For me, there is nothing to distract me from the fact that Scarlett, whether you think she is a tough nut, a spoiled brat, a feminist before her time or a typical Southern Belle, is probably one of the most well rounded and believable characters, male or female ever.

The animosity comes from someone telling me what I think when I clearly didn't say any of those things, nor did I imply them! I am sure others may feel that way, but I don't.

My feelings are not hurt, but I am a little defensive when someone tells me I am being "gender biased." Maybe I am, but towards women! Who I believe are quite often superior in many ways to men, generally speaking!

Anyway, no harm done, but please know where I stand--I have loved Scarlett since I was 14 and first read the book--clearly she is a woman before her time. I find little or no fault in her actions, except that maybe she is a little cold to her first two children, but she is a child herself when they are born, and many people are just like that with their children--mothers and fathers. And I only really perceived that after becoming a mother myself. She is the hero of the book, saving Tara and its inhabitants from certain death and starvation--I have never denied that--it is one of the many reasons I adore her.

Have a great evening!
...................................

Dr. J. G.

"Hi Dr. J. G.--I too, have always been a big fan of GWTW and Scarlett as well. But we do need to examine her true motives a little here!
Scarlett does not save Tara or Melanie or her sisters because of her deep and abiding love and devotion to them, truth be told. Yes, she loved her parents, but Ma is dead by the time she arrives at Tara after escaping Atlanta, and Gerald is out of his mind. She never wants to go hungry again, never wants to wear rags again, and never wants to be afraid again. She is determined to preserve her own hide. Doing so will involve helping other people survive--and she needs them too. "

That is the quote from your post that my reply to you began with, which got you angry and defensive and whatever else you claim, enough to go "my dear".

Bye.
...................................

Kiki68
I am not angry or defensive. But now I am annoyed.
And you keep repeating what I've already said, without making any point at all. Pointless.
You make no sense at all.
...................................

Dr. J. G.

Now you are incorrect to the point of your post being a lie, kiki. I quoted your own post to point out that you did derogate a woman on basis of being not full of womanly virtues, else the quote from your post is without any meaning whatsoever. Subsequently you changed your tune but then went on to attack me and claim you had said the opposite of what your post quoted by me implied, and this time you are claiming I am going on repeating what you said when in fact it was only one quote at the end of your corkscrew posts that went round from admiration to derogatory to defensive and attacking. Good bye, you without reason and with venom. I am not going to read your posts, it is a waste of my time and energy and is no use to make you see sense in any way. Play with little girls your own age, and hold your claws back. They shall not be so gentle as I have been in perceiving your lack of maturity, since they will be your own level.
...................................

Dr. J. G.

Mel, and those of you that are of similar mind in this, - when circumstances are adverse and survival is not guaranteed for you, as it happened during civil war and is not promised to anyone it won't happen again, I suppose you have a Rhett or a Scarlett to depend on - unless you have it in yourself and recognise it, and the dislike or the comments are immature like the rest of this debate in attacking me.

Goodbye.
....................................
....................................

Subsequently there were some hate posts serving no point - one from the "spoiled, selfish" comment maker to the effect that it was only fiction and it did not matter, and I could not comment on how much hardship she had had since I did not know her (if she did have hardships, why was recognition of another girl's hardships missing, that too to support a weary load she had chosen for sake of family honour?). All this was merely jackals gathering to hound a superior downed in their perception, or one in flight and hence unlikely to turn around on them.

In any case since they are blind to truth, deaf to logic and couldn't care less about justice, their braying was a mere headache. I left with this in major post rather than replying -
....................................
....................................

Dr. J. G.

I should have remembered (Mitchell mentioned as much explicitly too), women did not like Scarlett, with few exceptions - Ellen her mother, Grandma Fontaine the realistic and gone-through-hardships open-eyed wise old woman, and Melanie who was just as honest as Scarlett.


Being "ladies" who are taken care of depends on everyone being convinced you are a helpless lot, all women, and men (or servants) have to do everything; if you are capable of getting out of your helpless crinoline-and-fans at twenty odd years suddenly to drive through a war

raging, go do farmwork with lily white hands to get callouses only to save hides of those you don't even like, and then not only save a plantation but create a thriving business outbidding men competing with you only because you can do sums in your head while they need to

scratch with pencils, then you are defying all conventions about helplessness of women, and hence endangering the safe cushy lives of other women the men you defeated in work are supporting.


Any woman in a non-women-ghetto work still stands the same danger from women, from what I have seen around - whether in science or whatever. I am reminded of a male remarking something obscene about Fiorina.

Schade.

Being like Melanie is not easy or cheap, for all that - she is sincerely able to see good in everyone and sees no reason to dislike a more attractive woman, and has honesty of admitting and gratitude for all she owes too; and has courage to stand up to all other women when Scarlett is in need, to risk her own social standing. This is more than just being weak and helpless and sweet and smiling, of which the latter is not trivial when sincere.

Neither of them is manipulative in the real sense - that of using a false sweetness only to stab in the back. Scarlett's one fault was being unaware of how dangerous the hatred of other women could be, how lethal. That speaks of an innocence, a mind used for better purposes - of saving her people from extermination - than the intricate emotional wars to little purpose other than sharpening more of the same weapons.


Men liked Scarlett when they were not threatened by her competence in their own fields -

Films, Awards, Reality, Politics

There is a furore created by the article by Arindam Chaudhuri, about a film made in India about India that has gone to Oscars. Media has been euphoric and the article has gone counter to the general celebration about India at the Oscars. Mostly the point about this film not being an Indian film is being ignored, or glossed over. Any criticism of the film is being beaten at with a "this is reality, and we should care, and if they show it we should not be hypocritical" sort of noises. Again, this glosses over many, many other films (of India) that were realistic, or those that did get oscars and were not so, or the many films of India that have been very worthy.

One ought to see the fury of some commentators hounding anyone concurring with Arindam Chaudhuri on his blog in a comment, the accusations of payment, the assumption that unless you are paid you have to like the film (shouldn't the opposite equation be obvious, since a good many people stand to lose money if the film does not make huge profits?) and the hounding of anyone making such comments in agreement with the main post. As if it is a dracula deal, and taking a bite out of a commentator is guaranteed to turn another one into submission or agreement with opposition of the main post.

Mr. Chaudhuri certainly has maddened a bunch who would rather celebrate any attention from the rich of the west, even at the cost of showing their own worst parts for photography exhibitions back where "they" came from, just for the sheer pleasure of attention from the said rich west. The sheer anger coming at him says he has touched a nerve, or else the article would have been ignored.

This film is being touted by that bunch, as bringing oscars to India, but why is it so important to have oscars at any cost one has to wonder. And there are some trolls too, hounding everyone who posts in concurring with your views and abusing them as well, one has to wonder who pays those, and why they are not happy to have said their piece once, if it is really only about a film!

Anyhow, the article of yours is on the dot, Arindam Chaudhuri.

For those that are criticising Arindam about not being realistic and forgetting what wrongs happen in India and Mumbai, I don't know if they saw or celebrated Traffic Signal or even Awara for that matter, or any other excellent films made in India in between or before. Do Bigha Zameen has not received oscars. Did it lack reality? On the contrary it was so real that the then relatively well to do main actor almost got arrested when he gave a

And someone informed me that the beautiful and subtle Last Lear was made by Arindam Chaudhuri, in which case his critics are seriously wrong.

Yes, there are negatives in every part of the world - when Arindam's critics bunch go to US I doubt they go hunting for the victims of racism such as Rodney King and ask if he hurts now; or even took a walk in Harlem (before it was gentrified that is) much less photograph it exclusively.
One hint - German tourists did just that to the exclusion of other usual photography, as a means of a subtle retaliation at US tourists going around concentration camp sites. I doubt Arindam's critics would dare the latter either for that matter.

Have they heard of five year olds getting ready to perform in US for a bridal inspection, so they could be picked for marriage at eight; or under-teens being forced into marriage in communities where any outsider stepping across the town boundary would risk being shot dead by the sheriff? Or other - far worse - stuff that is routine?

And if one wishes to make films about even topics covered on television shows in US about US one could make some very shocking ones, just by following one show. A popular and sympathetic mainstream one at that, and not one of the merely sensational ones. I shall withhold the name in case the bunch of trolls here jumps at them.

Anyhow, anyone with some realistic vision can see about the truth of what Arindam has pointed out about the motivation for the awards and the sensation this film has received. Lagaan was not about false or rich, nor is for that matter the stupendously excellent recent historical, Jodhaa Akbar, less than deserving of recognition far higher than all accolades, but these films would certainly not get mentioned at the awards in a society that is smarting from the outsourcing of jobs perceived as intelligent work to a country which is perceived forever as begging bowl pretenders (there was no outcry about outsourcing of manufacturing to rest of Asia to the east and southeast of India, since that is not intelligence but merely cheap labour, so it is ok to outsource those) - and this film is as comforting as some of the shows on television channels supposed to be informative in some of those nations.

In one place in Europe we were asked about Indians "begging" in front of rats while other Indians hunt and kill them to eat. We had to explain that the first was due to the very living concept of seeing Divine in all that prevails in India, and it was praying to that Divine in an act recognising the Divine in that action, not begging; while the second we were unaware of but in a huge nation of over a billion and well over several times the size of that nation (where the conversation took place) a variety of things happen in various corners that are not ubiquitous much less universal responsibility.

Later we were shown an article about a group of musicians from that same country that came to India supposedly to play and to learn Indian traditional music, to interact with the traditional classical music players in India in an exchange program in all likelihood, and while they were given royal treatment in Kolkata, they subsequently went back to write (quite a bit more than slightly) disdainfully, about India and about the musicians they met in India (classical ones) and the whole music tradition, and their summing up of the whole experience was "something oily and dirty sticking to the soles of feet" repeated from what their literal experience was at the Kaalie Ghaat where they were shown around, being "guests" of the nation and European ones at that.

Few of the commentators on the Arindam blog have understood the reality of the main post. The rest are happy at any notice taken of India at the awards celebrating excellence of cinema and not bothered about what goes into this particular one being chosen over all the other excellent films made in India, and it is pathetically akin to not knowing the difference between baring yourself (in relative privacy) for washing and cleansing or for a medical examination, vs doing so for giving a shot of "realistic" sort to the rich west so "they" over "there" are again reassured that you of India are just as disgusting as they always thought, and then some.

Some of those trolls should have seen the furious debate on the internet when a Russian survey said India was third with respect to personal washing and bathing, and the comments that poured forth about how dirty it was and without clean water and without bathrooms so how could anyone wash, while they couldn't believe Europe was behind India in this respect. (US forgets reality of Europe, of cold and poverty and risks involved with baring oneself in winter and cost of bathing and so forth, historically; or that habits formed for millenia are difficult to overcome.)

The bunch of critics of Arindam - or really rather trolls - have failed to notice, moreover, that the millionaire show in India was far tougher and difficult to get past the elementary questions to the higher levels, while that in the US is ridiculously easy as most shows there are; and this film shows a poor illiterate young person win by fluke, a reassuring picture for them of India doing well by fluke at IT or by magic rather than the tremendous wealth of intelligence of people, of India's aspiration for knowledge, of the huge tradition and respect for learning and the strong number of educated and scientists India does have.

No, if India - which is not even a proxy "white" nation, like some colonial remnant ones that are not even recognised as such - does well at IT or space or any other scientific achievement, or if Indian films have been overtaking others recently in world wide popularity in sheer number of countries and people who are viewers, it must be due to either fluke or low taste of the world.
That is the general perception in west. Different in Russia of course - they can sing Awara Hoon as a roaring crowd, which speaks of real popularity rather than a whipped sullen crowd forced to attend. Same about Nigeria and Albela of Bhagwan, or Japan and Rajanikant and HDDCS, and more.

As for the trolls and critics bunch - do try seeing reality before embracing others' views - no, ridicule and disdain - of India as pride of India. As for Rehman or any other excellent artist they could in a more fair world win awards for their better works, too.

And for a reality check, stop calling it Indian film, it is about India. By others.
.....................................................................................

Just saw a naive comment by someone on the Arindam blog, to the effect that oscars do not play politics and reward quality.

On the contrary, fact is oscars does very much play politics.

In a year when Colour Purple was a contender, Out Of Africa was given the awards that were majorly deserved by the Colour Purple, due to political reasons. Not difficult to figure out what those reasons were, on either side. And while Out of Africa was very good, Colour Purple had a completely another level, is the point; not meaning to imply OoA was undeserving in any other year. But CP was far far more deserving.

That is one glaring example. I have not researched into this and perhaps there are many more. A few are obvious even recently, about the films that were ignored.

Someone has pointed out, and it is obvious to anyone with a little reflection, why Lagaan was ignored at the finals, while it was good enough to get that far to get nominations. But what about Provoked?

Provoked had a film showing not only realistic but very recent history, a story that was of a person very much living. She endorsed it too. The film dealt with an important subject, of universal concern and timeless reality. Why was Provoked not a winner at the oscars?

That is obvious too.

Provoked was not, is not, only about India or people from India. And that is why it was unlikely to win.

Women being abused, severely so, whether married or not, pregnant or not, mothers of young or whatever, is a reality in every country and every culture, irrespective of east or west, rich or poor. This much would be obvious to every viewer. The accusations would not be conveniently against a nation seen as that of poor beggars and pretenders, but against the whole humanity, every society and culture and nation. Every heart would know this.

And furthermore, while most men who murder their wives often escape with little or no punishment, a story like Provoked inspires terror in most men and indignation in more than a few women. Terror, because what if all victim women decided to strike back? Indignation, because the women who take it silently for whatever reason, some truly helpless and unable to escape while others who would rather not fight and lose benefits, find it difficult to see the film with detachment. The former see it as a vindication of their own torture, and silently applaud one who could escape. The latter must join rank with the master gender, as once slaves in houses did against those in fields.

So the last thing anyone would ever allow would be a recognition of the reality - the universal, ubiquitous reality - of abused women, wives, mothers of young. This reality by the way belongs to human species alone, while no other species ever turns against its own females. So admitting it points at human species sticking at a very basic and fundamental level to that below all other species, and it could not be admitted with an award.

Provoked was not praised by media for all its reality, or award functions around the world for all its worth as a film. It was ignored silently and allowed to die.

Another film, historical and very real too, was the recent Gandhi My Father; this one comes to mind as an excellent film about another facet of history long ignored, about how great men can be guilty of neglect of their responsibilities to their own children, and worse. It had to be killed with studied ignoring in spite of an excellent quality overall far beyond most films that were awarded in India that year, and really it deserved a nomination at the very least for film and acting as well for the young Akshaye Khanna even at the oscars and other prestigious world events about cinema. But political considerations won. An excellent film was studiedly ignored by most, with a stray award or so for Shefali Shah, and very little more. There were a few events - not in India - where it was appreciated as a film. Few. Political consideration caught up with that possible trend. The most powerful portrayal of the central character, by the young, capable - formidable - talent never had a chance, even of a shared award.

And now there is the beautiful Jodhaa Akbar with no hope, since great people and uplifting themes do not win at oscars if they are about India, unless they are made by producers and directors not of India. Besides it shows beauty in so many ways, with every frame evoking a painting of classical Indian style, every emotional note taking one upwards. So it is sidelined in favour of another in name of reality - but then wasn't the same "reality" shown in Traffic Signal? When will India see the politics of lights green or red at the oscars?