Archie vs Arwen. No, seriously.
Mar. 4th, 2003 03:44 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
meteordustOne of the things I've been thinking about is the nature of the Hornblower fandom. I mean, you've got this famous, beloved series of books which has been around for several decades - a series of books which has been very influential and has a significant fanbase. And then you've got this new adaptation - a series of movies with dashing young actors which has brought about a large influx of new fans.
Sounds familiar? Maybe it is. We've recently witnessed something similar happen in another fandom - namely, The Lord of the Rings.
With LOTR, most of the diehard fans like me have been in love with the books for years. You have fond memories of the characters and certain views about the story. And then - and then people come along and make movies out of them. Sure, it's wonderful. But you gripe about the changes, and the inaccuracies, and the horde of squealing newbies. And I wonder, is that what it's like for the old school Hornblower fans?
It's an interesting question for me, because I've entered Hornblower fandom via the movies, not the books. So this time, I'm on the other side of the fence. I *have* started reading the books, because I'm intrigued and I want to find out what the original story was like. But I'm expecting that no matter what changes they made in adapting the books - and I know there are some major changes - it won't alter my appreciation of the movies. I don't know - maybe you just fall in love with whatever you encounter first.
I think one of the most interesting points of contention would concern Archie Kennedy. From what I can gather, he is an extremely minor character in Mr Midshipman Hornblower. However, in the movies, he plays a significant role. In fact, I would say he's the third most important character, after Horatio and Pellew.
It makes me wonder how fans of the books feel about what the producers have done with Archie. It's kind of funny to think they've pretty much created this character, fleshing him out from nothing more than a few brief paragraphs. I mean, it's sort of like Haldir in LOTR, who in the books guides the Fellowship through the woods of Lothlorien, and then is never mentioned again. But in the movies, he reappears in The Two Towers, leads a contingent of elves to join the last stand at Helm's Deep, and dies tragically in battle. Some people even think there are hints of sexual tension between him and Aragorn.
The other example that comes to mind is... Arwen. Arwen appears only briefly in the books, although her character is important to understanding where Aragorn is coming from. But in the movies she plays quite a larger role, much to the initial horror of purists, including, yes, myself. When you look at it this way, Hornblower purists would have even more to complain about, since Arwen at least had a deep emotional connection to Aragorn that might therefore justify expanding her role, while the original Archie Kennedy didn't have anything similar.
Now, the other thing this is relevant to is the whole Horatio/Bush dynamic. From what I gather in the books, their relationship is really important, yet in the movies it takes a backseat to the Horatio/Archie relationship. For one thing, Bush doesn't even make his appearance until the fifth movie, and even then the relationship isn't developed much until the seventh movie, when Archie isn't around. So you've got Horatio/Archie pretty much in the foreground for six movies, which is a significant amount of time.
The thing is, if I were a longstanding fan of the the Hornblower books, and had an emotional investment in the Horatio/Bush relationship, I'd probably be a bit peeved to have it shunted aside for this two-bit midshipman. There's another LOTR analogy here, this time with the relationship between Legolas and Gimli. In the books, the development of their friendship is a significant subplot, but onscreen, it's hardly touched on. And Gimli's own role has been watered down, his main purpose now seeming to be comic relief. What you *do* see onscreen is a noticeable Aragorn/Legolas dynamic. I mean, they share a fair number of scenes which look incredibly slashy, even to a Legolas/Gimli supporter like me.
All these parallels are quite interesting, although somewhat unsettling. I'm not sure what conclusions I should draw, except that in future I think I'll be a bit more open-minded about book-to-movie adaptations. Now that I've walked a mile and all that.
Sounds familiar? Maybe it is. We've recently witnessed something similar happen in another fandom - namely, The Lord of the Rings.
With LOTR, most of the diehard fans like me have been in love with the books for years. You have fond memories of the characters and certain views about the story. And then - and then people come along and make movies out of them. Sure, it's wonderful. But you gripe about the changes, and the inaccuracies, and the horde of squealing newbies. And I wonder, is that what it's like for the old school Hornblower fans?
It's an interesting question for me, because I've entered Hornblower fandom via the movies, not the books. So this time, I'm on the other side of the fence. I *have* started reading the books, because I'm intrigued and I want to find out what the original story was like. But I'm expecting that no matter what changes they made in adapting the books - and I know there are some major changes - it won't alter my appreciation of the movies. I don't know - maybe you just fall in love with whatever you encounter first.
I think one of the most interesting points of contention would concern Archie Kennedy. From what I can gather, he is an extremely minor character in Mr Midshipman Hornblower. However, in the movies, he plays a significant role. In fact, I would say he's the third most important character, after Horatio and Pellew.
It makes me wonder how fans of the books feel about what the producers have done with Archie. It's kind of funny to think they've pretty much created this character, fleshing him out from nothing more than a few brief paragraphs. I mean, it's sort of like Haldir in LOTR, who in the books guides the Fellowship through the woods of Lothlorien, and then is never mentioned again. But in the movies, he reappears in The Two Towers, leads a contingent of elves to join the last stand at Helm's Deep, and dies tragically in battle. Some people even think there are hints of sexual tension between him and Aragorn.
The other example that comes to mind is... Arwen. Arwen appears only briefly in the books, although her character is important to understanding where Aragorn is coming from. But in the movies she plays quite a larger role, much to the initial horror of purists, including, yes, myself. When you look at it this way, Hornblower purists would have even more to complain about, since Arwen at least had a deep emotional connection to Aragorn that might therefore justify expanding her role, while the original Archie Kennedy didn't have anything similar.
Now, the other thing this is relevant to is the whole Horatio/Bush dynamic. From what I gather in the books, their relationship is really important, yet in the movies it takes a backseat to the Horatio/Archie relationship. For one thing, Bush doesn't even make his appearance until the fifth movie, and even then the relationship isn't developed much until the seventh movie, when Archie isn't around. So you've got Horatio/Archie pretty much in the foreground for six movies, which is a significant amount of time.
The thing is, if I were a longstanding fan of the the Hornblower books, and had an emotional investment in the Horatio/Bush relationship, I'd probably be a bit peeved to have it shunted aside for this two-bit midshipman. There's another LOTR analogy here, this time with the relationship between Legolas and Gimli. In the books, the development of their friendship is a significant subplot, but onscreen, it's hardly touched on. And Gimli's own role has been watered down, his main purpose now seeming to be comic relief. What you *do* see onscreen is a noticeable Aragorn/Legolas dynamic. I mean, they share a fair number of scenes which look incredibly slashy, even to a Legolas/Gimli supporter like me.
All these parallels are quite interesting, although somewhat unsettling. I'm not sure what conclusions I should draw, except that in future I think I'll be a bit more open-minded about book-to-movie adaptations. Now that I've walked a mile and all that.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-03-06 11:50 pm (UTC)Yes! Such that even Eowyn noticed.
book canon fan in me was thinking, "What are you doing making eyes at this guy? Excuse me, remember the dwarf?
I wonder why I didn't have this reaction. I think it's because there's still so much time, for Legolas and Gimli. I mean, Legolas is only just getting to know him, and realise that he's quite cool after all. I don't mind that he's still getting over Aragorn.
Smallville is probably the ultimate example of Knowing In Advance. And it does add so much resonance to the viewing experience.
Yeah, and in the case of Smallville maybe it *doesn't* make things easier, to know. Well, I guess it adds more angst *now*, but it'll make things easier later. And of course, knowing in general what will happen is different from knowing exactly because you've see the show before, or knowing pretty-much exactly cause it's an adaptation of a book you know. I kind of like the uncertainty created by Peter Jackson changing stuff, like with that cliff. All of a sudden we were in AU territory, where hey, *maybe* Aragorn dies halfway though. Maybe in RotK the encounter with Shelob will go differently?
Also in the middle is a case like Babylon 5, with visions of the future, and where it was made *quite* clear that knowing *what* will happen doesn't mean we know *why*. Actually SV's a bit like that, except in that case we don't even know so precisely what will happen.
I've found no shortage of Horatio/Archie
Is any of it, um, good?
no subject
Date: 2003-03-08 06:10 am (UTC)It's about what you'd expect in any fandom - there's some that's solidly written, some that's pretty ordinary, some that's brilliant, and some that makes you wince and click the back button as soon as the first paragraph hits your eyes.
What's impressive about the good stuff is the level of authenticity - I mean, all the details of sailing and the operation of a ship and what you do with topsails in a storm. I'm scared to think about the amount of research you'd need to do to get a reasonable handle on things.
There seem to be both slash and gen archives out there, but what's pleasantly surprising is that there are quite a few gen fics featuring a very intense Horatio/Archie relationship - and these can be much more enjoyable to read than some of the less well-written slash fics.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-10 09:02 pm (UTC)And yeah, the thought of hte research is quite terrifying.
I'm all for relationship-focused gen - particularly for this pairing. I think that's because we saw so little of their relationship - bits here and there over several years.