The following blog entry was written by READ magazine's summer intern, Craig Nadler. Craig will be leaving us next week. And we will be sad to see him go. Don't go, Craig!!

Awhile ago I went to the movies. I decided to see Angels and Demons, basing this decision on the fact that I L-O-V-E-D the novel by Dan Brown. Two hours and twenty minutes later, as I watched the credits begin to roll over the screen, an old expression came to mind: lost in translation. I'd heard the saying before, but its meaning was never truly clear to me until that moment. I exited the theater and walked down the long hallway, surrounded on all sides by "coming soon" posters. And, it soon became clear that each title was more familiar than the next. Isn't that one based on a fairy tale? Wasn't that a book first? Hmm ... Is Hollywood running out of good ideas? I guess it makes sense to adapt existing plots to the big (and small) screen. Setting. Check. Characters. Check. Conflict. Check. It's all there. And, if a piece of writing already has success in that form, there's a good chance it'll have success with a big budget and cameras, too. Right? Wrong!

Big screen adaptations are not foolproof plans. There has been a fair share of flops as a result of the re-imagination of literature. The 2004 adaptation of the comic book super heroine Catwoman was a box office disaster. In 2007, the film version of Phillip Pullman's The Golden Compass flopped hard. Even retellings of classic literature, like the 1995 film version of Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter, are not guaranteed box office gold. As I thought more about the curse of adapted literature, I tried to figure out why something so treasured on the page could prove to be so condemned on the screen.

Part of the value of a good piece of literature is its ability to be interpreted by the reader. Words on a page do not force feed an image to the reader. Even with precise details, an author can only present so much. It's the reader's ability to create a mental image of his own that makes reading such an invigorating experience. Although actors are talented, they cannot often express the same emotions that an author can detail on the page. Sometimes, what goes on in the head of a character is more profound than how he or she behaves on the screen. An actor can portray the emotion "anger" on-screen through squinted eyes or a loud voice or a waving fist. However, that's it. Beyond these classic representations of anger, there are a limited number of ways to present this physically (and visually). Through writing, however, an author can express the same anger with much more depth. Through language and literary devices (like similes and metaphors), the description of an angry person can go on for pages!

Come to think of it, the film adaptations of literature most successful and memorable are those that add a creative twist to a classic. Take, for instance, the film 10 Things I Hate About You (which is about to premiere as a television show on July 7 on ABC Family), based on William Shakespeare's play "The Taming of the Shrew." And, there's also the 1999 film Cruel Intentions, based on the 18th century French epistolary novel Les Liaisons Dangereuses by Laclos. In both movies, the setting is updated to the late 20th century, and the characters are represented as American teenagers. It seems a successful book does not guarantee a successful motion picture. Often, the literature's message can get lost in translation from page to theater. Don't wait around for a novel to be adapted into a film. Go out and buy the book or the play or the comic book in its original form; it's guaranteed to be a smash hit!

We're starting to think Intern Craig needs his own alias! What should  his icon look like? Send your suggestions to word@weeklyreader.com, and help us decide. In the meantime, enjoy another of his fascinating posts. Happy summer!

It is necessary to know grammar, and it is better to write grammatically than not, but it is well to remember that grammar is common speech formulated. Usage is the only test. -- William Somerset Maugham, The Summing Up, 1938

   I don't know about you, but I'm a stickler for rules. I always use the crosswalk when crossing the street, I always wear a seatbelt while driving a car and I never talk in a movie theater. I never agreed with the mantra that rules are meant to be broken, in life or in grammar! When I write, there are certain grammatical rules that I always obey: I don't split infinitives, I don't end a sentence in a preposition and I don't use double negatives. Until recently, I didn't know why I was so comfortable blindly following the rules laid out by my elementary school teachers. For the first time in my life, I began to question grammar! How can we justify these rules? Who came up with them? What are his or her credentials? The more I thought about these questions, the more heated I became. There was probably some giant council of old dudes that arbitrarily made decisions about English grammar. And, that made me mad. I don't mind following rules, so long as I can see actual value in doing so. It makes sense to wear a seatbelt when traveling in a large metal box at speeds upwards of 60 miles/hour. I don't see the utilitarian benefit, however, in substituting well for good in the sentence, "I'm doing well." What gives? 
   With my frustration building, I began an Internet search to determine the origin of English grammar. Maybe, I thought, there will be some legitimate answers to my questions out there in cyberspace. It didn't take too long before I had my Ah ha moment! You know, the moment when you realize that your annoyance won't go unnoticed, your queries won't go unanswered? 
   The grammar that we learn in primary school is not the only kind of grammar out there! Our teachers only show us one side of the English coin. The rules that are imparted upon our young, sponge-like minds fall under the category of prescriptive grammar; this refers to the structure of a language as certain people think it should be used. But, there is another kind of grammar unnoticeably absent in my 2nd grade classroom: descriptive grammar. Descriptive grammar refers to the structure of a language as it is actually used by speakers and writers. While this term is mostly associated with linguistics, the study of language, rather than academic language arts, I find it to be a crucial element in our understanding of the English language. Somewhere out there are people who care about our natural speaking and writing tendencies! They don't care about whether or not we use who incorrectly in place of whom. Their interest lies in understanding how the English language functions and not policing our "correct" use of it.
As content as I am to have gained some insight into the descriptive/prescriptive grammar distinction, I cannot say that I am 100% ready to rid myself of my prescriptive ways! The grammar rules that we learn in school are important. But, it's nice to know that adherence to them is not absolutely mandatory. The existence of descriptive grammarians means that there are people who break prescriptive rules in their speech and writing. In certain instances, ending a sentence in a preposition sounds less forced and more appropriate. Now, I understand why some say that rules are meant to be broken; they are descriptivists fighting for their right to be heard. And, from now on, I promise to not follow any rules blindly without first asking where they come from!

Here's another great addition from intern Craig Nadler. Hope you enjoy!

   With the (unofficial) start of wedding season upon us (June-September), it's of no surprise that today marks the wedding anniversary of Irish playwright, George Bernard Shaw. Shaw wrote more than 60 plays during his lifetime (1856-1950) and on this day, June 1, in 1898, he married Charlotte Payne-Townsend. What I find most interesting about the Shaw-Payne-Townsend nuptials is that both professed distaste for matrimony! At the time, both George and Charlotte were in their early forties and their marriage was a marriage blanc, which means that it was made for economic or financial reasons. Regardless of the motivations, the two were married for forty-five years! The length of Shaw's relationship still baffles biographers to this day. 

    George Bernard Shaw was a socialist, meaning that he fought for equal economic opportunities for all people as well as the cooperative ownership of different economic systems. He wrote many brochures and speeches advocating his socialist ideals. In his writing, Shaw examined education, marriage, religion, government, heath care and class privilege; ultimately, he found them all defective! Shaw wanted to see equal political rights for men and women, fewer abuses of the working class and a universal European healthy lifestyle.

    One of Shaw's most famous plays is Pygmalion, written in 1913. Pygmalion was adopted from Greek mythology and examines complex human relationships in the social world. In the play, phonetics professor Henry Higgins tries to refine the speech and manner of a Cockney girl, Eliza Doolittle. "Cockney" refers to the Londoners living in the East End of the city. Usually, the Cockney dialect is considered to be an uncivilized form of speech. Before her lessons with Professor Higgins, Eliza's speech chock-full of certain features that characterize the cockney form: H-dropping ("Consider yourself at 'ome"), the substitution of me for my ("'At's me book you go 'ere") and the use of the double negative ("I ain't seen nothing"). 

    Shaw's play has had such an impact on the world that it has been adapted and retold in various forms throughout history! Has anyone seen the musical My Fair Lady? Or seen the movie She's All That? Both are retellings of Shaw's play! However, I don't think that these modern adaptations would receive George's seal of approval. After all, both films end with the Higgins and Eliza characters in love! And, as proven by his marriage blanc to Charlotte, Shaw was not a fan of mushy endings. It's a good thing that he stuck to writing and left the love stuff to cupid!