OK, I wrote this earlier in an internet black hole, but I can now post it... pardon if I seem to get off topic a bit. I haven't proofed since I wrote it several hours ago:
The last point is something that I'm always fascinated with.
IMO, there is something beautiful about the openness of interpretation in written works. Now, there are some authors out there that write things CHOCK full of details, leaving very little wiggle room on interpretation. But there are others who manage to catch things so simply and beautifully in few words, and I may be in the minority here, but Lewis has ALWAYS read that way to me.
This is somewhat a tangent, since I'm speaking of the theater world rather than just the literary one (OK, so it's an offshoot), but it's what I know and is still relevant, I think. Let's take Shakespeare. Pretty straight-forward stuff, huh? They even have lexicons published so people can get try to understand the exact meeting of the plays word. by. word. But imagine a world where we all see the same Hamlet, over and over again, with the same themes stressed time and time again. Sorry... boring. I've worked on and seen several productions, from period setting and costumes, to pre-war 1930s Denmark, to ultra modern with lucite thrones. And each and every time, I got something new out of it, different themes would be stressed while the more popular ones would fade into the background. But guess what? It's still the same story, each and every time. It's just an infinite way of approaching it. And that's just wonderful.
But Shakespeare is dead. He doesn't have a say anymore in how his work is interpreted. Live writers kinda somewhat do, and it's fascinating to see who is more hands-on and off on the matter.
Back to theater... I work primarily on new works, never have been interpreted before. There are some playwrights (such as the one I'm working with now) who are completely hands off. Though he's readily available if we have a question (or even a change request), he's avoiding any and all rehearsals. He did his party already, and now it's up to someone else to run with it.
And then there's the case where the playwright insisted on being in in the room... and boy he would get so, so, so ANGRY when the director wanted to take it in one direction. "BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT I MEANT!" I remember him near-screaming. But hello... it's what the director got out of it. How could the director (and the other people in the room supporting the director's choices) be the one in the wrong? This writer is NOT going to be present any other time this play would be produced. He cannot be assigning responsibility of interpretation on everyone else... it was his when he wrote it, is it not? If he wanted it done a certain way, then he could pull a Waiting for Godot and make sure that when someone gets the rights from Beckett's estate, then there must be a proscenium stage, there must be a tree, etc. etc. etc. And that's why people only need to see that play once.
And then there was the writer I worked with who knew he had control issues about his written work. It was a struggle to force himself out of rehearsal hall, but he knew it was for the best, and gave all of his trust in what was on the page and the producers. And he reaped a lot of benefits from it, too.... but still. It is out of his hands, especially now that the play is published. People will get out of it what they will, and that's that. As people will from Lewis' work.
Of course, I speak of all of this on the more literary front of things... the same cannot be applied to TV or film by any means. I would argue that the script in such cases are not as much as the source, but more of the tool of storytelling.
no subject
The last point is something that I'm always fascinated with.
IMO, there is something beautiful about the openness of interpretation in written works. Now, there are some authors out there that write things CHOCK full of details, leaving very little wiggle room on interpretation. But there are others who manage to catch things so simply and beautifully in few words, and I may be in the minority here, but Lewis has ALWAYS read that way to me.
This is somewhat a tangent, since I'm speaking of the theater world rather than just the literary one (OK, so it's an offshoot), but it's what I know and is still relevant, I think. Let's take Shakespeare. Pretty straight-forward stuff, huh? They even have lexicons published so people can get try to understand the exact meeting of the plays word. by. word. But imagine a world where we all see the same Hamlet, over and over again, with the same themes stressed time and time again. Sorry... boring. I've worked on and seen several productions, from period setting and costumes, to pre-war 1930s Denmark, to ultra modern with lucite thrones. And each and every time, I got something new out of it, different themes would be stressed while the more popular ones would fade into the background. But guess what? It's still the same story, each and every time. It's just an infinite way of approaching it. And that's just wonderful.
But Shakespeare is dead. He doesn't have a say anymore in how his work is interpreted. Live writers kinda somewhat do, and it's fascinating to see who is more hands-on and off on the matter.
Back to theater... I work primarily on new works, never have been interpreted before. There are some playwrights (such as the one I'm working with now) who are completely hands off. Though he's readily available if we have a question (or even a change request), he's avoiding any and all rehearsals. He did his party already, and now it's up to someone else to run with it.
And then there's the case where the playwright insisted on being in in the room... and boy he would get so, so, so ANGRY when the director wanted to take it in one direction. "BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT I MEANT!" I remember him near-screaming. But hello... it's what the director got out of it. How could the director (and the other people in the room supporting the director's choices) be the one in the wrong? This writer is NOT going to be present any other time this play would be produced. He cannot be assigning responsibility of interpretation on everyone else... it was his when he wrote it, is it not? If he wanted it done a certain way, then he could pull a Waiting for Godot and make sure that when someone gets the rights from Beckett's estate, then there must be a proscenium stage, there must be a tree, etc. etc. etc. And that's why people only need to see that play once.
And then there was the writer I worked with who knew he had control issues about his written work. It was a struggle to force himself out of rehearsal hall, but he knew it was for the best, and gave all of his trust in what was on the page and the producers. And he reaped a lot of benefits from it, too.... but still. It is out of his hands, especially now that the play is published. People will get out of it what they will, and that's that. As people will from Lewis' work.
Of course, I speak of all of this on the more literary front of things... the same cannot be applied to TV or film by any means. I would argue that the script in such cases are not as much as the source, but more of the tool of storytelling.
OK, I'll stop now.