I’m torn between the piece I feel is more important or the one others are more likely to enjoy. Sooo… here’s two, because I’m unable to pick.
I was reading an article about authors who hate the movie version of their books. (http://mentalfloss.com/article/31001/11-authors-who-hated-movie-versions-their-books) I’ve also read stockpiles of articles where fans (myself included) discuss how good or bad a movie is based on how close it comes to the book. Here’s my BIG IDEA:
Create a new award ceremony
Categories would be similar to the Oscars, but all include “most accurately portrayed.”
Best Actor to have most accurately portrayed a character in a book.
Best Picture that most accurately portrayed a book.
Best Director to have most accurately portrayed a book.
You get the idea. (No, this isn’t just the best screen adaptation award, because they hand that out and sometimes it’s very unclear as to why.) Now, here’s the important part! IT HAS TO BE THE HIGHEST AWARD. You know how people get all excited about someone hitting the EGOT “quadfecta”? Well, there would need to be a new conversation. A bigger one.
“You don’t have a book portrayal win?” Dramatically sucks in air through teeth. “Aww, honey,” exaggerated frown, “I’m so sorry.”
The ceremony might not be held every year. Each award might not be given out every time. It wouldn’t be a “given” that someone is going to win simply by default. Either the crowd is astonished by the accuracy or they aren’t. No gray area. The awards would cover both film and television.
Voting would be weighed 45% by the author of the book, 40% by fans, and 15% by other.
If a society, group, or organization has the primary goal of making everyone feel accepted and treated as an equal, must they also be accepting of, and permit membership to, those who are not accepting and feel they are superior rather than equal?
- “I accept everyone and believe we are all equal.”
- “I accept everyone who accepts myself and others, so long as we agree we are equal.”
- “I accept almost everyone, except certain criminals and those who do not accept me, because I’m better than those people, but I’m equal to everyone else who accepts this same idea.”
- “I’m superior to anyone who isn’t like me in the way I value most. I accept equality only with those who are like me in the way I most value.”
Is it possible to inadvertently believe you are superior because of a belief that those who think themselves as superior aren’t, and might even be inferior because they fail to understand that all are equal? And, if so, can there ever truly be a society, group, or organization that actually accepts everyone and is able to treat all as equals? Could that only exist if there were no one left to claim superiority?
Should the One-Eyed Man be King?
In the revised story ending, where he sees a rockslide coming, his sight could be considered superior, though the villagers do not treat him as such. In fact, he’s treated as inferior for what he believes makes him a superior.
Obviously, I do not know the best way to remove a plague of hatred. I grew up on stories of equality and acceptance. But the stories shift by the end of the 1500’s. They turn to stories of people who believed in acceptance and equality so strongly that they, inadvertently, became to believe themselves as superior to those who could not grasp the concepts. The ones who could not grasp such concepts eventually took over. A belief in superiority over others allowed them to take over. You see, if you do not believe yourself to be better than another, it is not possible to conquer. Unite, join, ally… these are the words used when equals merge. Conquering is when one believes itself better. That belief cannot be inadvertent, it can’t simply come from thinking those who believe in superiority are wrong. There must be passion in it to conquer.
This is a dilemma. How can those who believe in and adhere to acceptance and equality ever rule, lead, or manage those who firmly believe in inequality? If an accepting, equality believing person tries to persuade by stating, “All are equal and should be accepted,” that is being unaccepting. The inequality belief person will respond as such, “You are not accepting of my belief that I am superior.”
This philosophical conundrum is the basis of political problems that has plagued humankind since the first civilization was settled. It isn’t new. It feels current only because of the abundant amount of attention it is given at the moment.
My favorite show hinted at this on the Night Train.
Thanks for reading. I had to get this off my chest.
Déjà vu Blogfest
Which post appealed to YOU more?
Is the “philosophical conundrum” or the “most accurately portrayed award” post the one you’d like to read more of here on this blog?
There’s a giveaway on the 21st, as well as my next flash fiction piece. Please consider stopping back!