We are in the midst of a worrying stage: the story's resolution. It is partly an effect of the tv revolution, in part the logical consequence of the film industry developed into a trygghetssökande and riskobenägen business as cannibalizing syskongenrer as literature and comics to create content that already has a proven konsumentkrets. Stories eating stories until the whole story's integrity has matsmälts down to a collection of large ospjälkade molecules.
In the week came the news that André Acimans romance novel ”Call me by your name” will get a sequel, 12 years later – Aciman sporrades of the success of the film adaptation of his story that came for a couple of years ago. Aciman is, however, late. The film also has a planned sequel in the works, for at least one year – and it seems by all accounts to have very little to do with the planned novel.
Margaret Atwoods classic novel ”The handmaid's tale” from 1985 will also have a sequel in the fall, of course, she has just as Aciman inspired by the new life the story got in the tv form. And just like with ”Call me by your name” has a tv-series already take their own paths; a second season has taken up where the first book left off, a third is on the way. Atwood herself has been at least peripherally involved as a consultant, so any thread can assume are between the series and the upcoming novel, but the book will take place several decades later and tell a completely different story.
It is the boundless confusion which confuses and disturbs, when adaptionerna bleed into each other.
situations, it happens all the time. ”Game of thrones” is probably the most publicized example, where the author George R R Martin simply not had time to finish writing the epic fantasybokserien at the same rate as HBO manglat out the tv section, and from season 6 were the screenwriters themselves. When the last season premieres in mid-april, it is without bokförlaga, the Martin to write later, as a... efterlaga, a kind of literary afterbirth. Maybe end it in the same way as the tv series, maybe not, who knows, maybe bothered Martin never even complete their projects. He seems to have suffered from writer's block at about the same time as the tv series became successful.
And the story is already dissolved. No longer has sharp edges. Is not possible to define as what is happening between bokpärmarna, but has been poured out and branched out. It is desorienterande. Filmatiseringar or tv adaptations of novels in itself is no problem, not even if they take great liberties with the story – they relate, traditionally, to the originals as separate works, related, but distinctly their own and in their own capsule. ”Apocalypse now” is, to use a classic example, one thing, ”heart of Darkness” is another.
It is the boundless confusion which confuses and disturbs, when adaptionerna bleed into each other. Superhjältefieringen of Hollywood may have created the most berättelsedestruktiva the precedent – a oredig soup of reboots and remakes, reboots and loosely cohesive filmvärldar without the requirement for internal logic and of unclear relationship to both serieförlagor and each other. The stories may have legal rättighetsägare, but no moral owners, not to entertain the viewers.
to be able to call it a return to the old-time narrated stories that changed and adopted various forms, depending on which ears and tongues they passed. But I'm not rich. I just want to know how something starts and ends, call me stories Jan Björklund but I just want to have some order, is it too much to ask.
Read more texts by Hanna Fahl , for example, if the internet's latrinproblem .