Card’s critically-acclaimed Hugo and Nebula finalist novel is brought to life by Roland Bernard Brown with incredible realism by illustrators Renato Arlem (Silver Surfer) and Miguel Montenegro. Red Prophet: Tales of Alvin Maker shows a rich and imaginative landscape with such powerful conflict and such pervasive realism as only Scott Card could create.
Red Prophet: Tales of Alvin Maker is set in an America where magic works, hex signs are powerful, good and evil presences roam the land, and many people have special talents. The tale focuses on a young boy named Alvin Miller who is the seventh son of a seventh son, with the power to shape the world around him. Alvin finds himself caught in a war between the Red men and the Whites on the American frontier.
"RED PROPHET is, without a doubt, one of my favorite novels," said Sean J. Jordan, the adaptation's editor. "Mr. Card took a very complicated conflict in history, changed some of the circumstances, and wove a tale that seemed so real and so important that I had to read it twice just to grasp the fullness of it all. By bringing it into the visual medium, we're hoping not only to retell the story in classic comic book style, but also to portray the characters with the same amount of depth and gravity that emanates from the novel itself."
Writerfella here --
Fascinating. However, as writerfella has posted here several times, he will offer no commentary on something that remains unread or with which he has no other kind of familiarity. Better that he find the novel(s) in question, read them, and from thence hold court. Not exactly de rigeur for most posting on this website, to be sure, but refreshing in its novelty nonetheless...
That's why this item is a preview rather than a review of RED PROPHET: because I've read only issue #2, not #1. When I do read #1, I'll have more to say.
Of course, I've also read Seventh Son, the first novel in the Alvin Maker series. So I have more than a passing familiarity with RED PROPHET and its themes. Is that enough to mollify you?
Incidentally, I've also read a few dozen reviews of Apocalypto. That's more than enough for me to base an opinion on. For the most part, though, I've merely quoted these reviews. The critics who have seen the movie are doing most of the work.
But it doesn't take any special knowledge to ask pertinent questions. For instance, is Apocalypto historically accurate or isn't it? We're still awaiting your answer on that point.
Writerfella here --
Reading a novel and then its reviews ordinarily will suffice as enough background to comment meaningfully. BUT -- reading reviews of a film that one unequivocally decides NOT to see or to experience in person fails background minima every time. One may hear through articles and reviews that CITIZEN KANE is a classic film but one cannot personally know why unless one sees the film. Similarly, one may hear through articles and reviews that PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE is the worse film ever made but one cannot know why unless one sees the film. Since APOCALYPTO is somewhere in the middle ground here, any argument over extremes does not apply.
writerfella is not an intellectual dilletante who finds himself content to let others do the work of his thinking for him and thus easily be mollified.
As it takes no special knowledge to ask pertinent questions, it takes no knowledge at all to ask impertinent questions. Just which part of the following did you find mystifying? As writerfella has stated here several times, no MOVIE is historically accurate or it would not be a movie.
Re "reading reviews of a film that one unequivocally decides NOT to see or to experience in person fails background minima every time": I've read a few dozen reviews of Apocalypto. That's equivalent to a short book on the subject. I know enough about it that I could summarize the plot and no one could tell I hadn't seen it.
Re "writerfella is not an intellectual dilletante who finds himself content to let others do the work of his thinking for him and thus easily be mollified": I addressed this silly point before, but I'll do it again. I've posted almost 1,700 pages on the subjects of this website. When you've thought and written as much as I have on these subjects, then we'll talk. Until then, you're a dilettante on these subjects compared to me. (And since you're such a stickler for accuracy, you spelled "dilettante" wrong.)
Re "Just which part of the following did you find mystifying? As writerfella has stated here several times, no MOVIE is historically accurate or it would not be a movie":
The mystifying part was when you used your so-called research to justify and excuse Gibson's many mistakes. For instance, when you wrote on Dec. 11:
"APOCALYPTO only expresses what already was known to writerfella from his own studies and research and understanding of Native histories."
"Therefore, APOCALYPTO only matched writerfella's pre-existing ideas and imagination and not the other way around."
It looks to me like you were claiming Apocalypto was historically accurate. But if you meant your research and understanding were as misinformed as Mel's research and understanding, I stand corrected.
At least you finally answered a question. Congrats. It only took my asking it three or four times. Now you can explain the apparent contradiction in your answer.
Writerfella here --
Wrong-O, Caped Crusader! writerfella stated that the movie matched writerfella's own pre-existing ideas and opinions, based on his own studies and researches. An parallel comparison was made by writerfella between his interpretations and understandings from first reading the Superman comics and the film SUPERMAN THE MOVIE, per exemplum with the young Clark Kent running in mid-air, which was EXACTLY as writerfella saw it in his own mind.
Nowhere would writerfella ever have the temerity to claim that his ideas and opinions are historically accurate, as ANYONE who made such a claim would be admitting that what they call their ideas and opinions ARE NOT THEIR OWN!
As well, writerfella only answers questions if the inquirer is sincere, and if not, then if the inquirer is 'I wanta Easta egg, I wanta Easta egg!' persistent.
And writerfella also subscribes to Albert Einstein's cogent observation that, "Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited, but imagination encircles the world."
I see. So Gibson has "imaginative" ideas about the Maya that have no basis in reality. And your ideas match his, so yours also have no basis in reality. I stand corrected.
Writerfella here --
Omigosh! You got it! Holy semantics, Batman!
Re "writerfella is not an intellectual dilletante" [sic] again: Right. Judging by your comments here, you certainly aren't an intellectual. You're just a dilettante. (A dilettante who can't even spell "dilettante," that is.)
Next time you comment on a movie such as Apocalypto, tell us in advance that your ideas have no basis in reality. Then we won't waste time taking them seriously.
Post a Comment