Just a French student, not quite fluent in English yet, but with a tremendous passion for literature, TV shows, and movies, hoping I can bring my stone to the building!

Junior Contributor I

  • Lurker
  • ?
  • Articles
  • Featured
  • Comments
  • Ext. Comments
  • Processed
  • Revisions
  • Topics
  • Topics Taken
  • Notes
  • Topics Proc.
  • Topics Rev.
  • Points
  • Rank
  • Score
    Sorry, no posts matched your criteria.

    Latest Topics


    Foreign literature across Space and Time

    Though I’m French, most of the books I’ve read are foreign novels, and by foreign, I mean Americans (except for Harry Potter and a couple of other exception, but not that much), while the books I have to read for classes are French and especially French – or French-written – classics. It made me realize that I don’t really know classic books from other countries – I might have heard of them, but I’d never read them – while using American contemporary novels in my essays isn’t the best way to have a good grade! I was then wondering… quite a few things!

    Pell-mell: How domestic and foreign literature is tackle elsewhere in Europe, elsewhere outside Europe, in the USA, in the UK, for instance? Are there contemporary foreign books – French books for instance – that are famous in the US, the UK, in Sweden, in Brazil, anywhere outside of its original country? What define “classic”? Does it depends on the country, or is Goethe’s concept of “Weltliteratur” (basically, global literature) real, widespread? To what extent time define whether a book is a “classic”? And, finally, any reading advice concerning foreign classics?

    [I’m not quite fluent in English yet, so I hope it was understandable, and not too messy!]

    • Interesting topic. From a North American perspective, I have noticed that it depends greatly on the distribution and quality of the translation of the novels. The marketing campaign also adds an extra layer especially in regards to contemporary works.As a comics scholar, I have seen European comics make or break in the North American market depending on how the author/illustrator interacts with the readers. For example, the success of the French cartoonist Pénéloppe Bagieu is due to her careful marketing (social media, interviews) and being present in the comics festival circuits in North America. – kpfong83 2 weeks ago

    Sorry, no tides are available. Please update the filter.

    Latest Comments

    I agree with you Wing! To me, feminism is a complex issue and you can’t reduce it to only one aspect, just like you can’t deny that there are some biological differences between men and women. However, as many sociological studies show, gender is a social construction. If differences there are, they are the product of society and can be changed. Therefore, “acting like a man” or “acting like a woman” doesn’t mean anything, especially not out of its particular context. And, to me, one way to define feminism is as the will to bring a new light on this context, to change it, to make it evolve – hopefully for the better – to construct genders differently, more equally.
    Movies and TV shows, as well as literature, may help us to do so, by showing women “acting like men” as much as they are “acting like women”, and, vice versa, by showing us more men “acting like women”, so that – and maybe that is naive of me – these stock phrases hopefully lose their meaning.
    Pasting a woman’s face on a “male-written part” or giving her unlimited powers just to tick the “feminist checkbox” or the “me too checkbox” isn’t enough – besides, as this article show, it doesn’t work that much – but it doesn’t necessarily mean that all movies with a female lead character “acting like a man” is bad, and should be banned. On the contrary, I think that we could benefit a lot from such movies! They would show strong women kicking bad guys’ asses while not being reduced to that, while still having great and powerful stories to tell us – stories that may or may not be related to feminism per se.
    To me, there are a million ways to show “strong” women (just like there are a million ways to show “strong” men), just like there are a million ways to define a “strong” woman (or a “strong” man), and none should be rejected nor neglected. Whether or not the way you chose, will resonate with the audience, depends on how that image, that way, is coherent with the story of the film, with the message of the movie, with the universe in which the characters are thrown.

    [I hope I didn’t meddle in the conversation, and I hope that I didn’t misunderstood the article or the comments and that my (long) comment was understandable, as I am neither a native English speaker nor fluent in English – yet!]

    The Paradox of the Strong Female Character

    Very interesting article!
    It made me wonder how could Batman’s origin story be tackled if they make a sequel of Joker. Per se, factually, I suspect it won’t be that different from what we already saw since Batman’s creation, as his parents are, at the end of the film, killed by what seems to be a regular mugger, even just a regular guy, but deeply linked to the riot the Joker started, to the violent instincts he stirred up.
    But – and I might get a bit off-topic here if so I’m sorry – given the fact that we first learn to empathize with Arthur Fleck, how could that deep humanization of who is supposed to be the ultimate villain – indirectly – responsible for the death of Bruce’s parents, affect this revisited story of Batman, and more especially his origins – perhaps on a more subjective level, maybe questioning the viewer’s emotional implication?
    And, here I may digress, how could be, then, tackled the fight, the war, between Batman – a hero we know, appreciate and root for – and the Joker – an iconic villain but main protagonist of a movie that made us care for him, empathize with him?

    [I hope my (late, rather long and maybe a bit off topic) comment is understandable, as I am neither a native English speaker nor fluent in English – yet!]

    Why Has Batman's Origin Remained So Iconic?

    Thank you ! (Google did help me a lot, though !)

    The Age of Streaming Services: Then, Now, and Beyond

    Maybe I’m just naive, but I don’t quite understand what is the point of adapting a book – or another media – on screen if you don’t respect the original source.
    Of course, in a screen adaptation, there will be cuts due to length issues and the director (and screenwriters, and actors, and…) still have creative liberties, which is a great thing. To me, there is nothing better than going to see a movie, and find in it everything you loved in the book, but also something more, something that adds to the reading experience without betraying the original source.
    I think that is all the difficulty of adapting a book on screen, as you have to identify and then extract and keep and then render the essence of the original source, before adding, cutting or modifying anything. And if you can’t or if you don’t want to, I think that’s fine, but then, shouldn’t you create your own story, rather than twist someone’s else work?
    Even from an economical perspective, as this – great – article points out, adaptations that took too much ‘liberties’ with the original source failed!
    To me, Percy Jackson and The Lightening Thief is not such a bad movie, once you managed to forget about everything you might expect after reading Rick Riordan’s amazing books. It wasn’t the film of the decade, of course, but… Maybe keeping the movie’s spirit without making it a – flaunted – adaptation of the books would have worked better? It might even had become a good movie saga?
    Side note: though it’s not a book to screen adaptation, the movie The Last Airbender (by M. Night Shyamalan), is also, to me, another interesting example of a failed adaptation – here a failed adaptation of the amazing animation show Avatar: The Last Airbender.

    [I hope my (long) comment was understandable, as I am neither a native English speaker nor fluent in English – yet!]

    An Analysis into Screen Adaptations

    I didn’t know Thomas Was Alone, and if I had stumbled upon it, the sole description probably wouldn’t have drawn my attention as much as games like The Last of Us or Detroit Become Human for instance, but your article makes me want to try it! So, thank you very much!
    I also found very interesting how you point out the importance and effect of music to create emotion.
    [I hope my (tardy) comment was understandable, as I am neither a native English speaker nor fluent in English – yet!]

    10 Video Games You Weren’t Expecting To Make You Cry

    Thank you! Google did help me a lot, though!
    My pleasure! The Legend Of Korra is a marvelous and elaborate show, and your article really pays tribute to that!

    The Legend of Korra: Empathizing with Villains

    It has probably been said already, but, personally, I would forgave them – or at least I would have tolerated – every plot shortcuts or lack of character development (okay, except for Ginny’s…) if it wasn’t for the final dual between Harry and Voldemort! I was so disappointed! The movie may add more action to the final confrontation, but it loses everything else! No more powerful speeches that really end the arc and show how much the characters – especially Harry, here – have grown up and matured and understood things! No more audience, that gives, to me, even more depth to the dual! Everyone learns the truth about Voldy, about Dumbeldore, about Rogue, about how subtle magic can be, about how Harry is ready to give his life to save the people he cares about, while our beloved heroes literally assist to what may be the death of their best friend! As this article states, Harry deserved to have his family and friends by his side, at this crucial moment! To me, the “flying wizards scene” the movie gives us takes all that away! Plus, what’s the point to do a two parts movie, if not to really keep to what make the strength of the original material! But, to be fair, I’d just like to add, the way Voldemort just fall to ashes in the movie is kind of poetic, as @Ms. Mcclellan said. It shows how much Voldemort was damage. After all those killings and soul splittings, it seems logic that his body would only be an empty and fragile shell, only good to crumble into dust.
    [I hope my (long) paragraph was understandable, as I am neither a native English speaker nor fluent in English – yet!]

    Harry Potter: Books vs. Movies

    Netflix did lose a lot of its catalog to concurrent streaming services, or to future streaming services. I’m talking about Netflix because it is the platform I know best, but is it the same for others? Is it to the same extent? And, if it is, is there not a risk that those services will become closer and closer to cable? As this article states, two of the factors that weigh on the choice of service are the number of older shows and the service’s price. If each production or entertainment company keep their own shows to themselves, to launch their own service for instance (as we are still in the golden age of streaming services!), or to sell them at a very high price to existing streaming platforms, the strength of those services will be greatly diminished! The offer will be divided between an increasing number of services, while subscriptions will be increasingly high. I’m not an economist or anything, but, regarding streaming services, is not a monopoly/an oligopoly the best way to enjoy shows on demand?
    On another topic, does anyone knows why, on the same platform – let’s say Netflix because I don’t know about the others – but depending on the country you’re in, the shows you can watch aren’t the same? I understand why Netflix needs national subsidiaries, but why is the service different, as everything is owned by the same American company?
    [I hope my long paragraph was understandable, as I am neither a native English speaker nor fluent in English – yet!]

    The Age of Streaming Services: Then, Now, and Beyond