itsverity

I liked all of the comparisons you made. I read the book long before I saw the film, so there were a couple of things you mentioned that I had forgotten about. I want to mention the first comparison you made because that stood out to me as well. I agree that the sexual assault subplot added so much to Lou’s character. It really struck me in the book and I felt like I understood her so much better. But how could the movie have done that justice? Like you said, film directors must choose which details to keep and which ones to omit often based on a limited time frame. Because the main storyline was Will and Louisa’s love, there was much less time to devote to other details. Had the directors wanted to keep the sexual assault subplot, they would have to address it fairly quickly. And because it is such a rich and painful section of the novel, I don’t think they could have incorporated all of that into a short amount of time. I like to think that rather than trying to rush such an important moment, the directors chose to omit the detail because the couldn’t give it the attention it deserves.

But is this type of writing really “dumbing down” the minds of young people? What Mariel argues is that textspeak actually involves a rather complex process. Sure, textspeak is sometimes used as a shortcut and misses that process, but not in all cases.

Great article! The value of toys isn’t what they are labeled as, but what children do with them. Children do have natural inclinations toward specific toys. The dichotomy becomes problematic when children who don’t express that inclination are told to go play with something that is “suited” to them.