(no subject)

[lapsedmodernist]

So apparently Tom Stoppard has several unproduced adapted screenplays--among them, his adaptation of Nicholas Mosley's "Hopeful Monsters." That is perfect. I can't think of any other book that would be a better I candidate for Stoppard's adaptation, and I can't think of anyone besides Stoppard who could adapt the book. In fact, for a long time now, before I found out about this, I thought "Hopeful Monsters" and "Arcadia" spoke to each other, that there was some intertextial dialogue refracted through me, the reader. Echoes of the same ethos, the same way of processing the world. There's that question I always ask people--to come up with a metaphor or a simile for how their mind works. I feel like maybe Mosley and Stoppard would have answers that would somehow fit together, or compliment each other, or at least create some sort of dialectic. Or maybe not, maybe that's just my own projection. But the other cool thing is, apparently Max and Eleanor, the characters in "Hopeful Monsters" are loosely based on Gregory Bateson and Margaret Mead. I don't know what it means, but since that novel pretty much provides the model for my ideal relationship, that's also kind of perfect.

Comments

[klingrap.livejournal.com]

I [big big big heart] Arcadia. I saw it when it was first performed in London, and then again when it came to New York. My parents and their weird friends and I also did a reading of it one New Years.

I must check out this Mosley of whom you speak.

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

yes, Arcadia is amazing. my favorite play of his by far. i only saw it performed in an uneven college production, while i've seen some amazing productions of his other plays...i saw Invention of Love and The Real Inspector Hound in London some years back, and a really original combo of Stoppard's "The Real Inspector Hound" and Peter Schaffer's "Black Comedy" on the same bill in one night...And two years ago I saw "The Real Thing" in NYC...can you tell I love Stoppard? Anyway, Mosley is pretty amazing; he is definitely not for all tastes. He wrote a thematically interconnected series of books called "The Catastrophe Series" and Hopeful Monsters is like the main one (I am still working my way through others). He writes very much in the tradition of "novel of ideas" and his books are very intellectual in ethos and language, Hopeful Monsters combines modernism, Jewish mysticism, genetics, atomic physics, theories of language, Brechtian theater, and lots and lots of other things...It's also the book that probably ruined me for any relationship that I might have because what I really want is a relationship like the one the two main characters share...*sigh*

[klingrap.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry... I saw the Rape of Lucretia at the City Opera last night, and the two main characters totally had one of *those* relationships, where they're so in love you just want to puke. But then she gets raped by a Greek and kills herself because she feels impure, and according to the epilogue the only reason for living is Jesus Christ, which proves that you can't take these things too seriously.

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

hopeful monsters isn't one of *those* relationships in the sense of lovey-dovey-pukey thing...it's mostly how they exist in the world and how the other fits into that...it's hard to explain...they are apart for most of the book, and it's implied that it's not like they are always together for the rest of their lives...but they are very much "soulmates" in the good, non-hallmark sense of the word.

ancient Roman couplings shouldn't be used as models. I feel like they weren't big into self-discovery or discovery of the world, all of their categories (at least in lit.) seem pretty fixed--morality, purity, perversion, all of which is channeled through Roman identity...Rape of Lucretia isn't about love, it's about revenge and punishment and all that fun stuff. It seems that the "pure" love is there in the beginning before Tarquinius rapes her just to provide contrast.