Whether you plan to take on the night or hang at home with some horrifyingly good reads, here are 13 magically inspired quotes to put you in the best of spirits for this wicked holiday.
A well-composed book is a magic carpet on which we are wafted to a world that we cannot enter in any other way.
― Caroline Gordon, American Novelist and Literary Critic
Image via weheartit
Words! Mere words! How terrible they were! How clear, and vivid, and cruel! One could not escape from them. And yet what a subtle magic there was in them! They seemed to be able to give a plastic form to formless things, and to have a music of their own as sweet as that of viol or of lute. Mere words! Was there anything so real as words?
Oh the places you’ll go! There is fun to be done! There are points to be scored. There are games to be won. And the magical things you can do with that ball will make you the winning-est winner of all.
Magic exists. Who can doubt it, when there are rainbows and wildflowers, the music of the wind and the silence of the stars? Anyone who has loved has been touched by magic. It is such a simple and such an extraordinary part of the lives we live.
― Nora Roberts, American Romance Author
I address you all tonight for who you truly are: wizards, mermaids, travelers, adventurers, and magicians. You are the true dreamers.
And above all, watch with glittering eyes the whole world around you because the greatest secrets are always hidden in the most unlikely places. Those who don’t believe in magic will never find it.
For all my fellow witches out there, here a few quotes to inspire your magic this spooky season.
Image via History.com
#1 “I am Wicked in many ways.” Jessica Spotswood, Born Wicked
#2 “You have witchcraft in your lips.” William Shakespeare, Henry V
#3 “A witch ought never be frightened in the darkest forest because she should be sure in her soul that the most terrifying thing in the forest was her.” Terry Pratchett, Wintersmith
#4 “For all you know, a witch may be living next door to you right now.” Roald Dahl, The Witches
Ignoring the broader themes of Chuck Palahniuk seminal work, Fight Club, we’re going to do what we do best and have two people fight each other.
Since we can’t talk about Fight Club (see rules one and two), we’re going to write about it. Specifically, we’re going to have two writers fight each other. Three rounds will determine their strength as we go through their power as description, their distinctive style, and their impact on the world at large.
Then, they’re going to beat the snot out of each other.
In one corner we have the creator of James and the Giant Peach, Matilda, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and many more (including all those Oompa Loompas). He’s the King of Pure imagination—although he didn’t write the song—he’s Roald Dahl. Dahl’s birthday just past so wish him some luck because he’ll be facing off against…
The creator of the Cat in The Hat, The Grinch, and the Lorax, the man whose made elephants hatch eggs and put stars on Sneeches. A brilliant author, a quirky illustrator, and the man who just breathes wondrous insanity and insane wonder: Theodore Geisel, better known as Dr. Seuss—though he’s not a real doctor.
Let’s fight!
1-Whose Writing Style is More Descriptive?
You read that right. Who has the most expressive, pictorial, picturesque descriptions between these two children’s writers?
Image Via All That’s Interesting
Now we’ll give it to Theodor Geisel: We all have the same picture The Cat in the Hat, The Sneeches, How The Grinch Stole Christmaswhereas we all have different images of what the layout to Willy Wonka’s dangerously FEMA-violated haven of a factory in our mind, but we’re not talking pictures here.
No, we’re saving that for later.
Let’s compare passages from both author’s magnum opuses: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and The Cat in the Hat…
First is Roald Dahl up at bat:
Image Via Roald Dahl Wiki
Charlie Bucket stared around the gigantic room in which he now found himself. The place was like a witch’s kitchen! All about him black metal pots were boiling and bubbling on huge stoves, and kettles were hissing and pans were sizzling, and strange iron machines were clanking and spluttering, and there were pipes running all over the ceiling and walls, and the whole place was filled with smoke and steam and delicious rich smells.
Now let’s look at what the doctor’s got cooking:
Image Via Amazon
the sun did not shine. it was too wet to play. so we sat in the house all that cold, cold, wet day.
i sat there with sally. we sat there, we two. and i said, ‘how i wish we had something to do!’
too wet to go out and too cold to play ball. so we sat in the house. we did nothing at all.
so all we could do was to sit! sit! sit! sit! and we did not like it. not one little bit.
and then something went BUMP! how that bump made us jump! we looked! then we saw him step in on the mat! we looked! and we saw him! the cat in the hat!
Which can you picture more: The house with the rain outside, or the room in the factory? Whose passages give us most illustrative words?
Well, our good ol’ doc might have the illustrations, but Dahl’s got the words, so we have to give it him. After all, can’t you just picture Willa Wonka’s factory? Maybe that’s just because of the Gene Wilder, and the Johnny Depp, movie, but we found ourselves on the side of Dahl.
Image Via Smithsonian Magazine
Dahl=1
Seuss=0
2-Style
Image Via The Telegraph
Whose got style? Who’s method of writing is more memorable, distinctive, and just all around fabulous?!
Roald Dahl is up to bat:
Charlie Bucket stared around the gigantic room in which he now found himself. The place was like a witch’s kitchen! All about him black metal pots were boiling and bubbling on huge stoves, and kettles were hissing and pans were sizzling, and strange iron machines were clanking and spluttering, and there were pipes running all over the ceiling and walls, and the whole place was filled with smoke and steam and delicious rich smells.
Here we have great comparison: “The place was like a witch’s kitchen!” Buzzing onomatopoeia: “boiling, bubbling, hissing, sizzling, clanking, sputtering.” Dahl shows us a knack for word order, notice how those adjectives rhyme?. Plus, he’s certainly has a knack for names. What’s Augustus Gloop’s main characteristic? What about Mike Teavee?
Image Via LA Times
Now before we hand this over to Dahl, let’s take a look at what Dr. Seuss has to offer.
the sun did not shine. it was too wet to play. so we sat in the house all that cold, cold, wet day.
i sat there with sally. we sat there, we two. and i said, ‘how i wish we had something to do!’
too wet to go out and too cold to play ball. so we sat in the house. we did nothing at all.
so all we could do was to sit! sit! sit! sit! and we did not like it. not one little bit.
and then something went BUMP! how that bump made us jump! we looked! then we saw him step in on the mat! we looked! and we saw him! the cat in the hat!
Oh. Dang.
Not counting pictures, you can just tell by the word choice and the way the good doc structures his sentences that he’s got a style that could rival Billy Shakes.
Image Via Goodreads
Notice how Seuss uses ‘sit sit sit’, making each word take up page on the space to symbolize how much time them sitting takes up. We don’t know how long exactly, but we know it took a dang long time.
Image Via SlideShare
Notice how he also stages for the introduction to the Cat in the Hat. The phrase “We looked!” is good on its own, but then we get the line “we saw him step in on the mat!”, building the anticipation. What’s next?
Another “we looked!”, empathizing the children’s stares at this magnificent creature. To further pound the hammer into that, we have the line “and we saw him!” before we finally learn what these children are looking at.
Yeah, but we already have a picture of the cat, I hear you say. But the words that build the anticipation, emphasis that this creature is not one the children normally see. The words and the pictures, they are intertwined.
It’s such a distinctive style that it’s the figure of parodies.
Now we’ll give it to Roald Dahl: We all can all picture what the layout to Willy Wonka’s dangerously FEMA-violated haven factory might look like, but know exactly what the Cat in the Hat and the Sneeches and the Grinch all look like.
See, I told you were saving that for later, and it came in good use, didn’t it?
Image Via History
Each word, each space is used for maximum effort. Deadpool would be proud and he’s got Katanas, so in this battle of word use we have to the side with Seuss.
Dahl=1
Seuss=1
3-Influence/Impact
Both of these authors have made classics work, but how have they influenced pop culture?
Then we have Dr. Seuss, whose film adaptations reminds us of the horrors of soulless consumerism. We have the Grinch, a movie where Jim Carry makes a man he hates kiss a dog’s butt…
Image Via Amazon UK
The Cat in the Hatstaring Mike Myers, a movie which I’m convinced isn’t really a movie but a portal to hell…
Other adaptations include Horton Hears A Who, an alright movie that never hurt anyone, The Lorax, which butchered the original message, and The Grinch, starring Benedict Cumberbatch, a movie that panders to children and adults at the same time creating a confused mess.
In fact, the only way Dr. Seuss’s film adaptations can even stand up to Roald Dahl is with the shorts, such as The Lorax (1972)and The Grinch starring Boris Karloff, but what do you remember more? The 1973 Sneeches movie…
Plus, the most modern adaptation of a Roald Dahl work is Wes Anderson’s fantastic The Fantastic Mr. Fox and how can you fight the power of symmetry?
Image Via Gorton Community Center
…or Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka?
Just goes to show that just because people know you’re name, doesn’t mean that’s a good thing. Dahl lives in a world of pure imagination, while Dr. Seuss is now at the center of pure consumerism.
So Roald Dahl wins!
Dahl=2
Seuss=1
Winner: Roald Dalh!
The Match
Coming down from the Great Glass Elevator, Roald Dahl surveyed the black land. He had left as soon as Great Daredevil Sneelock flew into his troops, knocking down Oompa Loompas by the dozen before he met the might of a lone, Oompa loompa, smeared with blood and war paint, his head chopped off with a machete.
Landing on the ground, Roald Dahl took a breath. At his feet the enormous alligator and Trunky lay side by side. The enormous alligator had gobbled up The Cat in the Hat and choked on his hat. Trunk was dead when Horton flew a spear at his chest using his drunk.
Coming across the battle field, Dahl put a hand over his nose. Black smoke made his eyes water from when the ingenious Mr. Fox, against the orders of General Wonka and Colon Charlie Buckett, had crafted a bomb under the factory and blew it up.
With each step, Dahl stepped in the remnants of the giant peach. When the hordes broke through, the Grinch had raised the peach above his head like a Christmas sled and threw it at the factory. That was their only mistake. It didn’t kill them, in fact it made them stronger, well fed and ready to fight.
On the horizon lay what was left of Horton. Oompa Loompas had slingshot an every-flavor-dinner gumball and threw it in Horton’s mouth. The Horton turned violet, bloated, and soon, since no one could properly juice him, blew up. Dr. Seuss had been riding the elephant. What had become of him?
Dahl marched forwards and heard a soft scream from below him. On the ground, he saw nothing, but he knew that Sam-I-Am had eaten some green eggs and ham during the battle, unaware they were poisoned with George’s marvelous medicine.
The sun poked its orange head above the horizon, and in the light everything was clear to see.
The Wonka factory was in ruins, the Oompa Loompas were smoldering alongside with the hordes of witches. The BFG lay on his side, a gaping gushing bloody hole in his chest from a spear that shot straight through him when Horton threw a spear at him with his trunk.
The Lorax has called upon The Fox in Socks, Thidwick, Yertle and all his turtles, but they were all slaughtered, when Matila and her army of schoolchildren had come after them. They had taken on the Trunchbull; the Lorax and his army were chopped down like a Truffula Trees.
The Sneeches (star-bellied or otherwise) and all the other men in the Seuss army, from Nizzards to Quan and all the fish (yes, even the blue fish), were taken out from the bomb.
All the Seuss characters, all of Dahl’s characters, dead.
Walking over to the dead purple mesh that once was Horton, Dahl looked to the ground. There had to be something here, they had to be something that made all this madness worth it. Then he saw it, the cause of this war.
It was called the Helen of Troy, but it was no woman. It wasn’t even a human. It was a drawing pen that Thedore had stolen.
Picking it up from the ground, Roald Dahl smiled. Now he could create his characters once more. No, he would new characters, better characters.
Turning around, Roald Dahl danced through the battle field. Six foot six and he towered over the dead, basking in the sun.
But when he got the Great Glass Elevator and took out a notebook, he found that the pen was out of ink.
Some (especially me!) would say that the ending is the most important part of the story. It is the last chance for the author to effect the audience, to really say something. It is the moment when everything comes together, the moment that everything builds to. Here, the intentions behind the story become clear.
Which is why it’s really frustrating, blood-boiling even, when the movie changes the ending! Here are six movie adaptations that completely changed the book’s ending. Some of them make for a better story, but not all of them. Especially not that film.
Oh yeah, spoilers. But these books and films are like —*mental math sounds* —old.
6. The Witches
According to Syfy, the 1990 film The Witches is the most iconic Roald Dahl adaptation. It’s both terrifying and awe-inspiring. The witches have, as described in the book, bald heads, eyes that change color, and toeless feet. Heck, just look at the Grant High Witch (Anjelica Huston) in all her glory:
IMAGE VIA BOOK PUNKS
Just kidding. That’s just her unmasking. This is what she REALLY looks like:
IMAGE VIA SYFY WIRE
Most 90s kids will agree that image sent shivers up their spine and is burnt into their consciousness. The story follows a little boy named Luke Eveshim who unwittingly stumbles upon the annual meeting of witches, taking place in the hotel where he is staying with his grandmother. The witches are planning to turn children into mice, and Luke is one of their first victims.
The film follows the 1983 child’s book of the same name rather closely. That is, until the ending. In the book, Luke remains a mouse, however this is not portrayed as a sad ending, as his lifespan as a mouse will be about equal to the amount of time his grandmother has left alive, and thus they will live out the remainder of their lives together.
In the film, HOWEVER, one of the witches doesn’t like how the Grand High Witch is treating her so she bails, and tracks down Luke (who is still a mouse), reversing the spell and turning him back into a little boy.
BBC News reported that Roald Dahl, dismissed this film’s ending as “utterly appalling”. Personally, I think after seeing their interpretation of the Grand High Witch, I’d cut the film some slack for its happy ending.
5. The Shining
We’ve all absorbed the story through the cultural zeitgeist—through either reading the Stephen King novel, seeing the Stanley Kubrick film, or just seeing enough stills and hearing enough quotes from the film to consider ourselves fairly familiar with one of the most iconic thrillers of the modern age. So, as you probably know, The Shining follows Jack Torrence (portrayed by Jack Nicholson), a man struggling with both with writer’s block and alcoholism, who brings his family to a remote hotel he can finally complete his play.
IMAGE VIA THE EUROPEAN UNION TIMES
Unfortunately, the two creators – King and Kubrick – were fundamentally at odds with each other. According to The Guardian, King received one call from the infamous director which went something like this:
Kubrick: “I think stories of the supernatural are fundamentally optimistic, don’t you? If there are ghosts then that means we survive death.”
King: “What’s that mean?”
(A long pause)
Kubrick: “I don’t believe in hell.”
So the two creators didn’t see eye to eye. What more is that the films diverge far before the ending. According to Steven King, “in the book, there’s an actual arc where you see this guy, Jack Torrance, trying to be good, and little by little he moves over to this place where he’s crazy. And as far as I was concerned, when I saw the movie, Jack was crazy from the first scene.”
Knowing this, it’s hard to explain why these two approaches reach vastly different endings. In the novel, Jack Torrence regains his senses and sacrifices himself – giving his son Danny and wife Wendy time to escape with Dick Hallorann.
In the Kubrick film, Danny runs from a crazy Jack through a hedge maze ( the book features topiary animals that come to life, but no giant hedge maze) and eventually evades Jack. Exhausted, Jack collapses to the ground while the others escape – without Dick Hallorann as he is killed in the film version – and Jack freezes to death.
IMAGE VIA SICK CHIRPSE
As Steven King said, “…the book ends in fire, and the movie in ice.”
That sums it up pretty well.
4. Fight Club
Here’s a case in which the author actually preferred the film adaptation to their own book.
Chuck Palahniuk’s novel Fight Club ends with with Jack/Tyler Durdan in a mental hospital. Yeah, that was inevitable.
IMAGE VIA IFC CENTER
But the David Fincher film gets revolutionary. Jack holds hands with Marla while Project Mayhem goes off without a hitch, and the city’s buildings crumble to the ground. Brief shot of a penis (see the movie, read the book to get it) before we cut to credits.
IMAGE VIA FAMOUS BIOGRAPHIES
Mr. Palahniuk himself said in an interview “…when I sat down…[to]…record a commentary track for the DVD, I was sort of embarrassed of the book, because the movie had streamlined the plot and made it so much more effective and made connections that I had never thought to make”.
What was I talking about? Oh yeah: in 1962 Anthony Burgess published A Clockwork Orange and 1971 saw the release of the Kubrick’s film. While Anthony Burgess made it clear he didn’t want to be remembered by this novel, his fate was fixed when Kubrick had a young Malcolm McDowell stare into a camera lens, his glassy eyes gazing right through the audience.
IMAGE VIA INDIE WIRE
Both stories follow the character of Alex before and after his imprisonment. While the plot of the novel and the film are largely the same (except for character swaps here and there) the endings differ.
In the film Alex is de-conditioned during his recuperation in a hospital, during which time, he meets with government office and makes a deal with them: Alex will tell everyone the government isn’t at fault and they are friends (even though the government in this dystopian setting are to blame for Alex being literally unable to defend himself). After this deal, Alex looks at the camera and goes, “I was cured alright,” as Beethoven’s 9th blare out. Alex’s fantasies are back in full wind and he faces no more consequences for his actions.
IMAGE VIA THE INTERNATIONAL ANTHONY BURGESS FOUNDATION
The novel, on the other hand, includes an extra chapter. In Chapter Twenty-One, Alex finds an old friend, Pete, who is now married and settled down. Alex begins imagining that kind of life for himself, signifying his change into adulthood. Consequence of Sound quotes Anthony Burgess as saying, “My young hoodlum comes to the revelation of the need to get something done in life.”
2. First Blood
The iconic 1982 movie is based on David Morrell’s 1972 novel First Blood, in which Rambo dies!
Yes, the iconic character dies. Also, his name is Rambo in the book. Just Rambo. The film takes extensive liberties such as giving Rambo a first name (John).
IMAGE VIA CANNONBALL READ
In the film, Rambo goes after Sheriff Teastle and, as he prepares to kill him, his commanding officer Trautman arrives to stop Rambo. Rambo ceases fighting and surrenders to Trautman in order to be taken into custody.
However, in the novel, Rambo puts a stick of dynamite against his chest when he goes after Sheriff Teastle. But Sheriff Teastle doesn’t fire back and that Rambo is too weak to light the dynamite. Alas, he is then shot in the head. No sequel for Rambo. Trautman has put him out of his misery and Teasle feels a moment of affection for Rambo before he dies.
IMAGE VIA ALL POSTER
Both mediums are about Vietnam veterans, but the novel, released during the Vietnam War, depicts a character unable to stop fighting while the film, released seven years after the war officially ended, shows a character who is willing to surrender for the greater good.
1. I Am Legend
This totally isn’t that film that I was talking about in the beginning. Calm down.
So Richard Matheson’s book and the 2007 film starring Will Smith have the same premise: a man walks alone in a post-apocalyptic city filled with plague monsters. In the book, they’re vampires. In the film, they’re zombies. Oh well. I can live with that. So far, so good.
IMAGE VIA AMAZON
The movie ends with Will Smith’s Dr. Robert Neville in an all-out brawl with the infected zombies, eventually sacrificing himself to save other survivors while they escape with a cure.
IMAGE VIA ROTTEN TOMATOES
The book ends with Robert Neville attacking in an all-out brawl with the infected zombies, eventually realizing that he has become a monster. The world is no longer meant for humans – and the monsters fear him the way he fears them. He understands that their desire to kill him is not something he can condemn and thus resigns from life, leaving the earth to the monsters.
Get a load of this kicker: the filmmakers actually had the book’s original ending in the script. Heck, they even filmed that ending. But it didn’t do well with test audiences, so it was given a Hollywood ending. Even the film’s director, Francis Lawrence, told Screen Rant, “I agree [the book has] the better ending.”
:focal(530x592:531x593)/https://public-media.si-cdn.com/filer/55/d3/55d36fb8-0683-454c-957c-242239f2b782/julaug2016_c08_roalddahl-wr-v1.jpg)
