<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Literature vs. film</title>
	<atom:link href="http://machines.pomona.edu/67-2008/literature-vs-film/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://machines.pomona.edu/67-2008/literature-vs-film/</link>
	<description>english 67 &#124; pomona college</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:58:55 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: mercurylanes</title>
		<link>http://machines.pomona.edu/67-2008/literature-vs-film/comment-page-1/#comment-174</link>
		<dc:creator>mercurylanes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Dec 2008 10:15:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://machines.pomona.edu/67-2008/?p=193#comment-174</guid>
		<description>Not having been there for Wednesday&#039;s discussion (sorry!) this might be a little redundant, but frankly, I think significance is where you find it--it&#039;s true, reading text does require a slightly more involved skill set than the basic &quot;looking and listening&quot; of film

The fact that you mention &quot;Hollywoodified&quot; is also important--because of their high  production values, most films are even more shackled by commercial demands than books are (though both mediums are, to some extent). If you think it&#039;s a question of art versus marketability, which it often is. I don&#039;t think there&#039;s anything inherently &quot;dumb&quot; about movies or &quot;smart&quot; about books--the issue is more that in any art form, good, challenging work is often ignored by people who don&#039;t want to be challenged. Literature/literary fiction has the benefit of having been canonized and sheltered by a crew of academics for significantly longer than film has.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not having been there for Wednesday&#8217;s discussion (sorry!) this might be a little redundant, but frankly, I think significance is where you find it&#8211;it&#8217;s true, reading text does require a slightly more involved skill set than the basic &#8220;looking and listening&#8221; of film</p>
<p>The fact that you mention &#8220;Hollywoodified&#8221; is also important&#8211;because of their high  production values, most films are even more shackled by commercial demands than books are (though both mediums are, to some extent). If you think it&#8217;s a question of art versus marketability, which it often is. I don&#8217;t think there&#8217;s anything inherently &#8220;dumb&#8221; about movies or &#8220;smart&#8221; about books&#8211;the issue is more that in any art form, good, challenging work is often ignored by people who don&#8217;t want to be challenged. Literature/literary fiction has the benefit of having been canonized and sheltered by a crew of academics for significantly longer than film has.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
