Devastated.

Just be happy that Cuarón picked it up. If any director is capable of handling this adaptation, it's him.

I was also shocked when I learned (today) that this book was going to be a movie. The entire reason that I loved the book was because of the prose. It was absolutely stunning. I'm so afraid that none of that beauty and magnificence could ever be translated to the screen.

I agree.

It's an amazing book. The way all the stories are so intricately intertwined, and how much depth each character has. I loved all the Ages...but my favorite was the Age of Silence. There's a part in the Age of Silence where they explain how forming a language through hand gesutures was often confusing, and how it lead to many misunderstandings. Like, how one might confuse a touch of the nose with: "I know now that I was wrong to love you."

It was beautiful :]]

~~~

"I'd rather laugh with sinners than cry with saints,sinners are much more fun."

i understand the concern that the language and the prose cannot be translated onto screen well, because... usually book-movies suck. suck hardcore. but, as you are reading any book, no matter how beautiful and origional the prose and the symbolism is in the book, can you not see it all taking place? can you not see the power in the words? the excitement of someone making this into a movie, is, CAN they do it justice? CAN they show the beauty she so wonderfully wrote? CAN they pick up where Krauss left off, with her imagery and symbolism, and embellish it? If they can, then you have an amazing masterpiece of a movie. that's the challenge. chances are, it will fall short, most movies do. somehow. it's strange that they do, actually. there is so much extra freedom with movies, to visualize things... yet, it never adds up to what you visualize in your mind. what you feel when you read it. but to say that as movies, they can never do that... well then that's just like saying painters can never show feeling with pigments on canvas. and we know that's just not the case. people need to paint movies. it would work better.

Me, too. But like everyone said, Alfonso Cuaron is a master director and visionary. Hopefully we can trust him. **keeping fingers crossed**

I haven't read the The History of Love (I've wanted to for a while, but just haven't had the time) but I really don't think it's a tragedy that any book, even the most unadaptable work of literature, would be made into a movie. If the movie completely fails, the adaptation will be forgotten, but the book will still be around. Hollywood has attempted to adapt all-time greats such as Faulkner and Joyce to the screen and failed miserably (The Reivers, Sanctuary, Sound and the Fury, Finnegan's Wake, Ulysses, none worked as movies). Does that diminish the books? I wouldn't say so. If nothing else, the movie would at least bring some more attention to the book. I'm not saying the movie will be good, but even if your worst fears come true, I doubt it will ruin the experience you had reading.

If there's anyone I trust to do this movie, it would be Cuaron.
Also, I found Gursky's "The History of Love" the most dissapointing. On its own, the passages were charming, but in their context, Krauss had to live up to crafting a story which was supposed to be astounding and it felt like she wrote the passages with this thought weighing down in the back of her made, forcing her to be quirky and irreverent.

The way I think of it, is that if the prose cannot be put into the film (my favorite Age was the Age of String: The shorter the distance between two people, the greater the need for string), the lack of physical dialogue should make up for it. Amazing, emotional acting is needed to portray each character, and I'm confident that Alfonso will do a wonderful job.

---
"If you've never seen an elephant ski, you've never been on acid." -Eddie Izzard