Great minds have purposes, others have wishes.-Washington Irving

Kevin Sullivan has once again found a new way to make me hate him. You remember my rant a little while ago about Sullivan Entertainment's complete lack of sense when adapting Maud's books? Good. Well it now appears that Mr. Sullivan has decided to release a book-version of the New Beginning film (still no release-date yet, although the book is to be put on sale October 01, which is way too close to my birthday for comfort), written by, yes you guessed it, himself. That man is like bile personified. I have also been able to find a better synopsis of the upcoming film, which makes me very sad. *Spoiler Alert* They do in fact kill off Gilbert, and this synopsis seems to insinuate that Anne's father did not die when she was an infant (although we know from Anne of the Island that he most definitely did). Oh, Mr. Sullivan you are indeed an evil man; like the Grinch, but without any of the good qualities (ya, maybe a little harsh, but that's how I feel). I also found out that Penguin actually COMMISSIONED the Budge Wilson prequel, they have lost most of my respect because of this, baddies!

I was reading a scholarly paper last night (I'm not going to mention any names) about the changes in Maud's writings during and after the Great War (and at the onset of WWII). Ya, that's right, I sit around and read journal articles on Lucy Maud Montgomery. This one made me so mad! I could barely focus on the actual content, because almost every single date for a book's publication was wrong. There was actually multiple times where it was right, and than the next time the book was mentioned it was wrong. And this wasn't an instance where the author was using the date of their own edition, because in the bibliography the author gave the publication dates (wrong for the most part again) and then the date of the edition they were using. Did that just make any sense at all? And by wrong, I mean wildly wrong at times. Rilla of Ingleside was published in 1921, this person had it listed as 1944. Maud was already dead in 1944 (she passed away April 24th 1942), I mean come on! I can almost forgive someone for giving a publication date that is later than the actual publication date, because they might not realize an edition they are referencing is not a first edition. What I cannot forgive however is giving a date that is earlier than the actual date! Oh yes, that happened too in this article. I mean, I know I probably know more about Lucy Maud Montgomery than most people my age (I don't know how old the person was who wrote the article) so I know a lot of this stuff off the top of my head, but seriously, when you're writing an article for a journal, shouldn't you double-check these facts, especially since the publication dates were directly related to the content of the article. They're also super-easy to find. I actually went through my copy of the article and changed all the dates in red ink, because it was bothering me so much. I know, I am lame.

Carrying on... While I was in the shower last night (I do some of my best thinking there) I discovered a new goal (one of many) that I think I've actually been secretly harbouring, at least in part, for awhile now. I want to write something that gets me included as part of the bibliography for the Lucy Maud Montgomery Research Centre! I know, it seems a little crazy and it's definitely not a goal most people have, but it would make me outrageously happy. I think I'm going to start off by writing a paper for the 2010 conference in PEI, the theme is L.M. Montgomery and the Matter of Nature. They probably won't take it since I don't have any other papers published, but I figure I'll give it a shot. In actuality I have had a couple of things published on Maud, but they're of next to no importance, and only a handful of people have ever read them (one of them was my Mother). Hey, at least you can be guaranteed I got my dates right! I'm considering writing on the concept of Nature in The Blue Castle (1926), it is one of the more overlooked (unless you're a scholar from Northern Ontario), but is also one of my favourites. It's actually the only one of Maud's novels that is not set, at least in part, in PEI. It all takes place in the Muskokas.

Jen gave me a gift-card for Chapters-Indigo-giant-conglomeration-eater-of-the independent (I'm allowed to say that; I used to work for them). I really don't have a problem with them at all, except that they changed the names of the Smithbooks stores to Coles (Smithbooks was way better!), and I find Heather to be a tad annoying. I bought The Forger's Spell by Edward Dolnick, and The Lost Dinosaurs of Egypt by William Nothdurft. They both look good, I *heart* books.

As a rule, I am very careful to be shallow and conventional where depth and originality are wasted.- L.M. Montgomery

This is a continuation of yesterday's post (I had to leave work and didn't get to continue). Here I will, once again, spout bursts of senseless love for all things Maud. I've also added some more links on the side, and yes, they are all Maud related. I could go on for days, I swear, this could last forever. (INSERT: I originally intended this to be another Maud love-fest, but it has quickly dissolved into a rant on how much I hate Kevin Sullivan).

I'm reading Anne of Windy Poplars again (I finished The English Patient last night, but I need to let it sit with me awhile before I can say anything). I basically grabbed a random Maud book off the shelf last night because it's what I'm in the mood for, and this is what magically appeared in my hand. Jen hated it, but I can't hate anything Maud, it's impossible. Most people don't realize that Anne of Windy Poplars (Anne of Windy Willows in the UK) was actually published in 1936, 21 years after it's precursor Anne of the Island was published, and 16 years after Rilla of Ingleside was published (Anne of Ingleside wasn't published until 1939 and would be the last of Maud's works). Maud was at a very different point in her life then she had been 20 years earlier. I'm definitely not going to say it's my favourite out of the books, but there is still a magic in it, and I love little Elizabeth. Now that I think about it, I think the copy of Anne of Windy Poplars that I have on me right now is actually a first edition (again, I have multiple copies of this book too). It's just missing it's dust jacket.

I have a serious problem with Kevin Sullivan. He is the president of Sullivan Entertainment. They were the one's that made the 1985 version of Anne of Green Gables, the 1987 Anne of Green Gables: The Sequel, Road to Avonlea, that awful Anne cartoon, the 1990 Jane of Lantern Hill movie (which actually wasn't half-bad, although not overly true to the book), the horrifyingly-bad Anne of Green Gables: The Continuing Story, and now they're making a new movie: Anne of Green Gables: A New Beginning (based on Budge Wilson's book of the same title). He cannot be blamed, however, for the Emily of New Moon TV series (which was okay for about half a season and then collapsed into utter nonsense). I can't even begin to describe how much I loathe that man!

The first two Anne movies weren't bad, obviously he couldn't do everything in the books. I was really excited when I heard about the third Anne movie (it aired in 2000), I found out when it was going to be on, adjusted the bunny-ears on the TV to get good reception (again, we were poor), and cozied-down to watch. I was horrified! I actually cried. Sullivan basically made up his own movie. Other than the fact that Gilbert and Anne get married, nothing else was based on the books. Sullivan sent both Gilbert and Anne to the war, had Anne drinking, flirting with other men, swearing (!), and then in the end they adopt some random war baby. What the hell! I was bawling by the end because I was so upset, I wished I had never watched. I haven't watched it since, I can't.

I can see already that the next movie (supposed to be released this fall) will be even more of an atrocity. I haven't read Budge Wilson's book, and I don't intend to. Nor do I intend, as of this moment, to watch the movie. Basically what's going on is this: Budge Wilson wrote a book that is a prequel to Anne of Green Gables (for a reason that I still haven't been able to figure out), that talks about Anne's life before she moves to Green Gables. I don't understand why this needed to be done, Maud gives us snippets all throughout the books of what Anne's life was like before, and frankly I wouldn't want to watch a movie based on this time because it doesn't seem like it was pleasant. I did watch the trailer for the movie today (without sound because I'm at work). I love Shirley MacLaine, but I don't think she's enough to make me watch the movie. The little girl who is playing Anne (this is going to sound really bad, I know) is too chubby in the face to be Anne (although she is cute!), Anne was all wiry and slightly malnourished. Because I couldn't watch it with sound, it was a little hard to get the gist, but it doesn't look like it even has much to do with the snippets we get from Maud.

It really makes me sad that a publisher even accepted this "prequel" (it's even designated as an "official prequel" which I think is "officially lame"). I feel the same way about the sequel Jane Austen books that have come out. It just seems so wrong, why can't they just leave well-enough alone? Besides, I want a little something left to the imagination, I like to come up with my own outcomes. I like to envision Anne and Gilbert living out the rest of their days in happiness, surrounded by their little grandchildren. By the way (I don't know if this is considered a spoiler or not), as I was going through the website for the new movie, I didn't see any mention of Gilbert at all (or any other children for that matter, other than that war baby). If Kevin Sullivan has killed off Gilbert I am going to be so upset and ridiculously angry, I'll probably cry again. That will definitely get the Anne fans all kinds of angry.

I'm going to stop moaning about this now with these last few words: Kevin Sullivan and Budge Wilson can bite me. I *heart* Maud.