This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
I finally read the book and Forrest is not mentally deficient at all in the book.
In the book, he's a very aware, intelligent person who's good at focusing on and solving problems but has a speech impediment.
Maybe the movie tried to do that, but I don't think they tried to do that.
He also goes to space with a chimpanzee.
The book is pretty crazy.
You're not wrong they literally have a scene talking about his test scores showing his mentally deficiency on a written test.
In the film he's a diagnosed retard.
I mean he is from alabama.
Why are you just repeating him?
Which you could charitably read as them not understanding that a speech impediment doesn't translate to lower intelligence, but reading the book is very jarring because it's basically narrated by this almost hyper self-aware character who became famous for being portrayed as unthinking, literally mentally challenged and falling into all of these events.
Sounds like the movie made a change for the better.
It's been some time since I've read the book, but I always say, Forrest Gump is an example of the movie being better than the book.
Another example of this is Fight Club. The movie has the big twist, which isn't even hidden in the book.
The opposite of Marathon Man, where the book has a twist that the movie doesn't hide at all.
I agree, usually this isn't the case. IMO the other example of this is with Jurassic Park.
I recently read Jurassic Park for the first time and I thought the same thing. The movie provided a more engaging plot, had more emotional punch, and developed stronger characterization. Going back and reading Chrichton's work has been a rewarding exercise to me as a budding writer. He had some great ideas but also surprisingly had a lot of flaws in his work.
The best part of the book was making Hammond the villain, that should have been kept.
How do you mean?
I found the book much more compelling.
After I read it, I thought that maybe I would've cared about the movie if he had a scoche of relatability or development.
Movie gump seemed like a trope rather than a character as soon as the previews were being shown.
I think we read different comments... Space with monkeys?!
Really makes you think
It's been a long time since I read the book, but that's not how I remember it at all. He was gifted mathematically, but deficient in general. He caused trouble a number of times by misreading situations and not doing what was expected of him.
He was smarter than people assumed, but I got the impression he was still impaired overall. Maybe that was the movie affecting my perception of the character.
I think it's the movie, but also the way the book is written as a commentary on what intelligence is.
Forrest accepts he's an idiot because people tell him he's an idiot, even though on the inside, all of his thoughts are very logical, self-aware and clear, he just has trouble expressing his thoughts.
"Now I'm slow—I'll grant you that, but I'm probly a lot brighter than folks think, cause what goes on in my mind is a sight different than what folks see. For instance, I can think things pretty good, but when I got to try sayin or writin them, it kinda come out like jello or somethin."
Over and over throughout the book, he's taken advantage of because he is honest and helpful, but not because he's intellectually deficient.
He obviously has excellent coordination, he becomes an astronaut, he can learn and do pretty much any task, simple or complicated, often better than anyone else, which I think indicates his actual intelligence, along with his very clear, slef-aware and insightful internal monologues.
His trouble is with expressing himself and refusing to view the world cynically.
The rest of the world thinks being open and honest is a sign of low intelligence, but I think that's a commentary on the rest of the world, not on Forrest.
Imagine interacting with strangers beyond "did the bus I need already stop here?".
Signed, the Netherlands.
I can't imagine interacting with strangers at all under any circumstances (as long as it's on a bus).
Signed, Sweden
It's so inconsiderate to interact with strangers in an environment they cannot escape.
Greetings from Norway
I assume the Finns are not even commenting here as that would be too much interaction
I can’t imagine interacting with strangers.
Signed, me.
Hello there.
general kenobi
Hey, that's not fair. We have a plethora of "ushekta"s to employ in various transit-related scenarios:
We live in a society after all
You use words for I need to get off here, please allow me to exit my seat?? Barbaric. A good rustling of your belongings, maybe a shift in the position your sitting and, if all fails, judgemental but thankful eye contact should be absolutely sufficient. Maybe MAYBE paired with a mumbled excuse me.
Verbal communication is naturally a last resort if your fellow passenger does not pick up on your non-verbal cues.
This naturally also comes with the responsibility of not accidentally showing non-verbal cues and making someone think you need to get off and as such leave their seat.
Ah yes, the dread all too sudden move in the seat. In such a case the only reasonable thing is to get up and stand for the rest of the ride. Worst case you might just have to walk home. The damage is already done.
I remember crying all the way to the next stop as a kid because I was too awkward to let my seat neighbour know that I needed to get up to press the stop button. In defence of the bus and its inhabitants everyone was very supportive. Good times!
Point 2 and 3 are valid points (btw I love the phonetic spelling of ursäkta)
I would've thought the bus world be displaying the sorry I'm full sign when there's a passenger on board in those parts of Europe 😜
This always blows my mind as an American. Considering how our country is... How are we so much more friendly and talkative than the rest of you people?
I read some study about it a few years back… in summary, americans are doing the fake friendliness thing where they ask everyone and their mother how they are doing, if they want to grab coffee sometime, and so on while actually meaning nothing of it. Meanwhile Europeans don’t do that. They are only really friendly to people they are familiar with, and immediately sceptical of the American kind of fake friendliness. Basically, we wouldn’t ask someone how they do unless we are actually interested in that.
Peaches vs Coconuts.
Another interesting thing I once read is that there are apparently subconscious cultural norms for things like eye contact.
Many Americans visiting Europe report that they often feel stared at, which is caused by a minuscule difference in how long it is appropriate to meet someone's gaze, for example when walking in public and looking at a stranger. Apparently Americans look somewhere else a fraction of a second earlier, and this tiny difference makes them feel stared at.
We can be friendly and talkative, but not at a bus stop.
Well yeah, of course I mean I'm not saying you aren't in general. But with strangers like that, how Americans can be. I'm constantly having random conversations with strangers and it completely blows my foreign friend's minds when I talk about stuff like that.
I run a B&B around the Himalayan range and see a lot of foreign tourists. Most Europeans people seem to be much more reserved especially the Finnish, a few are notable exceptions like the Germans & English.
I run a B&B around the Himalayan range
Pretty sure you're winning an award for most interesting job on Lemmy.
Not bothering strangers with inane conversation is more friendly to me. Forcing strangers into conversations is rude. But I live in Vancouver, we have similar transit culture to Europe.
You mean annoying?
Thats what the digital displays are for. only reason to talk to someone is to bitch about a certain bus always being late, which they then agree with and the conversation ends.
you don't do a puppet show and encourage everyone to sing along?
This thread is now officially part of the yuropean continent.
Must be a lonely country
What?
The movie starts with Forrest introducing himself to a black woman as being named after, and descended from, Nathan Bedford Forrest, slave catcher, Civil War general, and KKK founder. Who, btw, racists keep trying to rehabilitate with revisionism.
It's kind of brushed off because Forrest is clearly off, mentally, but it gets a little more suspicious considering all of the whitewashing in the movie.