Even more Howl's Moving Castle...but this time the book

I got my used copy of Diana Wynne Jones's novel in the mail (along with a bunch of other fun reading) and pretty much devoured it last night (actually it was the second book I devoured in that package). I was also enchanted with the novel, but I still love the film very much and am looking forward to seeing it again, even dubbed in English, when it comes out in commercial theaters this Friday.

I must say, Miyazaki really took liberties with the story. (Spoilers here; my friend Arcadia has mentioned some of these already.) For instance, Sophie has two sisters, not just one, though both are called Lettie for a large part of the novel (one of the several types of doubling in the novel). Also, the character of Suliman, who is female in the film, seems to be an amalgam of a wizard and a witch: Royal Wizard Suliman, and his (and Howl's) teacher the witch Mrs. Pentstemmon. Furthermore, Miyazaki really downplays Sophie's own magic, and this makes me wonder what particular effect this has on the story (I will be paying attention to this, among other things, when I watch the film again).

Howl's origins are actually quite mundane (his real name is Howell Jenkins); in fact, he is from Wales in the 20th century (or at least sometime after computer games are invented), which is considered a completely alien world or dimension to Ingary, the world of the novel. This was an aspect that perhaps would have taken too much time to explain in the film and so was almost completely excised. Rather, in the film, there are those scenes of Howl showing Sophie the place his "uncle" left him which is where Sophie witnesses the young Howl catching the falling star, Calcifer.

In this latter scene, Miyazaki adds elements of time-travel and predestination, since Sophie tells the young Howl to wait for her in the future as she gets pulled back from the "memory." I think this could be Miyazaki's way of incorporating some part of the very interesting curse on Howl by the Witch in the novel, a curse which is based on one of John Donne's poems titled "Song." There are several Donne poems with the title, so I'll reproduce the appropriate here, though the novel used only the first two stanzas. I actually loved this use of Donne's poem, as I enjoy Donne very much:

"Song"
by John Donne

Go, and catch a falling star,
Get with child a mandrake root,
Tell me, where all past years are,
Or who cleft the Devil's foot,
Teach me to hear mermaids singing,
Or to keep off envy's stinging,
     And find
     What wind
Serves to advance an honest mind.

If thou be'est born to strange sights,
Things invisible to see,
Ride ten thousand days and nights,
Till age snow white hairs on thee,
Thou, when thou return'st, wilt tell me
All strange wonders that befell thee,
     And swear
     Nowhere
Lives a woman true, and fair.

If thou find'st one, let me know,
Such a pilgrimage were sweet,
Yet do not, I would not go,
Though at next door we might meet,
Though she were true, when you met her,
And last, till you write your letter,
     Yet she
     Will be
False, ere I come, to two, or three.

So you see, the poem is about the impossible, the list of impossible deeds in the first stanza culminating in the most impossible of all: finding a woman both true and fair, both faithful/(sexually) virtuous and beautiful. But the book was a bit confusing as to how this could be a curse; these things are not impossible in Ingary, just difficult, so is it a curse if Howl cannot do all of the things in the list (like finding the ingredients of a recipe) or is it a curse if they all somehow come true? Well, it seems the latter is the case in the novel, but why is it harder to avoid all of those things than to make them come true? So anyway, if they did come true in full, as they almost do, Howl would be doomed to return to the Witch as her captive. But the thing that the novel doesn't really explain is why the curse doesn't come to fruition: supposedly Howl can find no woman both true (faithful) and fair, as the poem says there is no such thing, but there is of course Sophie, especially at the end when she reverts to her fair self from her old-lady curse/disguise.

There's still more, but I'll only cite two further examples of differences between book and film: The Scarecrow actually had nothing to do with the prince of an enemy realm--it is a gollum created by Suliman in a desperate bid to get help when he is captured by the Witch of the Waste. Indeed, while possible enemies from other countries are mentioned, none are actually featured in the book. Instead, the only prince in the novel is the brother of the king who also gets captured by the Witch of the Waste.

This brings me to what I consider the most significant change Miyazaki made, namely, the depiction of actual war in his film. This to me means that Miyazaki is trying to make a point about the current state of global affairs, such as the stupid war in Iraq and other international conflicts. In the book, such a war is only threatened, but even then it is only a very dim possibility. The greatest threat in the novel comes from the Witch of the Waste and her demon fire; indeed, her demon fire has consumed her to the point that the demon ends up being the most villainous character in the novel. Not war, as in the film. In the film, you'll notice that the Witch of the Waste is actually recuperated into a mischievous but insightful grandmotherly figure. I appreciate this change, actually. The film, then, is not just a mindless adaptation of the novel (like, say, the Harry Potter films, especially the first two), and I think this last change is vitally relevant at this particular historical moment.