World, Writing, Wealth discussion

'The book is so much better than the movie."

This a common verdict many avid readers deliver after viewing screen adaptations of their favorite books. This often sparks lively debate between film and literary enthusiasts who wrangle with issues of creativity, artistic license, vision, literary snobbishness and commercial success. Despite one's position in the fray a more pertinent question is this: have big screen adaptations of books changed the conversations we, as writers, are having with our readers? Instead of casually hoping our book will be optioned and turned into a script are we 'shooting' our books in advance instead of just writing them? Is this pandering, deconstructing the classic elements of storytelling or is it just being reactive to readers' tastes?

The dream that my story will become a movie does not change how I write, simply because it's a dream I consider unlikely to come true. Though even if someone told me my book would be made into a movie, I would still write my story my way and ask to be involved in the screenplay. I put my emotional self into my writing and will not hold that back. A big publishing house may not find my stories interesting, but I write my way and will self-publish because I can.

I have also often found the movie to be better than the book.

I think in not that distant future authors will write visuals, like instant movies and that would be considered writing

Well hmm, I was writing screenplays before I tried writing a novel. Funnily enough, the chief complaint from reviewers about my books is that I switch scenes too abruptly. Probably because that is exactly how they play out in my brain. I am a screenwriter at heart, not a writer who can go on for pages about description and detail. I remember nearly going comatose when I read Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol and he went on for 12 pages about how they stirred the soup. In the case of that book, EVERY MOVIE is better than the book, haha. :)

My books are 95% dialogue because I still see it as a script in my mind. The challenge was putting it into novel form instead of the old fashioned script format.

If my books get produced for the screen, I will be thrilled :). And if people say the book is better or the movie is better, I will still be thrilled. Just knowing that my stories are out there in the world instead of sitting on a producer's desk makes me quite happy.

Wow, Marie! That's great! You are too funny. : D

As I see it they will develop like visual synthesizers, which changed a lot the music, and that's how you'll write books. Tiesto or any other mega-DJ wouldn't be considered musicians 50 years ago, yet he's a star and many others like him

Amazing comments. I think one reason so many books are being turned into movies these days is the fact that studios can point to readers as proof that there is a market. Also writers who have perfected the craft of putting vivid action/imagery in readers' minds have done almost all of the work for the studio. It seems that skilled writers have stepped up their game to the point that producers can almost see the movie in their head as they read the book.

I always write with visuals in mind and my writing style is greatly inspired by the short, to-to-point aspects of screenwriting. I've read several screenplays of films I've enjoyed. I only describe locations, objects that could be altered or completely fantastical from the real world, and of course, actions. Sometimes I'll touch into backgrounds, but most of those are told through "visual" flashbacks instead of exposition narrative.

Characters' thoughts are described through inner monologues, and their motivations are generally "shown" instead of told, though sometimes I do dedicate a sentence or two to why a character might do something (i.e. "He dragged their unconscious bodies into a corner, figuring he didn't need the additional problems if he'd opted to kill them instead."), but mostly, my style is pretty visual.

I like novels that take their time, and I think both narrative styles have a big place and purpose in the writing world--if utilized correctly.

Alexander
Agree and I think some genres lend themselves better to the cinematic style than do others, for sure. Take cozy romances and cozy mysteries, for example. It is hard to read one without seeing the influence of Lifetime Television or Murder She Wrote between the pages.

Marie wrote: "My books are 95% dialogue because I still see it as a script in my mind. The challenge was putting it into novel form instead of the old fashioned script format. ..."

When I played around about 15-20 years ago, I fell into writing stage plays because I found I could tell the story so easily through dialogue. I hate describing a character physically because not only do I want the reader to picture who they want, but in the unlikely event a work ever gets adapted, I don't want a film maker disappointing fans by casting someone who doesn't "look like" a character. That came out of those stage plays where even stage directions and sets were minimalized in my text because a director is going to build sets as they see them and interpret the performance as they wish. I loved stage plays because I loved the idea of just telling the story while leaving as much as possible to the creative eye of a director who is going to pick and choose how they want to interpret the work.

Conversely, because books are supposed to weave a tale and spur the imagination, I find myself minimalizing the dialogue in my books and novellas. I really don't blame people who think I don't get into the heads of my characters enough because of that lack of dialogue at times, but I do not want to fall back on that trope of telling the story strictly through dialogue, and I wonder how much it says about audiences today when they can't let their imagination interpret a story, instead needing the characters to interpret it all for them.

That said, because I got used to writing bombastic, long-winded speeches those years ago, I do tend to find my characters speaking in almost the same way at times in my books.

I think the major effect is that everyone now wants the story to be shorter. A film takes two hours, say, so why should a book be longer? There are very good reasons, but many readers' attention spans are falling.

Interestingly, I have written my fiction mainly in a way that would be very difficult to convert to a movie, because I wanted to bring out the advantages of the book form.

I would say so, yes. Lately, I have felt that the world of writing and indie publishing has been inundated by shitloads of YA literature - be it fantasy, science fiction, or horror (i.e. vampires and werewolves) - that is all the same. While perusing the stacks, I've found so many people who aspire to writing the next Twilight, Harry Potter, Walking Dead, or Hunger Games series. Would this really be the case were it not for the endless movie and TV adaptations?

And while I was a fan of many of these series' (Except Twilight! I f*#@%&$ hate Twilight!), I have become so sick of all the imitations and attempts at grabbing just a slender bit of that spotlight. I also think imitation breeds formulaic-ness and discards inspiration and intent.

I read and initially liked Hunger Games because it seemed like a nice twist on the dystopian narrative, taking teenage angst and placing it into the context of a world where things are LITERALLY run by adults that are trying to force teenagers to conform and control them. Not to mention a world that is divided into a rigid social hierarchy of haves and have-nots, with no justice or peace? What is this, if not a perfect description of how teenagers feel ALL THE TIME?

But how fast did that devolve into a million versions of "You are special, the world hates you for it, but you're right and they're wrong and you'll save the world because you're right and they're wrong"? How many of these franchises also get into the whole love triangle and the "I can't decide between two boys!" thing? These are no longer dystopian narratives at this point, they are advertisers trying to make shitloads of money off of teenage angst and wish-fulfillment.

Of course, one could say this of countless genres. The moment it is adapted into a movie, there are so many people saying "this is going to b the next (insert popular franchise here)" or who will describe their books as "its sort of a (popular franchise) meets (another popular franchise)". Its hard as hell to be original, but I think its something we must all strive for anyway.

Matthew wrote: "Its hard as hell to be original, but I think its something we must all strive for anyway.."

It's just so much easier to copy than to invent and see it through... Not necessarily in lit even. Apple vs Samsung case about iphone patents infringement comes into mind.

And all those 'shades', 'colors', 'numbers' in the aftermath of some bestseller? Many choose replication over individual path -:(

Tim wrote: "I remember when there was a plethora of western genre writers on the bookshelves. Pretty much every story went like this: stranger rides into town owned by a cattle baron who was usually a bully an..."

Used to think Westerns were the genre of choice for my father's generation along with the plethora of WWII films, but I find myself putting them on when I need some background noise.

Grit TV is running a show from the 50s called Sergeant Preston of the Yukon about a Canadian Mountie that rides around with his sled dog team capturing gold thieves. It's an amusing variation of the Western theme, but each episode has the same basic story.

J.J. wrote: "I hate describing a character physically because not only do I want the reader to picture who they want, but in the unlikely event a work ever gets adapted, I don't want a film maker disappointing fans by casting someone who doesn't "look like" a character... I loved stage plays because I loved the idea of just telling the story while leaving as much as possible to the creative eye of a director who is going to pick and choose how they want to interpret the work.

Conversely, because books are supposed to weave a tale and spur the imagination, I find myself minimalizing the dialogue in my books and novellas. I really don't blame people who think I don't get into the heads of my characters enough because of that lack of dialogue at times, but I do not want to fall back on that trope of telling the story strictly through dialogue, and I wonder how much it says about audiences today when they can't let their imagination interpret a story, instead needing the characters to interpret it all for them."

you touch on two points that are major differences b/w film and the written word.

1) the visual look of the characters: in film, there's a tendency for the MCs to be "good looking"; whereas, in a written story, it doesn't matter terribly.

2) getting into the heads of characters: in film, unless there's a voiceover, you can't hear the MC's thoughts nor internal dialogue; whereas in a written story, the internal thought process is really one of the keys to getting the readers really emotionally invested into one's MCs.

Nik wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Its hard as hell to be original, but I think its something we must all strive for anyway.."

It's just so much easier to copy than to invent and see it through... Not necessarily in..."

Isn't it, though? I just lament that the explosion in indie writing has had the effect of so many aspiring writers taking to the path MOST traveled (whichever one that happens to be at the time).

Oh, and did I mention how many 50 Shades of Grey clones I've seen around the GR stacks lately? Jesus Christ, people! This is not a book worth emulating!

Matthew wrote: "Oh, and did I mention how many 50 Shades of Grey clones I've seen around the GR stacks lately?..."

Fashion is fashion, what can you do? -:) Until the next BIG thing.
Having huge gaps in my education, I haven't read the masterpiece myself.
To be fair there are lots of original voices too. Sometimes maybe overly original and raw to enchant a huge audience -:)

Nik wrote: "Until the next BIG thing."

Totes.

Everyone (myself included haha!!) dogs on James, but heck! I wish I'd written those books myself!! Okay, I'm not much of a wisher but you get what I mean ^_~

On a semi-related note, the covers for 50 shades were quite original too. When the majority of erotica had half-naked torsos on the front, James went with simple items - a tie, a mask, handcuffs - and small, simple fonts. Of course, other authors are copycatting now, eh? Sylvia Day and the Crossfire series is a prime example. No idea where I'm going with this...

Hugs...?
Ann

Not convinced that James has not pulled a great one over all of us. Who would not like the royalties?

E.L. James is like Dan Brown: she is a lackluster writer who hit a nerve with readers. However, contrary to Brown, she seems to have plagiarized most of her books and characters from other works, so zero for originality and low marks for writing style. In the meantime, hordes of vastly better writers are still eating peanut butter sandwiches while waiting for shallow-thinking publishers to pay attention to their works.

Michel wrote: "E.L. James is like Dan Brown: she is a lackluster writer who hit a nerve with readers. However, contrary to Brown, she seems to have plagiarized most of her books and characters from other works, s..."

It really is frustrating when it LOOKS like the world prefers mediocrity and plagiarism over quality and originality. I don't quite know how it works (by my understanding, authors contact an editor from a big-name publisher and submit their manuscript for approval, which is a long and frustrating process since often publishers take several months just to turn the damn thing down). I am getting tired of seeing the same thing over and over again, with hard workers getting shit while the unoriginal thinkers bask in the glory of everyone else's stupidity and misplaced praise.

It makes me wonder "Are people blind?"

I have to disagree here. It is easy to slam mediocre qriting and writers as talentless hacks and blame readers and publishers for lack of literary vision. But the truth is that readers often want to be entertained and if something 'strikes a nerve' with them then they will buy the books. It is a publisher's job to give readers what they want, not necessarily to act as literary agents or critics.

E.L. James may not be a skilled writer but she is an extremely talented one. The difference is subtle but important. She delivered what readers were clamoring for in a way they found to be irresistible. I also wouldn't say she plagiarized anyone, per se. What she did was steal the premise from her story from Stephanie Myers, which was originally fan fiction. Her mistake was pretending that she didn't owe anything to myer's vision and originality. Another problem people have with James is that she depended heavily on members of her writing groups for feedback and sugggestions, all of which made her books better, but she failed to thank or recognize them after she became successful. These things make her arrogant and tacky but that is not the same as plagiarism. Cassandra Clare, in my opinion, is definitely guilty of this, but not James.

The 50 Shades books are not prize-winning literary fiction but they are hardly unreadable, either. As a writer I also cringe when I think how much James has profited from some craptastic writing. But at the end of the day she gave readers what they wanted and don't we still believe that should be rewarded?

For everything said about book originality refer to formulaic pop music. Or formulaic classical music or - I think you may get my point.

Originality tends to remain obscure. Writing to fit with a trend or influence is no different than fashion designers all suddenly deciding that mini-skirts are the latest thing

Back on the main point I confess to being influenced by the big and little screen - sometimes to write the opposite i.e. my dystopia has no secret government, is not YA, and has neither zombies or aliens - perhaps that is why no one buys it - sighs

Philip
That sounds intriguing!

@Miss Tara: As always, methinks you hit the nail on the head.

James did everything right. She recognized her writing could use feedback. She asked for feedback. She received feedback. She applied that feedback. (Which, honestly, is more than I can say for most.)

But then she forgot one thing: To eat a slice of humble pie.

From my VERY limited experience, readers are extremely loyal creatures. They'll support you. They'll even forgive you. IF they like you. If they don't? Well, good luck with that hahaha!!

Personally, I find snooty authors highly unattractive. You wrote a book? Great. You think it's pure awesomeness? Great. You believe it can top the NYT's bestseller's list? Great.

You start feeling entitled? Fail. You start complaining about readers? Epic freakin' fail.

At the end of the day, you can either make money or make excuses. Choose one. Cuz you can't have both. Annnd if you don't care about making money. Awesome. Why do you care if someone else does?

Holy blunt, Batman! Heh. I'm currently waiting for my sales rep to show up and he is LATE!! Ugh. Better believe dude's paying for lunch.

Yeeeeah, I might be a bit scary right now *smirks* Sorry, guys!!!

Apologetic hugs,
Ann

*gives Annie a hug and a basket of warm bread sticks*
Agree on all points.

*graciously accepts hugs and bread sticks*

But, seriously...
OMG! I need to read my comments before posting them hahahaha!! I almost wanna edit that sucker cuz I sound like such a jerk, but whatevs. I ain't no pansy. I said it. I'll own it.

*prepares for well-deserved lashing*

No suckers or jerks here. We are all here to exchange ideas and speak our truths. I think it makes us better writers in the end.

*pauses mid-self-flagellation*

Aww, thanks, Miss Tara! Now if you would just convince everyone else it's safe to come back to this thread...

^_~

Lol I suspect everyone else may be off getting their own warm breadsticks and butter. No worries :)

As an old joke known in the Canadian Forces say: floggings will continue until morale improves!

Michel
We're in for a long wait lol.

Michel wrote: "As an old joke known in the Canadian Forces say: floggings will continue until morale improves!"

Umm. There's a few grains of truth in that joke...

(My ex-hubs was an EME ^_~)

Philip wrote: "For everything said about book originality refer to formulaic pop music. Or formulaic classical music or - I think you may get my point.

Originality tends to remain obscure. Writing to fit with a ..."

My view is originality will remain obscure because there are only a limited number of people who seek it out, without being told, and in fairness, how can it get found? Nobody is going to trawl through a whole list of Amazon. I saw one book rated 1,000,000 in its category!! (Computer search by some other program - can't verify it as real - obviously a broad category, or worse, a stupid search engine, and that I believe. More on that some other time.)

The point is, if only a few per cent of readers are really looking for originality, and one finds you, he does not know anyone else who is also looking for it and so the word does not spread.

EL James won out with a simple phrase: "Mommy porn". So many people were curious what that could be. That got the book up the lists and discovered, and then it took off.

Ian wrote: "EL James won out with a simple phrase: "Mommy porn". So many people..."

Agreed. I think the idea that books get turned into movies because they're good, overlooks the aspect of what people are familiar with. Considering how much it costs to make a movie, the film industry has to devote a little more attention to profit, so they will often choose books that have already experienced high levels of success, whether or not they are actually good books.

Take for example the Twilight franchise. Wildly successful, but all (seriously all) of my friends who like the Twilight books admit that they are not well written.

50 Shades of Grey seems really sexist to me (like Virginia Woolf and Susan B. Anthony rolling in their graves sexist) but even if you'd never read the books, you'd heard of them, so why not see the movie?

Tying this into the original question, I think many writers (subconsciously or not) may tend to move toward the genres or styles getting picked up by the film industry. Its like what Philip said about fashion trends.

Totally agree about the movie industry looking for their next big blockbuster as opposed to adapting great literature. The exception, of course, being art house films and Oscar bait projects. Nothing wrong with that, by the way. I am curious as to what aspects of 50 Shades you found to be sexist. I agree in some ways but often what I found problematic is not what others found to be so, so I am always anxious to know what other people think.

I base this off the movie as I never read the book.

The Dom/Sub relationship of the two main characters seemed to be in every aspect of their relationship, not just the bedroom, and the whole thing just felt incredibly manipulative by the end. Christian tells what's-her-face what to do, where to go, when she can/can't see her friends/family (removes her from the presence of friends/family despite her wanting to stay). He tells her how great she is, but then withholds affection from her when she indicates that she needs time to think about the whole concept of the contract, plus a bunch of other little things that really start to add up. Ultimately, there's just a lot of times in this story where "no" seems to mean "yes". This all might be fine if what's-her-face's reluctance came from an unwillingness to surrender independence - or a struggle to maintain that independence while taking on a submissive role - but just seems to come from a inability to think critically.

Again, I didn't read the book, but others have indicated that the book has these same problems.

And Tara, I'm glad you brought up art house films and Oscar bait projects, as they do a fair job of adapting works that are not pure escapism. I can't say that I necessarily want to see more literary works being adapted by big house film studios, as they can be pretty clumsy (maybe "reckless" is a better word) with source materials from time to time.

Daniel J. wrote: "The Dom/Sub relationship of the two main characters seemed to be in every aspect of their relationship, not just the bedroom, and the whole thing just felt incredibly manipulative by the end."

Well, yeah, the Dom/Sub dynamic IS in every aspect of a relationship, or else you're just role-playing, eh? And there's absolutely nothing wrong with sexual RP but it's definitely not the same at all. Actually, Christian's a bit of a pansy as a dom, but that's a whole nother nother *smirks*

re: "just seems to come from a inability to think critically."

That's just Ana. Has nothing to do with her being a sub ^_~

Oh, man! I'm digging this thread!!

Hugs,
Ann

Have to agree with Annie on this one. Anna's character has more to do with her maturation as a person than her weakness of character. She is in college when Christian meets her and we shouldn't expect her to be as developed as someone older might be. To be honest, this makes the plot more interesting because we get to determine if Anna's decisions are a result of Christian's influence over her or the result of her own development/choices. It is quite clear (in the book) that Anna's willingness to be Christian's sub lies in the fact that she finds, to her own surprise and delight, that she quite enjoys it. But he does not manipulate her emotionally. Quite the opposite - he is pretty helpless because of his love/obsession of her. To her (and James') credit, Anna never uses this against him. Now that would be very objectionable in my book.

As far as him controlling her personal life, that is not in the book. Those would be troubling signs of an isolator and a future abuser. None of that in the book - Anna makes her own decisions. She only has two close friends in the book - one is dating Christian's brother and the other took sexual liberties with Anna when she was drunk. As for family, Anna is very close to her mother and Christian doesn't interfere with that. In fact, when he tried to influence where Anna would work after college she shut him down pretty firmly.

I think a lot of misconceptions about BDSM relationships made their way into the movie and permeated the social conversation about the movie. I confess I don't know a great deal about it but my understanding is that people actually involved in the culture took issue with James' portrayal. My problems stem from literary deficits and the whole perception that girls who are virginal and 'pure' are the ones most deserving of 'perfect' relationships. I also did a lot of eye-rolling at Anna's flighty personality, although this was less of an issue as the story progressed. I also disapproved of the way James portrayed Anna as completely unaware of her own powers of attraction or provocation. 'Gosh, you think I'm pretty' gmafb. Lastly, the villain in the book was pretty lol Scooby-Doo level ee-vill and I just can't with paper bad guys.

Tim
Chin Chin!

Nonsense! It all blends quite nicely, actually.

Tara wrote: "But he does not manipulate her emotionally. Quite the opposite - he is pretty helpless because of his love/obsession of her."

Freakin' pansy dom...

*eye roll*

Annie
You slay me lol. I would agree with you but when he found the crazy lurker sub in Anna's apartment and threw her arse in the tub I forgave him everything *sigh*

Blech! I'll take Gideon Cross over Christian Grey any day of the week.

Or, ya know, he can take me ^_~

@Mr Tim: *smh*

Oh Tim. I'll pay you to never stop sharing.

Shush, Miss Tara! *whispers* He's doing it for free!!

*smiles sweetly at Mr Tim*

Christian, Duke of Jeveux fdw! I don't think he is a dom but he is super Alpha grumpy - woot!!

*Hides wallet behind sofa cushion* *realizes there is already a tape recorder hidden there*

Question: How do threads go so wrong so quickly and yet feel sooo right?

@Miss Tara: Yeah, I've give ya that one. Jervaulx was an alpha-level curmudgeon ^_~

*swoon* Jeveux foreva

The better question is why do the threads that go off the rails always have two certain mods on them? *whistles Jay-Z's Bonnie & Clyde*