# Great novelisations of movies **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [September 20, 2012, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-novelisations-of-movies/635284 "2012-09-20T16:47:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2012, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-novelisations-of-movies/635284/61 "2012-09-25T01:10:20Z")
CalMeacham, I wasn’t aware that anybody thought of De Camp as an ogre. Who thought that? I met him once or twice. ---
**Author:** ![MacSpon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/34f0e0/32.png) [@MacSpon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MacSpon)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2012, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-novelisations-of-movies/635284/62 "2012-09-25T05:07:04Z")
> [@phouka](#): > > A TV series pilot novelization of _Beauty and the Beast_ - the long running series from the late 80’s/early 90’s. It was written by one of my favorite authors, Barbara Hambly, and she did an excellent job of filling in backstory, providing consistent and realistic interpretations of why characters did what they did. > > But my absolutely favorite part was an in-joke about a third of the way in, when Katherine has gone looking for a martial artist to teach her self-defense. She passes a renovated firehouse with an old ambulance parked in front, two guys in khaki jumpsuits working on it, and thinks to herself that this neighborhood was like a demilitarized zone. Oh, God. I’ve got the book, read it more than once, but I only just got that. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2012, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-novelisations-of-movies/635284/63 "2012-09-25T11:43:23Z")
> [@Wendell\_Wagner](#): > > Voyager, the screenplay of the movie _Love Story_ was written before the novel: > > [Love Story (1970 film) - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Story_(1970_film)) > > Segal was already an established screenwriter, since he was one of the writers for the movie _Yellow Submarine_. He sold the screenplay for _Love Story_ to the film studio, who asked him to turn it into a novel. The novel came out well before the film, but the script was written first. This is why I don’t think there is a clearcut line between a novelization and a novel adapted for film. Was the screenplay written first or the novel? Novels are routinely written before the movie is released. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2012, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-novelisations-of-movies/635284/64 "2012-09-25T12:14:07Z")
> [@Wendell\_Wagner](#): > > CalMeacham, I wasn’t aware that anybody thought of De Camp as an ogre. Who thought that? I met him once or twice. On the pages devoted to Robert E. Howard there are plenty of complaints, both about his treatment of the Howard stories, his tight-fistedness, and the character he ascribed to Howard in the buiography he wrote (Some Lovecraft fans don’t care for the bio he wrote about Lovecraft, either). Here’s probably the most extreme example, a 16-part series entitled “The de Camp Controversy” (Part 1 is at the bottom of this page. You can navigate to find the others) > **[Robert E. Howard Days | Cross Plains TX](https://www.facebook.com/RobertEHowardDays/?cat=19&paged=3)** > > Robert E. Howard Days, Cross Plains, Texas. 1,995 likes · 89 talking about this · 19 were here. Robert E. Howard Days is an annual gathering of the fans of writer Robert E. Howard, held at the Robert... This guy is definitely not alone in his feelings – there are plenty of others saying the same things on various boards. ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2012, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-novelisations-of-movies/635284/65 "2012-09-25T22:50:37Z")
AK84, the screenplay for _Love Story_ was written first. ---
**Author:** ![FrigidLizard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3bc359/32.png) [@FrigidLizard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FrigidLizard)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2012, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-novelisations-of-movies/635284/66 "2012-09-28T23:38:37Z")
> [@Kiyoshi](#): > > In my early teens, I enjoyed the novelization of _Labyrinth_ by A C H Smith. It contained scenes and background information that weren’t in the film – for example, it explained what happened to Sarah’s mother, and it showed what was behind the deaf door-knocker. > > Probably not great literature, given that it’s been out of print for 20 years, but a fun read nonetheless. I came here to say this, too. It really does give a lot of insight into Sarah’s character and really explains why she’s so mired in her childhood. The novelization of Willow is also pretty good in that way; a lot more background information and explanatory scenes, like the history between Razel and Bavmorda, Matmartigan’s fall from grace, Sorsha’s upbringing, etc. I’m not sure I would call either book a great novel, but they are both great adaptations of screenplays. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2012, 7:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-novelisations-of-movies/635284/67 "2012-09-29T07:12:45Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > Even longer before that. L. Sprague de Camp was altering REH’s stories (such as _The Black Stranger_, which he rewrote into _The Treasure of Tranicos_) back in 1953 for the hardcover Conan books published by Gnome (for which deCamp was an editor). The original version of _The Black Stranger_ wasn’t published (without the de Camp changes and additions, which really didn’t help it any) until 1987, and is currently in publication in the three-volume collection of complete Conan stories. > > de Camp is roundly hated by a big segment of REH fans as the guy who altered the original Conan stories, forbade the reprinting of the originals, and added his own stories that changed his character. They also took non-Conan Howard stories and converted them into Conan stories. But they were pretty upfront about it in the Lancer books. And that deCamp’s view of Conan’s character is different from Howard’s is hardly surprising. deCamp’s own work is very different in tone. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2012, 7:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-novelisations-of-movies/635284/68 "2012-09-29T07:27:23Z")
> [@Wendell\_Wagner](#): > > Voyager, the screenplay of the movie _Love Story_ was written before the novel: > > [Love Story (1970 film) - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Story_(1970_film)) > > Segal was already an established screenwriter, since he was one of the writers for the movie _Yellow Submarine_. He sold the screenplay for _Love Story_ to the film studio, who asked him to turn it into a novel. The novel came out well before the film, but the script was written first. This is why I don’t think there is a clearcut line between a novelization and a novel adapted for film. I don’t know about Love Story (never having seen the movie) but there is often a large gap between the first screenplay and what gets filmed, so counting what is published in both cases might make sense. Novelizations often include stuff that got cut. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2012, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-novelisations-of-movies/635284/69 "2012-09-29T15:28:10Z")
One that stands out is the book published as a tie-in to the film _Animal House_, written by Chris Miller.\* It’s not just words, but includes a lot of artwork and stuff made up to look like contemporary documentation. What’s interesting is that it fills in a lot of gaps, delivering material they clearly wanted to include in the movie, but didn’t, apparently because of time limitations and, I suspect, because they feared for their movie rating. In these pages you can see, for instance, the deleted scenes of director Jon Landis as a cafeteria wonk facing off against John Belushi’s Bluto, and learn how Pinto got his Omega House nickname. Some of the artwork is by impressive contributrors – NL regular cartoonist Sherry Fleniken, a two-page spread by Boris Vallejo, and an wonderful parody of Picasso’s _Guernica_ to headline the last “chapter”. You really do need to read this book to fully understand the film. Unfortunately, it was cheaply made, and the glue in my copy is letting go. Fortunately, they republished it ecently, and I saw a copy in a bookstore this week. \*Most movie tie-ins, the ones that aren’t for kids o direct novelizations, are pretty awful and useless. The ones for _Time Bandits_ and _Blues Vrothers_, which superficially resemble the Animal House one, in being combinations of words,artwork, and supplementals, look like nothing more than attempts to drag out some additional cash from viewer’s pockets. They ad nothing to the film. _Animal House_, by the way, was based on a series of short pieces that appeared in _National Lampoon_, and use the same names and location, but they hadn’t “jelled” to produce the same feeling that they had in the film. Original edition: [http://www.amazon.com/National-Lampoons-Animal-House-Miller/dp/0930368835/ref=sr\_1\_9?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1348932627&sr=1-9&keywords=Animal+House+Miller](http://www.amazon.com/National-Lampoons-Animal-House-Miller/dp/0930368835/ref=sr_1_9?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1348932627&sr=1-9&keywords=Animal+House+Miller) 29th Anniversary edition (2007): > **[National Lampoon Animal House: Miller, Chris: 9780978832346: Amazon.com: Books](https://www.amazon.com/National-Lampoons-Animal-House-Anniversary/dp/0978832345)** > > National Lampoon Animal House \[Miller, Chris\] on Amazon.com. \*FREE\* shipping on qualifying offers. National Lampoon Animal House ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2012, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-novelisations-of-movies/635284/70 "2012-09-29T15:44:05Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > They also took non-Conan Howard stories and converted them into Conan stories. But they were pretty upfront about it in the Lancer books. And that deCamp’s view of Conan’s character is different from Howard’s is hardly surprising. deCamp’s own work is very different in tone. Yup – I read all the Lancer editions (and Conan of Cimmeria, when Ace finally brought it out). And de Camp duid say when he rewrote something, and did say that he extensively rewrote The Black Stranger. That’s not what bugs the deCamp haters. They dislike that he sat on the rights and prevented publication of the original stories without his additions (“The Black Stranger” wasn’t published during Howard’s lifetime. It first saw print with de Camp’s additions and an editors in magazine in the 1950s, then in ythe deCamp-edited Gnome Press hardcover in 1953 newly changed by de Camp, then in the Lancer edition in 1967, still with deCamp’s changes. It wasn’t until 1987 that Howard’s version was finally published in _Echies of Valor_, which wasn’t that widespread a book. The recent Conan omnibus editions published by Wandering Star and Del Rey were the first to bring the story to a broad audience. deCamp’s changes aren’t merely a difference in style, he also changed the ending to shoehorn it into his imposed chronology. (In many stories he took a briefly mentioned villain, the magician Thoth-Amon, and puffed him up into a recurring Moriarty-like figure, which Howard doesn’t seem to have intended). The prohibition of the publication of Howard’s original material and perpetuation of his own version is what chiefly ticked off the fans. To say that he changed the story without giving the original didn’t mollify them – it seemed to dangle the knowledge that the original existed in front of them without letting them see it, which infuriated them. I don’t think de Camp deserves the scorn heaped on him. Some of the deCamp-haters try to tear down his own work. It’s true that it hasn’t survived as well as Howard’s, but that’s true of lots of notable writers from his period. I still search out his works. _Lest Darkness Fall_ is an acknowledged classic, and keeps getting reprinted. _Lost Continents_ is still in print, too, AFAIK, and _The Ancient Engineers_ keeps getting republished. His other works are worth digging up and reading, especially his historical novels, like _An Elephant for Aristotle_, _The Bronze God of Rhodes_ and _The Dragon of the Ishtar Gate_ ---
**Author:** ![Ashley\_Pomeroy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c68b51/32.png) [@Ashley\_Pomeroy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ashley_Pomeroy)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2012, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-novelisations-of-movies/635284/71 "2012-09-29T16:39:15Z")
> [@Icerigger](#): > > Alan Dean Foster’s Alien I had this, and the sequel - before video was ubiquitous, it was the only way to see the films. I remember the books included all the “special edition” bits that were cut from the movies, because Foster was working from the original screenplays. _Alien_ revealed the final fate of Captain Dallas and _Aliens_ had the sequence with the sentry guns. For several years I could pride myself on having all this super-secret knowledge although as far as I know the footage is now available on the blu-ray releases (and was re-added to _Aliens_). Foster also did a bunch of _Star Trek_ tie-ins which, again, were dead handy if you didn’t have a video recorder. I remember Craig Shaw Gardner’s novel of the Tim Burton _Batman_ being decent. Off the top of my head I was under the impression that there were _two_ novelisations of _Batman Returns_ - one for grown-ups and a “young adult” version - but I can’t find anything to back this up. Either I’m wrong, or the world is wrong, but the world has been wrong before. THIS! (points to sword) THIS! you can trust. The other anecdote I trot out every few months is the case of _Dr Strangelove_, which was based on a novel that was turned into a radically different film which was then novelised by the author of the original book. Also, the man who wrote the novelisation of _Back to the Future_ was [killed by a bee](http://www.nytimes.com/1986/09/09/obituaries/george-gipe-is-dead-at-53-a-film-and-television-writer.html)! You know, I was in Venice last week, and hanging out of somebody’s window was a _Rocky II_ t-shirt. And I’m thinking to myself “did they buy that t-shirt in 1979, and keep it all these years, or is it a recent re-issue - and if so, why _Rocky II_? No-one remembers _Rocky II_”. That’s got nothing to do with novelisations, I just had to share it with someone. Before it’s all lost in time, like soil in gravy. The book versions of _Yes, Minister_, and _Yes, Prime Minister_ were just as entertaining than as the TV shows - they fleshed out the background information with witty footnotes and condensed the stories to just the right length. Nothing about sentry guns, though, or continuity-breaking revelations about the alien life cycle. If you’re talking about “great” novelisations - in the _great works of literature_ sense - then no, there have been no great novelisations of movies. In my opinion all the truly great films are intrinsically _filmic_, e.g. they only work in that medium, and a novelisation of a great film would either be inferior simply by dint of cutting out the filmic elements, or would be so radically different that a wise author wouldn’t bother. I can envisage a situation where a talented author spots the germ of greatness in an otherwise inferior film, and turns it into a brilliant novel, but again why would that person not simply change the character names and the dates and release it as a wholly original work? In theory a multi-medium film/novel _gesamtkunstwerk_ - _2001: A Space Odyssey_, for example, or _The Hitch-Hiker’s Etc_ - might achieve greatness but neither of those examples were thoroughly great (the novel of _2001_ is slim pickings without the film) and I can’t think of any others, and in any case they wouldn’t be complete without the whole. It would be wrong to split the novel from the totality of the artwork. Looking at [this list](http://www.modernlibrary.com/top-100/100-best-novels/) of “100 Best Novels”, I never realised that Ayn Rand and L Ron Hubbard were the Greatest Novelists of All Time, but they were, with no less than seven out of the ten best novels ever written being written by them. ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2012, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-novelisations-of-movies/635284/72 "2012-09-29T21:54:48Z")
Ashley Pomeroy, that’s a list of best novels as voted on by people who cared enough to vote online. That isn’t a critic’s list of best novels. It’s not really even a list of best novels as voted on by people interviewed on the street or on the phone. It’s the people who knew about the poll, which quite likely means that some websites decided to get all their regular readers to vote in it. It proves nothing except that some fandoms care enough to organize their members to take part in polls. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2012, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-novelisations-of-movies/635284/73 "2012-09-30T19:30:24Z")
That list is pretty hard to believe, with not only Battlefield Earth, but also Mission Earth and Fear by Hubbard listed. Ya gotta figure that the Scientologists participated, and only restrained themselves so that it wouldn’t look too obvious that they were canting the list. Nobody outside the Cult has anything at all god to say about the interminable Mission Earth series, which by all accounts much worse than Battlefield Earth. They’d have a better chance nominating _Fear_, which dates from back before Bubbard’s Dianetics period, and won some praise. It’s kinda hard to see it called a “novel”, though. Before Bridge Publications started reprinting it, it was usually bound with some other stuff and sold as a long short story or a novella. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/great-novelisations-of-movies/635284.md?page=3)