I find reading novels a chore and can’t picture things in my mind except in a very faint ghost-like way. I imagine that novels give people a richer, more intellectual understanding of stories and situations. I find movies to be a lot more immersive.
What do you think? If you think novels are better do you still watch films and TV? If so, why? Because it isn’t available in book form?
[ul]
[li]The storytelling in novels can be deeper and more involving than movies or TV.[/li][li]We can see into characters’ minds and memories.[/li][li]And then structurally novels can work on a different level of complexity, with long patches of nothing much advancing the plot but instead developing the characters, and you don’t feel short-changed, while in a movie or TV show it feels like unsatisfying filler.[/li][/ul]So it’s not really about the images they conjure, though epic adventure can be more spectacular than anything a movie can afford to create.
They are completely different experiences. The medium you use to tell your story profoundly affects not only how the story is told, but often the story itself*. You can translate a story to another medium, adapting it to a new environment, but it won’t be quite the same. This is pretty much why Alan Moore has disowned adaptations of his graphic novels – even Zach Snyder’s movie [Watchmen* and the Wachowski’s V for Vendetta, which were pretty respectful of the source material. They just ain’t the same.
That said, I often find novels pretty immersive, and I can really get into them, vividly picturing the world they describe (which is often, I find, different from the author’s own mental image). I’ve had friends tell me the same about books they’ve read, saying that they felt they were “living” the book.
One of the things I love about adaptations is seeing how completely differently they can be adapted by different directors, casts, and crew, even though the book that was the inspiration is the same in all cases. I’ve gone out of my way to find multiple versions of Dracula, for instance, and of Frankenstein. Since about 2000 we’ve had several different film adaptations of Beowulf. And, of course, I’ve collected the different screen versions of the story of Perseus and Medusa. In all these cases, the films end up wildly different in the look and film design, the emphasis and character, the writing itself, and the acting. Each film is a completely different experience, and all are different expressions than the book.
It’s not even a question of which is “better”. Usually the original novel or story is better than the film adaptation of it, but that’s not invariably true. Orson Welles’ film Touch of Evil is felt to be superior to the story that it was nominally adapted from. I think the film The Day the Earth Stood Still is far superior to Harry Bates’ story “Farewell to the Master”, and that the film Goldfinger is, for many reasons better than the Ian Fleming novel (although for most Bond films, the reverse is true).
- Marshall McLuhan famously said “The Medium is the Message”, and he really meant it. Literally. I disagree, and a whole bunch of other people do, too. But I agree that the medium definitely shapes the message.
I read a ton - about evenly divided between fiction and non. Not nearly as interested in movies. I watch them, but generally pretty superficially.
To some extent, my bias towards print might reflect the simple fact that reading a novel requires a greater commitment than the 2 hours required to watch a movie. But I also am extremely interested in language, and perceive that reading helps be form and communicate my thoughts and feelings better than watching a movie.
I’ve rarely thought a movie better than the book. However, I’ve lately wondered if that was due to my having read the book first, and formed my mental impressions.
Relatively recently I saw the movie first and then read the book in The Martian and Brooklyn. Neither of those were (IMO) great books, and both were pretty exceptional movies. But I wondered to what extent my preference for the movies relied on my having seen the film first?
I’m a reader, and I can picture what I read extremely vividly.
I’m always disappointed when a movie of something I’ve read doesn’t match what I thought it did.
I really go to movies based on novels.
I read a lot, but don’t picture very much. I’m more interested in what’s going on in the character’s minds and actions. I often skip over description to get to the dialog.
Some people, naturally and/or from practice, are just able to read more fluidly and effortlessly than others. There are all sorts of obstacles, from dyslexia to poor eyesight to unpleasant associations, why one person might find reading more of a chore than another.
Have you tried audiobooks? graphic novels?
From other threads (for example, this one), I know that some avid readers vividly picture the characters and events in their minds, but others don’t; so it’s not a necessary component of reading.
They’re different experiences, with different strengths and weaknesses. One advantage to novels is that they allow you to get inside the mind of the characters in a way you can’t from watching action on a screen (or stage).
Another difference (which isn’t necessarily good or bad) is that, when you read a novel, you’re usually experiencing the creation of an individual man or woman, whereas a movie or TV show is a vastly collaborative effort, in which the actors, writers, directors, and many other people contribute to what you experience.
I enjoy reading.
My favorite example of word vs film is the ending of 2001: A Space Odyssey. The ending is easily understood in the novel, while seeing the film left me thinking, “What the heck?”
I’m struggling to think of a movie I liked better than the novel. And it doesn’t matter which I watched/read first. The books always provide more background, more details and more subplots. Recently, I was disappointed in The Martian movie, as it was significantly inferior to the book.
As mentioned, perhaps the OP should try audiobooks. I listen to a lot of them, and find this format just as enjoyable as reading text.
Graphic novels are ok but I don’t like audiobooks much though they are better when they use different voices for different characters.
I dislike audio books, they are far too slow for me.
Some people, myself included, enjoy reading, and some people enjoy watching films.
Two examples where films do something better than books:
*
Lord Jim.*
Conrad spends a great deal of time confusing us as to whether Jim fell or jumped into the lifeboat. The film does it in a matter of seconds, his jump/fall obscured by a flash of lightning.
The Hunchback of Notre Dame.
There is a scene where the evil priest is attacking the heroine. Hugo explains to us that the deaf, visually impaired Quasimodo doesn’t know what is going on, and chooses with his heart. The silent, black and white film shows the priest silently screaming, and Esmerelda cowering in terror, somewhat distorted images from the age of the film.
At one time, I would have agreed with you (and it helps me to understand why people who read slowly might dislike books). But modern apps and devices that allow you to adjust the playback speed make audiobooks far more listenable, IMHO.
With movies and television you can only hear and see what the characters are doing. You’re only experiencing their external appearances.
With a book, you can know what the characters are thinking and feeling. I find that much richer and more immersive.
Have you seen & read “Last of the Mohicans?” The book… Well, Mark Twain had Cooper’s number. But the movie is magnificent, just truly awesome. (The movie left out the character of the dipshit preacher dude, who poisons every scene he is in, in the book.)
“Goldfinger” is another good example. Fleming’s book is, at its heart, really stupid. The movie is pretty darn clever.
They’re so different it’s impossible to think one is “better” - it’s not like asking if you prefer apples to oranges, it’s more like asking if you prefer apples to rollerskating.
As far as knowing the thoughts of characters goes, there is a TV comedy called “Peep Show” where you can hear the thoughts of the two main characters:
Many of the youtube clips cut out parts of the show though.
There was also a Woody Allen romantic film about New York or something where their thoughts were in subtitles.
That sort of thing, along with voiceovers, is rarely done and often awkward. What’s more common for films and tv is adding a character for the main character to talk/explain things to, but you still miss a lot. This is basically why something character driven tends to suffer when translated to movies or television, while something action driven doesn’t.
Of course, if the character stuff sucks, the film can be better as it’s focused on the action. Jaws is a great example. It becomes about three guys on a boat trying to kill a shark, and drops the Brody/Hooper angst.
Good point. Reading a description of an action sequence, especially by a writer who isn’t particularly good at that sort of thing, is seldom as satisfying as seeing it.
Unless you have good writers and good actors, of course.
As an avid reader and movie goer, I like both forms of entertainment. Generally I find novels more entertaining than movies but there are situations where movies trump the novels they were derived from, and there are many movies not based upon a novel.
Forrest Gump is one movie that is >>>>>> than the novel.
Visualization is why I enjoy reading much more. In most cases, my own imagination of the characters, the scenery, the action, the dialogue, etc. is much better than the director’s interpretation on the screen for movies adapted from novels.