Is it better to read a book first?
Guest post by Neil Harvey, reporter for The Roanoke Times.
I’m normally not too fond of fantasy fiction. Novels about swords and dragons just aren’t my cup of tea. And while I can appreciate their significance, “The Lord of the Rings” epics leave me cold.
But lately I’m surprised to find I’m enjoying the new HBO series, “Game of Thrones,” which is very much about swords and, to some extent, dragons. I’ve even considered checking out the books, by George R.R. Martin, on which the series is based.
Which brings up an age-old question: Is it better to read a book, then see the movie it’s based on, or the other way around.
I’ve long felt that reading the book should come second. Watching a beloved story unfold on the big screen is almost always disappointing. Too many times, stories I’ve loved have been turned into sub-par or downright awful movies. On the other hand, if you enjoy a movie or TV show, and then you read the book, you may already know most of the plot twists, but the pages usually hold more of what you liked about the movie.
But that’s my theory. What do you think?
When it comes to books, is it better to read a book first, or to see the movie or TV show that’s made from the book? Have books you loved been turned into bad movies? Are there movies that are better than the books that inspired them?
June 14, 2011 - 9:00 AM
I loved the book “The Shipping News” by Annie Proulx. The movie was just awful. Had I seen the movie first, I would never have read the book because it was so dreadful and lacked a comprehensible story line.
Ironically, the screenwriter that adapted the book was invited to my wedding (he’s married to my husband’s cousin.)
Years ago I always ended up being disappointed by seeing a movie when I’d
read the book first. Finally, I decided that I wasn’t going to compare
the two. The fact is that the “movie” you view in your mind when you
read will never be the same as the movie that is produced, mainly because
everyone has a different interpretation based upon our individual imaginations. Now I enjoy both the book and the movie. I prefer reading the book first so that the movie doesn’t spoil the ending for me, but either way is all right.
There are few things as disheartening as seeing a book you love badly adapted, either because of the script, the cast, a screwed-up tone. I often talk to people who say, “The movie’s coming out so I have to hurry up and read the book,” and I always think, “No you don’t.”
Conversely, there’s a popular theory that “The Godfather” is a bad book that got turned into a masterpiece of a movie. And to be sure, the book is pulp far removed from the burnished golden glow of the film. But when I finally read the novel, I was surprised how rich it was and how much I liked it. Puzo crams it full of details and little stories no movie would have time for, but which are fascinating to anyone who likes the movie.
I think it’s best to read the book first because then you get to envision and interpret the novel in your own way before watching someone else do it. If you watch the movie first, it might influence the way you read the book, and I don’t like that. For some reason, I consider reading the book to be a … purer experience, for lack of a better word.
In my experience, movie adaptations of books tend to be inferior to the books themselves. I think it’s because they take the imagination out of the book. Of course, there are lots of exceptions and they will vary from person to person.
Always watch the show/movie first. I’ve often been disappointed by the movie, but never by the book. The only time the movie was better was American Psycho, where the filmmakers got the dark humor that the author was trying to inject (and failed, IMO).
Suzanne — In many cases you’re right. Adaptation often waters down the richness of the storytelling. On the other hand, I was very glad I saw “No Country for Old Men” before I read the book. In the novel, Cormac McCarthy doesn’t include a word of physical description of the villain, Anton Chigurh. I don’t think my imagination would’ve conjured up anything as wild as Javier Bardem appeared. The startling nature of his actions, also, are more jolting to see depicted on a screen than on the page.
I feel like reading the book first allows you to come up with the look of the scenes and characters without being swayed by what you saw in the theater. Plus, I can watch a movie if I already know the plot but forget reading a book if I already know the ending.
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is an example of how a book can make you like a movie, even if the movie wasn’t all that great. I felt like the director followed the book very well and it was fun watching it all play out after reading the book.
Dave — You didn’t enjoy the book’s countless pages of product information on clothes and electronics equipment, interspersed with stomach churning murders?
It honestly depends. More often than not I’m disappointed in a movie adaptation of a book I’ve already read, but I’m not sure that’s reason enough to hold off on reading a book until I’ve seen the movie. One movie adaptation I thought was at least as good as the book was LA Confidential, because it did such a great job of condensing Ellroy’s challenging prose to the essential storyline – it was almost a translation rather than an adaptation.
The movie “Silence of the Lambs” is almost a word-for-word retelling of the book. Both are excellent.
American Psycho is an excellent example of a film bettering or equaling its source material, but it is far from the only example. High Fidelity, while having its very British references uprooted and transplanted to America, is very successful in maintaining the focus and feel of the book. As an adaptation of Rum Punch by Elmore Leonard, I believe that Jackie Brown not only blows away the (admittedly excellent) source material but remains Quentin Tarantino’s finest work to date. In fact, one can reach back as far as The Wizard of Oz in which a wonderful children’s tale is transformed into a magical musical event. It was this film which first led me to believe that one did not have to take sides in the filmn vs. book war. The reading of the book as a child after watching the movie gave me even more details about the characters that I loved. In fact, I was able to read about exploits that the film had ignored altogether, not to mention the numerous events that occured after the first book.
As with anything else, the end result of the argument depends on the strength of the material being discussed. Bad books have made into good movies and vice versa. More often, mediocrity is king. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be.
Nona – Jurassic Park is, as well. The book is almost a screenplay.
Harvey – Ummm, no. I finished the book more out of stubbornness than anything else. It sealed the end of my Bret Easton Ellis phase.
Laura — I agree with you on “L.A. Confidential.” It’s a textbook example of how to turn a big, dense book into a manageable film. Although — with the whole Disneyland construction subplot that got axed for the movie, among other things — it could’ve also made a great cable miniseries. Apparently Tom Hanks has been trying to turn Ellroy’s “American Tabloid” into a series or mini-series for HBO, which I’d love to see.
Speaking of HBO, I started this thread by talking about “Game of Thrones,” whose most recent episode included an amazing plot twist I never saw coming. I don’t want to say anything about what happened, except that readers probably experienced that plot point in a much different way from TV viewers.
I appreciate all the comments. Very interesting discussion here.
This is sort of beside the point of which one to tackle first, but what I really enjoy is when a film stays essentially faithful to the book, but with just enough key tweaks to change the feel. The Norman Bates of Robert Bloch’s novel Psycho, for example, is a bloated middle aged alcoholic. The decision to re-write Bates as younger and less outwardly threatening, and to dramatically expand the attention given to Marion Crane’s murder, created a much different tone to the story, although the events and overall plot are pretty much as they are in the book.
My brother doesn’t compare books with their movie adaptations. He evaluates the movie and the book on their own merits. I lack that superpower; I prefer my movie adaptations to be as close to the book as possible, especially for beloved books. I think filmmakers have overall done a good job with the Harry Potter movies, cutting and condensing without making too many radical changes (although there are more as the films go along). But I was so upset the protagonist in “The Water Horse” was switched from a girl to a boy that I refuse to watch it.
I think reading the book first is always best, it’s more descriptive! I have just finished reading a book called Woman vs Womaniser ‘This is the Book Men Do Not Want Women to Read’ and somehow I felt like I was watching a movie! Never has a book had me gripped like that.
I used to be snobby about plays, TV and movies, until I watched Shakespeare’s Cymbeline, Romeo and Juliet, and Macbeth performed at an outdoor theater once. They were done with a “twang” or “redneck accent.” This made me take out my Shakespeare and read plays, some of which I had never read before, for pure enjoyment, without having to plow through them. It was amazing how using other senses besides sight helped the language of the plays flow along so easily and nicely! The sound of a mountain/Scottish border dialect, the smell of smoke intermingled with the outdoors, and feeling the sound of drums made me understand things in a way that I couldn’t have before. That is why I think sometimes we put too much emphasis on the visual part of learning, because, well, it still has high social status vis-a-vis oral/aural/tactile learning.