posted
I think movies have had an adverse effect on literature. It's as if writers are trying to write a movie instead of a uniquely written story. There is a strange emphasis on visual cues, that aren't there as purposeful symbols as much as some misguided attempt to "set the scene." There is something uniquely thoughtful about books that doesn't give itself over very well to a movie. There is something about a book can capture relationships and charm in a way that's outside of time, but I think that's being lost. The Da Vinci Code is an example, but I can think of a few others where the prose seems set for screen rather than for literature. Is it because movies have become such a pervasive form of media, or am I seeing something that's not there?
[This message has been edited by Tanglier (edited February 17, 2005).]
posted
No, I agree with you. I haven't read the Da Vinci Code yet (year long waiting list at the library and didn't want to buy). I don't know that I think that most published literature has the problem, though. I see it a lot in nove/amateur pieces where they go for this cinematic sort of effect that doesn't work on paper.
The thing is, while both movies and books have similiar elements of storytelling, they are different art forms. What movies do best is show us a realtime series of events with lights and sound. What books do best is show us people and motivation.
posted
I know I'm in the minority as far as the general population goes, but I'm having a hard time making it through the Da Vinci Code for the reasons mentioned above. I put it down after 6 chapters because I hated the writing. I've since picked it up again, because I've seen a television special on it and my son shoved it in my face as recommended reading the other day.
If I want a movie plot, I'll go watch a movie. It certainly takes less time. I think Joe average public doesn't care about the things that the written art form offers. It's my only explanation. I understand, though, that with the hectic pace of modern life, not everybody spends the time to appreciate books.
They get used to the easiest form of entertainment, the tube, and their expectations from fiction adjust accordingly. It's a shame, in my estimation. My pet peeve is how the movie version of a book can ruin a story. That's what you get, with the two hour time constraint. ...and the difference in art form, of course. I think the idea of books imitating movies has to do with the almighty dollar, and marketability.
posted
I think part of the issue is that people (statistically anyways) are reading less than they did 10 or 20 years ago. Movies and television are books biggest competitors. So someone along the line has probably figured, "If we make books more like movies and T.V., more people will read them."
Posts: 1473 | Registered: Jul 2004
|
posted
I won't be reading the da Vinci code, but about movies & books: I don't like cinematic POV, but I do like lots of visual info. (And aural. And those based on other senses.)
Posts: 2830 | Registered: Dec 2004
|
posted
I don't think anybody (or at least most writers) consciously think, "I need to make this book a lot like a movie so it will be marketable." I think the cause is that we now have a generation of writers who have grown up watching movies just as much as, if not more than, reading. It's bound to have an effect on the way they write. I also don't think it's necesarrily a bad thing, just the natural change in style that one would expect.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Dec 2003
|
posted
Definitely "more than" rather than "just as much". You can see the difference when you look at the writing styles of writers who spent most of their time reading. And I don't think that it's a conscious thing for most writers who do it, even though some people will argue that "cinematic" is acceptable or even "better".
The simple fact is that most people writing in the modern age have learned the art of structured narrative from television. In terms of raw hours, there is no competition. I read an inordinate amount, getting in trouble both at home and at school because I read so much, and I estimate that I spent about as much time watching TV as I spent reading (at least, during the bulk of my childhood). And I didn't watch as much TV as the average. Not by a long shot.
As for whether this is necessarily bad, I certainly think that it is.
posted
I dunno about movies having an adverse effect in literature...
I mean the kids are reading Harry Potter - they're watching the movies too, but they are READING.
As for Da Vinci Code, I've read the book.
Sloppy characters. Disgusting. Editing would certainly have helped. The man creates a strong, smart woman in the beginning and she wimpers off to frilldom by the end. Sad, really.
That being said, I've attended a few conferences and talked editors and publishes and this very topic has come up.
They offer no apology, of course.
They did explain that they're looking for a quick sale, versus a keeper. These are books people will read once and never again.
The question is: Do you want to make the fast money (i.e. hack writing) or do you want a book that will eventually have worn binding and be the first thing a person grabs when they're going on a trip? (or having hurricanes come for tea.)
How many still have OSC's books? (grin) Keepers all.
-a
[This message has been edited by Alynia (edited February 21, 2005).]
posted
I don't think movies are a bad thing necessarily. It's another form of storytelling. And behind that storytelling there is much writing and rewriting, time and effort that goes into it. Novels influenced movies long before movies influenced books.
Of course, there seem to have been books written primarily for the sake of making an eventual movie. For instance anything written by Michael Crichton since Jurassic Park became a blockbuster. His time travel book, in my opinion, was so mundane I barely could get through it. When it became a movie I didn't even bother to see it.
[This message has been edited by ChrisOwens (edited February 21, 2005).]
posted
Expecting a movie to be like a book, is like expecting a painting of an orchistra to sound like one. -Tracy Hickman
Posts: 1895 | Registered: Mar 2004
|
Books and movies both make stories. A painting doesn't make music. The only difference between a book and a movie is that a book tells you what happened, and a movie shows you.
Yes, styles are affected by things that happen in other fields of art. So what? Is that a bad thing? Books are a form of entertainment. Thoughtfulness should be an afterthought to entertaining the reader, just like every other form of art. The Beatles played music first, and if their songs had any meaning to them, it was added to the music, not the other way around.
Michael Crichton is often the most guilty of making cinematical books (thats why most of them are also movies). But aren't most, if not all, of his books fun to read? Shouldn't that be the only thing a reader cares about?
[This message has been edited by ArCHeR (edited February 22, 2005).]
posted
Dan Brown's books aren't so bad when you read them as he probably intented them to be read -- as wacky adventures in which the characteres aren't so important in of themselves. I didn't like Angels and Demons and the follow-up The da Vinci Code, but that was because of blatant historical errors more than the storytelling.
Personally, some such books are just fun to read, despite the static characters and movie-feel. Dan Brown's Deception Point was all right because the story was interesting, but I can't really remember any of the characters.
And for my two-minute rebuttal in defense of Michael Crighton's books: They're great. Timeline was an immensely enjoyable read, and I've gone thorugh it at least three times. His books aren't about interrelations between characters, but rather about technology and science's impact and dangers on and towards humanity. Timeline -- quantum technology. Prey -- nanotechnology. State of Fear -- environmental science. Jurassic Park and The Lost World -- genetics (although the second book was more about milking an idea).
posted
Books and Movies are different forms of storytelling, and it's really as simple as that.
They both acheive the same goals in different ways. Books are better for some types of stories, movies for others.
Often times you hear someone say of a movie, "the book was better." That's true in most cases where the book was written first, without any intent of having a movie made. But there are times when the book is written as a copy of the movie, and then the movie is almost always better.
But like I said, they're two completely different forms of storytelling. It's like comparing Opera to the symphony. They're both music, but acheive two completely different results.
A movie has 90-120 minutes to tell a story. It's much faster paced than a book and has the distinct advantage of using visual and aural cues to manipulate our emotions and understanding of the story.
Books are paced far more slowly than movies, and must rely on words. However, not having the visual and aural advantages of the movies is sometimes a benefit -- it allows the reader to conjur their own images and sounds. It has a better ability to literally thrust the reader into the story than a movie ever does.
You see, with a movie, no matter how well done, I nevertheless always feel like I'm WATCHING something, or at best, witnessing an even take place. I'm not IN the story the way I can be with a book.
However, a movie can pull on my hearstrings -- I've never cried after reading a book the way I did after watching Shindler's List -- but to me a book is still superior. After watching a movie, when the screen or set goes dark, I'm back to my world and the emotion is gone.
But the book lives on. I MISS Frodo and Sam and Merry and Pippin; I MISS Ender and Bean; I MISS Roland the Gunslinger...after every book, if it's a worthy book, I want to learn more. I want to remain a part of these character's lives. I want to experience their journeys again. I associate with them, I am familiar with them. They become a part of my life. I maybe don't cry when it's over, but I am saddened nonetheless.
Why? Becuase you don't (most of us, anyway) read an entire novel in 90 minutes. It usualy takes a couple days to a couple weeks for most of us. We spend more time with these characters, we get to know the in a way a movie never can show us.
Card is my best friend, and we've never met. He tells me a story everytime I see him, and it's a story that lives with me. I love the movies, but Peter Jackson, Oliver Stone, Steven Spielberg -- great movies or not, they don't live with me. I don't spend enough time with them. Their 'voice' doesn't stay in my head at all hours of the day.
Card's does. King's does. Tolkein's does.
So for me, it's best when a book does NOT try to use cinematic techniques...becuase that usually means it's going to push me (not pull, push) out of the story to see some grand display. Likewise, a movie is best for me when it does not try to be a book, when it takes advantage of the ability to use lighting, sound, expressions and actions to evoke a mood. After all, they only have a couple hours at most to make me care, so they NEED to use such tools.
A book, on the other hand, can slowly seduce me into loving it the way few women can!
my 2 pennies, anyway.....
[This message has been edited by rjzeller (edited February 22, 2005).]
posted
I also think that both are just different forms of storytelling and would not say that one is better than the other.
However, I think that more parents should encourage their kids to read as many books as they watch movies or television shows. My mother was a huge stickler about us reading. I was reading at a 6th grade level by the time I entered 1st grade. She quickly figured out that grounding me was only a punishment if she took away all my books as well. I was not allowed to read in my room with the door closed because I would get so engrossed that she'd be calling me from downstairs and I would not hear her. She would have to come all the way upstairs and open my door and that annoyed her.
I read on my smoke breaks at work and I open the book the moment I walk away from my desk and am reading it as I walk down the hall, ride down the elevator, walk outside, etc. It draws a lot of glances and comments and it always amazes everyone that I read - like it's some kind of grand accomplishment. "I could never read like that," they tell me. "I just can't pay attention to a book." I just think that's so sad! They have no idea what they're missing.
So while I don't necessarily think that movies are killing books, I think people are imbalanced in their input of entertainment. I think they are intimidated by all those words whereas in a movie theater they just have to sit there and absorb it. I think if they had been encouraged more as kids to balance their methods of entertainment that perhaps they would be able to read as easily as go to a movie.
posted
I've always been an avid reader, to the extent that whenever I got in trouble, by far the most effective punishment was to forbid me to read. I was homeschooled in grade school, and I distinctly remember being told not to do more than three days worth of English and History at once because I'd go through my curriculum too fast, but I did anyway and usually had an entire year of those subjects done by October. We never watched much television, didn't even have one for many years.
As an adult, I am still a strong reader. People are always asking me how I find time to read 3-4 books (at least!!) a week, especially with a baby, but I take Teddy Roosevelt's standpoint on that--one of the busiest men in history, who never went a week without reading at least one book--that you make time for anything that is important to you.
Plus lately I've switched a lot to audio books, which are easier to put down, so to speak, and I can still do other stuff like sing to the baby and wash dishes at the same time.
I do agree that there is a powerful medium in movies, and there are quite a few that I would not like to have lived my life without ever seeing, but if someone gave me the choice between never reading another book or never seeing another image on the screen, hands down I'd choose to give up the boob tube.
Unfortunately I am in the minority in this world. That's one thing nice about writer's groups: Usually I'm not as weird amongst you guys as among the average people on the street.
Did you READ Congo, or did you just watch the movie? ALL of Crighton's movies are terrible and they don't portray correctly any of what made the books so interesting (Including Jurassic Park). In the book they're after diamonds for industrial purposes -- the company already has plenty of satellites.
posted
That wasn't really the point of my post. I was just making a joke.
Congo is one of his books I haven't read, but mostly because I have no real desire to read that kind of story.
I disagree with your comment about his movies not being as good as the books.
First of all, you're missing the point of the movies. Who cares if the movie doesn't rant on about the negative impact of genetical engineering. The only reason Crichton does it in the book is because he has the time.
But the whole point of Crichton's books is to entertain. Anything that doesn't fulfill that requirement can be taken out of the movie, and should. Why? Because you can put a book down, not a theater screen.
And if you care about what was lost in the translation, you don't care enough about what the author wanted you to see.
posted
I apologize for misunderstanding the point of your message. As for Crighton's movies... I don't like them much at all, although it is not exactly out of my desire to see the ofttimes drawn-out explanations of the technology in the movie (I'll admit, that would get dull). Rather, I just don't like the movies. Jurassic Park, for reasons unknown to me, just made me feel bored with the idea. It felt like the director was sitting me down and then saying "Look what we can do!" rather than telling me an interesting story. The Lost World, I felt, ultimately failed because it never gave me the feeling of tension that I had felt reading the book. Ironically, the only of these movies that I enjoyed was Jurassic Park III, which I found to be hilarious (was it supposed to be funny?) Congo was the most unfaithful movie, and thinking that I'd find the plot even remotely plausible was an error on the part of the writers.
Now how would one write a conclusion to this post? Curse those writing-conventions classes!
posted
You and I just disagree about the first JP. I think it's a great movie, and I really don't think there was anything wrong with Spielberg's direction.
posted
It's a great movie, but it isn't anything like the book. You think that the book is crappy and boring and the movie was exciting and cool. But that's just to say that you're not a fan of the things the book did well which couldn't be done as effectively in a mass market movie (which has to appeal to a much larger segment of the population than a mass market book).
I like eye-popping action and special effects too. But I also appreciate the kind of thing that doesn't play well on the big screen because it is concerned with abstract concepts rather than sensory impact. When I watch a movie, I don't demand that it have anything really interesting for my mind, as long as the plot basically makes enough sense to let me forget that I'm sitting in a theater looking at pictures on a screen. Then I can sit back and let the visual/aural sensations impress me.
Reading a book is different. A book doesn't make noises, it doesn't have a big screen on which to project visuals. If I'm going to see something, it has to come from my imagination. To activate my imagination, the writer has to appeal to my mind for processing time. After all, I can sit around and imagine spectacular things all day without needing to ever have someone telling me what to imagine. If the writer doesn't convince me that the story is up to par with what I can do myself, I have no incentive to keep reading.
Selling a screenplay to a reader is just as difficult as selling it to a successful producer. More difficult, because the producer has to get a screenplay somewhere, so your chance of selling it to him is always non-zero. Most imaginative people are making up stuff to imagine pretty much all the time. And probably the majority of those capable of imagining what you want to show them can imagine better things than you can (it's only logical, your best work represents the limit of your imagination, only those with the same imaginative ability or greater will be able to imagine it, in any population where there is not substantial identity of most of the members, the majority will not lie on the defined limit of the population).
quote:And if you care about what was lost in the translation, you don't care enough about what the author wanted you to see.
That is, if the movie was right, like JP.
In effect, you're saying that you didn't care about the parts that were lost in the translation of Jurassic Park to the screen. Since the parts that were lost included just about all the interesting science (as opposed to the pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo which made it onto the screen) which formed the core of the book, that meanst that you must have found those rather important bits unworthy of your attention.
Okay, so that only means that you thought most of the book was crappy and boring. Generally, if most of a book is crappy and boring, I just say that the book was, overall, crappy and boring.
posted
Okay, then we agree. There are a lot of things that work well in a book that just don't work well in a movie. There are some elements of a story that will look good on the screen, and completely different elements that will have a powerful impact on the reader of a book. Which is why the movie is always telling a story that is fundamentally different from the book.
Books do some things well that movies don't do as well, and the reverse is also true.
posted
But there are tons of things that they both do well, and if you write a book that has that, then a movie version will be excellent. I think that that's what Crichton does. But the thing is, he adds a bunch of stuff that won't work in a movie, and people get pissed when those parts don't make it in the movie.
Posts: 341 | Registered: Jun 2004
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
