Source VS Adaptation, aka, "Is the Book Always Better?"

Is the book always better? This is a debate that’s been going on for a long time. So long, in fact, that you probably don’t remember its origins…assuming it has one, that is. Anyway, the argument of “adaptation VS source” is a tricky one, no matter how much you try to distill it to a basic side. Why? Simple:

Because it’s incredibly subjective.

Art, for good or bad, is in the eye of the beholder. A book might be cherished by some for X reason, while others might hate it for Y reason. Conversely, the adaptation might be loved by some for X reason and hated by others for Y reason. But, above all, there’s usually a personal reason for the preference.

Allow me to give some context for this piece: a few weeks ago, my family had a big dinner at my house in honour of my grandparents being in from Florida for a few days. It wasn’t long before the dinner conversation turned to the Oscar nominees for Best Picture. As one of my cousins read them aloud, she eventually got to The Martian and shared a brief look of disgust before muttering “the book was so much better” under her breath. As someone who loved that movie, I was dumbfounded. Given how much she’d been looking forward to seeing the film, it didn’t help either.

My cousin couldn’t articulate why she didn’t like the film as much as the book when someone challenged her. I don’t blame her, as it’s not something most people stop and think about. But it offended me that she couldn’t do it, as this wasn’t the first time I’ve heard such a statement. I’ve heard it several dozen times over the years, and it’s always bothered me. So I decided to write about it on my blog.

Anyway, since this is a tricky topic, as there are so many failed and successful adaptations out there, let’s look at a few reasons for why a book might be considered “better” than its adaptation:

First, context. When writing a book, it’s important to remember that the author, assuming they’re intelligent, probably has a reason for why the story’s being written. For some, it might be political, as with George Orwell’s 1984 or Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice. Others might be writing to express themselves in a way that can’t be contained in their minds, like with JK Rowling’s Harry Potter series. But above all else, context dictates material, and that might not translate as well to adaptation.

Second, lack of limitations. Books are one of the few mediums in which restrictions are almost non-existent. Movies, TV shows, films, they all have to factor in practical and time restraints, not to mention financial limitations. With all of these mediums, you can only do so much realistically. With a book, however, all you really need is an imagination, some paper and some relatively cheap accessories that aren’t hard to find. Because of this, a book can go on for however long the author wants.

Third, format. I’m not opposed to adaptations when done right, but some books don’t translate well to other mediums. Usually this involves books that are either incredibly dense, or are so elaborate that no other medium can truly replicate it. Because of this, the end result might not work because it’s not feasible. The best example I can think of is Cloud Atlas, which is so dense and intricate that successfully translating it to film was nigh-impossible no matter how hard The Wachowskis tried.

Fourth, vision. This one’s trickier because it’s the most subjective, but the vision of the author and the vision of the adapter aren’t always in-sync. This isn't always the case, especially when the original author is a consultant (see, again, the Harry Potter series,) but oftentimes there’s a disconnect between source and end-result. It can work in the adaptation’s favour, I much prefer the Lord of the Rings movies to their book counterparts, but often it’s a recipe for disappointment. Especially when the adaptation lacks passion, but that’s another subject on its own.

And fifth, overhype. This one’s the most blunt and least fair, but it’s also probably the most-important: sometimes…an adaptation can’t meet expectations. You see this time and time again, even with good adaptations, and it’s especially difficult the longer a gap there is between book and adaptation. It doesn’t help that human nature complicates matters, as we often get excited over the stuff we love and set the bar unrealistically high. An nothing can reach unrealistic expectations, even when it’s good.

As you can see, there are many reasons for why an adaptation might not be considered as good as its source. I’m now going to tackle each point, deconstruct it and explain why it isn’t always fair.

Beginning with the first point, while it’s true that a good book has an underlying message behind it, not all books are. Sometimes, even when there’s a message to be had, it’s harmful and toxic. The Twilight books condone stalker romance, while the Fifty Shades books romanticize BDSM relationships. Even Atlas Shrugged, a highly-respected novel in the ultra-conservative world, preaches trampling of others in hopes of underpinning the current, distorted version of The American Dream. Books aren’t always perfect.

Additionally, sometimes the movie can improve on the message. The Lorax might speak volumes about the negative effects of business on the environment, but its 1972 short film adaptation also presented the other side with a simple claim that livelihoods matter too. It kept Dr. Seuss’s message intact, but it added weight to The Once-ler’s character. In the same breath, Les Misérables works better as a musical because it keeps the core themes of the book while trimming a lot of the fat.

The best example I can think of is Batman: Under the Red Hood. Based on two famous stories, that being Jason Todd’s death and his eventual resurrection, the movie’s considered superior because it’s more-focused than both comics. It also helps that Judd Winick, the original writer, was a consultant for the film, meaning that not only was his message about vigilantism and the fine-line between justice and extremism not lost, it was actually improved upon. In other words, sometimes the adaptation adds to the original vision.

Next, limitations. This is mostly true, since books are cheaper to produce, but not always. Ignoring the aforementioned example of Les Misérables, my favourite counter-argument is Peter Jackson’s take on the Lord of the Rings books. Sure, they’re flawed and different quite a bit in tone, but I prefer them for one reason: they use film as a medium to their advantage. As I've said on Infinite Rainy Day:

“JRR Tolkien loved to hear himself speak, enough so that his writing was cumbersome on more than one occasion. Frequently throughout, Tolkien would halt the narrative to either describe a backdrop, or insert a song that did the same…[t]his is where the movies were an improvement. For one, most of the songs were axed, allowing room to focus on the content and characters. Additionally, the descriptions that took pages to get through were summed up in a few seconds via camera shots. And they were equally effective at conveying scope. Jackson understood that film is a visual medium, and, hence, used that to his advantage.”

I still hold this to be true. I also stated that I preferred Fullmetal Alchemist as a show to its Manga counterpart because, if going by the “more faithful” adaptation, it improved on many areas of the comic that didn’t really work in my eyes.

Remember, books aren’t flawless. They, like any other art-form, are a product of the human element, an author, and suffer from the setbacks that come from it. Even the best-written books are riddled with problems if you look for them, all stories are. And sometimes the adaptation might improve on these setbacks in ways you never thought possible. It happens more often than you’d think.

Then there’s format. While some adaptations don’t work because the book was clearly the superior format, there are always exceptions. Les Misérables is a prime example. Like I said, the musical trimmed a lot of the excess fat. Victor Hugo came from a time-period where authors were paid by the word, and the book frequently goes on long, wordy tangents to meet paycheques. It made sense at the time, but in the 21st Century, where writing is more about efficiency, it doesn’t fly anymore. So cutting the extra details out makes sense.

Additionally, some format changes work for the best. Les Misérables worked because it trimmed the fat. The Lord of the Rings movies worked because they condensed long-winded prose into palatable sweeps of cinematography. And plenty of other examples of “improvement over source” exist, so much so that I can’t name them off the top of my head. All you have to do is look.

On the subject of vision, that’s not always bad. Like I said with Fullmetal Alchemist, I much prefer the anime because it knew what to change, add or remove for the sake of TV. I also prefer Coraline as a film because it made Coraline a more compelling character. These aren’t the only examples, they’re merely the ones I can name off the top of my head. Essentially, sometimes the adaptation does it better.

And if it doesn’t do it better, so what? Plenty of adaptations are inferior to their book counterparts…and they’re still good. Some are even, dare I say it, excellent. Writing them off because they don’t line up with the original vision is ridiculous, as a literal, 100% faithful adaptation would take too long. Not to mention, it’d be impossible if the adaptation were to be good.

Finally, there’s overhype. This isn’t a fault of the adaptation at all, but rather of the audience. When you overhype something, you’re setting the bar way too high. So when the end-result doesn’t meet that expectation, even if it’s good, then who’s really to blame? Is it the adaptation’s fault for not meeting your unrealistic expectations? Think about it.

I’m not suddenly calling adaptations “saintly”. They’re inherently flawed, as are books. But to write them off because “the book was better” is dishonesty. Because sometimes they are. And when they’re not? Well, they might still be worth checking out. Also, I do think The Martian was a great adaptation, and I do think my cousin was being unfair. She can disagree all she wants, but it’s worth thinking about.