Wednesday, January 25, 2012

The Growing Relationship Between Books and Television


At the beginning of the year, Laura Miller wrote at Salon that "The novel and television are commingling as never before. And it’s about time."

She went on to discuss the latest acquisitions being made and the way in which several literary novels are being adapted to television. It's exciting in many ways, as TV has the potential "to spread out and explore the byways and textures of a novel’s imagined world." TV makes a better fit for book adaptations than film, she argues, and in many ways I agree. I think the trend towards books like The Corrections and Faulkner's works is fascinating and feels like new ground in a lot of ways. I love books and TV best, as you know, they sometimes war in my heart for which I love more and the complementary nature of this growing world appeals to me in many ways.

But...I don't actually like many of the shows that have been adapted from books I love. The first example that springs to mind is Rizzoli and Isles. In some ways, I actually resent the show for not being everything I hoped it would be. I don't mean to be a stickler about screen adaptations never living up to the books, but there are certain elements I certainly hope to find present in a show that is based on characters I love. I guess, at minimum, I hope to find the heart of the characters and the defining characteristics of their relationships to be adhered to. Certainly I recognize that TV is entirely different from novels--new storylines will open up and things will change the characters in fundamental ways, but I want to think that a show will start out in a place that feels true to the heart of the books. And that was absolutely not the case with Rizzoli and Isles. I love the characters in the books to death, they are both incredibly intelligent, hard working women who have a layered and complex working relationship. The show decided to go for a silly, over the top, BFF vibe. It's not that the show isn't fun, I'm sure it's fun for a lot of people. It's just that I look at the source material and then I look at the show, and think...this was the best you could do?

Even book-to-TV factory Alloy adaptations let me down. The Lying Game completely abandoned the premise of the books and as a result the title makes no sense, since the actual Lying Games never feature into the story!

But even more interesting to me is the forthcoming The Corrections since Franzen himself is writing on it. The book is ten years old! And now he's being given a chance to go back to the book and revisit the characters and stories. It's almost like being given a second chance on the story itself. It will be interesting to see how it does and what he chooses to do with the opportunity. Miller also raises some interesting questions about how Franzen's adaptation of The Corrections will have a status any other person's adaptation wouldn't.

Despite the exciting opportunities being presented by adapting books to television series, there is still much to consider as a reader. Could we eventually lose something with this new phenomenon? I have to admit that A-J Aronstein's recent essay at The Millions on this subject is one of my favorite things I've read on the internet in ages and explores this question with depth.

What can I say? The brain is sometimes lazy. It conjures approximations of Mr. Darcy, or Daisy Buchanan, or Chip Lambert based on people we know. We try to understand a novel in the vernacular of our own experience. Our relationships condition our mental, emotional, and psychological connection with characters. And when we say that literary fiction is “character-driven,” we mean this: our private interactions with texts depend as much on the associations and imagination of the author as on the associations and imaginations of the reader. Our desire to know them — and to know them on our own terms — drives us to read.

When books are adapted to the screen, we begin to lose bits of what made those stories our own and the ways they were grounded in our own experience. A whole new ingredient has been added into the mix, or an intermediary if you will. We aren't directly engaging with the text, we are engaging with someone else's interpretation of it. But because of the ties they hold to the novel, names, locations, plot details, they have the potential to interfere with our own memories of the experience of the book or the world we found inside the pages.

It's an exciting world to be sure, and I still think there are a lot of books that would make great television series. But I also think wholly original content on TV can be just as fulfilling and work to the advantages of the medium.

How do you feel about the growing trend in adapting works of literary fiction for television?

Amy

Comments (18)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
Its an interesting one as I find that old books like Austen and the like tend to make quite good TV maybe because they have had longer to get it right? They are showing Birdsong at the moment over here and I have recorded the episodes but Im very dubious about it
1 reply · active 688 weeks ago
yeah that's a good point about the classics! I wonder why that is....
I got excited when Bones came to TV and it was a HUGE disappointment for me.
1 reply · active 688 weeks ago
Yeah I read the first book after the show came on and was shocked by how different they are!
I'm pretty excited that Lisa Lutz's Spellman series may be coming to the small screen — it seems perfectly suited to the medium. But yeah, I agree: As much as it can be thrilling (if sometimes disappointing, too) to see our favorite stories revisited, I mostly crave new stories, well told.
1 reply · active 688 weeks ago
Yeah it's weird because I always feel excited when I hear about the books getting acquired and then they inevitably disappoint.
I think that just as with movies, TV shows based on books will usually disappoint. Books just contain so much more, so much more depth.
Or than, as with R&I, they can just totally screw it up..the casting, the writing..
1 reply · active 688 weeks ago
Yeah sometimes I decide not to read books when I think I might be interested in the TV show!

and yeah R&I ugh. Such a disaster.
I'm torn... if they're going to be really well done then I'm all for it, but it's just SUCH a disappointment when they're kind of "meh". I feel the same way about movies. If Hunger Games isn't utterly fantastic I will be devastated.
1 reply · active 688 weeks ago
I share your nervousness over The Hunger Games
I like the notion of adapting books for TV rather than film, certainly, but I think the additional length makes it easy to fall victim to the trap of too much fidelity to the source. It's tricky to do a good adaptation! But I like having adaptations all the same. I can mentally discard the aspects of the adaptation that don't please me, and rewatch the bits I did like. Easy-peasy.
1 reply · active 688 weeks ago
aw you're so smart and balanced :)

But it seems like things will actually be added like minor characters more fleshed out etc...
When books are adapted to the screen, we begin to lose bits of what made those stories our own and the ways they were grounded in our own experience. A whole new ingredient has been added into the mix, or an intermediary if you will. We aren't directly engaging with the text, we are engaging with someone else's interpretation of it. But because of the ties they hold to the novel, names, locations, plot details, they have the potential to interfere with our own memories of the experience of the book or the world we found inside the pages.

This is exactly why I'm so leery of any audio-visual adaptation of a book I've loved. I worry that the adaptation will supplant my own impressions of the characters and their lives. When I was a little kid, the BBC's adaptations of the Chronicles of Narnia totally ruined the books for me. I know I'm less likely to put that much stock in an adaptation now that I'm older, but I still fear bits and pieces will sneak into the book inside my head. I'm very, very careful about which adaptations I watch. If the book means a great deal to me, I steer well clear of any TV or film takes.

That said, I do like the whole idea of adapting books to TV since it allows for a lot more wiggle-room. There's less pressure on screenwriters and directors to remove things simply to fit time constraints--though, as Jenny pointed, this can become problematic if they decide not to remove certain things that work on the page but don't carry through to the screen.

TV can also allow the story to branch out. I love how the TRUE BLOOD writers explore the secondary characters in such depth. I've only read the first of Charlaine Harris's books, but I assume they're all in the first person from Sookie's POV--and, thus, don't allow the reader to really get inside the other characters.

The upcoming adaptation I'm most interested in is THE MAGICIANS by Lev Grossman. I'm a little wary of it, since the book meant a great deal to me, but I think a TV show could be the perfect place to explore some of the ideas that are only hinted at on the page and to poke at the secondary characters. I don't have carved-in-stone mental images of anyone, either, so I won't be absolutely crushed if screen-Quentin looks nothing like my head-Quentin.
1 reply · active 688 weeks ago
The capacity to really flesh out the ideas a book only hints at is what appeals to me the most and the fact that so many of these adaptations will take the more slow burn literary approach means they won't get sacrificed for plot hopefully?

Like I know on some of my favorite TV shows I get frustrated that ideas and themes are often sacrificed for plot and it makes sense that on TV the plot HAS to keep moving. (and yes yes that's what fanfic is for ;) but being on cable will hopefully give these stories more breathing room.
Well, you know how I feel about The Vampire Diaries. ;) In almost every case where I've both read the books and seen the TV series, the TV series has really dumbed the books down. And this isn't exactly edgy literature, either. *coughNineLivesofChloeKingcough* Even series where I like the TV version better than the book version, like Aurelio Zen, do this. There is definitely edgy TV out there, but I can't think of an example where it was based on a book, can you?

I've never had a problem separating books and movies (or TV series) in my mind, but I can see where it would really effect readers' expectations and visuals of a novel, and future novels in the books series. Look at LJ Smith being fired from writing The Vampire Diaries because the show was moving in a different direction from her vision, or Michael Crichton's sequel to Jurassic Park, which was really written for people who had watched the movie.
1 reply · active 688 weeks ago
In almost every case where I've both read the books and seen the TV series, the TV series has really dumbed the books down.

Yeah I wonder why this is? I mean I think you're absolutely right. I'm trying to think of a time when this wasn't the case and I can't. Obviously R&I was my main example, but it does seem to be the case. I guess maybe original content is really better for TV, i.e. LOST is a story that wouldn't have ever worked as a book it's uniquely suited to television.

And great examples about TVD or even there was a Christian fiction novel that was adapted to a Hallmark movie a few years ago and then they did a sequel and the original novelist ended up writing the novelization of the sequel. that whole thing weirded me out so much.
I like adaptations, but, often I find it helps to watch them before I read the original source. If I read the book first I tend to get very negative about changes made, whereas the other way round I find I have a lot more patience, find the changes interesting and want to work out why they were made.

'We aren't directly engaging with the text, we are engaging with someone else's interpretation of it.' This is kind of what I like the most about adaptations, seeing what someone else thinks about the text and how they present that.

I do think there's the potential for someone else's images to break in on your interpretation of the text (much like reading reviews has that potential if you read a book a while ago) but there's also the potential to argue and to examine these interpretations. And the exciting opportunity to see things from someone else's point of view, maybe integrate their ideas into your reading because you like them and think they make sense. In a way tv adapatations can act like visual re-reads, or visual critical analysis. Of course sometimes we just hate them because they seem bad and wrong (Northern Lights, gah, why are you so heavy handed).

PS We're not getting R&I here yet, but there are books?
I'm torn over adaptations. Some I know will never be the same as the book, but I want them to at least try to get them right. Didn't realize Rizzoli and Isles was a book . The show started out great and now it's a girly BFF show like you said. Not I wanted at all.
I've been very disappointed in most tv shows lately anyway.

Very nervous about Hunger Games. They better do it right, and stop trying to make for the masses or whatever.

Post a new comment

Comments by

Post a Comment

Thank you for taking the time to comment! I appreciate hearing your thoughts.