Perspectives

[Dark Muse]

I know this is true for me, and probably for others as well, but many popular or classical stories, often times because of movies, TV, or just hearing other people discuss them, you are already "know" or at least have the basic gist of, even if you have never actually read the book.

For example, probably nearly everyone one is familiar with the story of Frankenstein, and a Christmas Carol, even if they never read it, because they are everywhere including in cartoons.

Though of course, movies, and other sources are never the same or true to form to the books and leave things out, change things, and so forth, but you still get the basic plot of the story.

I was wondering, if you go to actually read the book of one of these stories that you have already been exposed to, so you more or less know what is going to happen, or what to expect, how does it effect your reading?

Do you think it enhances your reading, because you can than see things, that perhaps you might not have thought of in that way before, if you new nothing about the story, and do you think you pay more attention to details this way?

Or do you feel you might enjoy the story better if you didn't know anything about it previously, and that your reading experience is lessoned by your prior knowledge of the story.

What brings this up is I just started reading Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. And that is another one that I am sure most people pretty much know. And so as I read it, I cannot help but to wonder, how I would perceive the story, if I did not already know what was coming. And if I would be more drawn into the mystery if indeed it was still a mystery for me.

[EricP]

I usually find myself less likely to read the book if I see the film version, so I try to avoid watching the movie. I'm sort of torn at the moment, though, because NetFlix just sent me Kurosawa's "The Idiot". I haven't read the Dostoyevsky novel yet, but I think I will read it regardless of whether I've seen the film or not. Still, maybe I'll burn the DVD and save it until after the book just in case!

I even go to the extent of not reading any reviews or even summaries of the plot before reading a book so that I won't bring preconceived opinions with me...I'm also very worried that I'll accidentally read a spoiler! I'm a very paranoid reader! I'm the same way with movies, too. Of course, sometimes this sort of thing is unavoidable.

[Albatross of Hu]

Although you may be aware of a basic plot or story line, this does not necessarily detract from the experience of actually reading it. I had seen many different versions of H.G. Wells War of the Worlds; but when I read the story last summer, I was surprised to find it was different than any version I had seen. So while I was acquainted with the story, there were many unknown twists in plot, representation of character, and period not conveyed in any film or story re-write. I was very glad I read it and enjoyed it very much. It was fun to read the story and judge how well the films followed the actual story line.

[Virgil]

I know this is true for me, and probably for others as well, but many popular or classical stories, often times because of movies, TV, or just hearing other people discuss them, you are already "know" or at least have the basic gist of, even if you have never actually read the book.

For example, probably nearly everyone one is familiar with the story of Frankenstein, and a Christmas Carol, even if they never read it, because they are everywhere including in cartoons.

Though of course, movies, and other sources are never the same or true to form to the books and leave things out, change things, and so forth, but you still get the basic plot of the story.

I was wondering, if you go to actually read the book of one of these stories that you have already been exposed to, so you more or less know what is going to happen, or what to expect, how does it effect your reading?
If the book is asigned for school, you better read it. Most movies are different. And they cannot show you the character's thoughts and you have no idea on the writer's style and diction. So I would highly discourage this for students.


Do you think it enhances your reading, because you can than see things, that perhaps you might not have thought of in that way before, if you new nothing about the story, and do you think you pay more attention to details this way?
If I saw the movie first it might alter the way I read the book. I can see that hapenning though i'm not sure it has. I would definitely prefer to read the book first, and then yes I think seeing the movie might enhance the book. I know Janine loves to see the settings of the books she reads. Of course there's no guarentee that the movie was filmed on actual locale.


Or do you feel you might enjoy the story better if you didn't know anything about it previously, and that your reading experience is lessoned by your prior knowledge of the story.
I tend to want to know everything up front. People ask, don't you want to be surprised by the ending? No for me. This way I can understand what the writer is doing in each scene or section or even paragraph. I never care if the ending is spoiled. Usually just the opposite.


What brings this up is I just started reading Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. And that is another one that I am sure most people pretty much know. And so as I read it, I cannot help but to wonder, how I would perceive the story, if I did not already know what was coming. And if I would be more drawn into the mystery if indeed it was still a mystery for me
You're right I know the story but never have read the book. ;)

[sofia82]

Though of course, movies, and other sources are never the same or true to form to the books and leave things out, change things, and so forth, but you still get the basic plot of the story.

To some extent, but not completely if the plot won't be changes.


I was wondering, if you go to actually read the book of one of these stories that you have already been exposed to, so you more or less know what is going to happen, or what to expect, how does it effect your reading?

Seeing a movie based on a book makes me more curious to read the book itself, although there are lots of such books which I haven't read yet. Knowing the plot before, I look if the movie is what the book tells or not and how the author represents this world in comparison to the director, which I always prefer the author's not director's. Most of the time, I get disappointed with the movie!


Do you think it enhances your reading, because you can than see things, that perhaps you might not have thought of in that way before, if you new nothing about the story, and do you think you pay more attention to details this way?

Yes, it affects the reading, it seems to be the second reading as I know the story although I doubt it's exactly the same as the book. In this reading, I don't look for the happenings but details and how they happen.


Or do you feel you might enjoy the story better if you didn't know anything about it previously, and that your reading experience is lessoned by your prior knowledge of the story.

It depends on the reason of my reading, if I just want to enjoy myself with the sotry per se, it spoils my reading. But to be honest, I read the back cover of the books, if any preface and introduction to find out what is going on the book. I don't like being thrown in a world of unknown. Of course, I never read the final chapter :D
The first thing my mother does is reading the last chapter or at least page which I cannot understand the reason. Always, I say why you spoil your reading!!!



What brings this up is I just started reading Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. And that is another one that I am sure most people pretty much know. And so as I read it, I cannot help but to wonder, how I would perceive the story, if I did not already know what was coming. And if I would be more drawn into the mystery if indeed it was still a mystery for me.

I didn't read it either! Just a simplified one when I was child which is another spoiler of reading ;)

For me, watching the movie before or after reading the book not only does not spoil the reading experience but also makes me admire the book in comparison to the movie. I like my own imagination created by the means of author in comparison to what movie imposes on me!

[JCamilo]

For example, probably nearly everyone one is familiar with the story of Frankenstein, and a Christmas Carol, even if they never read it, because they are everywhere including in cartoons.

You are just familiar with the plot and someone else vision. A book is not the plot, but the language, and even the most faithfull movies are unable to copy the effect caused by reading. You must understand that reading and watching or listening cause different effects on an individual, so you should go and read the book and watch the movie.
Other thing, great books are good for re-reading. Everytime you read the same text you are a slighty different person, you will react and perceive things differently. Great books allow you to repeat the joy over and over.
Another thing, thinking of Frankstein for example, what we see as Frankstein is not what the book is. The Book philosophical theme is not about mad scientists (Dr.Frankstein is anything but mad) and the danger of science is not about "Man playing god", but "Man playing man", in other hand, being vengenceful, irresponsable for others, etc. If you do not see Frankstein and just have the impression caused by popular culture, it will never be Mary Shelley's frankstein.


What brings this up is I just started reading Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. And that is another one that I am sure most people pretty much know. And so as I read it, I cannot help but to wonder, how I would perceive the story, if I did not already know what was coming. And if I would be more drawn into the mystery if indeed it was still a mystery for me.

Sad case indeed, and a rare one. Jorge Luis Borges have a serie of essays about this book, very worth reading, specially about movie adaptations (he was disgusted by the focus on the physical change and not the moral change of the characters). Stevenson managed to apply a realism hiding the mistery until the end, but really, the popularity of this book destroys the surprise. I managed to see the surprise, when my twin sisters were 12 years old I gave it to them and didn't told that Jekyll and Hyde were the same indivudal and they are amazed with that.
Now, we can enjoy Stevenson stylish narrative and technique to hide the mistery until the end....

[JBI]

I reread good books. If a book does not deserve rereading, I try not to read it in the first place. If it does, some spoilers aren't going to ruin the book anyway. After all, I read criticism on the works, and still reread them, so a few hints and things, mostly about plot, don't really effect my reading.

[Dark Muse]

I tend to want to know everything up front. People ask, don't you want to be surprised by the ending? No for me. This way I can understand what the writer is doing in each scene or section or even paragraph. I never care if the ending is spoiled. Usually just the opposite.


Hehe ahh yes, I am quite the oppsite. I am a big one for the suprise. I love not knowing what is going to come next. I love unexpected twists and turns. I like to know as little about a book going into it, as I can. When I first pick a book up I will read the back to see if it sounds interesting to me, but only that first time, and by the time I get around to reading the book I usually forgotten the details, and I will not read the back right before reading a book.

Hehe it always annoys me when I am in a class and they start talking about other books to compare to the story we are reading for the class, becasue I am just like, I want to read that someday, don't tell me what is going to happen in it.


You are just familiar with the plot and someone else vision. A book is not the plot, but the language, and even the most faithfull movies are unable to copy the effect caused by reading. You must understand that reading and watching or listening cause different effects on an individual, so you should go and read the book and watch the movie.

Yes this is very true, though I already previously was aquitainted with the story of Frankenstien and have seen movies of it, I still did enjoy the reading of the book, and it is indeed very different from movie portrayls made of it.

[Ethan Roy]

I do plan on reading Frankenstein, for the sheer reason that my english teacher compared one of my sort stories to it. Now, as for other novels I'm not sure. I definately won't read the Christmas Carol because I really have never facinate with the plot of story in general but books like Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and The Wizard of Oz, I will read because I am interested in them. I guess it depends on the story and if I am satisfied with the reprensentation of it.

[MystyrMystyry]

Movie adaptations tend to be short story abridgements, where much of the prose can be substituted by the cinematic art of a dedicated professional team. Mistakes occur when there are too many chefs mulling over the brew, lapses in continuity (where it's far easier to cut a scene rather than hammer some sense out of a sequence of bits with fading lighting), the accidental gleam from a digital watch in ancient Greece, or something as subtle as a the miraculous appearance and disappearance of a handkerchief from scene to scene.

Cinema has developed its own shorthand language that we've come to accept as the way it tells us stories, rather than the way good stories should be told, and often when an ambitious director tries to shun the conventions the product can seem bathed in an amateurish sheen.

Did you know that a pistol fitted with a silencer is actually as loud as a car door slamming? But how many Hollywood blockbusters would be spoilt by the truth and over-analysis?

And to be honest most movies (you've all seen lots of them) are fifteen minutes of entertainment crammed into two hours of whatever techniques the crew have at their collective disposal. Obsessive directors, too many scriptwriters, Stuntmen, Foley artists, lens filters, cherrypickers, the works - all in symphonic ageement to make you forget that you are watching science in motion, unless of course you study film as a pastime.

In conclusion, stories written for cinema tend to be more effective as there are no great metaphors that need to be reconfigured, no spinechilling bloodcurdling chapters that need to be photographed in a certain manner just to hopefully capture the atmosphere you felt cowering under the bedcovers, nothing that needs to be trimmed for being simply too difficult.

I remember excitedly eyeing in the tv guide that a miniseries of the Gormenghast trilogy was airing. I lasted about two minutes before switching off and rereading Titus Groan. I like my imagination - in fact it's one of my best friends...

[kiki1982]

I agree about the abridging... It is impossible to tell a story absolutely entirely in a film, though you can do your best and not change the whole story round as some do.

However, I thought Jane Austen was BORING. Probably because I had read a part (I mean, I found it really really boring) in secondary school when my English wasn't that good... I just eft with that teenage judgment and that was it. And then I saw Lost in Austen in 2008 (10 years later!) and I thought that that was a totally different take on it, even in comparison to the 1995 adaptation. It wasn't sugary, not over-romantic or anything, just sparkly, full of mirth and hilarious situations (though with a contemporary spin on it). I decided I would like to see for myself and found P&P really as entertaining as LiA. I had never touched it or any Austen for that matter if I hadn't seen that programm.

Same for Jane Eyre, wanted to see why all those adaptations were so different. Had a great time. The fact that I knew SPOILER! that there was a madwoman locked up in the attick SPOILERS OVER! made it better for me, actually, because I could see everything more in perspective.

Dumas's Count of Monte Cristo I had seen when I was a teenager. I was so struck by it, but then read the book. The book gives you more in depth info than a film will ever give you, but more to the point, the story was even more intricate than the French film. Hardly conceivable.

I don't think it matters if one knows what the story is more or less... If one is big on spoilers then perhaps it is less enjoyable, but yes, if a book is not worth re-reading, then there is something wrong, isn't there?

[Transmodernism]

My philosophy is this: to any novel (or movie, for that matter), there are the two components of art and suspense. At least, there can be those two components. Some books have only suspense but little or no art (I won't name any examples). Others may have loads of art, but little suspense (e.g. Ulysses, Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man). And still others have both (e.g. Moby Dick, Great Expectations).

If all the book offers is suspense, then watching the movie version will literally ruin it. If it is a book like Ulysses where suspense doesn't figure into the equation, then it doesn't matter. If, on the other hand, it's a book like A Room With a View or Great Expectations where there is some uncertainty as well as art, getting spoilers won't ruin it, it will just make it less suspenseful.

I read the great-illustrated-classic (utterly abridged and paraphrased) version of David Copperfield as a kid; I also watched a movie version. Then, ten years later, I read the actual book and ABSOLUTELY loved it and enjoyed every second of it, even though I basically knew everything that was going to happen. I think the reason for this was that truly great art is immune to spoilers; you can give away their ending, but you can't spoil them.

[Buh4Bee]

I try to pick books that I do not know the plot at all, read the book, then watch the movie. I like to experience the book in my own head before watching someone else's interruption.
DM, you ask how does knowing the plot affects one's reading experience for the better or worse. I think it is a very personal preference. I, on the one hand, like to know the plot line of an overcomplicated movie, so that I can enjoy the more complicated elements, such as cinematic symbolism. With books, I prefer to figure it out for myself, because I am not experiencing the story under a time limit as can occur when watching a movie. Taking the time to think about the book as well as do some research while reading to better understand, is all part of the fun. It also allows me to shape my own opinion about what I read. So I'd say I don't want to know the story at all.

[kelby_lake]

I prefer to watch the film first and then the book, so I can judge them as two separate mediums.

[Dark Muse]

My philosophy is this: to any novel (or movie, for that matter), there are the two components of art and suspense. At least, there can be those two components. Some books have only suspense but little or no art (I won't name any examples). Others may have loads of art, but little suspense (e.g. Ulysses, Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man). And still others have both (e.g. Moby Dick, Great Expectations).

If all the book offers is suspense, then watching the movie version will literally ruin it. If it is a book like Ulysses where suspense doesn't figure into the equation, then it doesn't matter. If, on the other hand, it's a book like A Room With a View or Great Expectations where there is some uncertainty as well as art, getting spoilers won't ruin it, it will just make it less suspenseful.

This is just the problem I had with Jekyll and Hyde, while I would not go so far to say the book was completely without art, but I do have to say that having the suspense of the revelation ruined from the start, and not having that sense of mystery/surprises, did considerable affect my reading and enjoyment of the story.

Because the suspense was completely lacking throughout the reading of the story, there was no climax, or tension mounting up to the conclusion of the story.

[Silas Thorne]

I've thought about this situation a lot recently while reading some of the Dexter novels by Jeff Lindsay. If anyone likes the series, I would really recommend the novels, because I believe the author is a talented writer with a gift for black comedy, but also because the series and the novels have completely different plot-lines. I have a friend who refuses to watch the True Blood series as she's read the books, and says that there is very little difference between them. This is the ideal situation for me, as I dislike it when movies try to capture a novel or story too closely. But losing the essence of the novels can have bad consequences too. I remember watching a cartoon version of 'The Secret of Nimh', which seemed to take all that was serious and interesting out of the books. And don't speak of Disney's 1997 'Hercules', with its Negro spirituals!

I guess this is a roundabout way of saying I read the novels and stories first, where possible. :)

[kelby_lake]

And don't speak of Disney's 1997 'Hercules', with its Negro spirituals!

Who cares if it's not like the legend? No one expects it to be.

That's why I don't feel that it's always vital to read the book before a film. Film is an art medium just as literature is- it's not simply a visual version of the book, yet this is how many who read the book judge it. A film can still be a good film without adhering to the novel exactly.

Should we judge adaptations based on their fidelity to the original material or as a separate entity altogether?

[MystyrMystyry]

Good point - cinematic poetic license, yes?

I remember a film called Waterloo about - you guessed it! - but have you? It was about the battle alone. The directer decided that anyone interested in history and great events would already know (or go and research) the back story, thus chose not to bog it down in build up.

It didn't entirely succeed, but it was far from a total failure (though of course every general and soldier would have had a didfferent story to tell)

See it if you want an experience beyond which you're quite able to judge

[Silvia]

Who cares if it's not like the legend? No one expects it to be.

That's why I don't feel that it's always vital to read the book before a film. Film is an art medium just as literature is- it's not simply a visual version of the book, yet this is how many who read the book judge it. A film can still be a good film without adhering to the novel exactly.

Should we judge adaptations based on their fidelity to the original material or as a separate entity altogether?

Well, I think movies based on novels should keep as close to the original as possibile (although I realise it is impossible to be 100% faithful, since, as you said, literature and cinema are two different mediums with different languages), so yes, we should judge adaptations on their fidelity, because that's what they are: adaptations. I mean, translations too are works of art that enjoy some level of indipendence from the original, still, a translator must keep in mind that he has a text and a message to be faithful to.
In my opinion, one very good example of novel successfully turned into a movie is "Sense and Sensibility", screenplayed by Emma Thompson and directed by Ang Lee: in order to convey Jane Austen's humour, Emma Thompson adds funny gags. Now,someone might comply that the movie isn't faithful to the original because those gags aren't in the novel (which is true), but I think it's just the opposite. The Portrait of a Lady, on the other hand, is a wonderful movie and quite a faithful one, too, but Jane Campion decided to change the way it ends. What do you think of that? Could she do it?

[kiki1982]

Ah, yes, Emma Thompson's Sense and Sensibility. Indeed, it was a (not so faithful but) very nicely flowing, consistent film which did not do anything wrong with the message nor the idea that Jane Austen had of her characters. I like that. Though she did change the plot a bit (or the characters) it did not really interfere with anything. It is proof of the fact that skillful change is possible.

A writer of an adaptation has got some license, yes, but not to the point where they change the plot (other endings make me mad) and the message of the novel, connected with that they also tend to change characters' characters. And that's where the real debacle lies for me. If you get that wrong, you change the motives of a character and also the message of a novel. And thus you actually have ignored the main point of a novel and of your adaptation.

[Transmodernism]

Who cares if it's not like the legend? No one expects it to be.

That's why I don't feel that it's always vital to read the book before a film. Film is an art medium just as literature is- it's not simply a visual version of the book, yet this is how many who read the book judge it. A film can still be a good film without adhering to the novel exactly.

Should we judge adaptations based on their fidelity to the original material or as a separate entity altogether?

Agreed.

And, not to get off-topic, but most of the humor of Disney's Hercules lies in deliberate comic anachronism. So, yeah: the muses are African-American and sing in the style of a spiritual. You could say that's unfaithful, but I think it's delightful and creative. There's nothing new about speaking in ponderous tones about how Zeus vanquished chaos and the titans and locked them up; but to hear that tale told by a spiritual chorus is loads of fun.

[kelby_lake]

Indeed. And people moan about Disney's version of Hunchback but I don't believe any film adaptation has been entirely faithful and the lust aspect in the Disney film is more pronounced than the 1939 version.

[TheChilly]

I know this is true for me, and probably for others as well, but many popular or classical stories, often times because of movies, TV, or just hearing other people discuss them, you are already "know" or at least have the basic gist of, even if you have never actually read the book.

For example, probably nearly everyone one is familiar with the story of Frankenstein, and a Christmas Carol, even if they never read it, because they are everywhere including in cartoons.

Though of course, movies, and other sources are never the same or true to form to the books and leave things out, change things, and so forth, but you still get the basic plot of the story.

I was wondering, if you go to actually read the book of one of these stories that you have already been exposed to, so you more or less know what is going to happen, or what to expect, how does it effect your reading?

Do you think it enhances your reading, because you can than see things, that perhaps you might not have thought of in that way before, if you new nothing about the story, and do you think you pay more attention to details this way?

Or do you feel you might enjoy the story better if you didn't know anything about it previously, and that your reading experience is lessoned by your prior knowledge of the story.

What brings this up is I just started reading Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. And that is another one that I am sure most people pretty much know. And so as I read it, I cannot help but to wonder, how I would perceive the story, if I did not already know what was coming. And if I would be more drawn into the mystery if indeed it was still a mystery for me.

In my case, I feel like reading a story that I've already been exposed to via media does help me to enhance my understanding of the themes of the piece a lot more than just word of mouth.

[kelby_lake]

In my case, I feel like reading a story that I've already been exposed to via media does help me to enhance my understanding of the themes of the piece a lot more than just word of mouth.

Agreed. In theory, the filmmakers focus in on themes in the novel/play- what interests them about it.

[Dark Muse]

In my case, I feel like reading a story that I've already been exposed to via media does help me to enhance my understanding of the themes of the piece a lot more than just word of mouth.

When I had said that I had meant more so, that does hearing about a story and knowing the basic plot of it ahead of time enhance your understanding during the actual reading of it, opposed if you had read a story of which you knew nothing about prior to reading it.

Does already have a background sketch and general idea of the story make it more understandable to you when you do read it, then going in blind to a story.

[L.M. The Third]

Well, I think movies based on novels should keep as close to the original as possibile (although I realise it is impossible to be 100% faithful, since, as you said, literature and cinema are two different mediums with different languages), so yes, we should judge adaptations on their fidelity, because that's what they are: adaptations. I mean, translations too are works of art that enjoy some level of indipendence from the original, still, a translator must keep in mind that he has a text and a message to be faithful to.
In my opinion, one very good example of novel successfully turned into a movie is "Sense and Sensibility", screenplayed by Emma Thompson and directed by Ang Lee: in order to convey Jane Austen's humour, Emma Thompson adds funny gags. Now,someone might comply that the movie isn't faithful to the original because those gags aren't in the novel (which is true), but I think it's just the opposite.
:iagree: I'm a quite a purist myself, but I think we have to realize that film is a different medium than books. In S&S Emma took out the character of Lucy's sister, which is a another comic dimension in the book and one lady who met Emma simply recoiled when she heard that. But, as has been said, Emma preserved the spirit of the book, to the degree that people have thought her "You don't happen to have a reliable atlas?" scene was from the book.

[kiki1982]

I agree with that too.

Then again, you can do the story right minitiously and ruin it by your take on it... Like that last Emma-adaptation. That was the saddest thing I have ever seen. Totally devoid of any message whatsoever, and it's such a great book; a great take on human nature! Still, it followed the story almost exactly, but Welch had clearly no knowledge of manners and so mistook the whole scene at Box Hill for a gaudy performance of a debauched man; that said, she mistook that whole character and his purpose.

Like I said, there is nothing wrong with adding scenes, leaving out characters, adding characters (I believe Emma Thompson also did that regarding the Middletons, right?), but the key thing for a writer is, if he does that, to know all about the times, his characters (what they would do in an added scene, f.i., which is not that easy) and the genre he is doing.

I find that mostly lacking, to be honest.