I get the feeling some novels are stealth screenplays.

[ambient_woolf]

The writing is poor and their ulterior motive is to be optioned for a movie deal. See: Twilight, The Hunger Games, Divergent. (Well, The Hunger Games was surprisingly enjoyable but it still smacks of "please make me a movie!") And even beyond that, there are books that ARE well-written where it's virtually impossible to shake off the knowledge that the prose has been transformed into a film. To me, this devalues the book in a way. I see constantly these affirmations of "finally!" being a motion picture. Why is this the end goal for many writers (or failing that, the publishers)? The obvious answer is the exponentially increased money that can be had from the box office compared to book sales, but still this unsettles me. Authors should have confidence in their own work and not allow a film adaptation unless, somehow, film can do something extraordinarily different with the source material.

[kelby_lake]

I do agree with this, although I think it's quite common now for people to want to see their favourite books made into a film. It's a sort of confirmation that the book is popular and worthy. It also gives you a new way of interacting with the book.

Art always has a dialogue with other forms of art. Books borrow from other books, films borrow from books, books borrow from films, plays borrow from films, films borrow from plays.

[Emil Miller]

It's not surprising that many books translate into cinematic format. After all, novels are usually episodic, as is the cinema.
It isn't difficult to write a book without any intention for it to be filmed or televised only to realise on reflection that it would fit admirably into either medium. I know because I have done precisely that.

[PeterL]

I agree with Emil. Many novels are written is a w=ay that emphasizes the scene-by-scene way that movies are built. It can be a useful techniques.

[JHG]

Well, popular fiction for a popular audience. Most "young adults" grew up around TV and movies, not books. It's just more relatable.

More cynically - it's business. You are right: any popularity sparked in such a book necessitates a movie. There is the mild thrill of being able to tell your friends that you read a "big" book - see Harry Potter. Somehow the movie is substantiated by a book preceding it. Then there are the familiar yet apparently exciting tricks and teasers of the upcoming movie, employed in the many modern outlets. All this energy swirls around itself and in the process separates money from wallets.

[Emil Miller]

Well, popular fiction for a popular audience. Most "young adults" grew up around TV and movies, not books. It's just more relatable.

More cynically - it's business. You are right: any popularity sparked in such a book necessitates a movie. There is the mild thrill of being able to tell your friends that you read a "big" book - see Harry Potter. Somehow the movie is substantiated by a book preceding it. Then there are the familiar yet apparently exciting tricks and teasers of the upcoming movie, employed in the many modern outlets. All this energy swirls around itself and in the process separates money from wallets.

The term 'young adults' is either an oxymoron or a euphemism for retarded development. Either way, there is nothing cynical in referencing the financial aspect a book's transltion to screen. It's a natural but dichotomous process between the director, responsible for the visual representation, and the scriptwriter's requirements vis-a-vis the novel's original dialogue. But, ultimately, the producers will decide whether their investment will produce the desired return.

[kelby_lake]

The term 'young adults' is either an oxymoron or a euphemism for retarded development.

I don't see anything wrong with the term. It depends how we classify adults as such but if we went off the age of consent or the age that they leave high school/become a senior or whatever they do in the US, I guess they are an adult. But of course they're not an adult in the same way that a middle-aged man is.

A 'young adult' in marketing terms is a teenager who is starting to explore the adult world and adult themes, as opposed to a younger teenager who might still be relatively childlike.

[JHG]

The term 'young adults' is either an oxymoron or a euphemism for retarded development.

Euphemism, yes. I really don't like the term (in case that wasn't apparent), but I guess it's more marketable than "teen," or "immature."

[AuntShecky]

A couple of weeks ago there was a thread about how good novels usually are turned into really bad movies.

It's not really "slealth," but part of the master plan on the part of the author and perhaps his or her agent.
I'm convinced that many writers do have the eventual movie deal in mind when they write the original work; hence the annoying practice of placing the action all in the present tense. Then with megahits you often see the reverse practice of "novelisation" of movies in an effort to squeeze every last buck out of a concept.

[WyattGwyon]

Cormac McCarthy's No Country for Old Men and The Road both fall into this category as far as I am concerned. Written like movie treatments.