Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Compsci's avatar

“With novels we must supply the images ourselves.”

Wonderful essay. A comment on the above observation. Yes, one could use your observation to support laziness, but there is another aspect of humanity such that I’ve come to notice over a lifetime—one of imagination. How many times has one noticed that a “best selling” book, when rendered on film, under performs box office expectations? Often we find complaints that the leading actor or actress (yes I’m unapologetically sexist) is complained about by loyal readers of the novel in question. The complaint most often is that the actor is *not* a good fit for the lead as described in the novel—quite often in fact.

Why? Well, imagination. The image in your mind of a strong, handsome, hero is different than mine and so forth. A novel therefore has as many such images as readers—each one suited to the specific readers’ understanding. The film version however can only have one who is chosen to match the producers’ understanding. Hit or miss when compared to the myriad imaginings of a large audience. Seen this numerous times.

One recent example are the “Reacher” films, which attempted to portray Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher. That lasted for two films. Lee Child had to withdraw film rights and apologize to his readers for such a “Hollywood” portrayal of their beloved ‘heroic’ character.

Gilgamech's avatar

Superb. A very real issue which is also an apt parable.

17 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?