The book is always better...or is it?
I think book adaptations largely fall into 3 categories:
Faithful - sticks very close to the source material
Inspired - takes liberties with the source text while maintaining the heart
Slaughtered - changes to the plot that are a disservice to the source material
In my younger years, I was 100% behind the idea that the book is better than any adaptation. I think this stems from the types of adaptations I consumed as they mainly fit into Groups 1 and 2:
Faithful | Slaughtered |
Harry Potter series (2011-2011) | Beautiful Creatures (2013) |
Hunger Games series (2012-) | Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children (2016) |
The Golden Compass* (2007) |
*While the ending was butchered, I still love this movie, especially because it led me to read the books
The Harry Potter and Hunger Games series are excellent adaptations (bar the odd change that ticks me off, of course). However, they leave you wanting more because no movie will ever match perfectly with the ideas in our heads when we read them. They come close, but no cigar. It's like an asymptote that always approaches zero without ever getting there!
I will never be over my holy trinity of slaughtered series. They were stories with incredible on-screen potential and absolutely perfect casts that fell victim to Hollywood plot changes that cut them off at the knees. Tragic. Thankfully, HBO brought His Dark Materials back to screens with an amazing 3 season TV show adaptation that made me cry just like the book did (a good thing).
The His Dark Materials show is actually close to falling into Group 2. Each season follows the three books in the central trilogy, the biggest deviation being that the story of a major character in Book 2 is introduced in the first season. This change was an excellent choice that helped the flow and brought balance to Lyra's story in the first act.
Two TV shows that encapsulate Group 2 perfectly are Bridgerton (2020-) and Shadow and Bone (2019-2021). In both cases, I watched the show before consuming the source material, and in both cases, I found myself more drawn to the adaptations. Is this an example of becoming attached to what "came first"? I don't think so. I think the changes enriched what the source material brought to the table. Below are what I think were the pivotal changes made to both series:
Bridgerton
Multiple sibling story arcs in each season
Increased diversity
Less historically accurate (particularly in the costuming)
Shadow and Bone
Duology plot spliced into the original trilogy plot
Obviously, some changes are bigger than others and each one is a gamble, but in the case of these series (despite Shadow and Bone being canceled), they really paid off.
Do these changes make these series better than their source material? In some ways, yes, but in all honesty, it just makes them different. Bottom line; they make them appeal to different people. While I enjoy the book series of the above IPs, I personally enjoyed the TV shows better. I think that's where the "book is always better" debate ultimately leads. For some, the book is better and for others, the adaptation is. Revolutionary, I know, but this is a conversation I needed to have with myself!
Would I ever want my books adapted? Of course! Who doesn't dream of seeing their characters come to life? I've even got some dream castings lined up! Who knows, maybe a film or TV version of my Archivists trilogy will be done in a way that only makes the story shine brighter.
In most cases, what do you like better; book or adaptation?
Comments