This post on the differences between books and movies based on books originally appeared on July 20, 2009. I'm reposting it now because I've been thinking about this again lately, and wanted to reference it without rehashing my thoughts (which haven't changed).
I saw the newest Harry Potter movie yesterday, and I got to thinking afterward about the differences between books and movies. J.K. Rowling's books are a perfect guinea pig here because both the books and movies are wildly popular, so a wide swath of the population will see the movies after reading the books and go "wait a second here, they cut x, y, and z out."
That's enough of a lead-in I think, so onto the discussion (read: my thoughts). Books are, by their nature, more detailed than movies. Think about it ... a movie can be at most 2 to 2 1/2 hours long. Any lengthier and people tend to stop paying attention (Lord of the Rings notwithstanding) and begin wondering when they're going to be able to go home. These same people may happily spend 12 hours reading a book however, and there's usually enough detail in the really good stories to keep the average reader entertained for at least that long, between the multiple subplots and supporting character motivations that thread most novels.
Movies can focus on one, maybe two storylines at any given point. Books can have as many subplots and tangents as you the writer can shove into 300 pages, and have those subplots be woven into the fabric of the main story. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince the novel does this several times: Remus and Tonks' romance, Fleur and Bill getting engaged, Harry and Ginny getting together, Kreacher is gone, so is anything about 12 Grimmauld Place, and an entire bit with Dobby gets lost. The scriptwriter of the movie decided, rightly, that we want to mostly see the story directly involving the Golden Trio. But to do that, the scriptwriter was forced to cut out huge swathes of the book, losing a lot of the rich characterization those subplots afforded.
Side note: Joe Queenan over at The Guardian wrote an article recently about movie novelizations and how they work (link taken from Pimp My Novel -- thank you Laura and Eric!).
I'm not saying books are better than movies, and if this post came across that way I apologize. Both forms of storytelling have their pros and cons, and there's something magical about watching your favorite books come to life on the big screen (anyone else think Dumbledore looked cool in the scene with the Inferi?) that can't be described. So in the end, movies made from books will almost inevitably leave things out in order to translate the story from one medium to another.
Doesn't mean it's bad. Just means it's different.
Showing posts with label Books. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Books. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Steampunk Recomendations
A lot of people have asked me for recommendations of steampunk works that they can read and enjoy, in order to get a better feel for the genre. I'm always happy to compose individual lists for each person, but I figured that perhaps a better and more efficient (my boss's watchword) idea is to compose a list on here that I can point further requests to.
So, without further ado, I give you the Not-All-That-Comprehensive List of Steampunk Recommendations!
The Difference Engine by William Gibson and Bruce Sterling is, according to many, THE definitive steampunk work. For my money, I prefer to recognize it as the first book that pushed steampunk from minor obscurity inside speculative fiction up on the path to where the genre is today.
The Time Machine by H.G. Wells is one of the proto-steampunk works. Pretty much any of Wells' science fiction falls into the category of proto-steampunk. You might be asking yourself what "proto-steampunk" means. Well that particular term means that the fiction of Wells, Jules Verne, Mark Twain, and Mary Shelley (yes, Frankenstein counts) help to influence the attitude of most modern steampunk works.
Whitechapel Gods by S.M. Peters is alternate history steampunk, where the Whitechapel district of London was taken over by crazy steam-fueled gods and clockwork men that battle against the "plucky human resistance." It sounds like every other resistance fights the power story, but it's kind of cool nonetheless. Read it for the worldbuilding if nothing else.
Soulless by Gail Carriger is what's called a "steampunk romance." It's a very interesting concept, based on what I've read so far, and I'm looking forward to reading the story once I get a chance (yes I bought a romance novel -- this will make two that I've willingly read).
Leviathan by Scott Westerfield and the His Dark Materials trilogy by Phillip Pullman are both good-quality examples of YA steampunk. Westerfield's work is alternate history, whereas Pullman composes fantasy steampunk. Both do masterful jobs at building their steam-powered worlds. And Westerfield includes an appendix explaining history as it actually happened!
Perdido Street Station by China Mieville is a prototypical tale of fantasy steampunk. Some of my readers might recognize Mieville's name from his book Un Lun Dun, a young-adult fantasy, and probably already know more about his style than I do.
My plan is to add to this list of recommendations as time goes on and I find more examples of quality steampunk literature.
Your thoughts on my suggestions are appreciated, as always.
So, without further ado, I give you the Not-All-That-Comprehensive List of Steampunk Recommendations!
The Difference Engine by William Gibson and Bruce Sterling is, according to many, THE definitive steampunk work. For my money, I prefer to recognize it as the first book that pushed steampunk from minor obscurity inside speculative fiction up on the path to where the genre is today.
The Time Machine by H.G. Wells is one of the proto-steampunk works. Pretty much any of Wells' science fiction falls into the category of proto-steampunk. You might be asking yourself what "proto-steampunk" means. Well that particular term means that the fiction of Wells, Jules Verne, Mark Twain, and Mary Shelley (yes, Frankenstein counts) help to influence the attitude of most modern steampunk works.
Whitechapel Gods by S.M. Peters is alternate history steampunk, where the Whitechapel district of London was taken over by crazy steam-fueled gods and clockwork men that battle against the "plucky human resistance." It sounds like every other resistance fights the power story, but it's kind of cool nonetheless. Read it for the worldbuilding if nothing else.
Soulless by Gail Carriger is what's called a "steampunk romance." It's a very interesting concept, based on what I've read so far, and I'm looking forward to reading the story once I get a chance (yes I bought a romance novel -- this will make two that I've willingly read).
Leviathan by Scott Westerfield and the His Dark Materials trilogy by Phillip Pullman are both good-quality examples of YA steampunk. Westerfield's work is alternate history, whereas Pullman composes fantasy steampunk. Both do masterful jobs at building their steam-powered worlds. And Westerfield includes an appendix explaining history as it actually happened!
Perdido Street Station by China Mieville is a prototypical tale of fantasy steampunk. Some of my readers might recognize Mieville's name from his book Un Lun Dun, a young-adult fantasy, and probably already know more about his style than I do.
My plan is to add to this list of recommendations as time goes on and I find more examples of quality steampunk literature.
Your thoughts on my suggestions are appreciated, as always.
Monday, October 19, 2009
I Blame Adam
So, Adam Heine's comment on condensers got me looking up different parts of the steam engine that make the mechanism operate at peak efficiency.
The ones he linked to, steam locomotive condensing apparatuses, were developed ostensibly to allow the London Underground to operate before the implementation of non-steam powered subway trains.
From Wikipedia:
"A steam locomotive condensing apparatus differs in purpose from the usual closed cycle steam engine condenser, in that its function is primarily either to recover water, or to avoid excessive emissions to the atmosphere, rather than maintaining a vacuum to improve both efficiency and power. It takes the form of a series of pipes, valves and other ancillary equipment usually attached to an otherwise conventional steam locomotive. The apparatus takes the exhaust steam that would normally be lost up the funnel and routes it through a heat exchanger, into the normal water tanks. Installations vary depending on the purpose, design and the type of locomotive to which it is fitted."
Anyway, the whole reason for the title of this post is because, during the ensuing click-o-rama on steam engineering, I came across a reprint of an 1887 book on the mechanics of steam engines.
Long story short ... I bought it. It's exactly the kind of resource one needs to add verisimilitude to any explanation of steam engines. The text will also give me a way to make certain the hero of SON OF MAGIC knows what he's talking about when it comes to steam power, which is good because that MC is supposed to be a steam engineer.
So as you can see, in a roundabout way, it's Adam's fault that I bought that book. Yeah ... that's it.
P.S. The titles of the aforementioned songs for Steam's Limitations Part 2 and Part 3 are Metallica's "Fuel" and The Who's "Water."
The ones he linked to, steam locomotive condensing apparatuses, were developed ostensibly to allow the London Underground to operate before the implementation of non-steam powered subway trains.
From Wikipedia:
"A steam locomotive condensing apparatus differs in purpose from the usual closed cycle steam engine condenser, in that its function is primarily either to recover water, or to avoid excessive emissions to the atmosphere, rather than maintaining a vacuum to improve both efficiency and power. It takes the form of a series of pipes, valves and other ancillary equipment usually attached to an otherwise conventional steam locomotive. The apparatus takes the exhaust steam that would normally be lost up the funnel and routes it through a heat exchanger, into the normal water tanks. Installations vary depending on the purpose, design and the type of locomotive to which it is fitted."
Anyway, the whole reason for the title of this post is because, during the ensuing click-o-rama on steam engineering, I came across a reprint of an 1887 book on the mechanics of steam engines.
Long story short ... I bought it. It's exactly the kind of resource one needs to add verisimilitude to any explanation of steam engines. The text will also give me a way to make certain the hero of SON OF MAGIC knows what he's talking about when it comes to steam power, which is good because that MC is supposed to be a steam engineer.
So as you can see, in a roundabout way, it's Adam's fault that I bought that book. Yeah ... that's it.
P.S. The titles of the aforementioned songs for Steam's Limitations Part 2 and Part 3 are Metallica's "Fuel" and The Who's "Water."
Monday, August 3, 2009
Royalties Demystified
Go read this gem over at Pimp My Novel, where the wonderful Eric explains how the royalty structure works. Very insightful and well done, as always.
P.S. I've been busy with freelancing assignments, hence the lack of posting here.
P.S. I've been busy with freelancing assignments, hence the lack of posting here.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
40% of books
So yeah ... to anyone who's potentially reading this blog (all two of you if I'm lucky), read this sobering fact over at Editorial Ass about how many books actually get pulped.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Books vs. Movies
I saw the newest Harry Potter movie yesterday, and I got to thinking afterward about the differences between books and movies. J.K. Rowling's books are a perfect guinea pig here because both the books and movies are wildly popular, so a wide swath of the population will see the movies after reading the books and go "wait a second here, they cut x, y, and z out."
That's enough of a lead-in I think, so onto the discussion (read: my thoughts). Books are, by their nature, more detailed than movies. Think about it ... a movie can be at most 2 to 2 1/2 hours long. Any lengthier and people tend to stop paying attention (Lord of the Rings notwithstanding) and begin wondering when they're going to be able to go home. These same people may happily spend 12 hours reading a book however, and there's usually enough detail in the really good stories to keep the average reader entertained for at least that long, between the multiple subplots and supporting character motivations that thread most novels.
Movies can focus on one, maybe two storylines at any given point. Books can have as many subplots and tangents as you the writer can shove into 300 pages, and have those subplots be woven into the fabric of the main story. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince the novel does this several times: Remus and Tonks' romance, Fleur and Bill getting engaged, Harry and Ginny getting together, Kreacher is gone, so is anything about 12 Grimmauld Place, and an entire bit with Dobby gets lost. The scriptwriter of the movie decided, rightly, that we want to mostly see the story directly involving the Golden Trio. But to do that, the scriptwriter was forced to cut out huge swathes of the book, losing a lot of the rich characterization those subplots afforded.
Side note: Joe Queenan over at The Guardian wrote an article recently about movie novelizations and how they work (link taken from Pimp My Novel -- thank you Laura and Eric!).
I'm not saying books are better than movies, and if this post came across that way I apologize. Both forms of storytelling have their pros and cons, and there's something magical about watching your favorite books come to life on the big screen (anyone else think Dumbledore looked cool in the scene with the Inferi?) that can't be described. So in the end, movies made from books will almost inevitably leave things out in order to translate the story from one medium to another.
Doesn't mean it's bad. Just means it's different.
That's enough of a lead-in I think, so onto the discussion (read: my thoughts). Books are, by their nature, more detailed than movies. Think about it ... a movie can be at most 2 to 2 1/2 hours long. Any lengthier and people tend to stop paying attention (Lord of the Rings notwithstanding) and begin wondering when they're going to be able to go home. These same people may happily spend 12 hours reading a book however, and there's usually enough detail in the really good stories to keep the average reader entertained for at least that long, between the multiple subplots and supporting character motivations that thread most novels.
Movies can focus on one, maybe two storylines at any given point. Books can have as many subplots and tangents as you the writer can shove into 300 pages, and have those subplots be woven into the fabric of the main story. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince the novel does this several times: Remus and Tonks' romance, Fleur and Bill getting engaged, Harry and Ginny getting together, Kreacher is gone, so is anything about 12 Grimmauld Place, and an entire bit with Dobby gets lost. The scriptwriter of the movie decided, rightly, that we want to mostly see the story directly involving the Golden Trio. But to do that, the scriptwriter was forced to cut out huge swathes of the book, losing a lot of the rich characterization those subplots afforded.
Side note: Joe Queenan over at The Guardian wrote an article recently about movie novelizations and how they work (link taken from Pimp My Novel -- thank you Laura and Eric!).
I'm not saying books are better than movies, and if this post came across that way I apologize. Both forms of storytelling have their pros and cons, and there's something magical about watching your favorite books come to life on the big screen (anyone else think Dumbledore looked cool in the scene with the Inferi?) that can't be described. So in the end, movies made from books will almost inevitably leave things out in order to translate the story from one medium to another.
Doesn't mean it's bad. Just means it's different.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)