As I have been reading more and more books, as of late, I have realized that books simply triumph over movies in some aspects of storytelling.
For example, I think books are far better at portraying a character’s personal psychology\*. Movies can do this, don’t get me wrong, but not at the depth that books can.
\*Alan Moore’s *The Watchmen* exemplifies this idea very well.
by coastalatomic
35 Comments
Books are certainly better at engaging the imagination, which is something I think alot of modern movies actively avoid.
[deleted]
Showing you what characters are thinking and feeling and letting you imagine the places and the people yourself. I’ve also read some books with plot twists that couldn’t possibly be portrayed in a movie because the visual part would make it obvious.
One of the reasons that the (new) All Quiet on the Western Front movie sucked, is because no one can visually touch reading a stark, shocking sentence like the end of the book.
Also humor. If you read Thurber’s “Greatest Man in the World,” it’s hilarious. You could never make a movie or show that would as funny as reading that, because so much of the humor is from the words which won’t translate to film
I’ve seen video convey a character’s inner thoughts. But it takes the sweet spot of a good actor, a good director, and a good script to manage it. That combination is rare.
[deleted]
Internal monologues
I agree with you that books are better at portraying a character’s personal psychology. I think one reason for this is that books simply last longer and allow the reader to meditate, reflect, and absorb the story at their own pace. Movies, on the other hand, are too fast and often have to cut out or simplify important details or nuances that make the characters more complex and realistic. Books give you more time to get into the character’s head and understand their motivations, emotions, and thoughts. Movies can only show you what the character does or says, but not what they think or feel.
They can play around with scale and just add stuff willy-nilly because cost isn’t really an object like it is on film. Like, I read a fun little mystery series called *Roma sub rosa* and some of the stories mostly center around a few family with some cameos from super famous ancient Romans, and others have major battles or sieges and exotic travel. It would be an insane thing to produce for a movie or tv series because a) mysteries are as fun without battles so why not do something cheaper and b) the costs would vary a lot project to project.
There are workarounds, but there’s a limited amount of money in the world to film things in a satisfying way. No such limits exist on the page.
The written word is able to contain much greater openness of possibility and interpretation. Was reflecting on this thinking about the Atwood book ‘Alias Grace’ just a few days ago.
Same goes for portraying personal psychology: greater depth, yes, but also potentially open to a greater level of personal interpretation.
That said, we’re very fortunate to have the experience of books and their movie treatments. What the movie often provides is the outer image of the inner world we have imbibed through reading the book. If you understand anyone’s thoughts/feelings/motivations etc., then you can relate to them. But then to experience the same characters in visual form is to journey from the first person to the third person, in a way. And how different that can appear.
Subtext. Compare Dune the book and Dune the movie. In the book, every sentence is implied to have a double meaning. Characters withhold information, say the opposite of what they mean, outright lie, etc. There’s a lot of subterfuge and deception happening, even though it just looks like a polite conversation. Everyone is trying to outmaneuver their opponent. I thought the movie struggled to fully depict Dune’s political landscape. Herbert leaves you, the reader, doubting the intentions of everyone you meet. How do you translate that kind of uncertainty to the screen? How do you say words explicitly not spoken? How do you depict the forever-shifting, competing interests of this volatile world without overloading the viewer with information?
Movies have a certain timeframe to play within. There is only so much you can show in a scene. Books don’t really have that limitation. A lot can be implied within a couple pages. If a movie left character motivations up to interpretation, it would be a bad movie.
Narration and footnotes. Pratchett was a master of both, you can’t translate it very easily to screen while maintaining the pace.
Books also happen to be timeless for the most part. They don’t have to worry about CGI becoming outdated, etc.
Is this a joke
I always find that I can’t connect with the characters the same way with a tv show or movie. There are exceptions of course, especially as directors get better at character development. But when reading a good book, I always find myself emotionally and psychologically connected to the characters I’m reading about. I’m not relying on an actor to make me feel their pain, happiness, love, etc. I can imagine it on myself when reading
Teach, or convey any larger amount of information. In fact, an information dump is an entertaining way to relax between action sequences in a book.
In a book, when you hit a paragraph that starts like, *”To understand Farnsworth castle and the surrounding village, one must know the story of Lord Malcolm Farnsworth, the first Lord not directly related to the throne by marriage…”* you kind of relax and understand that nothing exciting is going to happen for a bit, but you are learning some important background information. Sometimes the background information can go on for pages and be very enjoyable as its own little story within the larger story.
Conveying large blocks of information like that is a task that movies can accomplish rarely, if at all. Most of the time it’s better for the movie to just leave all of it out. Many movies fall into the trap of coming to a screeching halt while one character stands there and recites a long exposition.
It takes a skilled director and writer and editor to pull off a large information dump in a movie. When a director does pull it off, it is often celebrated as a feat of directorship. In a book, it’s just par for the course.
Deep diving into a character’s internal motivations and the nuances of the plot in a way that can be easy to understand.
Inner struggles or thinking that cannot be portrayed on the screen.
Exactly, I understand the characters and the way they think a lot more.
Also books can portray abstract concepts, like “formless entities” in Lovecraft’s stories or colors unknown to human eyes, which is kind of impossible to visualize on movies.
Reading the words. Movies you see and hear.
Hiding identities (The Murder of Roger Ackroyd).
I definitely agree with this. I absolutely love movies but some styles of stories are better done as a book.
More detailed scenes. I think movies otten have to cut things out. Which I understand but it leaves some of the flow from the book out. Along with this character thoughts and feelings are easier to portray in a book.
Letting you digest things at your own pace
Backstory/world building. You are allowed to sit and let your mind wander in a place rather than being snapped to attention by the next flashy image.
Creating the sense that time has passed. Books tend to successfully cover many years in a story and have a better track record of showing that time has passed. Movies have a hard time doing it. Forest Gump is one of the only movies I’ve seen do a great job with the passage of time and making it feel like you’ve been on a multi year journey.
For me it’s gotta be syntactical humor. Like “the spaceships hung in the air in exactly the way bricks don’t” or “the machine produced something that tasted almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea.” These are both Douglas Adams but Pratchett does that a lot, too.
I have almost complete aphantasia and all my memories are stored in the form of words or my other (non-visual) senses. Books make a much bigger impression because I can remember more of it. I also have a terrible time when movies use visual references, eg. when I’m supposed to remember what the main character’s car or purse or dog or house looked like to understand a scene.
On the flip side, there are a lot of things that don’t make sense in books because I can’t picture them. A great example is the layout of a city/house/room. I spend a while deciphering long descriptions of these things and eventually just reduce it to “the bed is near the window” (in words), or whatever.
IMO I can go in my mind to the scene. It’s my scene. In a movie “based on the book by..”. Someone or several someone’s are showing me their interpretation. And I always always have liked the book better.
There are plot twists and surprises in movies, but it’s almost impossible to have an unreliable narrator in a movie the same way you get them in a book.
Displaying the words.
if you want to make a movie you are limited by your budget. a book deals with words and ideas, so its scope is only limited by our ideas.
A book dwells on one thing at a time, whereas in film you are always engaging the audience with sights, sounds, and ideas simultaneously.
a book doesn’t have a set pace, there’s no knowing how quickly the reader will move through it. a filmmaker knows exactly at what pace their story will be experienced.
movies can have music. that’s huge
sound effects, too.
movies add extra dimensions of expression to dialog that text lacks. facial expressions, volume, accents, pauses, animation/body language.
a movie can express mood and scenery in a quick moment that a book would take paragraphs to establish, which can affect the pace of the storytelling. and other ideas
Clever editing, cinematography, and sound design can convey information in an elegant way that the viewer doesn’t even realize. including deceptive information.
I think horror and comedy especially work differently between film and writing.
animated movies also deserve mentioning, there is unique expression in them that doesn’t exist anywhere else. I’m imagining slapstick like [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oivK_Rfztpc) which could not be pulled off with just words or in live action.
movies directly cater to our senses, which can trigger lizard brain reactions in ways that books can’t
Just some examples of differences. I started with things that books are better at but also listed things that movies can do that books can’t. because I felt like it.
I think books are better at changing your perception.
A good movie can leave you satisfied, maybe a little sad, but generally entertained. Sometimes I’ll think about it again after a few days have passed.
A good book can leave you heartbroken inside and wondering what happened. After I finished the HP series in hs, I spent over a month grieving and trying to bring myself back to reality.
A good book can also change your mind. I have a handful of books that have changed the way I see the world. Books leave a mark on you in a way I feel most films can’t. Or at least, I definitely haven’t seen any films that truly changed the way I see the world in a lasting manner.
Books let you imagine everything for yourself. You get to create your own pictures of the characters, settings, and events.
Books have more detail and go deeper into things than movies. They can give you more backstory and really flesh out the characters and plot.
Also, you get to hear what the characters are thinking. They can talk about their feelings and innermost thoughts, which is tough to do in a movie.
Last, as Roald Dahl said in Matilda, books are like a holiday in your head, which is the case for me every time I read, but not so much when I’m watching movies.
Books are always better in my imagination. The movies never do the descriptions of characters or the story justice. I would read a book any day as opposed to watching a movie.
I think because we all imagine things differently, the movie doesn’t match everyone’s perception of the book. We have the creative freedom to see the story how we want to see it. Books transport you to a whole new world!