TuesdayTips138

Screen Or Page?
Two Sides Of The Same Coin.

For this week's #TuesdayTip, I am going to explore the difference between TV and novels.
My wife and I enjoy a good mini-series. The sort of thing that consists of 4 to 6 episodes, each 45-60 minutes long. Sometimes they are adaptations of novels and other times original stories.
Now, before we start, I am a novelist NOT a screenwriter. I have no direct insight into the world of TV making, so these are purely my own uninformed observations.
I Don't Remember That Happening.
A common complaint made of TV adaptations of existing novels is that the TV show differs from the original.
Common variations include:

• Parts of the original novel missing / new material added.
• The casting of actors that don't resemble the character as described (this can be explicit, where they have openly contradicted the description in the book, or more subjective where readers had an impression of what a character was like and found themselves surprised at the casting choice).
• Changing the dialogue.
• Excising/adding/merging characters.
• Changing parts of the plot.
• Re-ordering the plot.
• Changing the ending.

Opinions vary on whether a particular TV adaption is better or worse than the source material, or just a different way to enjoy the story. Typically it's subjective and a matter of opinion. The only comment I'm prepared to make on this thorny topic is that Amazon Studios' Harry Bosch and Jack Reacher adaptations are in my opinion excellent. They aren't slavish retellings of the original novels. They aren't better or worse than the books. Instead they are their own version and I can enjoy both the books and the TV series alongside each other without feeling it necessary to compare and contrast.
Speaking to friends that have had books adapted for TV, the author rarely gets much of a say. Some big-name authors such as Michael Connelly may get to help executive produce the series, but most authors don't.
Some authors actually adapt the book themselves. But again, you will usually find differences.
The reason is quite simple: TV and books are very different forms of media. TV productions are constrained by budget, time available to broadcast the story, availability of suitable actors and what can be practically shown on screen. Furthermore, there is a need to split a TV series into discrete episodes, each roughly the same length and each with a cliff hanger. Although novels have turning points and cliff hangers that serve as natural breakpoints, where a reader can put the book down but is keen to return, they are rarely conveniently spread out. I notice that some streaming services have experimented with different lengths for each episode, so that the story's telling isn't dictated by the need for an ad break or the length of a TV slot, but I think it'll be a long time before that becomes the norm, if ever.
There are also other, less tangible differences. For example what about inner monologues or character's thoughts? The Jack Reacher shown in Amazon's Reacher series is rather more chatty than the one portrayed in Lee Child's original novels. He has to be, because Reacher in the novels rarely speaks out loud. Instead we get a running commentary of his thought processes. That's easy on the page; for the small screen, we need either a voice-over or another character that he can speak with. What about conversations via phone messages? Some TV shows do this really well, others make a bit of a mess of it, with viewers struggling to read the messages on screen, and thus missing important information.
Another difficulty faced by TV series, is that it is sometimes easier to hide something on the page than on the screen. I recently read a book where a whole chapter appears to be told from the perspective of a particular type of person. The big twist at the end of that chapter (and it is a stroke of genius) is that it is actually being told by a completely different type of person. I can't see any way of filming that without giving away that twist within the first two seconds of the camera panning across. If it is ever made for the screen, that scene will have to be rewritten or cut (fortunately, there's enough in the rest of that book to make it worth filming anyway).
That's Not How I Would Have Done It.
One of the things about being a writer is that you often find yourself analysing another writer's choices. I can't stress enough that it is rarely about thinking, "I could have done that better". Rather it is about the direction that your own imagination went at a crucial point in the story, and how it differed from the author's. In fact, sometimes it's the exact opposite to feeling superior. I've lost count of the number of times I've read or watched something and thought "Damn, that's good! I'd never have come up with that in a million years".
When watching TV, I often have that feeling and I realise that it's probably because I am thinking as a novelist. If I was writing the story, I would have my character go and do X or think Y. But then, when I think about it, I realise that the decision made by the screenwriter is far better suited to the screen than my idea, which would work better on the page.
Don't Diss The Screen.
Looking back over the previous two sections, I am uncomfortably aware that what I have written fuels those who smugly proclaim "of course books are always better than TV". I've never been happy with that argument. TV and novels are both complementary and discrete forms of entertainment and you can't make such a sweeping statement.
So to redress the balance, here are some of the advantages that TV has over novels.

• Description. A good novelist can fire the imagination with beautiful descriptions of a scene, a landscape or a character. They can conjure up images in the reader's mind. But they need to do so concisely to keep the pace brisk and they can't keep returning to that description without becoming repetitive or slowing things down. Furthermore, a surprising number of people have a condition called aphantasia - an inability to visualise images in their mind's eye. TV on the other hand is a visual medium. They say a picture is worth a thousand words, and it's undoubtedly true. A skilled cinematographer can convey a whole scene with a single sweep of the camera, freeing up the screenwriter to get on with telling the story.
• Sound. Again, TV is also an aural medium. Dialogue is more than just words, and whilst a good novelist can describe the nuances of speech it can be difficult to convey the subtle undercurrents. In the second episode of season three of Star Trek: Picard, there is a huge revelation (I'm not going to spoil it). The entire scene is communicated with nothing more than the changing expressions on the actors' faces. The viewer experiences the same dawning revelation as the character. It is a sublime piece of TV. In a novel, the revelation would have to be explicitly stated on the page. It could be done of course, but I feel it would have been a poor second best.
• Atmosphere. A good writer can conjure atmosphere. But again, a skilled cinematographer and sound designer can convey in just a couple of seconds what a novelist might need two paragraphs for. Well-chosen music can manipulate the viewer's emotions, and isn't that manipulation what it's all about?
• Background. By this I mean what's happening behind a character, perhaps something they are unaware of. In a book, we need to tell the reader everything that happens. We are often told as writers 'show don't tell'. TV can often have an advantage here. Imagine a scene in a restaurant, where two characters are having a private conversation. That conversation is overheard by someone at the next table and then used against them. In a book, the writer has to figure out how to tell us that happened. There are a dozen ways to do this of course, but they require an explicit acknowledgment of what took place. In TV, the characters can finish their conversation and the camera can zoom out and reveal the eavesdropper with a cunning look on their face. Obviously there are situations where a novelist has the upper hand, as they can delay revealing that there was a third person there until later in the book. This is another example of where the two media can have different strengths and weaknesses when telling a story, and how the same story may need to be told differently on the screen and page.

What do you think about the screen versus the page? Can you think of any examples where the same story is told differently, yet both are as good as one another?
As always, feel free to comment here or on social media.
If you are a writer with a tip to share, or fancy writing a fictional interview between you and one of your characters, please feel free to email me.
Until next time,
Paul.