The Art of Adaptation
"Literature adds to reality, it does not simply describe it."
November is here, which means spooky season is out the door and Christmastime is right around the corner. But before we start making snowmen, singing carols, and combing over our wishlists, let’s not forget to take some time to be thankful for what we already have.
But this post isn’t about Thanksgiving (as much as I love the holiday). Since this is going to be a busy month, I wanted to get this one out while I was still thinking about it… I hope you enjoy.
What makes a good adaptation?
Books are translated into movies all the time. Remakes are made constantly. It seems like, in order for any creative endeavor to get off the ground, it needs to either be (1) based on something (a novel, an article, a “true story”), (2) inspired by something (“it’s Back to the Future meets The Prestige with a hint of The Sandlot”), or (3) tied to a previously existing franchise (somehow, The Mummy Returns spawn five different Scorpion King movies).
I want to highlight that first point. Adaptations.
An adaptation is when something is pulled from one medium and modified to fit another. Google says that to adapt means to “make (something) suitable for a new use or purpose; modify.” I’d say that’s a fitting way of putting it.
There’s a movie called Adaptation. Have you seen it? It’s a Nicolas Cage-led comedy-drama that is all about (real) screenwriter Charlie Kaufman’s process of adapting the (also real) Susan Orlean book, The Orchid Thief, which drives Kaufman (played by Cage in the film) semi-insane.
In reality, Kaufman tried to make The Orchid Thief into a movie but instead found himself so frustrated by the process of adapting the book that he wrote the film about him making the movie. It was so successful that even famed Chicago Sun-Times critic Roger Ebert gave it a highly coveted four out of four stars. “To watch the film is to be actively involved in the challenge of its creation,” he said in his 2002 review.
The point is, adapting anything — be it a book, a song, a short story, a poem, a real-life event, etc. — can sometimes feel like pulling teeth. One wants to be true to the original material. Authorial intent matters, after all. But in the process a writer can find themselves wanting to change things to fit whatever it is that they are trying to say.
These changes are usually small at first.
It might start with the way a character presents themself, or emphasising a certain character trait only briefly referenced before. Maybe certain backstory elements are omitted.
But over time, this sort of thinking can grow into never-before-seen character arcs, gender or race swapping1, subverting the original ending, adding entirely original characters or plotlines, or even changing the characters into people we wouldn’t recognize.
(And that’s only the tip of the iceberg.)
Sometimes these changes “work,” and other times they don’t, but in either case, it strays from what made the original material what it is.
An Example In Dracula
With October having been Spooky Month, I found myself revisiting a lot of different Dracula adaptations. Since Bram Stoker’s novel is a personal favorite, it pains me to say that I’ve not seen one adaptation ever get the story fully right.
It’s been over 100 years, and Dracula has never been retold the way it was published originally. Instead, Hollywood continues to base most of their vampire material off the 1930s movie in lue of the book, meaning that most familiar with the titular vampire don’t even know the real story.
Because of the films, we often associate Dracula with a signature medallion, a clean-shaven face, his love for Mina Murray, his inability to walk in the sun, and his trademark “bleh, bleh, bleh.” There are other changes, of course, but I’ll leave it there for the sake of brevity.
But in Stoker’s novel, there is no Bela Lugosi medallion, and Dracula is originally described with a mustache. Additionally, Mina Murray is the Count’s victim not his lover (indeed, the vampire cares not about love), and he can in fact walk in the sun, though he is far less powerful during the day.
(And there are no “bleh, bleh, blehs,” no matter how many jokes Hotel Transylvania makes about it.)
But which of these changes generally matter and which don’t? After all, everyone loves Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings trilogy, and yet, they too differ significantly from J.R.R. Tolkien’s original work.2
It all comes down to what is actually changing (and why), and how those changes affect the overall narrative.
In the Dracula example, so many adaptations (most notably Francis Ford Coppola’s ironically titled Bram Stoker’s Dracula) have since made Dracula’s seductive eye for Mina the crux of the entire story. Dracula wants what he can’t have, especially her. But this isn’t what the original novel is about. Stoker never compares Mina to any long-dead lover from the Count’s previous life as Vlad the Impaler, nor does it insinuate anything romantic between them.
But inserting this subplot shifts Dracula’s entire tone. It changes the story.
Far too many Dracula adaptations forsake the book’s clear themes of good vs. evil in favor of a greyer, morally ambiguous narrative that makes the lord of vampires sympathetic. Frankly, Stoker never meant for us to have any sympathy for this Devil. He is the embodiment of evil meant to be defeated, not a poor, tortured soul looking for love.
This would be like if Peter Jackson, for all the changes he made to Tolkien’s material, also made Sauron sympathetic.3 It doesn’t work because it’s not the point, either of the character or the story.
What Makes an Adaptation Good?
The problem with many books — and it’s not a problem really — is that they aren’t often suited well for the screen.
Most novels weren’t written to be adapted into two-hour movies, they’re written to be read and enjoyed over an extended period.
Tolkien’s books, for instance, are hard to fit into a standard Hollywood act structure because it takes far longer than a few hours to read them. More than that, books transport the reader into the minds of its characters in the way that doesn’t often translate to the screen.
This is true of Dracula, it’s true of The Lord of the Rings, and it’s true of so many others.
Good adaptations handle the material with care. They stay true to it, even if they embellish or change certain aspects. Likewise, the characters still feel like those we know from the book, as does the larger world itself.
Even if something isn’t a particularly direct adaptation of a previous work, it can still honor said material. Most Batman movies, for example, are inspired by specific comic book stories even if they don’t directly adapt them. Despite that, Batman, The Dark Knight, and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice all honor the Caped Crusader’s mythos in the hero’s characterization.4
Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings trilogy is similar. It respects much of Tolkien’s material — his attention to detail, his larger mythology, etc. — even if it changes quite a bit in the process. Some would go so far as to argue that Jackson’s trilogy isn’t a good adaptation per se, but rather a reinterpretation of the material.
So what would a good adaptation be then?
Well, Holes is a great example. The 2003 movie feels exactly like the novel. Yes, there are some minor differences, but the film is practically identical to what we read in the book. It feels truly like Louis Sachar’s novel was brought to life. Of course, Sachar wrote the screenplay himself, so that is likely a factor.
(Frankly, I believe more author’s ought to have a shot at adapting their own work.)
The Gregory Peck-led adaptation of Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird is another one that hits the nail right on the head, and it’s because the film refuses to compromise the story’s integrity. Folks have said the same about the Coen Brothers’ No Country For Old Men compared to the Cormac McCarthy novel (The Road is another excellent example), as well as The Exorcist, which was written for the screen by the author of the original novel, William Peter Blatty.
The Muppets Christmas Carol is a particularly profound adaptation of the Charles Dickens story because, aside from the Muppet element, it plays strikingly similar to the novel. It’s a bit more family friendly at times, sure (and it adds humor, music, and Muppets to the story), but none of that distracts or changes anything about Scrooge’s journey.
Also, Michael Caine plays Scrooge as if he’s performing on the stage. It’s incredible to watch.
While some here may disagree with me, I personally consider the Disney/Walden Media version of The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe a particularly faithful adaptation of C.S. Lewis’ novel. Yes, certain moments are added to increase tension5, but nothing integral to the material is removed.
In general, the pacing still feels in sync with Lewis’ story, and it’s still thrilling to see it brought to life on the screen. Aslan still feels like Aslan, as do each of the Pevensies, the Witch, and everyone else. It’s almost like they were ripped straight from the page.
Again, good adaptations may still change things from the original material.
It’s practically inevitable.
But I believe that the manner in which these changes are made, and the reasoning behind them, is what matters most.
This piece sort of got away from me. I could easily go on, but I’ll spare you all another rambling. Perhaps I’ll revisit the idea of adaptations again sometime in the future once I’ve completed my own…
Well, it’s November, which means it’s National Novel Writing Month!
Am I going to get a full novel out this fall? It’s highly unlikely. However, my goal is to pen at least two short stories and to knock out a few chapters of my WIP novel over the next 30 days, and I believe that is doable.
How is that going so far? Well, today is the first day. I’m writing this on November 1st, so I’ll update you all in December on my progress.
But don’t worry, I do have some exciting updates for you.
If you enjoyed my above post on adaptations, then you may be interested in my own short story inspired by the Iron Maiden song “Hallowed Be Thy Name.” It dropped on the Bright Morning Star Press section of my Substack here just yesterday on Halloween.
You can read that short story here.
As for the rest of the month, I have an early Christmas present for you...
Although I had originally written a new short story for publication, I’m going to be releasing the next prequel installment of The Bear-tooth Mountain Archive here as a weekly serial on my Substack!
Titled Honor Thy Father, this tale follows a young Jude Anthony as he first discovers the high-strangeness of Bear-tooth Mountain, and learns of his part in a prophecy foretold generations ago.
If you’ve never read my novella, The Beast of Bear-tooth Mountain, the good news is that you don’t have to!
Honor Thy Father is an entirely independent tale from the archive that will hopefully keep you engaged through the holidays. I’m not sure how many installments the story will equal out to just yet, but I hope you enjoy them.
WHAT I’M READING: Ultimate Spider-Man: Married With Children by Jonathan Hickman — I have a very love/hate relationship with modern comics. It feels like both Marvel and DC struggle to honor certain heroes these days. Spider-Man has often been hit-or-miss over the years, but this rebooted Ultimate Spider-Man book is amazing. The basic concept: instead of becoming Spidey as a teenager, Peter Parker gets his spider-powers as an adult, already married to Mary Jane and with two kids. It’s a great series so far, and I’m looking forward to the next volume!
WHAT I’M WATCHING: About Time — Aside from maybe Back to the Future, About Time is the best movie about time travel ever made. We rewatched this one recently after I fell in the mood and I immediately wanted to watch it again after it was over. Yes, there’s some suggestive material, but it’s the message of this time-warping rom-com that really sticks with you. About Time is slick, sweet, heartfelt, and a solemn reminder that tomorrow is promised to no one.
WHAT I’M LISTENING TO: “The Ballad of Paladin” by Johnny Western — Yes, the theme song from Have Gun - Will Travel. It’s been in my head ever since I wrote about the show for Collider recently, and I’m not ashamed to tell you I’ve played this live performance probably a dozen times in the past week. If you’ve seen Stand By Me, you probably remember that this is the tune the boys are singing while wandering the train tracks. Otherwise, you’re probably picturing Richard Boone.
Of course, this isn’t always a bad thing. Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury works despite Fury being white in the original Marvel Comics. But unless there’s a real reason for the change, this can often feel tacky, disingenuous, or even disrespectful to the original character or material. This can be especially frustrating when it comes to historical adaptations, but that’s another post entirely.
Don’t believe me? It’s true. Aside from cutting four chapters of The Fellowship of the Ring that include Tom Bombadil, the Jackson films also downplay Frodo’s heroism, give Aragorn a “struggling king” character arc, involves Elves in the Battle at Helm’s Deep (they were not there in the book), cut out about a dozen characters, ignores Faramir and Éowyn’s love story, and forgets entirely about the “Scouring of the Shire” ending of The Return of the King. It’s actually kinda crazy how much Jackson took out of the final product considering how long the Extended Editions are.
I can already hear the voice in the back of many’s heads as they read those words. “Well, isn’t that what The Rings of Power did with Sauron?” Of course it is. But I don’t think anyone, perhaps not even Amazon themselves, would consider Prime Video’s Lord of the Rings prequel very “honoring” to Tolkien’s material.
Though I’ve continued to watch the series out of curiosity (and because I’ve written about it professionally), I struggle with its continual straying from Tolkien’s clearly-established timeline. It has its moments, of course. Sauron in the second season is far more in step with the character Tolkien wrote about than he was in the first (he’s the world’s biggest gaslighter), but there’s still a lot that the show has failed to properly capture.
Some may have a hard time with me saying that about Michael Keaton’s Batman or Ben Affleck’s version because they kill (at least, on occasion), but it’s true. In early Batman comics, the Dark Knight killed some of his enemies, and in the case of Affleck’s Batman specifically, the whole point of Batman v Superman is that he learns what it means to truly be a hero. It feels very akin to certain Batman stories, even if it’s not one everyone enjoys.
Though I would argue that most of that (especially the film’s opening sequence) is needed to firmly establish the world in the audience’s mind.
I think The Hunger Games is an interesting film to examine in terms of adaptation. 1) The screenplay was also adapted by the author which helps, 2) it is pretty faithful to the books as a result, 3) it’s fascinating to look at what had to be changed due to the book being in 1st person POV throughout. Everything we see outside of what Katniss experiences had to be written or adapted especially for the film.
This was good!