A book or a TV show?
Which is the best vehicle for a story?
- Thread starter Joe Washington
- Start date
Let's say a long-form, serialized story.
Again it depends on the story being told. A well crafted story is tailored specifically for the medium it's being told in.
Novels vs TV shows have vastly different strengths and weaknesses. For instance, a novel is better at getting you inside the head of a main character but TV shows are better at interpersonal chemistry between characters (since the characters are inhabited by actors who might be able to bring chemistry to the story that otherwise would be conveyed only through dialogue - which the TV show can also use, of course).
So I guess it depends on what's more important to the story. A story that focuses relentlessly on a single main character might be better as a novel. A story that depends on interactions between many characters might be better as a TV show.
So I guess it depends on what's more important to the story. A story that focuses relentlessly on a single main character might be better as a novel. A story that depends on interactions between many characters might be better as a TV show.
One of the strengths and weaknesses of books is that they're told with a single voice(typically) and a single vision, as created by the author. TV shows, even ones run by micro-managers like Whedon or JMS are communal projects that have a lot of input from different people, which can and does weaken, or in some cases strengthen a story.
Yeah, I have to second that. The comparison can't be made. "24" would not work as a novel or series of novels. Charles Dickens, meanwhile, published his works in serialized form in magazines and there are people who believe making a completely successful film or TV adaptation is physically impossible (despite the many attempts over the years). Shakespeare is impossible to properly appreciate through reading because it was never meant to be read as literature, only performed in theatre.
Alex
As others have said, it depends on the story. In the light of the decline of serialized television, I would say novels are the best vehicle for that type pf story as long as it can be completed.
Robert Jordan lost sight of the end of his epic and died before he was able to finish it.
Stephen King's Dark Tower series was finished and definitely would not have worked as a TV series since it was way to surreal for most audiences.
Anne McCaffrey finished the main arc of her Pern series some time ago, but she and her son have now gone back to an earlier period and created a whole new arc to work from.
Sir Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels have several arcs to them, in a manner of speaking.
It depends on the type of story you want to tell and what the likely timescale for the story is. It also depends on your strengths. If you are better at writing a script than a novel then you're likely to tell the story better in that format.
Robert Jordan lost sight of the end of his epic and died before he was able to finish it.
Stephen King's Dark Tower series was finished and definitely would not have worked as a TV series since it was way to surreal for most audiences.
Anne McCaffrey finished the main arc of her Pern series some time ago, but she and her son have now gone back to an earlier period and created a whole new arc to work from.
Sir Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels have several arcs to them, in a manner of speaking.
It depends on the type of story you want to tell and what the likely timescale for the story is. It also depends on your strengths. If you are better at writing a script than a novel then you're likely to tell the story better in that format.
Similar threads
