The book is always better than the movie

Hello again, fellow book lovers!

Let me begin by saying I love movies. They’re able to sweep us off our feet with visual effects, compelling storylines and impressive acting. However, watching movies is a very one-sided experience. I’m told how to explicitly brand the characters, and the plot shoves itself down my throat to make sure I don’t miss the slightest details. I find it extremely frustrating to be given no wiggle room for a varying opinion or interpretation. Therefore, I never get excited when one of my favorite books is "coming soon to a theater near me." Simply put, the movie is never as good as the book.

This is a multifaceted argument; there are plenty of times when a movie adaptation is more visually intriguing or packs a greater punch with creative plot twists. Often movies use a book’s synopsis as a starting base, taking the same characters and situations but coming up with their own conclusions. When people compare the quality of a book to its movie counterpart, they usually focus on changes in plot. “Which extremely minor character that I loved in the book didn’t even get a mention in the movie?” (I’m looking at you, "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" (2005). Where are my blast-ended skrewts?) However, these kinds of changes do not begin to cover what books have to offer that movies don’t: namely, imaginative freedom.

Think of it this way. When I read a book that is particularly descriptive, as my favorite books usually are, I develop an entire visual summary in my head. I assign portraits to certain characters and map out the scenery based on the descriptions provided. Better narratives lead to clearer images in my head, but I actually prefer vaguer descriptions as they allow me to come up with features that I think suit a character or situation best. I get to play an active role in how I see the story. I am able to develop opinions and make predictions based on what I know about the characters and the decisions they make. The material in books isn’t set in stone: it’s more of map -- the physically written storyline provides a good idea of the beginning and end destinations and the best route to take between them. However, it doesn’t account for the dozens of winding back roads of individual thought that can lead you on an adventure that was completely unplanned.

Movies, on the other hand, are the exact opposite. They spend so much time making sure audiences are aware of certain details that are important to plot points later on. Plus, there’s the added disappointment when scenes or characters don’t look how I imagined them while reading. Granted, there is a very small chance that something would exactly match the images I’ve conjured, but I’m always hopeful there will be a perfect visual representation to bring my ideas to life.

While there are some films that allow for variation in their presentation, movies generally disappoint me with their insistence on an inflexible plot. It is harder to be flexible when presenting a story in a short period of time, but by sacrificing a more open-ended plot, movies often lose the grasp that books so easily provide. There is always a sense of adventure when picking up a book. Those who read carefully are rewarded with sneak peeks into the future, while those seeing the same foreshadowed clues in a movie don’t have to actively seek them out. Reading always takes more work, but the satisfaction of forging a new path is a creative bonus not everyone gets to experience.