Print: 29 Oct 2025
Novel or film adaptation – which tells the story better?
Representational image
When a beloved novel hits the big screen, readers and filmgoers often find themselves at odds: which version tells the story better — the novel or its cinematic adaptation? The debate is as old as filmmaking itself, and both sides have passionate supporters.
For many, the novel holds the upper hand. A book allows readers to dive deep into a character’s inner thoughts, savour the author’s style, and imagine the world in their own way. Every word, pause and emotion comes directly from the writer, unfiltered by screen constraints. Reading becomes an intimate journey — one that unfolds at a reader’s pace.
On the other hand, films bring stories to life through visuals, sound, and performance. A strong adaptation can compress hundreds of pages into a gripping two-hour experience, using acting, music, and cinematography to evoke emotions that even the most descriptive prose might struggle to achieve. For those who lack time or patience for long novels, films provide quick and accessible storytelling.
However, adaptations often face the challenge of omission. Filmmakers must condense complex plots and characters, sometimes altering or removing key scenes. As a result, book lovers often complain that films “miss the essence” of the original work. Still, others argue that adaptation is an art of its own — not meant to be a replica but a reinterpretation of the source material.
There are many examples where films have outshone their literary origins. The Godfather (1972), adapted from Mario Puzo’s novel, became a cinematic masterpiece and is now far more renowned than the book itself. Similarly, Jaws (1975) turned Peter Benchley’s novel into a cultural phenomenon that defined the modern blockbuster. Forrest Gump (1994) and The Shawshank Redemption (1994) — both based on lesser-known books — became iconic films beloved across generations. Even Jurassic Park (1993), Fight Club (1999), and The Devil Wears Prada (2006) gained far wider fame on screen than they ever did in print.
Classics such as The Lord of the Rings, The Godfather, and Pride and Prejudice have shown that when done with care, film adaptations can both honour and elevate their literary origins. Yet there are also examples where poor screenwriting or rushed storytelling have disappointed readers, leaving them longing for the depth of the printed page.
Ultimately, neither form is truly “better.” The novel allows for introspection and imagination, while the film provides immediacy and visual immersion. The best experience, perhaps, lies in appreciating both — reading the novel to understand the mind behind the story, and watching the film to see how that imagination takes form on screen.
After all, stories are not confined by medium; they live on through the emotions they stir, whether found in the quiet pages of a book or flickering across a theatre screen.
For all latest news, follow the Daily Sun's Google News channel.
More From Entertainment
More From Entertainment
Novel or film adaptation – which tells the story better?
Representational image
When a beloved novel hits the big screen, readers and filmgoers often find themselves at odds: which version tells the story better — the novel or its cinematic adaptation? The debate is as old as filmmaking itself, and both sides have passionate supporters.
For many, the novel holds the upper hand. A book allows readers to dive deep into a character’s inner thoughts, savour the author’s style, and imagine the world in their own way. Every word, pause and emotion comes directly from the writer, unfiltered by screen constraints. Reading becomes an intimate journey — one that unfolds at a reader’s pace.
On the other hand, films bring stories to life through visuals, sound, and performance. A strong adaptation can compress hundreds of pages into a gripping two-hour experience, using acting, music, and cinematography to evoke emotions that even the most descriptive prose might struggle to achieve. For those who lack time or patience for long novels, films provide quick and accessible storytelling.
However, adaptations often face the challenge of omission. Filmmakers must condense complex plots and characters, sometimes altering or removing key scenes. As a result, book lovers often complain that films “miss the essence” of the original work. Still, others argue that adaptation is an art of its own — not meant to be a replica but a reinterpretation of the source material.
There are many examples where films have outshone their literary origins. The Godfather (1972), adapted from Mario Puzo’s novel, became a cinematic masterpiece and is now far more renowned than the book itself. Similarly, Jaws (1975) turned Peter Benchley’s novel into a cultural phenomenon that defined the modern blockbuster. Forrest Gump (1994) and The Shawshank Redemption (1994) — both based on lesser-known books — became iconic films beloved across generations. Even Jurassic Park (1993), Fight Club (1999), and The Devil Wears Prada (2006) gained far wider fame on screen than they ever did in print.
Classics such as The Lord of the Rings, The Godfather, and Pride and Prejudice have shown that when done with care, film adaptations can both honour and elevate their literary origins. Yet there are also examples where poor screenwriting or rushed storytelling have disappointed readers, leaving them longing for the depth of the printed page.
Ultimately, neither form is truly “better.” The novel allows for introspection and imagination, while the film provides immediacy and visual immersion. The best experience, perhaps, lies in appreciating both — reading the novel to understand the mind behind the story, and watching the film to see how that imagination takes form on screen.
After all, stories are not confined by medium; they live on through the emotions they stir, whether found in the quiet pages of a book or flickering across a theatre screen.