The Book was Better

Last week, I wrote in this blog that books are better than movies. I was referring, of course, to books that are made into movies.

I have taken a highly unscientific survey and found that in general, people who see a movie that was based on a book usually leave the theater saying, “That was good, but I liked the book better.”

A recent case in point: The Hunger Games. I am the first person to admit that the movie was great, but it simply wasn’t as good as Suzanne Collins’ book. It’s not the fault of the movie producers…they made the best movie they could in the time allotted. A movie that closely followed the book would take many hours to watch and few people would take the time to go see it. But a lot gets left off the screen. The subtleties and nuances of each character and their relationships don’t have time to be explored.

But that’s not all that gets lost when a book becomes a movie. When I read a book, I’m constantly using my mind to picture the settings and the characters. When I see a movie, all that work has been done for me. I merely have to follow the plot. I like having to come up with the physical characteristics of people and places for myself. An author’s idea of what a character or place looks like is almost certainly different from my idea, but that’s okay. I only need the idea in my own head to enjoy a book. There have even been times when I’ve disagreed with an author’s description of a character’s physical appearance. When that happens, I can simply adjust the character’s appearance in my own head to what I think it should be. Have you ever seen a movie and then read the book? Or read a book, then seen the movie, then tried to read the book again? It’s almost impossible to see the characters and settings in your own head differently from the way they appeared on the big screen. Before I saw “The Hunger Games,” I didn’t imagine Katniss Everdeen looking like Jennifer Lawrence. Now I can’t even remember what “my” Katniss Everdeen looked like. She will always and forever look like Jennifer Lawrence. The same is true for the rest of the characters.

How about one of my favorite books, “Pride and Prejudice?” The first time I read it, I formed my own opinion of what Elizabeth Bennett looked like. Ditto for Mr. D’Arcy. I purposely avoided watching the old movie based on the book because I knew it would destroy my opinions of what the characters looked like. But when the “new” movie came out in 2005, I had to see it. It got such great reviews that I couldn’t in good conscience miss it. And you know what? Same thing happened. Now, as far as I’m concerned, Elizabeth Bennett looks just like Keira Knightley and Mr. D’Arcy is a dead ringer for Matthew Macfadyen. I can’t remember what the characters looked like in my own mind, but they looked different, of that I am sure.

And there are so many more…Harry Potter (all of them), Twilight (all of them), The Great Gatsby, The Chronicles of Narnia (all of them), Oliver Twist, etc., etc. The list goes on for miles. I have to admit that I haven’t seen all of the movies based on these books, nor would I want to. But I’d be willing to bet that the books were better in each and every case.

Having said that, in my decidedly unscholarly research I have actually found two exceptions to the rule. Perhaps not surprisingly, they are both Disney movies based on books. The first is “Peter Pan.” I tried to read the book once and couldn’t get through it. I was bored and confused. But the movie? One of my favorites. I’m always asking my kids if they want to watch it with me (they always say no). Likewise, the second one is “Alice in Wonderland.” I didn’t like the book, no offense to Lewis Carroll. But the movie is delightful. Perhaps my feeble mind is simply unwilling to dig deep into the book, but it’s much easier and more enjoyable for me to watch the Disney adaptation of the story.

In my humble opinion, the book is almost always better, Peter Pan and Alice notwithstanding. Do you agree? Disagree? What are your personal exceptions? I’d love to hear from you.

Until next week,


6 thoughts on “The Book was Better”

  1. Hmm….When I read the Hunger Games, I don’t remember picturing what the characters looked like. I did however think that Peeta would be taller then he was in the movie….I liked the movies, but agree the books were better – mostly because of the way the story was told. In the books, we saw what Katniss was thinking, we saw her feelings about both men in her life. The movie did not show that as much.

    When I read Harry Potter, I had vague visions of what everyone looked like, but after seeing the movies, I pictured Daniel, Emma, and Rupert as Harry, Hermione, and Ron in the subsequent books. If the actors did not stick with the whole franchise, I do not know what I would have done!

    In Twilight….this is probably an unpopular opinion, but I’ll say it anyway. When I read the books, I did not like Edward or Bella. I did like the rest of the Cullen family and I did like Jacob. When the movies came out, I hoped that my opinion of Bella and Edward would change…sadly, it did not.

    In most cases, I think books are better than the movie version. The Lord of the Rings – movie trilogy was close to the books (although a good portion of The Two Towers was left out of the movie – which was okay with me) and the television version of The Stand was excellent.


    1. Hi, Kristen,

      I thought Peeta would be taller, too! Thanks for stopping by and leaving a comment. I hope you’re staying safe and warm and dry in this lovely weather we’re having!


  2. “Primary Colors” the movie was better than the book, in my opinion, because the ending was more definitive. Also (speaking as a geek) there are some ways in which the “Lord of the Rings” movies are better than the books: 1. Better pacing and 2. The female characters actually get stuff to do. “The Hobbit” film, though, put me to sleep.

    “Peter Pan” the movie is definitely more fun, but the ending of “Peter Pan” the book made more sense.

    I do enjoy seeing how the filmmaker envisions a character — it’s like seeing the book through their eyes. Except when they get it wrong and I get mad. 🙂


    1. Hi, Marlaina,

      I have to admit that I didn’t see the “Lord of the Rings” movies, so I can’t speak to those. Have you heard of the Bechdel test that’s being used in Sweden to gauge whether a movie promotes gender equality? The “Lord of the Rings” movie would probably get a better test score than the books.

      And I hate it when the filmmaker gets it wrong!

      Thanks for stopping by and leaving your input!


  3. Hello Amy,

    I personally think that the book is better, for two reasons. One is the book sparks my imagination, because I can picture the scene, the characters, basically everything in the book. The other reason is is that, well, I just like the feel of a book in my hands. In my opinion, the Hunger Games book was much, much better than the movie. I had pictured Katniss as someone who was much different than Jennifer Lawrence, but, like you said, I cannot even remember how I pictured her. And I love to watch Peter Pan, when I’m given opportunity.

    Can’t wait for your next post,
    Rebecca H.


    1. Hi Rebecca,

      There’s something undefinable about holding a book in your hands that a movie can’t replicate. Not only that, but a movie requires strict attention for up to three hours or so, but a book can be set down and picked up again if you have other things requiring your attention.

      Thanks for stopping by and leaving your comment!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.