Writers who want to interfere with adaptations of their work are basically undemocratic. The book still stands as an entity on its own.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
I don't understand it when people get cross about how one of their works was adapted and say, 'Oh, they ruined it!' Well, the book is still there.
Oftentimes when you see adaptations of books you like, you're let down. As an author, you assume that they are going to suck. A little bit of hope is dangerous.
Unfortunately, the author of a book pretty much gives up control of the story when the producers take over a book to make it into a movie.
The issue of doing an adaptation of a book is the theater of the mind, and so you always face that.
Obviously there's a lot more to a TV show than just a book... I think adaptations are a bit tricky for the screenwriters because they're worried about upsetting the author.
I think my background in film taught me that a great book adaptation is not always slavishly faithful to the source material.
Often in the past, there have been authors that were deeply disappointed in their adaptation, but that's because they haven't accepted the fact that a movie is a different thing, and it can't possibly be the same as the book.
As a writer, you live in such isolation. It's hard to imagine your book has a life beyond you.
Novels demand a certain complexity of narrative and scope, so it's necessary for the characters to change.
Some writers get snooty about what happens when their books are adapted to film, but I don't feel that way.
No opposing quotes found.