From: Cassie Wilson <cwilson2>
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2003 01:08:55 -0400

I've been thinking sort of the same thing. I think it's just that the members of this listserv all know that just about any book is better than its movie, so there's little more to say.

I think that besides the obvious reasons of Hollywood's obsession with sensationalism and the need to shorten a book to show within a reasonable length of time, a book will always seem better to most people because the movie belongs so much more to its maker, its producer or whoever. It is a rather finished piece, stamped out "in black and white." A book depends on the reader as a partner in the creative process. It comes right into our minds and souls and instantly clicks into our memories and senses to make it into something real and thereby becomes more real to us than a mere picture, even if it walks and talks, can ever be. And we can keep on and keep on adding to it.

Besides, a book has more interesting details, psychological insight that is harder to impart via movie, beautiful language possibly, neat turns of phrase, side observations that won't fit into a movie, and a chance to stop and digest.

A book on tape, now, is a totally different discussion.

I do miss the comments and communications of people I've almost come to think of as friends, or at least acquaintances. At least, thank goodness, there are no stumpers! Cassie Wilson
Received on Sun 03 Aug 2003 12:08:55 AM CDT