Novel vs. Screenplay, As Observed by a Novice

One of the side hobbies (that may turn into a freelance gig at some point) is editing screenplays. Although I've mentioned before that I once loved to write stories in the form of radio plays, I have to admit that until I started editing screenplays and noting the differences between editing those and editing my own novels, I didn't much consider which techniques were stronger between the two.

The obvious difference is in the output. A novel is not expressly used to manipulate the visual medium. While books often become visual media (games, movies, etc.), one of the many reasons 'the book is (mostly) better than the movie' (and I can note quite a few exceptions, and have) is because novels often employ more perspectives that the camera is not able to capture. Of course, there are ways that directors can employ novel elements, but when you encumber a visual medium with two many nuanced elements, it can destroy pace and become tedious.

Internal thought processes, direct narration, and multiple perspectives are often not employed in visual medium, yet they can use the benefits of elements like montages and vignette-edged flashbacks to delve into a character's mindset or history. I wouldn't say there are exactly limitations to what is possible as much as there are just more effective ways to do each one.

It's possible to end up being too 'novel' as a screenplay writer or too focused on the visual to take advantage of writing a novel. A novel isn't necessarily richer. A screenplay has to be considerate enough of the 3D space and staging, yet still give a director room to play in. Both novels and screenplays don't need to be completely detail-obsessed and, whether in the hands of a reader or director, whoever consumes it is likely to have a preference for either filling in the blanks for themselves or frustrated that the work is just too vague and needed a lot more detail.

A screenplay doesn't have to fuck with the big reveal. In fact, it's often necessary to cue the direction where recurring themes will later connect. You're not playing coy when it comes to weaving intent, yet at the same time, you are creating an air of mystery for the first read-through. Even with the markers of intent there, you're still not blatantly throwing in an 'oh, this is where you first suspect this character is the killer.' Instead, you're noting that there is a flicker of menace that makes another character swallow with apprehension, eager to chalk it up to imagination when the suspicious character pastes on a smile and talks in a comforting tone again. Because this is a missable element, it sometimes creates an element more intriguing on a repeat viewing. It can be tricky to create these elements (and that's a really generic one, to be frank) but the idea that screenplays are somehow less deep is absurd. It's not a popsicle stick puppet show, not when it's done well.

Really, anyone CAN write a screenplay or novel, but whether it's actually done well (taste being moot) is a matter of technique.

Upon inspection, you can find examples of where novels and screenplays successfully use their strengths to borrow from the other. Yet each must uniquely consider the efficacy of their elements. You still shouldn't bog down a visual medium with drawn-out thoughts and feelings (although novels can't really pull it off in excess either) nor should you make your novel a play-by-play of visual fuckery. Can you? Yes. And some readers might even want that. Although you can hardly be surprised that it's a very niche market and you can hardly be surprised that it's largely unpopular.

In fact, despite Tolkien and Martin's commercial success, many writers who attempt to draw out their novels with obsessive detail are often met with frustration that their efforts aren't nearly as successful. However, they are also often missing the hook--Tolkien and Martin have intriguing characters. This is a lot harder to hook than technique can hand you. Detailed fiction is a dime a dozen; characters others give a shit about are much more difficult to create. As a writer, you probably have a blind spot for how charming your characters actually are.

I mean, of course, I love my characters. They're like family. That's part of the problem. We often tolerate or overlook a lot of shit family does that we wouldn't stick around for with anyone else. No matter how clinical I am, how willing I am to sacrifice, humiliate, empower or transform my characters, there's still the likelihood that they just aren't jibing and my story is as fun as a high school history book without a cast a reader can care about.

Eh, I'm straying, but what else is new... I've never been too keen on developing the art of blogging. It really just gives me a place to babble so I'm not unfollowed for it on social media. On that note, I have a few things to wrap up today. Today is more editing for a friend and hopefully a start to designing my new business cards. Except my fish have been territorial pains-in-the-ass lately and keep splashing the hood when chasing each other, so it's been distracting to work in my room these days. Not really comfortable to work much anywhere else in the house though, so there's always something.

Rainy days are just so damned good for the arting though...