Category: discussion

Aria @ Book Nook Bits will be the new host for Let’s Talk Bookish! If you aren’t following her yet, good check out her blog and give her a follow!

June 24: Book to Film Adaptations (Aria)

Prompts: What are your favorite book to film adaptations? What are your least favorite ones? Do you think that books translate better to movies or shows? Would you rather see a standalone or a book series adapted? What do you think is important for a successful book to film adaptation?

---

Welcome back to LTB here at DTRH, everyone! Today’s topic is often discussed and I think in this community, probably often agreed upon too. But I’d still like to hear what you all think, just in case I’m mistaken. I assume most of us prefer books; after all, why are we all here?

I would say I really enjoyed The Lord of the Rings series. Okay, true I haven’t really read the books, but neither do I have a particular interest in doing so. However, I do like the movies. Some books just lend themselves to cinematics, and the beautiful scenery that normally takes endless pages of descriptions can be wrought all at once in one panoramic shot. Such is the power of film.

One drawback of films is the inability to convey thoughts, unless there is some (cheesy?) voiceover. Emotions may also be difficult to get across, as they can be subtle, and often at the ability of the actors themselves. As such, books that are more about the thought process and the internal growth of characters do not always translate well into film, or at least have a slightly more difficult time. Books and words have their own drawbacks too, like being unable to have things literally be in the background, unspoken, yet seen.

I assume a standalone would often translate into a movie, whereas a series could become something like a trilogy or perhaps a TV series. Of course, this is not always the case, depending on the amount of content in the books. I think I would rather see something adapted that is longer in nature. While movies can be good, there is only so much you can fit into two to three hours. A series allows more character development and growth, and possible exploration of sidelines if the director so chooses. In general, I want to be able to enjoy the growth of the characters thoroughly (as can be the case in books), and I would like to see that reflected in movies.

I think some books just don’t lend itself well to movie adaptations, because there are parts that may just be a character thinking to themselves, walking through the woods. Too many of such scenes does not lend itself well to cinematography, and I can understand why often times things need to be adjusted from the book to fit the camera. I think both are valid and legitimate ways of enjoying a story, and that there is definitely a time and place for both.

I know Game of Thrones has many fans (both the TV series and the books), though I have personally not really dove into either. Do any of you out there know the comparison? I feel like I have heard many opinions on both sides, and I just wonder what the general opinion is.

How do you all feel about books vs movies? Anything you look for in particular? Or do you find that movie/film adaptations of your favourite books are often a let down? For me, I feel like my favourite books have way too much to fit into a movie, and therefore I am often disappointed (and left wanting) by the film. Does anyone feel the same way?

---

Aria @ Book Nook Bits will be the new host for Let’s Talk Bookish! If you aren’t following her yet, good check out her blog and give her a follow!

June 17: Books on Vacation (suggested by me!)

Prompts: What books do you like to bring on vacation? Do you bring any books at all? What kind of books do you think are good for a vacation? How much time do you usually have to read on vacation? What does an ideal vacation with a book look like?

Welcome everyone to another week of LTB here at DTRH. Yes yes, today is another topic suggested by yours truly, and just something I was thinking of randomly one day. I always want to bring a book on a relaxing vacation, but how much I get to read it…well, that always remains to be seen. Yet I always feel bad if I don’t plan on bringing one, what’s up with that?

I will usually bring something paperback and portable. After all, bringing Harry Potter: The Order of the Phoenix is likely not the light reading I will be doing on a beach (in the shade). I suppose it also depends if this is a snowy winter retreat or a summertime bbq outing. But this is definitely the time to pull out those “cozy” mysteries or other light reads that might make you enjoy your surroundings more.

I do usually end up bringing a book for more vacations, if not just to fill up the inevitable down-times like waiting for transit or queuing up for something. E-books (or library apps) have also made this particularly convenient. I’m not sure if it’s the idea of bringing a book to read or actually bringing a book to read that gets me more. It’s probably one of those catch 22s: you’ll miss it if you don’t bring it, but won’t read it if you do, and either way you’ll feel a small regret. Anyone else get that?

I think in general, if it’s a relaxing type of vacation, lots of time to chill and read in a nice and calming environment can be very healing. On the other hand, trying to cram in reading time in a jam-packed adventure is probably not the best idea. I think I’ll usually try to read in downtimes, or when hiding from blazing sun, or perhaps right before sleeping when activities are winding down. Do any of you read outside? I am an indoor person in general, but I think reading in a hammock could be quite relaxing too.

My ideal vacation with a book would definitely be one where there are activities to do, but then downtimes to decompress and be with myself. I need those times to myself where I don’t have to interact with others, and I think a book provides a perfect excuse for just that (aside from a nice nap, of course). How do you all enjoy your vacations? Or perhaps are your vacations a time away from your books? Let me know in the comments below!

---

Aria @ Book Nook Bits will be the new host for Let’s Talk Bookish! If you aren’t following her yet, good check out her blog and give her a follow!

June 10: Do you prefer first or third person narration?  (Mikaela @ Mikaela Reads)

Prompts: What kinds of narration do you prefer? First person? Third person objective? Third person omniscient? Third person limited? What are the pros and cons of different kinds of narration?

* Third person objective: The facts of a narrative are reported by a seemingly neutral, impersonal observer or recorder. | Third person omniscient: An all-knowing narrator not only reports the facts but may also interpret events and relate the thoughts and feelings of any character. | Third person limited: A narrator reports the facts and interprets events from the perspective of a single character.

Welcome to another week of LTB here at DTRH! Ever since I saw this on the schedule last week for the month of June, I was excited to share my thoughts a bit on this topic. But not only that, I also want to know if there’s a divide in the community with a preference over one or the other. Can’t wait to here what you all have to say!

For me, I’m not sure if it’s actually my preferred, hands down all the time, but I think I tend to like the first person narration. Of course, this is probably unsurprising because I enjoy mysteries and thrillers. For me, the first person narration certainly adds a level of suspense, and I like “finding out” the mystery and going through the suspense in the perspective of the main character. It’s also nice to get their thoughts on it to really help me immerse in the content.

I also enjoy third person limited for basically the same reasons. The limited knowledge can really add to the suspense and sometimes it’s nice to be on the close sidelines without being in the actual perspective of the main character(s). This is also more effective when there are multiple POVs and it may not be the most appropriate to use first person for all of them, though I have seen that as well.

Third person omniscient can also be good for mysteries and thrillers but the crafting will take more finesse, and the story usually has to be more complicated and messy. That is because the reader will know more than the characters, and will generally be able to predict, or at least see ahead a little bit of the characters. This can be used to create effective foreshadowing if executed correctly. Third person objective can also be used in a similar way without this drawback, but it also has some execution challenges because you don’t want to be so much on the bystander lines that the reader is not engaged.

The POV or narration that is chosen greatly affects the tone of a book. While I have never liked a book except for its chosen narration, it certainly frames how I think about each book, and even lends certain emphasis to things (like character development, etc., depending on the perspective). I find myself tending to prefer the exciting ride of first person, or at least, any perspective that really throws me into the drama as well so that I can experience the confusion and the clearing up, and that really gets me engaged. I am probably less picky about general YA, and for something like fantasy with a lot of description, a more wide-scope view like third person omniscient or objective can also provide a lot of value.

What perspectives do you all enjoy? Is it because of the genres you read, or just because you enjoy the perspective overall? Let me know in the comments below!

---