ASK & DISCUSS INDEX

11 years, 9 months ago - Stephen Potts

Screenplay = 400metres hurdles. Novel = 10,000 metres.

Both are run on the track. Both require basic physical fitness and athleticism, but to do well requires different skills. You can develop endurance at 10,000 m and then work on sprint speed: you can't really do it the other way round. If you try to train for both at the same time you might get round the track OK but you won't win anything. You have to choose.

OK, laboured metaphor over. I'm with everyone else. Yes you can do both, but not at the same time - and the sequence should be book first, film later.

Stephen Potts

11 years, 9 months ago - Ed Griffiths

Hi Liz,

I'm someone who writes novels and then for fun adapts them to screenplay and sometimes also radioplay form. What I've found is that no matter how economically or sparingly you may think you've written your novel, when it comes to adapting it to a script you will have to change it substantially. The strength of your idea will show in how resilient it is in retaining its intended themes and meanings through the lens of either form.

Personally I like to write the novel first and see where it takes me, and explore all the possibilities of the narrative latent in my ideas for it. Once I'm finished initially editing I usually set it aside for awhile before I start thinking about a screenplay adaptation. I've never tried writing the two simultaneously, although it might be a fruitful experiment.

Best of luck with it!

11 years, 9 months ago - Corinne Foster

I was in exactly the same position and decided to write the novel first. I see it in my head as a film, which helps with the pace of the story, the dialogue and the characters as expressed through those. Doesn't help as much with the descriptive passages. What worked for me was to race through the first draft (without a detailed step outline, just a few milestones to hit) to get the story set. Then I went back and re-wrote a number of times to flesh out the descriptive passages and linking text. Also to build the feel for the characters in their description over the course of the book. From time to time on the first draft I would just add 'MORE HERE' so that I knew to go back and fill it out a bit.

I had a tendency to cut from one scene to another but this can be a bit disconcerting for the reader, making it feel too rushed for a book. I used a book editor who helped with me this ("you need more description here to set the scene"). For me the biggest difficulty is getting the balance between under- and over-describing. You must allow the reader to use their imagination but if you leave them too much to do they get a bit lost with what's going on.

11 years, 9 months ago - Marlom Tander

My first experience was with a novel I had written. The Director said he loved it and could we meet for lunch? He then asked me what I'd do to make it a movie. My answer - dump the entire middle, combine some characters, lose all the internal monlogue and focus on the plot. He said "writers dont talk like that, they always want everything from the novel in the movie". My response - they are two different ways of telling the same underlying story. One is several hours long and all the pics are in the mind of the reader, the other is 90mins and it's all in pictures given to the viewer.

If you think your story could work as a novel, I'd always write the novel first. You get to know the story much better that way.

cheers

11 years, 9 months ago - Paddy Robinson-Griffin

I can't claim to have any experience, but this week I re-watched the classic BBC adaptation of John Le Carré's "Smiley's People". It runs to 6 hours, but very very close to the novel. Trying to fit it into 90 mins would mean chopping out swathes of story and bluntening some details. If it had been written as a screenplay first, it wouldn't have been half the book it was. And where you get novels based on movies (one I remember from back in the 80's was War Games) they can feel a bit pappy or have extraneous storylines nailed on top that are irrelevant to moving the main story along.

I suppose based on that, I'd suggest getting the novel right, then adapting it. Based solely on being a consumer, not a fellow writer, that is.

11 years, 9 months ago - Vasco de Sousa

I know many who tried, but I wouldn't advise it. Dances With Wolves and The Princess Bride were both good novels and good screenplays, and both by a unique author, but they are exceptions. Also, I think the writer in both cases worked on one at a time, but you could do more research on how they did it. From what I understood, they wrote their novels first.

Jurassic Park was adapted by the novel writer, and turned out okay, but it was adapted later. Looking For Alibrandi, again, first a book, then a script.

I think there's a pattern here. Write the book first.

11 years, 9 months ago - Professional Writing Academy Ltd

Definitely write the novel first!