Movies vs. Novels - Structure and Technique

I agree with you, as I've heard quite a few folks describe their work in movie terms, and say how they see their story unfold like a movie in their head. And I've read plenty of openings that were clearly influenced by movies, especially thrillers or spy flicks. You can practically hear the Bond theme in the background. Of course, most of those openings fall flat because they're just description and have no soul ie: characters.

I'm a huge movie buff, but I also read a ton. I suspect the "movie writers" get most of their story consumption from movies and TV, so they see stories in a visual format vs a written one. Especially the ones with fantastic premises, but no "story" per se because there's no character driving the plot. Theidea would make a great movie for sure, but where's the story past 90 minutes of effects?

Personally I believe in a happy medium: cinematic narrative with deep insight into characters.

The so-called "movie in the head" was where I started out as a writer. It took years to develop a "story on the page" starting viewpoint, and I'm still caught frequently with the movie.

What happens to me is a movie-like shortcut that shows up in subsequent editing and tends to develop shallow story lines and characters. I still work hard at watching the words unfold instead of watching the mental actors.

Not sure I've put this very well, but it gets down to working with word craft rather than film directing. I think...

Interesting.

I think the remedy to this problem is to simply make our whole lives a study in life. To pay attention not only to cinematic artists' impressions of the world, but also to our own. In this way, our writing can only be improved even when we learn from other art--like movies.

(Don't worry, I'm not calling Survivor or America's Next Top Model art. But movies are a separate medium even from TV, I think.)

Often when I write, I visualize the scene like a movie scene, all digitally altered and not quite like real life at all. It helps me feel the tone better. Still, I make an effort to pay due attention to all five senses.

The best part about writing for me is getting into a character's head. So I work always toward a balance of compelling description and compelling character.

I'm a member of the youngest generation, the one most affected by TV, probably, but honestly I think it's just a matter of how much observation you do in your daily life.

I think Fennel makes a valid point with regard to sight and sound being the only two senses most writers bother with, these days.

From the point of view of a published author who writes thrillers, there's a pressure to maintain a certain level of pace throughout, which can mean establishing a location/char description with the sort of shorthand technique a screenwriter would use.

I'm certainly guilty of neglecting smell....I just don't seem to have much time/space in my novels to dwell too much on that, or taste, or touch. Obviously in scenes where an odour/taste/texture is relevant, it gets a look-in, but other than that, there's simply too much going on to stop and fill in those details.

As for using cinematic terminology - I think it's a more recogniseable vernacular. Sadly, most people spend more time gawping at a screen than they do reading, so I guess it's natural that we discuss story movement in terms of scenes and acts and camera angles and segues.

But one thing writing truly trumps with, that film struggles with....is internal monologue. I mean, you can get away with some (Bladerunner - Deckard's voice overs) but too much tries a cinema audience's patience. You need to be good with writing characters to make best use of that trump suit imho. But if you can...your book is likely to leave a much longer lasting impression than a movie.

I have read Jonathan Kellerman using BEAT for pauses in his novels.

in both movies and writing, you essentially have the same very broad storytelling method; introduction (act I), rising tension (act II) and conclusion/resolution (act III). if we're not taught this, we pick up on it by rote (especially from films).

the difference, imo, is that scripts (and let's not confuse screenwriting with what you see in film) are much more structured. in a 'high concept' script (meaning one meant to hit as many marketing 'quadrants' as possible for the highest possible mass appeal), you generally want to hit the right 'beats,' or plot points in a novel.

that's the difference. the problem is that the 'visual' writer, someone who thinks in terms of recording their mental movie into fiction, too often doesn't have the understanding of screenwriting. (note: not that i necessarily do. i read a book. whoopedy-do.) what they wind up having is an adaptation of sorts, neither a script that hits all the right beats or a novel that's not taken advantage of the freedom of its medium. i can very much imagine these 'visual' writers coming up with an inadequate word count and not know why, then, to beef it up, starts to add 'set pieces' that neither propel the story forward or adds to the character.

the fallacy of the novelist is thinking that scripts are 1) easy to write and therefore beneath them and/or 2) scripts, being often so highly structured, offer far less freedom to the 'creative mind.' i ask you, what requires more creativity, having a virtually unlimited playground to work with (and no budget constraints!) or trying to be unique in a medium that's pretty restrictive in a lot of ways? novelists aren't always the people doing the screen adaptation ~ there's a good reason for that, that reason being there's a difference between being a novelist and a screenwriter. being one doesn't automatically equate to adequacy in the other.

why was 'eragon' such a popular book but such an awful movie? well, probably because the book was awful, too, but there are surely other reasons. casting may have been a reason. you decide. but, it's funny to note how many 'great' books we've read that were simply awful movies. why is that?

what i find interesting is how you can retell the same story that's been told umpteen times and one's a masterpiece and the other is garbage. perfect example: 'star wars' and 'willow.' both follow practically the same structure. hell, both were george lucas. why then was one a phenomenon and the other entirely forgetable if they're essentially the same movie in so many ways? for that matter, why do i love 'deal or no deal' when it's really about the dumbest thing ever on t.v.? true, i love watching idiots piss away 125K (the point at where you should stop and run with the money), but there's honestly not much more than faux tension and fake boobs propping the premise up.

why did dan brown sell so many books?

oops, i strayed from the topic. so unlike me. (country music sucks.)

voice overs aren't encouraged. nevermind that you hear them all the time. still, you can do that, though it'll never be the same in-depth coverage as you'd get in a first-person novel. problem with that is you have to actually write a GOOD first-person novel. with as many novelists who thinks scripts are easy there are newbie novelists who think first-person is the way to go 'because it's easier.' and let's be perfectly honest, the majority of 'thoughts' in a novel are basically worthless, though if you removed them you'd seem to have a pretty flimsy, one-dimensional character.

for example, you may have a character come to a fork in the road and stop to decide which way to go. in a novel, you're likely to have some internal debate which we have to read, 'thoughts' or no. you're almost obliged to give that situation a moment's consideration. a movie, pfft, he looks down both ways, and you *know* what he's thinking.

it's spots like those where in a movie we know that they're thinking, but in a novel we're so inclined to 'discuss' it with the reader, and it's their expectation anyway, that you have to basically spend a lot of time, energy and words needlessly on bullshit.

preyer said:

voice overs aren't encouraged. nevermind that you hear them all the time. still, you can do that, though it'll never be the same in-depth coverage as you'd get in a first-person novel. problem with that is you have to actually write a GOOD first-person novel. with as many novelists who thinks scripts are easy there are newbie novelists who think first-person is the way to go 'because it's easier.' and let's be perfectly honest, the majority of 'thoughts' in a novel are basically worthless, though if you removed them you'd seem to have a pretty flimsy, one-dimensional character.

for example, you may have a character come to a fork in the road and stop to decide which way to go. in a novel, you're likely to have some internal debate which we have to read, 'thoughts' or no. you're almost obliged to give that situation a moment's consideration. a movie, pfft, he looks down both ways, and you *know* what he's thinking.

it's spots like those where in a movie we know that they're thinking, but in a novel we're so inclined to 'discuss' it with the reader, and it's their expectation anyway, that you have to basically spend a lot of time, energy and words needlessly on bullshit.

Click to expand...

But you don't *have* to write crappy thoughts into your novel.

If you're a competent writer, the words you use to describe the interior world of your characters (which no other medium can touch) will not be crappy. They will be just enough, just at the right time, just what the reader needs to slip into the minds of the characters.

In a novel you can combine action, narration, internal dialogue, external dialogue, and introspection (which is not the same as internal dialogue) into one complete picture.

Removing one of those elements should not make your character one-dimensional. If it does, you're doing it wrong. But adding them makes a three-dimensional character even more alive.

I love voice-overs. I use them frequently in my comic script writing, usually to create juxtaposition with what's portrayed in the panels. But that's the kind of story I like to tell. Not every story needs them.

OverTheHills&FarAway said:

But you don't *have* to write crappy thoughts into your novel.

If you're a competent writer, the words you use to describe the interior world of your characters (which no other medium can touch) will not be crappy. They will be just enough, just at the right time, just what the reader needs to slip into the minds of the characters.

In a novel you can combine action, narration, internal dialogue, external dialogue, and introspection (which is not the same as internal dialogue) into one complete picture.

Removing one of those elements should not make your character one-dimensional. If it does, you're doing it wrong. But adding them makes a three-dimensional character even more alive.

I love voice-overs. I use them frequently in my comic script writing, usually to create juxtaposition with what's portrayed in the panels. But that's the kind of story I like to tell. Not every story needs them.

Click to expand...

Yeah. Interior monologue can be absolutely brilliant. The thing is, most of the time it doesn't read as your typical first person monologue when it is brilliant. Because I know I at least don't think in concrete sentences most of the time. I think in images, in scenes. I try to translate this into my first person narration. It's what I love about good stream-of-consciousness: it's fluid even as it flows and drifts from thought to thought. Virginia Woolf's stream of consciousness is often tough to read, but that indicates not a lack of skill on the author's part, rather a depth beyond what we're used to reading. Because most people aren't absolute geniuses. And so their books are not works of genius.

Interior monologue that doesn't fully integrate the sensory aspect of thought reads like exterior monologue and telling, but when it's done by a master, it's as compelling as anything that actually happens.

This discussion is also similar to this discussion. We appreciate if you'd flood both with opinions. Thanks.

jt

The biggest place I see movie influence as a bad thing is in scene structure and plot building. When I see a lot of movie influence the writer typically has a lot of short scenes strung together.

Another tool that works well on screen, but not so much on paper, is the cold opening. In horror movies is fairly typical to introduce a number of characters and then kill them off in the first five minutes of the film. I've seen a number of sci-fi and/or horror first chapters that start this way, and rarely has it ever worked.

Where I envy movies a bit is the instant believability they have. Its one thing to write about someone doing something jaw dropping, but readers are a lot less likely to accept that sort of thing than viewers in a darkened movie theater.

MDSchafer said:

The biggest place I see movie influence as a bad thing is in scene structure and plot building. When I see a lot of movie influence the writer typically has a lot of short scenes strung together.

Click to expand...

Great point. When reading a novel with alot of short scenes strung together I immediately think of a movie. Once I read that I have a hard time reading the novel as a book and keep thinking of it as movie on paper.

maestrowork said:

Personally I believe in a happy medium: cinematic narrative with deep insight into characters.

Click to expand...

Ahhh Xanadu... an efficient narrative that quickly points out what matters in the scene/action and then onto the creamy middle. Amen!

The difference between the written word and a movie is the effort needed to create a scene in the reader's mind. I see newbie writers making the same mistake over and over: they simply jot down notes related to their mind-movie. They think that their few clever phrases do it all because the writing evokes the same scene in their own minds when they read it over. Some can't get past that because they are unable to become aware of their own self-centered POV.

I am a very visual writer, but I do not think movie when I write. I do notice an occasional cinematic trick by hindsight. I have zoomed in on a character, but then I stayed with him through that scene. Another time I let him walk off the scene but left my "camera" there - another character inherited the POV for the last few paragraphs. Most of the time I just do my best to set the scene and let the character do the talking.

I think that a little variety in the mental camera angle can liven things up, as long as it is not carried too far. Too much cutting and panning leaves me seasick, book or film. Short scenes can build up tension toward an exciting moment, but we can't be equally excited all the time. Pacing can be slower in writing than film. Despite the boob-toob, there are still readers with fairly good attention spans.

As a reader, I do not want to read pages upon pages of internal thoughts and monologue and navel gazing. Give me external events, action, and thoughts through action and dialogue. Give me reactions. Give me consequences. Only use thoughts when things can't be shown, when motivations are important to know.

In movies, actors do all the thinking. They externalize the thoughts and feelings and act them out (subtly or not, nuanced or not) and through them, we deduce what the characters are thinking by simple cognition skills we all possess. In books, you don't get there -- reading "he nodded and smiled" is very different than seeing an actor do it there are so many ways an actor can nod and smile to convey his thoughts and emotions. In books, that's when you need to expand on that, either by thoughts, by dialogue, or action.

But too much internalization and turning the story inward is going to make for a very dull book. Thoughts are not very interesting if they don't result in some kind of action-consequences.

I see my stories like movies in my head, but they're enhanced movies. It's not just watching and hearing people on a screen, but rather includes all the other senses plus emotions and internal thoughts. I pretty much put this directly onto the page, and I think it works just fine. I am light on internal monologues and thoughts compared to some writers because I only put them in when they're adding something not shown with action or dialogue, but I don't think that's a bad thing.

I hate limitations and stubbornly refuse to believe there is anything a movie can do that a book a can't, or any cinematic technique which can't be adapted to the page. Obviously, some are easier to adapt than others, but it all can be done if you're talented enough and try hard and long enough.

Probably the most inherent difference between books and movies is pacing. A 100k word book, if taken in its entirety without any changes, would probably make a 6-8 hour movie, and, as others have pointed out, the average movie scene is very short. But imagining how your manuscript would be made into a movie can be very helpful when editing, because it will highlight some of what can be shortened and cut without damaging the story. All movies are 'tight'. They have to be.

Another good movie-inspired writing exercise is to write a scene under the restrictions all movies work under, allowing yourself no narrative other than sight and sound description. This way you can't tell and have to show absolutely everything. Obviously you wouldn't want to write your novel this way, but it's a good exercise, and you might be surprised by how much telling is unnecessary. I personally only tell as a last resort, when showing is either impossible (like with thoughts and feelings which aren't expressed) or impractical (like when showing a world building fact would require 2,000 words, but I can tell the same thing in 50 words).

Basically, I think writers should read a lot of books and watch a lot of movies, because there's a lot we can learn about story telling from both mediums. There's certainly nothing wrong with seeing your stories as movies in your head, just so long as your books don't end up reading like movie scripts. If you can't make that adaption between what you see and what you write, maybe you should be a script writer instead of a novelist.

maestrowork said:

As a reader, I do not want to read pages upon pages of internal thoughts and monologue and navel gazing. Give me external events, action, and thoughts through action and dialogue. Give me reactions. Give me consequences. Only use thoughts when things can't be shown, when motivations are important to know.

(snip)

But too much internalization and turning the story inward is going to make for a very dull book. Thoughts are not very interesting if they don't result in some kind of action-consequences.

Click to expand...

Interior monologue doesn't equal navel gazing. Navel gazing:

Excessive introspection, self-absorption, or concentration on a single issue.

Good interior monologue is far more complex than that. And that's why it's so difficult to pull off. Any hack can go on for a couple pages about their POV character angsting and whining over some insignificant thing. But to capture a character's mind, the incredible complexity of the combining internal and external perceptions--that's a great feat.

Also, in my previous post I mentioned that most internal monologue is simple telling. "God, I hope he likes me. I think he likes me. But then again he was looking at Cindy an awful lot. But then he was looking at me a lot too." Tiring. But simply because this technique is too challenging for most writers, that doesn't make it a boring technique. Most novels aren't brilliant, it's true. Still, there are novels that pull off the techniques most of us just can't handle, and they do it elegantly.

I don't know if I personally will ever reach that level of insight and skill. I'm eighteen. But I think it helps to hold up excellence in a technique as a model of that technique, even if I'll never so much as approach it myself.

I feel I really arrived as a writer when I ceased to see the story in my head as a movie and started feeling the story in my heart as prose. As a string of words. They all combine to create images and emotions, action and inaction.

I used to see things in my head like a movie, but the translation was off. My writing only took off when I was able to think of it first and foremost as a book and not as a movie. I don't even know what my protagonist looks like in my current WIP. Lord knows I've tried!

That's not to say that looking at movies and applying certain techniques is way off base. I'm just saying that they are completely different mediums. One must approach them from different angles, as befits both the novel and the movie.

That's just my personal experience on the matter.

I, too, believe in the happy medium -- balancing the kind of insight and voice that only novels can provide with strong visuals to fix a scene in the readers' minds. People now are naturally more "cinematically oriented" than they were in past years, and to a degree it only makes sense to respond to that and use it. It doesn't have to constitute a sacrifice of writing style or depth, if done well.

That said, I too get dismayed when people on AW are discussing something they are striving for in their WIP, or bringing up examples of this or that, and can only discuss such things in terms of movies they've seen, never books they've read. While not all comparisons to movies or TV are false or useless -- some are far from it -- it's going to be a lot more helpful to look at similar books most of the time. (For instance, "The Sixth Sense" has a classic twist ending and can rightly be named as a great shocker -- but that film skillfully uses cinematic techniques to accomplish its goal and, as such, is not going to tell you a whole lot about how to craft your novel's twist.) The extent to which people rely on films as their storytelling "default mode" is somewhat problematic, I think. (Unless you're a screenwriter, of course!)

I envy movie makers their work force of hundreds of set designers, costume makers, props people, and so on, while I'm stuck with my one little writer's brain. It's true that movies can use only sight and sound, but they don't have to mediate them through words. The sights and sounds are right there in the room with me.

On the other hand, I love being inside characters' heads. It may be that our cinematic world has made us less tolerant of this, but if so, it's too bad.

On structural differences between films and books, one that leaps to mind is pointed out in Robert Bell's book Plot and Structure. He's talking descriptively now, saying what he sees most of the time. He says the inciting incident in a movie usually happens in the first quarter, sometimes early, but often not until the 25% mark. But he says that in novels, that incident can't wait past the 20% mark. If it does, we lose interest. I don't know why that should be so. Maybe movies gives the audience a little more stimulation while they wait?

Movies are short. Even 25% is about 30 minutes in, plenty of time to let the audience settle in, eat their popcorn, etc. 25% of a book is about 75-100 pages. Way too long to get to your inciting incident. I remember reading The Painted House and nothing really happened until after page 60. If not for the "promise" of a good story, I would have quit (I did put it down twice before I finally finished it -- I did enjoy the rest of the book).

'I love voice-overs. I use them frequently in my comic script writing, usually to create juxtaposition with what's portrayed in the panels.' ~ in the funny pages, i guess that's great. in specs, i've seen a lot of 'don't do it!'s.

'Its one thing to write about someone doing something jaw dropping, but readers are a lot less likely to accept that sort of thing than viewers in a darkened movie theater.' ~ absolutely. i think a lot of it has to do with seeing something being done (real or not) adds a lot of credence, whereas imagining it in fiction makes one wonder if it's really possible. also, it's just the thrill factor. there's the flip-side to movies, imo, where there's a limit to what fantastic things you can see a character do and not get bored with it. i don't think that has much to do with the suspension of disbelief as it does knowing that that character has no remote chance of losing... same problem happens in stories, though.

'Ahhh Xanadu... an efficient narrative that quickly points out what matters in the scene/action and then onto the creamy middle. Amen!' ~ if you intregrate into every scene, even the dialogue, a beginning, middle and end with rising action, climax and resolution, then find every scene's emotional and confrontational points, i think that's getting pretty close. it does, however and like you said, demand efficiency, and i feel one of a novelist's greatest 'gifts' to himself is 'freedom to roam.' that is, efficiency isn't high on a lot of novelist's list of must-do's. it also helps to have a natural phrasing for evocative imagery without tumbling into purple prose.

'All movies are 'tight'.' ~ i think the average 140 minute 'high concept' movie will have upwards of 40 scenes (in the spec, that is, though that's apt to change when the movie has been shot). of the 60 plus scenes in your novel (making that number up), do you know which ones are truly cinema-worthy? me, neither. that's why novelists often aren't given screenwriting jobs on their own story. in fact, that's why there's an important oscar category for screenwriting adaptations. being able to be as 'tight' as possible helps the screenwriter know which scenes to keep, scrap, or combine. even then, i bet there are several additional scenes the screenwriter put in just because they really liked them. we're always saying how every scene should add to a novel, but i have to wonder how many novelists, particularly inexperienced ones, really even try to apply this to their writing?

'Another good movie-inspired writing exercise is to write a scene under the restrictions all movies work under, allowing yourself no narrative other than sight and sound description. This way you can't tell and have to show absolutely everything. Obviously you wouldn't want to write your novel this way, but it's a good exercise, and you might be surprised by how much telling is unnecessary.' ~ yes and no. if you're writing a spec script, you can get away with a certain amount of telling. in fact, i've seen advice from some big names suggesting you add some kind of character description along the lines of 'his face has a look of a soldier who had seen too much violence.' just better than that. you can absolutely tell in a script. bear in mind, too, that scripts are written in present tense and i think you'll find a lot more liberal use of adjectives and even adverbs, which makes me cringe as a fiction writer, but for scripts it's acceptable. i agree with the sentiment, just that if you don't understand the gist of screenwriting (as i'm learning, so don't think i'm an expert or nuthin') then there's a good chance you're not practicing screenwriting. that's not to say there's no value in the excercise.

'That said, I too get dismayed when people on AW are discussing something they are striving for in their WIP, or bringing up examples of this or that, and can only discuss such things in terms of movies they've seen, never books they've read. While not all comparisons to movies or TV are false or useless -- some are far from it -- it's going to be a lot more helpful to look at similar books most of the time. (For instance, "The Sixth Sense" has a classic twist ending and can rightly be named as a great shocker -- but that film skillfully uses cinematic techniques to accomplish its goal and, as such, is not going to tell you a whole lot about how to craft your novel's twist.) The extent to which people rely on films as their storytelling "default mode" is somewhat problematic, I think. (Unless you're a screenwriter, of course!)' ~ i use movies as examples because i know more people have seen the same movie than read the same book. and when i use these examples, i try to make it about storytelling rather than equating different mediums.

i'd venture to say that an overwhelming amount of scenes in an adaptation of a book or story happened in some form or another in the book or story. maybe arranged differently or characters combined, but, yeah, i think the translations are equal enough to have a lot merit.

if you understand the differences.

as you imply, i think that if you attempt to marry the two *without knowing how they're different* you'll wind up with a mess more often than not.

if a movie waited until 25% of the way to make it to the inciting incident, that's the first act break. closer to say about 15 pages into a spec and you'll have your inciting incident (i want to say page 12 is more recommended). this is where the character gets a knock on the door, a phone call, a letter, a package, a converstation, or a plane ticket that sends them off on their story. not always, of course.

'Maybe movies gives the audience a little more stimulation while they wait?' ~ i think it's because that's what we expect from movies. they've used the same storytelling method since movies began, it's not likely to change. there's a lot of structure that both have in common to the point where people, imo, begin to believe the two methods are completely interchangeable. i would agree that in general that the inciting incident in a novel by 20% sounds reasonable. indeed, i'd say earlier than that is advisable in a lot of stories. (imo, i'm not sure this necessarily applies to ensemble casts. using 'star wars' as a reference, depending on who you consider is the main character, we don't meet luke for quite a while, though i'd say that once we do his story falls right in line with those beats.)

so, i don't believe it's a question of stimulation as much as meeting our subconscious' expectations of how a story is 'supposed' to proceed.

interior monologue

Danger Jane said:

Yeah. Interior monologue can be absolutely brilliant. The thing is, most of the time it doesn't read as your typical first person monologue when it is brilliant. Because I know I at least don't think in concrete sentences most of the time. I think in images, in scenes. I try to translate this into my first person narration. It's what I love about good stream-of-consciousness: it's fluid even as it flows and drifts from thought to thought. Virginia Woolf's stream of consciousness is often tough to read, but that indicates not a lack of skill on the author's part, rather a depth beyond what we're used to reading. Because most people aren't absolute geniuses. And so their books are not works of genius.

Interior monologue that doesn't fully integrate the sensory aspect of thought reads like exterior monologue and telling, but when it's done by a master, it's as compelling as anything that actually happens.

Click to expand...

I was actually going to try to make a point........but, what's the use.....when DangerJane already said it so perfectly.......