What makes it a novel, what makes it a screenplay?

I'd agree with Gaiman on this one, although I think there are some characteristics of each format that help the author know the difference. Basically, when choosing among formats, I visualize how the results I want can best be achieved. Usually, I will then see whether I should pursue a novel, screenplay, etc. I believe the characteristics that underscore this decision include visuals (whether something is better seen or written), project scope (novels typically cover more than screenplays, for example), and potential costs (in terms of production - it's cheaper to write about 50 feet dragon with 10 heads than to use CGI for it.)

Overall, however, I think there is no one characteristic that can help you make the decision. It's better to evaluate the project as a whole to decide how it would best be conveyed.

For me it is depth of character I want to achieve as a writer. How much of my imagination and me I want to go into the story.

A script from page to TV is a team effort. The first script I wrote that was filmed I'd envisaged a 75 year old woman in a run down community centre. The casting found a 20 year old who did the role perfectly and the script editor tweaked my script so it didn't sound like a 20 year old pretending to be 60. And as Kayley says cost comes into what you can achieve, how many characters you can use, how many sets you will need etc

Even with an editor a novel will always have more of me in it than a script.

For me, I think it comes down to (I know this isn't a word) watchability. Like, while you can write the scene and make it interesting would it be entertaining? Just ask yourself if, based on plot and characters, you would be willing to sit and give 2 hours of your time to watch this movie? If the answer is yes, go for a screenplay. If the answer is no but it's still an awesome plot and characters, go with the novel. Or just do a novel first and then if it screams adaptation and sells pretty well, go for a screen adaptation. That way you have a sort of following for the film that will help you make it happen.

Take what you want from that. I'm not published yet or anything, but I do ask myself that question from time to time.

I don't think there's necessarily going to always be a story that screams that it has to be one or the other, it's more a matter of how you approach it. Look at all the great novels that have been, and still are, being adapted to the big or small screen. And look at all the movies that are successfully novelized afterwards.

I think a story that relies heavily on the internal perceptions or narrative voice of the character might lend itself better to a novel, but it's all in the approach. Something that's more action or dialog driven, where the external actions of the characters make their internal state pretty obvious, might be a better movie. Ditto for stories that rely heavily on scenery to establish mood.

But there's so darned much overlap. Some novelists are really good at pulling readers in with external description, and some screenwriters (and directors) can create deep internally driven stories that translate well to visual media.

The thing with screenwriting is you are by the nature of it only going to have control over one aspect of the story. The producer, director, actors and so on will be putting their spin on the words you've put down on the page. You'll have limited input on things like lighting, props, set design, costuming, even stage directions. With a novel, it's you and the reader. Well, okay, there's the cover design, of course, but aside from that, it's just the stuff you put on the page.

Usher said:

Even with an editor a novel will always have more of me in it than a script.

Click to expand...

Something about this makes sense to me. A novel does feel more personal than other mediums. This gives me a bit of comfort as to what I can do when figuring out the medium.

I'm glad someone asked this question, because I've always struggled with choosing a medium for certain ideas in my head.

As with the quote, if I just think of the fact that when I have a story no one will else will bother helping me with or I find it too personal, then perhaps it should become a novel. If it's an idea I just don't I could do on my own, or would be more fun with others, then I'll look towards game development or a graphic novel.

Format. Other than this, there is no difference, other than which one YOU want to write. I've never, ever seen a screenplay that couldn't be a novel, or a novel that couldn't be a screenplay.

Jamesaritchie said:

Format. Other than this, there is no difference, other than which one YOU want to write. I've never, ever seen a screenplay that couldn't be a novel, or a novel that couldn't be a screenplay.

Click to expand...

Maybe for a movie but my sit-com script would make a pretty lousy novel without a major overhaul. With comedy there is often a strong visual component.

Jamesaritchie said:

or a novel that couldn't be a screenplay.

Click to expand...

Challenge accepted: Finnegan's Wake.

In a novel the writer is writing in a way for the reader to have the same idea of the look of the characters and settings as the writer.
And the reader is to feel the emotions of the characters the same as the writer is expressing them.

The screen play, which is changed into a movie, has these left out, because the people working to make the movie is what causes the watcher of the movie to have the same ideas as gotten by reading the writers words.

For the writer it's important to follow the format of the screenplay. The format of the screenplay gives the writer some, but not all, influence of how an actor acts and how a setting looks. If the format is not followed, it will cause to much confusion among the people making the movie, so the movie will be more different and the writers ideas will not be in the movie so the person watching will not have received the ideas from the writer as the same person would have by reading the words in a novel.