>A screen adaptation of their work is the greatest possible

>>9066470

Stephen King is a pretty awful, formulaic author. I don't know what Kubrick was attracted to in his work, but the adaptation was miles beyond the book. Being chosen to become an adaptation has little to do with the characteristics of the book, and more to do with the artistic style of the director.

>>9066470
A money-grubbing eyesore meant to appeal to the LCD is not my idea of praise.

>>9066470
Why would an author be concerned with a screen adaptation. The greatest possible praise an author can receive is serious thought on behalf of their readership. I imagine most Nobel or Pulitzer winners would agree they'd give up the award in a heartbeat if it meant having people actually engage with their words and vision. Unless, of course, we're confusing the term "author" with the mutually exclusive term "entertainer" in which case, yeah, I guess the a screen adaptation is pretty dope.

I don't because it implies several things about writing that I can't agree with:
1)writings strength is in suggesting scenes and inspiring the imagination, therefore the visuals it inspires are the most important

I think that's wrong because from the start writing has a lot more freedom than implying visuals. Another way to look at it is that a screen requires a visual while a book can spend forever solely in the character's thoughts and explore relations to concepts and other ideas.

2)Only good writing is visual.

The best writing I think is the type that lets you see new ways to use words to express ideas. A writing without visuals has potential to be some of the best.

3)if a character/setting doesn't do something amazing, it's not worth praising.

I think there's absolutely no need of magic in stories. If you like dragons, fine, but remember once you pull out the fucking dragons that you've crossed a very serious line and lost about 70-80% of your audience because dragons don't exist and people can't relate.
On the other hand, for a movie dragons are fair game because they have to deliver an impression right away. No one shits on movies with dragons the same way they will shit on a book with dragons.

>>9066762
Have you been on this board before? Because holy fuck you are the autist-lord of bad formatting

>>9066470
Not with the lotr movies, but the exorcist is one of my all time favorites; haven't read the novel, though. Should i?