Books turned movie often disappoint

Katherine Clayton Lifestyles Editor

Let’s just start off with saying that I love books. Over spring break I read two books in two days. I’m kind of obsessed; I mean, I’m an English education major.

What makes my book addiction even worse is that I think detail is extremely important. I get enchanted by the way the author creates a mythical world where I get to visit for 300 pages.

On the other hand, I love movies. Despite my love for books and movies, it bugs me when a book is made into a movie and it gets completely changed. It’s even worse when the author of my beloved book is a part of the book massacre. I reestablished my hate for books being changed this weekend when I went and saw “Insurgent,” based off of Veronica Roth’s best-selling sequel in the “Divergent” series.

Don’t get me wrong – the movie was awesome; I would definitely see it again because it always kept me guessing what was going to happen next, but the problem is that I read the book, so I shouldn’t have been guessing on what was going to happen. The movie should have been at least somewhat similar to the book, but it wasn’t.

I was stunned because a book that I had enjoyed reading at least four times was recreated and the events that I was emotionally prepared for were replaced with even more emotionally scarring scenes.

I understand artistic expression and that the author has the right to change his or her mind but I also feel that the author has the responsibility to his or her readers to be consistent. The book and the movie should be very similar. Small details can be cut (even though I wouldn’t mind a movie having all the details that the book contains, but that’s just me) but the main events should stay the same.

In “Insurgent” the movie, the correct characters died (even though the audience didn’t realize their significance to the book) otherwise they were eliminated from the plot altogether. There were new pieces of plot that were added and changes to character motivation.

I really liked the movie but it wasn’t part of the series that I can came to connect to and love. It almost felt as if it was part of a different series.

To be clear, this isn’t the first book-turned-movie that made me feel conflicted. Another example is the entire “Harry Potter” series (excluding “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallow: Part I and Part II”).

The difference between the “Harry Potter” series and “Insurgent” is that at least “Harry Potter” was still the same series I had fallen in love with; it wasn’t completely changed. The “Harry Potter” movie lovers and book lovers could still have a coherent conversation (the book lovers may have to fill in a few blanks).

I know that I should separate the book from the movie, but at the same time I shouldn’t have to. I have read about characters who have gone on adventures, fallen in love, had breakdowns, lost loved ones, had their first kill and have found themselves; I was on their journeys as though my name was written on the same pages; I was an observer who had the chance to make their experiences mine. When they went on adventures, I did, and when they got nervous about saying “hi” to their romantic interest, I felt their anxiety. I was there and I was connected to those experiences. I realize that this might sound crazy, but reading a book is the ability to have experiences I could never have in real life.

Movies are wonderful. Books are wonderful. But to me, books will always be better.

Together movies and books can have a beautiful relationship only if they are similar. I will be buying “Insurgent” when it comes out on DVD but it won’t replace the adventures I had when I read the book.

Don’t miss me too much.