Adapting My Book

Fight Club has already been made into a very famous movie that has been seen and quoted by millions. But I'm sure the director had a hard time adapting many of the Project Mayhem scenes. It must have been hard to create as much destruction as was portrayed in the novel. Project Mayhem was created to make things fall apart and to make people question things around them. When they blew up big buildings, that must have new hard for the filmmakers to recreated and adapt onto the screen. I'm sure it was also a challenge to portray the end scene when the narrator shot himself to try to rid himself from the harmful words of "advice" from Tyler Durden. One part that I think would be okay to cut would be web the narrator imagines the airplane crashing. It's not completely relevant to the main story line and only shows how far-gone the main character is and leads up to a Project Mayhem project. I think it would be very important to keep the minor character, Bob, because he later on is participating in the Fight Club and in Project Mayhem. Another important scene that shouldn't be cut is web the narrator's apartment blows up. Although that might have been hard to recreate, it was major scene in the book that set up the narrators fall to destruction.

What is a Book?

A book is a fortress. A book is a place to turn to when you've got nowhere else to go. Books are there to help you when you're feeling sad, lonely, confused, anything. When you turn to a book, you're usually going to do one of two things: you're either going to forget about your problems and get absorbed by the book, or you're going to see that the characters always solve their problems one way or another and you'll realize that your problems can be solved too. Books are somewhere to hide away in, somewhere to get lost, and somewhere to live out any life you want to. When you read, you begin to feel like you are a part of the book, inside it even, so you live out what is happening in it. You can feel and see and smell everything that the characters do. I believe that a book is a fortress because they are somewhere to get lost, where all of the problems of the world melt away, and where you don't have to answer to anyone.

I don't believe that an e-book is the same as a hard cover book because it's not. One is on paper and one is online. That is the only way that they differ, though. Inside of the cover are still the same story, the same words, and the same message. The magical aspect of books is in the words that make them up and it has nothing to do with the medium it's delivered in. It doesn't matter if a book is typed out and printed on paper, or if it's displayed on tiny pixels, because in both cases it's typed out and delivered to you in some form. The smell of a book is something that a lot of readers look forward to; in fact there is even a perfume that is made to smell like an old book. It doesn't take anything away from the book, however, if there isn't that musk between the pages. Someone's e-reader might be wrapped up in a leather case and they get that classic leather musk every time they take their book out. It all depends on the reader's preference, but it's not okay to judge someone on their choice of form it's displayed in.

What makes a book Non-Fiction?

I think that for a book to be considered Non-Fiction, it should be mostly true. At least 90% of it should be factual and true. There are a few exceptions, though. I believe that if an author is writing something that is "historical non-fiction" or something along those lines, then they shouldn't be allowed to add anything. If you're portraying someone else's life, then you should have to stay 100% true to the facts, because anything you might add could be seen as slanderous. If it's a non-fiction book about someone like Lincoln who has passed away, then you shouldn't be able to add anything to it that isn't proven fact, because there is no way for him to defend himself or call you out for lying. If it's a textbook or something like that, then you should also not be able to add anything that isn't proven to that, because people will use that to back up things that they are saying. If you put something that isn't true into something that people will reference, then it shouldn't be considered non-fiction. If anything it should have to say that it contains your own opinions in it.
However, if you are writing a personal memoir, then who cares if you add information that isn't completely true? If it makes it more interesting to read, and it still stays mainly true, then I see no problem with embellishing a little.

What you don't understand, you can make mean anything.

  Chuck Palahniuk's twisted imagination came to life yet again in his novel, Diary. He writes of a woman who is destined to save Waytansea Island with her artistic talent. This woman, Misty Wilmot, is writing a "coma diary," so that when her husband gets out of his suicide induced coma, he will know everything that has happened. And it's been a lot.
  All-in-all I didn't think this book quite matched up with all of Palahniuk's previous books. Most of his other books are very action-packed with a lot of unseen twists and turns. This book, however, didn't have very many twists, just a few slightly surprising bits here and there. For example, every so often Misty would find notes left behind by the women whose lives supposedly mirrored hers. These notes were pretty eerie, but were never very scary or surprising.
  One of the most memorable quotes from this novel is "what you don't understand you can make mean anything" (Palahniuk 1720-21). It really explains how I feel about the book in general. I was very confused reading it, and most of what he said I just downright didn't understand. I was confused on what was happening, on who was who, and even his descriptions in this book were confusing to envision.
  One part I really like about this book, however, was when Misty explained how she felt about a situation. Instead of coming out and just saying, "I'm feeling really betrayed right now," Misty would say things like "Just for the record, the weather today is partly suspicious with chances of betrayal" (Palahniuk 725). I think this is very unique and clever, and it really portrays Palahniuk's strange mind and clever way of thinking.
  Although I didn't really understand the book, it wasn't too terrible. Once I got past the sting of the original dullness, it became a pretty good story. It has a pretty clever and original plot, and the characters are pretty relatable. Misty, the "author", has a lot of problems that she doesn't quite know how to deal with, so she turns to drinking and complaining. She is very relatable, because she doesn't ever solve her problems completely, and her main way of dealing with things is to write them out in her diary. Most of us don't do much to solve our problems either, other than complaining.
  There were a few really neat things that I noticed as I was reading that really show how clever Palahniuk really is. The most notable is the name of the island, Waytansea. As I was reading, I just kind of skipped over this and never thought of how it was said. But when I was looking back at important parts, I was trying to spell it, and I ended up sounding it out. It's already spelled out, though. Way-Tan-Sea. Say it out loud: "Wait and See". I think Palahnuik did this because Misty was never quite sure what was going to happen to her, in fact, none of the island inhabitants knew exactly what was going to happen, so they all just had to "wait and see". It also goes along with how I was feeling about the book in the beginning. Palahniuk knew that it started off dull, but he let you know that all you had to do was put a little time into it, and it would become something spectacular. Everyone just needs to "wait and see".

Don't Judge a Book by its Cover

I think there's a lot of things that can go wrong with book covers. If you put too much on a cover, it'll seem too crouded. On the other hand, if you dont put enough detail on it the cover will look underdeveloped. If you try to use a simplified image, a lot of times it'll make the cover look childish and no respectable adult will want to read it. If you make it look too adult or gruesome, however, many people probably won't even pick it up. In the case of a series, you've got to make sure the covers all work together in some way or another. A great example of this is Oliver Sacks' collection of covers. He made all six of them work together to create one image when they come together. Alone their artwork is pretty powerful too, having the zoomed in piece of a larger image intrigues readers into wanting to read not only one book, but the whole series. An image of all of Oliver Sacks' covers put together is included below.:

 

Best and Worst Film Adaptations

Best and Worst Film Adaptations:

  There are plenty of books that have been made into films. Many of them are very good, but there are some that are just completely rotten. Whether it's the book or the movie that is bad, there are plenty.

• Fight Club: The book came out in 1996, about three years before the 1999 film was released. This is one of the best print to screen adaptations I've seen. The book followed a stange story line: starting at the end, jumping to the beginning, then returning to the end again. The movie followed this same story line, but without being more confusing than the plot makes it.
• The Hunger Games: This book became a best seller soon after being released, and only grew in publicity as each book came out. When the movie was released, it gained even more notice. This is a great adaptation because of the fact that the movie follows the story line pretty closely. It was an excellently written book, and a perfectly executed movie.
• My Sister's Keeper: Standing alone, the book and the movie are good. But when you compare them to each other, they lose some merit. The book was an easy read, and it was written very beautifully. The movie was well casted, and greatly made. But there was one major flaw in this adaptation: they changed the ending. I'm not going to ruin it for any of you who haven't read, but they gave the movie a completely different ending than the book. That's one element that makes for a bad adaptation.
• American Psycho: This story has a very interesting plot, making it a very good movie and what you would think to be a very good read. I have no issues with the adaptation of this book into a movie. They executed it perfectly, down to the main character's manic and slightly obsessive-compulsive behavior. The real issue I have with this story is the book itself. For being a psychological thriller, it was a very dull read. Due to the narrator's deranged behavior, he describes many things in excruciating detail. An example would be that whenever he met a new character, he would describe, in horrifying detail, exactly what they had on. If said character was wearing a suit, the narrator would go into detail about not only the pattern and color of the suit, but also about the designer and superfluous details like that. It was a great movie, and a really clever plot line, but a very dull read.