PDA

View Full Version : Better than the novels.........(?)



Cononach
07-26-2008, 08:53 PM
I hear of a lot of people who think the recent mini-series have been better in some aspects than the novels themselves. I've only just begun reading Long Road Home, and I enjoyed Gunslinger Born, but while reading W&G again, I decided to follow along with the story concurrently in the comic for comparison, and I found it to feel really "thin" next to the novel.

I was hoping to hear from some posters here who happen to enjoy the comics (or at least certain aspects of them) more than the novels. What exactly do you like better?, etc.

(I hope this hasn't been discussed to death already)

William50
07-26-2008, 09:02 PM
I can't believe that somebody could like a comic better that a novel. I always like books more than comics and movies.

By the way, nice to meet you Cononach!

Ruthful
07-26-2008, 10:06 PM
That's absurd.

The only new material added by Furth and Peter David is the extras included at the end of each issue, which is probably the best part of the comic adaptation.

Brainslinger
07-27-2008, 03:44 AM
That's absurd.

The only new material added by Furth and Peter David is the extras included at the end of each issue, which is probably the best part of the comic adaptation.

That's not quite true. There was a certain amount of antagonist stuff involving Marten, Farson and The Crimson King which appeared in the comics but didn't appear in the novel, mainly because the novels focussed mostly on Roland and his old ka-tet and the characters of Hambry, whilst the comic turned it's eye a bit further afield.

I would agree though that generally speaking, Wizard and Glass is a better more substantial read than the comics (which are a great adaption nonetheless.) And the extra stuff in the comics involving the Red King and his henchmen compliments the books, if that makes sense, happening off-stage as it were. It certainly made me feel good about buying the comics of a story I already knew.

I'm referring to The Gunslinger Born of course, as it's not that fair to compare with The Long Road Home, as that is largely new territory.

There was one change that I did prefer better in the comic though. Namely the fate of Depape at the hands of Cuthbert. In the book it was Roland who killed both Reynolds and Depape. Considering the antagonism between Bert and Depape in the inn, the comic version has a bit more symmetry I think. Don't get me wrong, I don't think the comic writers should have deviated from the book. If King said Roland kills Depape, the comic writers should have written that too, but I kinda wish King had written that version in the first place.

I get round these discrepancies by arguing that the Hambry segment of WaG and the Gunslinger Born were written from different points of view, and besides details in battles can be confused (i.e. Roland remembers things one way, the narrator another).

As for the Long Road Home, the only part that really overlaps is the start of the comic. I personally thought the stuff involving the burnt corpse of Susan and the eyeball should not have been done. They should have just gone with the book version straight into the journey itself. I get round that particular discrepancy by arguing that the fantastical elements of that tale became exaggerated over time, and that version is the part we see in the comic, since the narrator wasn't present.

Ruthful
07-27-2008, 04:39 AM
Farson appeared in the comics for less than five pages, and those didn't provide any more illumination of his character or motivation than the oblique references made in the fourth book. The activities of Marten/Flagg in End-World weren't any more instructive, although they were missing from Wizard and Glass, and what happened to Roland when he was trapped inside of the grapefruit wasn't revealed until the last few issues of the second arc.

So ninety percent of the comics thus far, with the exception of the add-ons, has basically been a rehash of what we already knew beforehand.

Ruthful
07-27-2008, 04:46 AM
I forget the subplot involving Sheemie. The gap between Sheemie following Roland back to Gilead and his appearance in Devar Toi, or the interim between Susan's capture and his reappearance, is never really explored by Stephen King. In that sense the comic covers new ground, but I still think most of it is a retelling of old material. I don't see how anyone who's actually read The Dark Tower could possibly think that the comics are preferable to the fourth book of the series.

LadyHitchhiker
07-27-2008, 07:55 AM
I like the way the comics fill in some of the gaps, but I wouldn't trade them for my novels.

MonteGss
07-27-2008, 12:49 PM
I agree with Ruthful. It is absurd to think the comics are better than the novels.

Letti
07-27-2008, 12:56 PM
I hear of a lot of people who think the recent mini-series have been better in some aspects than the novels themselves.

Where???

gsvec
07-27-2008, 12:57 PM
To me it's like comparing apples and oranges. Both are fruits, but they're in completely different categories.

Daghain
07-27-2008, 08:14 PM
I'm a hardcore novel fan, myself. And, I'll go so far as to say that it totally ticks me off when the comics contradict the novels. I'm a purist, what can I say? :)

I think the comics are good supplemental information, and it's nice to see The Dark Tower done a different way, but I'll always be a novel fan. You just can't compare what you can do with a novel to what you can do with a comic - I think the novel is much more in-depth than a comic ever could be.

Wuducynn
07-28-2008, 05:50 AM
I'm a hardcore novel fan, myself. And, I'll go so far as to say that it totally ticks me off when the comics contradict the novels. I'm a purist, what can I say? :)

I think the comics are good supplemental information, and it's nice to see The Dark Tower done a different way, but I'll always be a novel fan. You just can't compare what you can do with a novel to what you can do with a comic - I think the novel is much more in-depth than a comic ever could be.

Exactly..bolded for emphasis.

jayson
07-28-2008, 06:42 AM
I'm a hardcore novel fan, myself. And, I'll go so far as to say that it totally ticks me off when the comics contradict the novels. I'm a purist, what can I say? :)

I think the comics are good supplemental information, and it's nice to see The Dark Tower done a different way, but I'll always be a novel fan. You just can't compare what you can do with a novel to what you can do with a comic - I think the novel is much more in-depth than a comic ever could be.

Exactly..bolded for emphasis.

I agree with you both Dags & Matthew. I have been enjoying the comics but I wouldn't trade the novels for anything.

CyberGhostface
07-30-2008, 08:43 AM
No, the novels are definitely better. I guess the only real improvement IMO is the characterization and appearence of the Crimson King.