h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Science Fiction Novelisations - A65947909
Author: Bluebottle - U43530

It barely touches the very top of the tip of the iceberg, but a look at a much neglected literary genre.

<BB<

(Note to self - sort out the annoying apostrophes and inverted commas)

<BB<

I see in this you have graphic novels and comics listed as novelisations, but many go the other way, e.g. V for Vendetta, Watchmen, Judge Dredd, most of the Marvel back catalogue, etc.

Would it be worth mentioning the reverse process, with examples?

And does it still qualify where, as an example I've seen recently, James Bond is turned into a graphic novel?

Hi, Bluebottle!

You certainly aren't the newcomer that your ACE welcome would indicate, are you!!!

This is a very well crafted and fact packed entry! Great examples, too!

As much as I like the entire read, I do have one major problem with the entry. My problem is the claim that 'The term no longer only applies to adaptations into a strict novel form, ...'. 'Says who?', I have to wonder. Do you have a credible source for this claim?

Perhaps some publishing house has created these internally as categories in their own library?

I only ask because the definitions I find are:
'converting something into the form of a novel '
'to write a novel based on another form of story'
'to give the form or characteristics of a novel to; make into or like a novel'

And the word 'Novel' is defined as:
A fictional prose narrative of considerable length, typically having a plot that is unfolded by the actions, speech, and thoughts of the characters.

You can't have a narrative of considerable length if it's a 'short story' or a 'comic strip'; and how can you call the adaptation of an 'audio play' a novelisation?

I don't get it. It sounds like sloppy thinking and a re-definition of the word novel. I'm afraid that this would be beyond the scope of a hootoo EG entry, and it's quite a bit of hubris. It's turning language into jargon, and we have quite enough of that going on all of the time.

In regard to the 'types' listed, if one has created a novelisation, I don't think it matters if there are photographic (or, simply 'graphic') inserts included to enhance the sales potential of the book. Thankfully, this was not a defining attribute in your entry.

The rest of the entry I dearly love, but I don't think that the term novelisation applies to graphic novels, foto novels, or storybooks. And short stories wouldn't be novelisations, though they might be novelletisations (if there is no such a word, the concept is certainly here and the word is not yet 'taken').

The word I'd prefer for your title and the entire entry would be 'Fictionalisation'. It loses the 'converting' flavour, but it's at least generally accurate, and broad enough in scope to cover your Types.

Ah – looks like I’ve opened a can of worms with this one – I had hoped it would produce discussion. I’m not sure about calling it ‘Fictionalisation’ as the films and television episodes that are novelised and adapted in other ways are works of fiction to begin with. I could rename the article. I am considering “Science Fiction Novelisations And Tie-Ins” – tie-in being defined in my Oxford dictionary as “the joint promotion of related commodities (e.g. a book and a film). Although I would want to stress that the tie-ins are written tie-ins, i.e. books, short stories, graphic and fotonovels and not other forms of merchandise such as clothing, toys etc. Any thoughts?

Where you have asked >'The term no longer only applies to adaptations into a strict novel form...' 'Says who?', I have to wonder. Do you have a credible source for this claim?< the sources are the Fotonovels and graphic novels themselves which are referring to themselves as novelisations (or “novelizations” if they are American). Whether they count as credible or not I don’t know – I felt that if that is what they defined themselves as, then that is what they are. I can’t remember but it seemed to be a trend used by more than one publishing company (I don’t have the books here with me, alas).

With audiobooks, I still feel that audiobooks which are the novelisations read out loud should be considered as novelisations, although radio dramas would not be. I’ll try to clarify the definition.

Sadly Deadangel I think it would be a good idea for now to leave out mentioning graphic novels in more detail – they would deserve a whole entry dedicated to them. (With the James Bond graphic novel adaptations, I would define ones which are based on the films as novelisations, but not ones based on the Bond novels).

<BB<

Hiya BB!

I understand that there's a lot of grey area around the concepts, but I'm not sure that you're properly applying the term tie-in.

In my mind, tie-ins are more of spin-offs that are sub-sections of the original, rather than broadening expansions that bring in not so directly related items of similar bent.

I very much appreciate that you've admitted how hard it is to know whether the claims of novelisations are credible or not. It may be just a few of us, but I'm not among those who easily subscribe to watering down establish terms and phrases. It always seems like the expanding of definitions for convenience, rather than to increase clarity. I don't care if people try to redefine 200 word essays as novels. They simply don't rise to that level of literary rigor (in regard to length). Too often, people are trying to redefine their works to suit themselves and imply more worth than the effort with which they created them.

My personal suggestion is that you research the currently acknowledged definition of the terms to avoid adding to the misapplication of terms, and resist following along with those who try to redefine them for their own sake rather than for the sake of adding clarity to a genre.

The basic problem with including audiobooks with novelisations is that they are the either the spoken novel, in an audio version of the written form, or an abridged spoken version for the sake of reducing the content to create a more succinct and digestable audio format (ie: shorter and incomplete).

I agree with you that Graphic Novels are an art form unto themself.

The English language is a powerful tool in business, both for the specificity with which it can be applied and for the vagueness and for the elasticity it allows to permit the adoption of contracts where specifications can be worked out after the basic architecture of the agreement has alreay been agreed. But, in literature, there is nothing to be gained by obfuscating the meanings of established and accepted terms for the convenience of those to lazy to look them up.

This is not a criticism of your excellent entry's content, but a taking to task the sloppy thinking of those who have producted literary byproducts rather than products.




PS: I'm not above opening the 'can-o'-worms' thing either!

I have rephrased the entry so that it mentions the non novelisation adaptations in passing without making them out to be novelisations.

<BB<

Hiya BB!
[A novelisation is an adaptation into a written form of a story in a different form, such as a film, television episode, radio series or even computer game.]

I like it very much, as well as the mention of other literary genres without identifying them as 'novelisations'!

I'd like it even better if the 'written form' was actually 'novel'. If the final product is not a novel, or an audio version of a published novel, it would still fail to rise to the definition of novelisation as novelisation has come to be defined. (If an audio version is created without the publication of the words - print, digital, or other - it is just an audio version of whatever the original source had been. For the blind, the effect would be the same, of course, but not for the literary world.)

Perhaps there is a new and better term for the whole concept that would include all of the other things combined!? I'd support a new word that encomposes the lot!

Just my humble opinion as one who chafes at the watering down of the language.

Hello, I've reworded the opening sentence so that it now does specifically state "novel". Hope that this now solves the problem!

<BB<

Hi again <BB<!

Yes, I think that's capital! !

If you're still open to suggestions though, and only because I am such a pedant on matters of language and clarity, perhaps you'd consider:
A novelisation is an adaptation into a novel of a story that first appeared in a different form, such as...

It could be considered a bit more precise; but all is up to you, the researcher!

Okay, first sentence reworded accordingly.

Got there in the end.

<BB<

And ALL in only one page of postings! WOooHOoo!

This may be a recent entry record!

If only it gets picked up right away, now!

I'm sure you'll tell me to read the backlog but there are some fundamental problems here:

A "graphic novel" is not the same thing as a graphic-novel; consider a novelisation of Deep Throat! And indeed, a graphic-novel is not "A comic adaption of the film or episode"; a graphic-novel is a comic-book/comic-strip adaptation of a film or episode (no matter how humourous the original was )

An audiobook is a recording of a reading of a book that might or might not have been a novelisation; an audiobook is not an alternative to novelisation.

"Before the invention of videos and home viewing systems, the only way to keep a television episode or film forever was to purchase a novelisation of the story."

Speak to the man who held an audiotape recorder to his television; the BBC holds a complete set of off-air audio recordings of the "missing" episodes of Doctor Who and now famous comedians have talked about audiotaping Monty Python episodes to be able to repeatedly listen to them. This method was more immediate than, for example, waiting twenty years for 'Dr Who- The Gunfighters' to be novelised

Good idea for an entry but think about your good work

BB!

Can't spend too much on this, sadly, but can I just prompt you to investigate another aspect of Target's novelisations? Outside of Doctor Who, Target novelised a lot of current films such as 'Splash' and 'Down and Out In Beverley Hills'. Some of these were written by Ian Don, a pen-name for Ian Marter, an actor who had played Harry Sullivan in Doctor Who and had later become a novelist for the Doctor Who range before branching out.

Referencing him might provide a bridge to discussing Target's other work.

PS I don't know whether it's an elephant in the room or not but science fiction is not the same as science-fiction. Sci-fi, you know?

Humans!

Hi vs!

If you're making a distinction, perhaps you should spell it out. You've lost me?

Hello, changes made including graphic-novel, more information about Ian Marter etc.

<BB<

I know that there are 2 schools of thought about Science Fiction. One school divides it in two:
SF - everything in it is scientifically plausible. A film example is 2001: A Space Odyssey - the atomic powered spacecraft, spinning space station and velcro grips are scientifically plausable, as is the zero gravity toilet.
Sci-Fi - This includes things which are scientifically impossible - ie warp and hyperdrive, such as Star Wars and Star Trek.

The other school of thought considers this to be nitpicking.

<BB<

It's a straightforward grammatical distinction, Fords Towel, but I'm encouraged by the post (directly?) above that there is a distinction based on grammar. Science-fiction is the genre that we all know and love; a fictional account of Darwin's voyage on the Beagle would be science fiction or, indeed, historical fiction &c.

cf. graphic-novel and graphic novel; comic-strip and comic strip.

There is arbitrariness involved here but I believe that "a black cab driver" and "a black-cab driver" are preferrable distinctions; the hyphen links the adjective to the intended noun. And, in the example of comic and strip, the hyphen creates the noun rather than an adjective describing a verb.

Haha, I was going to say that the novelisations I read had "Sci-fi/TV tie-in" on the back but I grabbed one to check and it has "Science fiction/TV Tie-in" Shows what they knew!

That was my reason for my "elephant in the room" comment but it appears it was based on my errant memory. Mind you, just because they got it wrong, there's no reason why we shouldn't get it right! Random capitalisation of words is certainly not the way to go.

Van

Hi VS:

I gave this some thought, but I'm still not certain how to apply your 'rule of hyphens'.

If I were to write about the driver of a black cab, I'd use 'black cab's driver'; and if I were writing about a cab driver who was dark skinned, I'd write 'black cab-driver'.

On the Sci-Fi front, I still don't see a real destinction. If it is fiction, and includes or focuses on a good dose of science, I would call it science fiction. Does some of it reach further into areas of alien life, time-travel, and wondrous gadgets? Yes!

But, many other types of books qualify as science fiction (imho) without those technological leaps. Star Trek, Star Wars, and Stargate, (and Dr. Who, Hitchhikers, etc.) are apparently what you mean by Sci-Fi. But what about TV shows 'The Champions', 'The Immortal', or 'The Prisoner'?

I'm not objecting, but just trying to parse out what we're speaking about,