I'm currently watching the Dark Days of Supernatural livestream and as I've been listening I thought, hmm, these comments would make an interesting post. The question was about the writing process, and Veronica Roth was commenting about something a professor had told her about cutting extraneous content from a story such as what characters were wearing or what they were eating. Of course cut scenes also can be dialogue or action scenes.
If you had the option to read a fully unedited version of a book would you choose to read it, or might you choose not to out of the chance that it might interfere with how much you enjoy the finished product?
Personally I'm not sure what I would do, although my answer might vary depending on the book that I were deciding about. Would I want to read an uneditedcut version of A Dance with Dragons? Probably, but it would most likely be thousands of pages long. An uneditedcut Harry Potter? No, I don't think so, because I love the way everything flows as is thanks to the goddess JKR.
posted by
kaye (paper reader)
at 21:12
5
comments
Labels:
this and that
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments on "if cut scenes were included"
This is a good question. My book club read The Count of Monte Cristo awhile back and some people read the very long unabridged version and said it was much better. I think sometimes really short books are too long if you know what I mean. Sorry, I have no answer I just don't know which I'd choose.
The unabridged version of Stephen King's The Stand is 1000x better than the cut down version and the same applies to Neil Gaiman's American Gods. It all depends though, both authors had intended for their novels to be long and rather epic but the publishers felt they'd sell better shorter. In those instances I'd almost always read the author's intended version, but if it was simply an early edit of any old book I wouldn't bother
Excellent question!! Hmm...
We agree, it would depend on the book. But even then, we're not sure what the "rules" of that dependency would be. For some books we love (like the Hunger Games or Harry Potter series) we would love to see what was cut b/c it would be like "extras" on a DVD -- more to absorb, to enjoy. But some books (like Anna and the French Kiss) were perfect as is, and any more might upset the balance.
We would like to point out that there's a big difference between "unedited" and "uncut." We wouldn't want to see a messy first draft full of typos and grammatical errors! But we would be interested in deleted scenes, characters, and the like.
@Jenny: I feel terrible for not having read Dumas yet, although I'm a sucker for unabridged anything. And I understand about short books even though I'm not quite sure how to phrase it, either!
@Kayleigh: Well said, and I think I find myself agreeing with you. I like a book not necessarily because of what it could have been but because I enjoy what it is and the former is sometimes just a bonus. Also, I started American Gods awhile ago but never could get into it. Where would you recommend one start with Gaiman?
@We Heart YA: A slip of the brain/finger! I suppose watching, listening and typing aren't good for multitasking. (Although I would still probably read an unedited version of A Dance with Dragons.) The Hunger Games would be great for extra scenes, and I admit I'd probably read any other scenes regarding Snape (especially from his perspective, although I'll post something on that tomorrow).
What a great topic! I only saw a little bit of the live stream last night, but that was one of the parts I heard.
If it were a series or book that I loved, I would read it. It's kind of like watching the deleted scenes from a movie. If they fit in with the story, then I think of them as extra, fun details. If it doesn't fit in, then I just think "oh, ok I see why that was cut".
It's just fun, bonus stuff to me. :)
Jennifer of Little Shelf
Post a Comment