Everyone in your life thinks your book would make a great movie, play, or video game. But adaptation isn't a copy-paste job because every medium solves storytelling problems differently. This week, we put one scene through four different mediums to see what each one reveals about craft, whether or not you ever plan on adapting anything.

🛋️

Overthinking Couch Topics:

1. Why "the book was better" misses the point of what adaptation actually does
2. The kitchen table scene: one moment, told four ways
3. What novels can do that film, TV, and stage cannot
4. The screenwriting habit every novelist should steal
5. What television teaches about sustaining relationship dynamics across a series
6. Why playwrights understand subtext better than novelists
7. What video games can teach you about giving your characters real choices
8. Environmental storytelling, and why your hostage scene needs more than a metal chair
9. This week's overthinking prompt: running one scene through four lenses

• Home : America's Editor - Let's work together.
• More Writing Tips

Connect

Have a question you want overthought on a future episode? Email [email protected] or find us on Instagram at @writingbreakpodcast.

Music licensed from Storyblocks.

If you have plot bunnies coming out of your plot holes, it's time for a writing break.

Welcome back, writers. I hope you're having a great writing week. I'm glad we get to spend another writing break together. We are talking about adaptations in this episode. You and everyone around you thinks your book would make a great movie or play or video game, so what now? Well, there are differences in each medium that can guide you in successfully adapting your work. And even if you're not looking to adapt your masterpiece, knowing each medium's strengths, and borrowing them from time to time, can make you a better writer.

Now, believe it or not, I'm not the kind of person to say, "The book was better." Primarily because I rarely watch the movie adaptation of any book, so how would I know? Sometimes I make exceptions for science fiction because I am curious to see how the filmmakers interpreted the fictional science. But another reason you won't hear that classic "the book was better" refrain from me is that an adaptation is not supposed to be an exact copy. It's a translation. It's clear in the choice of the word adaptation because etymologically, to adapt is to make something fit somewhere it didn't originally belong.

And that explains why I tend to steer clear of adaptations if I've already read the book. I saw the movie already . . . in my head, you know? How could anything compare to our own blessed imaginations?

The Writing Break cafe is open, so let's head inside and look at where each medium excels, which is a useful exercise, whether or not you ever plan on adapting anything.

For starters, should you write with adaptation in mind at all? I'd say understand adaptation, and then put your attention back on the work in front of you. If you're writing a novel, your first and only real obligation is to make it succeed as a novel. A strong novel attracts adaptation interest precisely because it already works as a novel. It doesn't have to work as a film, play, or video game yet.

Adaptations translate rather than duplicate. Sometimes an adaptation stinks. It flattens the source material, misunderstands the characters, or swaps a meaningful ending for something trite. But in life and in media, change is to be expected. A story cannot move from one medium to another without changing shape. But what can we learn from each medium?

Picture a kitchen table. A man is sitting there, half-listening to his sister talk, while an untouched cup of coffee goes cold in front of him.

A novel can spend five pages inside his head during that exact moment. It can explore resentment, embarrassment, self-deception, and a childhood incident involving a melted crayon and a favorite toy. From the outside, the scene looks stationary. But on the page, the character has embarked on an entire emotional expedition.

A film handles that same moment in a different way. The camera shows the table, the sister, the coffee mug, a hand tightening around a spoon. The actor reveals tension through posture, silence, and tone. You might have read a simple "I'm fine" as an annoyed "I'm fine" when you read the book, but the actor delivers the line as a breezy if false "I'm fine." On screen, music, lighting, editing, and color correction influence how the viewer experiences the story. The film has to externalize what the novel gets to internalize.

Even a stage play has its own set of tools. The audience shares the room with the actors, so a pause can feel enormous because everyone is living through it together, in real time. An actor crossing from one side of the stage to the other can shift who has the power in the scene. A chair becomes a throne or a barricade or a confession booth, depending entirely on how the actor treats it. Theatre doesn't need to rebuild that kitchen exactly, but it needs you to believe the emotional truth of the room.

A video game lets you walk through the house before the conversation even starts. Maybe you find old photographs, unpaid bills, or a locked drawer you can't open yet. You get to choose whether to confront the sister or dodge the whole subject, and you piece together the truth through what the environment lets you notice. You're moving through the story and influencing when things are revealed.

That's why I think adaptation is re-engineering, not photocopying. Imagine handing an architect the blueprints for a Victorian house and asking for a treehouse. They can't just shrink the house and staple it to an oak tree; the structure has to change because the support system changed and how you access the house changed. It's the same with stories. A novel, a film, a play, and a game can share a premise, characters, and emotion, and still each one needs its own architecture.

Oka, most of you listening are working in prose, so let's start there.

Am I about to tell you the novel is the superior form? No. Even if I thought that, which I do, that is subjective, not objective. But if the novel is your form, then you should understand the one thing it does that nothing else on this list even attempts, which is live inside a character's head. A novelist gets to go directly into a character's mind and show how a person thinks, remembers, misunderstands, justifies, regrets, hopes, and fears. That's kind of a big deal. That's one of the reasons the novel has survived every format that was supposed to kill it.

As an editor, I sometimes get manuscripts that don't seem to want to be novels. The scenes read like the author was picturing camera shots the entire time. Characters walk through empty rooms, deliver lines, exchange glances, and exit. The narration barely lets us into the consciousness that's supposed to make prose feel intimate. I get how this happens. Some people think in pictures. They see the scene play out in their mind, they picture the trailer, they've already cast the lead in their head and picked the song for the credits. There's nothing wrong with a visual imagination, but a novelist should not trade away their novel's actual strengths in order to imitate film.

Maybe those writers should write screenplays from the start. As for you, maybe your book will be made into a movie someday, but when you're writing the novel version, let it be a novel. Use interior tension, memories, and contradictions. Make the most of the gap between what a character says out loud and what the narration tells us is really going on. A film can show us a woman smiling at a dinner party while she grips her whiskey glass a little too hard. A novel can show us that exact same smile and then tell us she's mentally strategizing the best way to begin her closing argument in court the next day. That is not information a camera has access to the way prose does.

However, all of this narration and inner monologue can lead to rambling, boring parts in your book. Even if those parts aren't necessarily boring, they're not going to be part of the film adaptation, which means a lot of nuance and important information might not make it to the screen or stage. And that okay, usually.

Screenwriting, on the other hand, leaves you almost no room to drift. A screenplay is commonly estimated at about one page per minute of screen time, and whether or not that ratio holds up in every single case, what you'll find in a screenplay, in addition to dialogue, is some stage direction or description, but not much. To get familiar with how a script becomes a movie or episode, think of a popular movie or show you've seen many times and know well, then search online for the screenplay or script. You'll see it's pretty sparse. Set design, music selection, acting choices, camera angles, and lighting shape what you see on the screen, and those things are rarely detailed in screenplays. Adapting your work from print to screen means you will not have the same control you had when you wrote the book. Producers, directors, actors, set designers, and the rest of the creative team get to make their own decisions about how your story will be protrayed on screen.

One thing worth learning from screenwriting is when to enter and leave a scene. Novelists love to start a scene way before the tension starts: a character wakes up, gets dressed, drives across town, parks, orders coffee, comments on the weather, notices the line at the counter, and only then gets the phone call that changes everything. That buildup rarely pays off. Screenwriters are trained to find the exact moment a scene becomes necessary. You can train yourself to find it as well.

The same goes for exits. Plenty of scenes keep going well after their job is done because the writer wants to explain the emotional fallout: the conversation ends, the character reflects on what was said and then summarizes what we, the readers, already understood. Maybe there's a reason for that. There's definitely a delete key for that. If you feel like you have to ask your readers, "Did you get it?", consider strengthening what you've already written first before you just start writing more. Learn to enter scenes late and leave scenes early.

Screenwriting also teaches external pressure. In a novel, you can sometimes keep a scene alive purely through narration. On screen, a scene needs visible tension: somebody wants something, something's in the way, and the audience watches the pressure build. Bring that lesson back into your prose, and your scenes will getstronger because now the internal and external layers are working together.

Television and streaming shows teach us how to sustain relationship dynamics. A film usually works within one contained arc, but a good series makes you care about how the characters keep changing around each other. The attachments, betrayals, alliances, habits, and secrets all keep us coming back to see what happens next. Picture our kitchen table scene as the fourth version of itself, three seasons in: the sister is there, always circling the same subject; our narrator always finding a new way not to answer. Or maybe the repeated scene can serve as a way to update and expand the story. A film gets one shot at that coffee cup, but a series gets to let the same scene harden or soften over years of episodes.

If you're writing a series, keep in mind that readers come back for unresolved emotional business. They want relationships developing under new pressure: familiarity and change, both, at the same time. A series that changes everything too quickly breaks the emotional contract that got readers hooked in the first place. A series that only offers familiarity gets repetitive fast. There's an audience for the latter, of course, primarily children. A good series for adults knows, however, how to stretch character development without ever letting it stagnate.

Then there's theatre, which too many fiction writers ignore completely. Yes, even you; don't think I don't see you skipping the plays section of the bookstore. C'mon, give them a chance; playwrights understand dialogue in a way that should humble the rest of us.

Real conversation meanders. People interrupt to ask where you put the scissors or interrupt themselves to check their phones. They repeat themselves, trail off, and talk around the actual point. Those are the top 5 ways to aggravate me during conversation, by the way. Dramatic dialogue borrows the texture and nuances of real speech and adds consistent pressure, direction, and subtext. It really puts the squeeze on you, ya know what I mean?

Read enough plays and you start noticing that characters don't often say what they actually mean. Someone asks, "Are you angry?" and the response is, "Your mother called . . . twice." Someone says, "Did you miss me?" and the response is, "The stray cat you've been feeding had kittens today." A weaker writer forces characters to explain the whole emotional situation out loud. But you, you're not weak, so you know that a stronger scene lets the avoidance do the work instead. Unless you're writing for children.

Put our narrator and his sister on a stage instead of at that kitchen table, and the coffee he isn't drinking becomes a prop with a purpose. He could turn the mug slowly instead of answering. Push it an inch toward his sister, then pull it back. You could capture that movement in print or on camera, but on stage you don't zoom into the coffee mug like you'd have to do for a film or show and you don't slow down the scene's momentum by describing these little movements the way you'd have to do for a book. Theatre doesn't deliver memory straight to the mind the way prose does, so the audience might never hear about the melted crayon or the favorite toy. But while on stage, the actors move, and it's up to the audience to catch the importance of what they're doing and not doing. The stage actor communicates to the audience in real time, and not just by speaking their lines.

On stage, where a character stands matters. Who sits, who stands, who turns away, who crosses the room, who refuses to move. Instead of treating gestures as decorative beats, physical behavior reveal strategy. A character who keeps cleaning during an argument could be telling us something about their guilt or their desire for control. A character who stands in the doorway instead of entering the room is making a choice. A character who sits in someone else's chair might be announcing dominance without saying a single word. If every character in your novel is constantly smiling, sighing, nodding, frowning, lifting an eyebrow, and looking away, the body has become filler. Theatre shows us that physical movement can be narrative. Learn from that.

The stage also teaches the value of silence. A pause can feel tender, threatening, funny, or unbearable, depending entirely on what came before it. You can use silence in your own work by resisting the urge to translate every quiet moment into an explanation. Sometimes the refusal to answer is the answer.

Now, what about video games? Interactive storytelling is one of the most important narrative laboratories we have. Games change the relationship between story and audience by introducing agency. A reader wonders what happens next, but a player wonders what happens if they choose differently. In a novel, the writer controls the path, and the events stay fixed no matter how much a reader questions a character's choices. In a game, the player might choose dialogue, strategy, exploration, alliances, moral compromises, or even the order in which they discover information. The writer still controls the larger structure, sure, but gamers have a unique emotional relationship to consequence because they were able to participate.

If you look a little too closely at some of your favorite stories, not the ones you've written, of course not. I'm talking about ones written by other writers, talented writers, just not as talented as you. If you look at some of those stories, you might see that some fictional characters appear to make choices, but pivotal scenes only ever give them one viable option. They follow the plot because the plot has them on a leash. Games remind us that a meaningful choice needs real alternatives; a character picking one path while rejecting others that had their own appeal, or safety, or logic, or temptation makes for a better story than a character choosing between life and death. If your protagonist makes a major decision, ask what they're giving up. If the answer is nothing, the decision doesn't carry real weight.

Games also teach environmental storytelling. One common mistake novelists make early on in their career is writing scenes in a white room, meaning they don't describe the surroundings enough or at all. Yes, it's possible to go overboard with description, but more than once I have edited a hostage scene with good dialogue where the only description is about the chair the hostage is sitting on. It's usually a metal chair too. That lack of description makes it hard for a reader to feel like they're in the story, and it's going to make a pretty boring video game when the time comes to adapt it. A novel that describes a ruined house by mentioning broken windows, mold, and collapsed furniture can easily adapt into a game that lets the player find a journal under a floorboard, a calendar stopped on one particular date, or a locked toolbox in a neglected garden. The story emerges through objects arranged in space, and the gamer gets to piece together what happened by looking around.

Put our kitchen table scene into a game and the crayon and the favorite toy move from memory to evidence. The player might open a closet before the conversation even starts and find the toy. Whatever the novel told you through narration or inner monologue, the game tells you through what it lets you find.

Remember that when you're writing the novel, focus on the novel format, but it's not a bad idea to take a mental look around as you write each scene, as though you were playing a video game, and share with your readers the details that will help ground them to the setting. Sights, sounds, smells, texture, and weather. Get it all in there, and then work on making sure the details appear in a way that flows and fits the story. If you're not sure if you're putting in too much or not enough, remember to ask yourself, "What does the reader need to know next?"

When your work is adapted into any format, there might be some heartbreak. The scene or subplot you love might not survive, the character you think is essential could get merged with another character or two, and a three-page memory might end up as just a prop sitting on a desk. That can hurt, especially when readers loved the original, but a successful adaptation has to make choices based on what the new medium actually needs and allows. Things like time limits, staging constraints, episode structure, and player agency will have to be considered. That's okay.

Readers might not be understanding, but writers who understand this get to be less precious and more precise. What is each scene actually doing? Is it revealing character, escalating tension, changing a relationship, delivering information, building atmosphere, or something else or nothing at all? Once you know a scene's function, you can imagine how a totally different medium might perform that same function.

So here's your overthinking prompt for the week. Take at least one scene from your current work in progress and answer the following four questions:

If this scene were filmed, what would the audience actually need to see?

If it were performed on stage, what would the actors need in order to make it work?

If it were part of a game, what choice would the player get to make?

What can this scene do on the page that no other medium could do quite as well?

Next time, we will continue our genre series by looking at international genres and storytelling traditions. Until then, thank you so much for listening, and remember, you deserved this break.

Thank you for making space in your mind for The Muse today.

Writing Break is hosted by America’s Editor and produced by Allon Media with technical direction by Gus Aviles. Visit us at writingbreak.com or contact us at [email protected].