I’m going to break form a bit here and talk about a TV show adapted from a fantasy novel series. Too often I hear from my peers that television adaptations have little to offer in terms of creativity; that although a valiant effort, nothing can really compare to the original book. However, I beg to disagree. Certainly, that may have been the case in the past, but television has become the medium through which the majority of the population consumes entertainment. More people today watch television shows than have read almost any book ever written. As a result, demand for quality has risen drastically, and with CGI, shows are starting to do incredible things that weren’t possible even just a decade ago. What does that mean for books and adaptations? The pendulum of quality is starting to swing back in the other direction.
Magicians is a currently airing TV adaptation of Lev Grossman’s book series, The Magicians. This show, now in its second season, is in my opinion one of the best-executed page to screen adaptations out there. And the reason is editing, which coincidentally, I am in the throes of right now with my own book!
Spoilers ahead!
Before we talk about what makes The Magicians adaptation work, let’s discuss the biggest issue behind book to screen adaptations: faithfulness to the original. Film critic Scott Tobias wrote of The Hunger Games movie: “When the goal is simply to be as faithful as possible to the material…the best result is a skillful abridgment, one that hits all the important marks without losing anything egregious.” But if this is your goal, “It’s a failure of adaptations, to say nothing of imagination.” Tobias’ statement stands especially true for film, in which a creator has such a limited timespan to work with. In order to maintain the book’s integrity, there are certain absolutes from the original work that cannot be conceded. These absolutes add up and limit the creative space a director has to utilize his or her medium. But television and film are not books! There are amazing visuals and constructions available to a director that an author cannot compete with. If you only have 90 minutes to adapt a book, and 80 of those minutes are taken up by ‘must include’ plot points, then how can a film utilize its strengths and stake its own claim, or take the time to properly develop relationships? That’s where television today differs and begins to elevate itself. Ten hours allotted to a season provides enough leeway to take those artistic embellishments, and eliminate the issue of faithfulness.
The writers on Magicians asked a crucial question before fleshing out their story. What didn’t work in the book series? Too often do we idealize the original work – even Shakespeare made some questionable decisions (looking at you Pericles). The Magicians feels like a stand-alone book that got stretched into a three part series. Grossman very clearly had a, ‘what if Harry Potter went to college’ premise with heaps of genre deprecating dry humor on top. But then, surprised at his success, decided to continue the series.
At the end of book one, Grossman decided to kill off his villain. Makes sense if you’re only writing one book. However, when he did continue the series, as a result, we were left with a second book devoid of a convincing enemy, and we were instead relegated to flashing back half of the novel in order to reestablish a minor character – Julia. Grossman devotes the entire first half of the second book to retrace Julia’s steps during book one, which we didn’t really get to see. He then stumbles his way to an ending, so that everyone can be in the right spot for the third book, which itself has a bizarre, forced sequence in order to bring back another character, whose disappearance was, in my opinion, better left unsolved.
Don’t get me wrong; I’m a huge fan of the books. But like the showrunners, I recognize that they, and Grossman, are not perfect. So what was the solution; how did they succeed in making such an effective television show? Editing. Rewrites. The creative team sat down and figured out what their strengths were, and then chose how best to restructure the series. Just because book one ends where it does, doesn’t mean that season one of the show should do so. Ultimately, they combined Book One and first half of the Book Two, pushing the ending of the first novel to midway through their second season. Julia, whom Grossman had to go back and re-establish, was brought along from the start, and all of the characters were developed at the same pace. Instead of killing off the well-established villain at the end of season one, they kept him alive and combined his arc with Julia’s to start season two with a bang. As to that character whose disappearance in book one was probably better left unsolved? The series is currently airing, and I don’t know for certain, but my guess is they simply killed her off and expanded a throwaway section of book two about the underworld to better explain her eventual return
Regardless, Magicians separates itself from many book to screen adaptations by accepting its own strengths and limitations, and identifying the weaknesses of Grossman’s story. So many books, movies, and television shows could be improved simply by taking a step back and asking someone else what they think doesn’t work. Hopefully, more people give Magicians a watch and take note. The upward trend of quality in shows as of late gives me great hope for the future of television, and especially for the fantasy genre in television.