The answer to this question is seemingly obvious: yes, of course someone’s creative product should be credited to them. Whether it be a novel, film, TV show or painting, the creator’s name should accompany their creation. So why is it debatable about whether a novelisation is an attributable work?
From Christopher Nolan’s Inception being inspired by the James Bond movies to James Joyce’s Ulysses inverting Homer’s The Odyssey, artistic creations have been constantly influenced by previous creations. Creativity is a living, breathing thing that can be found in all aspects of society with it being more apparent in deliberate forms such as literature or art and less obvious in advertisements and marketing. Creativity evolves alongside society and therefore, there is no such thing as a neutral, unaffected creative product. If it is not inspired by another creation, then it would be inspired by history or present life. To argue that an artistic creation that is directly influenced by a previous creative piece should not be attributed to its new creator is the same as arguing that no creative work should be credited to anyone, not just novelisations.
Most likely, instead of hearing about novelisations, you will have heard of novelisations’ more famous variant: screen adaptations. So, to preface the rest of this article, a definition of ‘novelisation’ is likely required. A novelisation is a novel with foundations that have been adapted and translated from another medium, for example a film, TV show, comic book, video game or manga. However, despite the foundational structures of the novel deriving from an original creative product, a novelisation does not replicate or directly retell a story. In fact, this is quite likely to be impossible because the source will be a different medium to a novel; two different mediums cannot be translated perfectly, but instead enable differing perspectives on the same story. For example, films are typically perceived from a spectator’s position and sometimes allow the audience to peep into a character’s inner world, whereas novels commonly vary in types of narration as well as include descriptive details that can only be glossed over in a film. All creative mediums entertain and inform, but in varying ways. Therefore, it is more beneficial to value a novelisation for its ability to further explore a previously created world rather than diminish the creation down to its creditability.
After all, what is the difference between a film novelisation and a screen adaptation? Why is there less discourse surrounding credit for screen adaptations than for novelisations? The recent surge of moving book to screen can be seen in recent adaptations such as The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes by Suzanne Collins further popularising The Hunger Games franchise, as well as in standalones like Daisy Jones & The Six. On multiple accounts has it been demonstrated that a screen adaptation increases readership by introducing new audiences to a novel. A famous example is the book sales for Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone more than tripling in the four weeks following the movie, with 956,700 units sold. This obvious benefit can overshadow the debate over who should receive credit for the creation, which is especially harmful when a screen adaptation can sometimes cause a novel’s recognition to be neglected because, over time, it eventually becomes mostly known as a movie. Two of the most surprising examples for you of this misplaced credit might be Jurassic Park, which was written by Michael Crichton, and Shrek, which was originally called Shrek! and written by William Steig.
Clearly, when it comes to novelisations and screen adaptations, there are two sides to this coin; both can be beneficial regarding popularisation and equally as harmful when considering who receives the credit. So, surely, if you are debating who receives the credit over a novelisation, then the same should be debated over a screen adaptation. Perhaps neither should be a cause for concern.
If individual, rather than collective, credit was the most significant discourse surrounding creativity, then the creative industry, an industry built upon a connected web of creative productions, would collapse. So, next time you read a novel, or watch a film or TV show, if you are interested in the creator(s), it might be wise to dig a little deeper and rightfully reveal every creator’s credit yourself.
When the industry does not allow everyone to receive credit where credit is due, do not let it stop you from discovering your potential next favourite creative yourself!
