Reading is Fundamental

As much as I love movies, I still hold a cultural bias toward printed literature. That, combined with Wonder Red's infamous sensitivity to vivid visuals, has resulted in this house rule:

No watching the movie until you have read the book.

I mean really, if a little girl has nightmares about Professor Quirrell's turban after reading Harry Potter, the movie is right out. And anyway, as much as I love movies, most of the time, the book is better.
It's a pretty good rule. But every now and then, it can backfire. That's what happened to us last week with The Tale of Despereaux. I love Kate Dicamillo's books, and Despereaux is no exception. It was a surprisingly complex story about the darkness and light in every person's soul. I love authors who trust kids to handle depth in their stories.
I was prepared for the story to be greatly dumbed down for the movie version. What I was not prepared for was a movie that, to paraphrase Douglas Adams, was almost, but not quite, completely unlike the book. But it was a really good movie. The movie was focused more on the theme of courage. Not quite as deep as the book, but the story was nearly as complicated. They added things (like the rat coliseum) that were completely new to the story, but were such wonderful ideas, and so visually satisfying, that you could almost call them improvements. (Think the illegitimate son in the 2002 version of Count of Monte Cristo.)

Some additions to the story are improvements.

I do understand the principle that what works on the page doesn't always work on film. I supported Peter Jackson's decision to leave out Tom Bombadil. But Wonder Red and I were so distracted by the myriad differences from the book that it was hard to accept the movie on its own terms.
Just this once, I can say it was a fabulous book. The movie by the same name is also fabulous. But if you've read the book, please pretend you haven't when you watch the movie.