Bibliography

Works Cited

Baetens, Jan. “Expanding the Field of Constraint: Novelization as an Example of Multiply Constrained Writing.” Poetics Today 31.1 (2012): 51–79. EBSCO Academic Search Premier. Web. 28 October 2013.

Baetens presents the difficulties facing the novelization and the novelizer. He outlines in many words the different contraints that are on the novelizer due to the screenwriter’s/filmmaker’s influence.

---. “Novelization, A Contaminated Genre?” Critical Inquiry 32.1 (2005): 43–60. JSTOR. Web. 28 October 2013.

Baetens discusses the novelization culturally and systematically. He describes how the novelization functions in relation to the film that inspired it (how it “talks back”).

Cox, Dan. “Pix, Books on the Same Page.” Variety. 26 February 1996. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 13 November 2013.

Cox traces the recent history (within the past two decades) of the novelization. He focuses on the business aspect of it and quotes several marketing specialists in that work in the film and publishing industry.

Dickstein, Morris. “The Moment of the Novel and the Rise of Film Culture.” Raritan: A Quarterly Review 33.1 (2013) 86–103. EBSCO Academic Search Premier. Web. 12 November 2013.

Dickstein’s article focuses on the replacement of the novel by film as the popular form of entertainment and art in the past fifty years or so. While he doesn’t talk about novelizations or adaptations, his insights into the relationship between literature and film as separate entities provide a starting point about their relationship when the novelization comes into play.

Golden, John. “Literature into Film (and Back Again): Another Look at an Old Dog.” The English Journal 97.1 (2007): 24­–30. JSTOR. Web. 6 November 2013.

This article is about teaching film to literature students and mainly centers on discussing adaptations of film from novels. He also incorporates lots of cinematic elements and how they relate to the literary counterpart.

Hendrix, Grady. “Pulp Fiction: In Appreciation of Movie Novelizations.” Film Comment 47.6 (2011): 44–49. EBSCO Academic Search Premier. Web. 6 November 2013.

Hendrix talks a lot about the relationship of novelizers to their novelizations. He is more of an objective observer when it comes to literary value of novelizations.

Kobel, Peter. “To Some, a Movie Is Just an Outline for a Book.” The New York Times. 1 April 2001. ProQuest. Web. 6 November 2013.

Kobel’s short article gives a quick overview of what novelizations are and why they are not familiar to most audiences.

Mahlknecht, Johannes. “The Hollywood Novelization: Film as Literature or Literature as Film Promotion?” Poetics Today 33.2 (2012): 137–168. EBSCO Academic Search Premier. Web. 28 October 2013.

Mahlknecht gives by far the most informative and intensive study on the commercialization of film novelizations. He also gives a lot of information on the relationship between the author and the filmmakers. While on the objective side, he still minces no words about the cheapness that are associated with novelizations and explains very well why that is.

McKeon, Michael. “Generic Transformation and Social Change: Rethinking the Rise of the Novel.” Cultural Critique 1 (1985): 159–181. JSTOR. Web. 12 November 2013.

While this response to Watt’s highly celebrated commentary on the novel is informative about novels and novel theory, it is not connected to novelizations or film.

Pagels, Jim. “Do Movies Still Get Novelized?” Slate Magazine – Politics, Business, Technology, and the Arts. The Slate Group. 16 April, 2012. Web. 9 November, 2013.

Pagels gives an overview similar to Peter Kobel, but is very critical of novelizations and is more specific about why they are not a viable form of literature. He also presents a quick history of the novelization.

Thelwell, Michael. “The Harder They Come: From Film to Novel.” Grand Street 37 (1991): 134–165. JSTOR. Web. 28 October 2013.

The author of the article is the novelizer for the film in the article’s title. While he provides some interesting passing comments, the focus of the film is on the history of the film itself and its controversial material being put into a book rather than the value (or lack thereof) of the novelization as an abstract object.

Von Moltke, Johannes. “Theory of the Novel: The Literary Imagination of Classical Film Theory.” MIT Press Journals 144 (2013): 49–72. Web. 12 November 2013.

Von Moltke talks about novel theory and film, but doesn’t bring the two together in the way I was looking for for this project.

Van Parys, Thomas. “The Commercial Novelization: Research, History, Differentiation.” Literature/Film Quarterly 37.4 (2009): 305–317. EBSCO Academic Search Premier. Web. 6 November 2013.

While I was unable to use this article, it has information regarding the history of the novelization. It focuses on French novelization roots and then transitions to American novelization history.

---. “A Fantastic Voyage into Inner Space: Description in Science-Fiction Novelizations.” Science Fiction Studies 38.2 (2011): 288–303. JSTOR. Web. 6 November 2013.

Von Parys’s argument focuses on science fiction novelizations and the methods of description in film and novelizations. He quotes other critics like Baetens and responds to their statements in the first part of the essay.