Books vs. Movies
In this podcast we set out to answer the age old question: is the book really always better than the movie?
Books vs. Movies
Ep. 24 Erasure by Percival Everett vs. American Fiction (2023)
Can a film adaptation ever truly capture the essence of its literary source? Join us on this episode of "Books vs Movies" as we tackle this question head-on with the novel "Erasure" by Percival Everett and its 2023 film adaptation "American Fiction." I'm your host Lluvia, and I'm thrilled to have Chantel Nx, Reader Extraordinaire and a devoted Percival Everett fan, and Raymond Williams, who appreciates Everett’s work but favors "The Trees," by my side. Chantel shares her admiration for Everett's intelligent and distinctive writing, while Raymond discusses the structural challenges he found in "Erasure." Together, we explore the novel's timeless relevance and its intricate portrayal of a middle-aged author navigating the stereotypes and expectations of the publishing world.
Ever wondered how a story transforms from page to screen? We delve into that metamorphosis by comparing the narrative priorities of the book and the film. While the film adaptation emphasizes relationships and family dynamics, the book retains a more literary quality. Tracy Ellis Ross and Sterling K. Brown deliver powerful performances that make the movie compelling, but we lament the loss of certain tertiary characters that enriched the original story's narrative. Despite the author's approval of these changes, we believe they left significant gaps, reducing the story's impact.
Did the film's character developments and casting choices resonate with you, or did they miss the mark? Chantel and Raymond engage in a passionate debate, especially about the portrayal of the sister’s character, whose profound role in the book is minimized in the film. The absence of the father's extramarital affairs and the casting changes for Monk's character are also points of contention. Speculations arise about these alterations—were they meant to streamline the story or to avoid contributing to Black trauma? Regardless, Chantel strongly advocates for reading the book to experience its full depth, as we conclude this spirited discussion.
Connect with Chantel: Website
Connect with Raymond: Instagram
All episodes of the podcast can be found on our website: https://booksvsmovies.buzzsprout.com/share
Connect with me: Instagram | Threads | Bookshop | Goodreads | Blog
Welcome to Books vs Movies, the podcast where I try to answer the age-old question is the book really always better than the movie? Today we will be discussing Erasure by Percival Everett and its 2023 adaptation American Fiction. And yes, I said we, because I have two of my book club friends here with me, chantel and Raymond Yay.
Speaker 2:Thanks for inviting us, yuvia. I love the concept of your podcast and, like you know, the book. Which is better, the book or the movie? It's very exciting and, uh, I feel like I'm in great company with ravens and you, so it's gonna I'm happy to be here me too.
Speaker 3:Thank you for having us.
Speaker 1:Yeah, of course, thank you. So I wanted to invite both of you because, chantel, you are such a principal Everett fangirl so I knew I needed to discuss this with you. And Raymond, you are just one of, like, the smartest people I know. And, yeah, I wanted to get your opinion as well. So I started off reading the book like reading it, and then there's a long wait list at my library for it, so I couldn't recheck it out, so I had to finish it with the audio book. I don't do as well with audio as I do like physically reading it, so I'm scared I missed some things. So it's another reason I wanted to bring you both on here and discuss can I ask you a question um who did the reading in the audio?
Speaker 1:his name is sean christen, who is great, all right I don't know, I don't know a lot of audiobooks I wouldn't know.
Speaker 2:I just feel like the main dude who reads like so many like books is, um, I think his name is dean something or whatever, but he's read so many like books by like black men authors. Um, he's like done a lot of colson whitehead's books and like. Anyway, I just thought it might have been the same person, but then again, this book was released in like 2001, so of course it would have been someone different, I guess to be fair, it could have been recorded, like last year.
Speaker 1:I don't know, I didn't. I didn't look up when the one I listened to was recorded, um cool. So, chantel, why don't you tell us a little bit about Erasure and what you thought of it?
Speaker 2:oh man, what did? I think I loved it. Um, you know, percival Everett is the kind of smart that makes me like hot under the collar and I know when he said fangirl, I was like, yeah, that's completely me. Every book of his that I read I'm like bro, you are doing something so different. And I first I did. I don't have like a longstanding history with him, like, I just started reading him when the trees came out a few years ago. Um, I think Raymond read it first and then I read it after and I thought it was really, really good and I thought, wow, this guy's like doing something that's so different. And then only to find out that he had like tons and tons of books that had already come out. And I was was like, oh my God, I got to backtrack because he has the whole catalog.
Speaker 2:So then I I heard about the movie coming out for American fiction and people start talking about you know that it's based on this book, erasure. And then when I read it, I was like blown away. Blown away. I thought it was like his thought process is so intriguing, like he's just. He has this ability to capture things, breathe and give things space to like. Manifest in a book is like you when you follow it along while you're reading, it gets you excited and you're like what's happening? What's what is going on right now? I found myself asking myself that question so many times. So I love the book. I thought it was brilliant.
Speaker 1:Thank you, Chantel. What about you, Raymond?
Speaker 3:Yeah, so I'm new to Perseverance as well. I read the Trees, I read this as a part of this. So this was actually. Erasure was my other book club's pick for February of this year and I actually liked it less than the trees. Now I'd say it's not. It's not a bad book, it's just it wasn't. There were some things in the book that kind of couldn't really follow. Um, some some plot well, not necessarily plot, but like the structure, the structure of how the story is told in some places. But you know, for the general aspect of what it's about, you know, middle age author can't really get his what he really wants to write published, wants to write publish, and then he writes this stereotypical, quote-unquote Black novel that makes him famous and all this stuff. And you know, as someone I think you might have one of, you all just said, you know storyline's not that old, like it's 20 years old, but I mean it's still kind of relevant even you know's 20 years old, but I mean it's still kind of relevant even you know 20 years later.
Speaker 1:Yeah, Thank you. Yeah, I'm kind of curious what about the structural aspects of the book? Were that you struggled with, Cause I? I have to agree with you, but I will say it's something that I didn't struggle with initially. I started struggling with it Um, once I switched over to audio, and that's kind of when I had a little bit. So I'm so I don't know if it's like if for me, if it was like the structure of it, or if it was just the structure, structure of it combined with the audio, that kind of made it a little bit confusing to me.
Speaker 3:I think for me, so like the general story of him and his family, that was pretty straightforward. You know, the book the book within a book is was pretty straightforward. What I had trouble with was like these strange little and I know chantelle loved this part of the book because we talked about this one time but these like weird little vignettes that to me I'm like what's this about? Like can you tell me like why this was put in there and some aspects I kind of knew? So like there was an example where there was like some references to some Nazis and I'm like why is this in this book right now? Like it has nothing to do with the main part of the story. Um, but it had something to do with the theme of and the title of the book. But I think for me as a reader, I'm just like I don't need to hear that piece, I just need to hear like straight up storyline. And that's just me. But you know, chantel, I know you got yeah, because you know what I love?
Speaker 2:those elements of the book. I thought like the. It felt like scenes of madness. It felt felt like like just, um, you know what I loved about it? I loved those scenes because, portrayed like various feelings, like they were, there was so much like there was like shame and like frustration in those scenes, or like the scene where, like that random scene where it's like almost like a game show, it's just, it was like madness, it's. It felt like.
Speaker 2:It felt like the main character, monk, was like overextending himself. That like you know, when you reach to a point where you're just you're, you're trying to do something and people are not seeing it for what it is, so then it starts to infect your subconscious. Like I felt like that's what was happening and I thought that was such a way, such a great way to capture it. And just like the, like his own rage towards uh, we lives in the ghetto like I felt like his rage towards the book, like came back around into him and like that's where you got these like vignettes. So I really love those parts.
Speaker 2:Even though they sat, they felt really arbitrary and when I was reading them too, I was like what the hell are you doing? Like what is going on? But then I was like, when I started to get past that part and like enter into like some more of the story with his mom, I felt like it perfectly mirrored the whole dementia piece and the whole like losing touch with reality piece and I felt like all of those things played really well on each other. So that's why I loved the book. I thought like I've read three first of all ever novel so far and this one is still my number one.
Speaker 1:I love. I love that perspective because I I'm a lot like Raymond. Um, I really hate when books like they're telling a story and then you switch to like a book within a book that's just an example or, like, in this case, these little vignettes. So yeah, the way you explain that, that that makes perfect sense and it wasn't something I had considered. So I'm really curious what you if you, either of you have any thoughts of on my pathology, because we do get like the full book in the book and for me I just couldn't help. It felt like a retelling of Native Son, except that he's working for a rich Black family as opposed to a rich white family, and I'm sure that was very, very intentional. So I'm just curious what either of you have any thoughts on that.
Speaker 3:It was hilarious. The very first page. I had a total laughing fit because I just could not get over the dialogue and the. You know, as the title is my pathology, the pathology of everything, and, like you say, with it being a sort of a parody of Native Son, that part just made it even more interesting because you know, like, knowing how that story is and the madness that he put in this book to make it even like, like I, even like, as I was reading it, I was just like how's this book going to end? You know, I really wanted, I wanted more. Actually that's the crazy part. But yeah, so that was that's my kind of feelings on my path yeah.
Speaker 2:So that was that's my kind of feelings on my pathology. I thought it was hilarious too. I I found myself like dying just laughing so hard throughout that whole book. I was like, and the fact that he really gave it like enough time, like it wasn't like oh, this is like the hint of the book, here's like three chapters. It was like the whole book in there.
Speaker 2:How absurd and just like maury provis, jerry springer, violence, like, and you know it's so funny because if you think back to like when it was written, like you're, you're also. That's a height of those types of shows. So I was just like bro he's going in with and this like, just the absurd, like dialogue and just the, but also like, even though it was like hilarious and absurd, it was also there's so much pain and like, just like the like, just the, the pain and violence. And I thought that even though he was trying to like, be like, to parody it, he actually touched upon something that it's no wonder why it made it huge, because he actually touched something logical, even though he hated it and he was trying to make fun of it.
Speaker 2:So I thought that was interesting and the fact that, like you're trying to like this, uh, this other book for being such a um, for being such a like a you're trying to like this, this other book, for being so subversive, like just terrible, um, but at the same time, like you're not, you're mad as, like monk is mad, as a person who, who is feeling like he's being pigeonholed, he's pigeonholing others and not allowing space for, like he's making everything into. If it's not this standard, it's not good, you know, and I think that, like, I thought it was a very interesting topic on, like black people are not a monolith, you know. So I just thought I loved, I thought it was hilarious, I really laughed, just like Raymond, through that whole first couple pages. I was like this dude is tripping, like he's tripping yeah, I will say my.
Speaker 1:My pathology is one of the few books within a books that didn't bother me because it was just yeah, it was hilarious, um like the. You just look at the page and it's just like F you, from the top to the bottom. And it's funny because after every F you, he says like F you, I said F you, he said F you. Yeah, it's just funny to read that. So I'm curious what both of you thought of American fiction.
Speaker 3:Yeah, I enjoyed it. I actually liked it better than the book from my standpoint, although there's some things that they didn't. You know, there's some things they left out in the book that I wish was in the movie. But I think and I think this goes back to what I was saying earlier about they didn't have all those little vignette stuff that was having a, that I was having a problem with in the novel. Um, and I think for the movie it fleshed out a little bit more uh monk and his family, which they did. He does you know that that's done well in the book, but um, I guess it was. To me it felt like the he does you know that's done well in the book, but um, I guess it was. To me it felt like the uh movie made it more kind of the relationship, family stuff that maybe the book was more of the literary piece of it. I don't know if I'm getting that right, but that's kind of my thinking of right now.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I think it streamlined the story a lot more the film and I thought, personally speaking, I still like the book better than the movie. I did enjoy the movie and I think I enjoyed the movie because of the caliber of actors that were in the movie and, and, like Tracy, ellis Ross is amazing, I feel like the mom was a great and Sterling K Brown like everybody was good, like even Jeffrey right, every all the acting was so great that it made the movie really enjoyable. But in terms of like capturing the essence of the book, I think it did a good job but it missed a lot and, um, I think that there was like a level of madness and history surrounding the family and the father and stuff that we didn't really get to see play out as much as I wanted to yeah, um, it it's one of those things that obviously, like American fiction is, is based on the book, but it's also just so different at the same time, um.
Speaker 1:So I always struggle to compare the, the adaptations, when it's that different from its source material. But it's also interesting to see why they made the changes that they did, and I know that people had been wanting to make an adaptation of Erasure for years, but Percival Everett was kind of unsure of erasure for years, um, but Percival Everett was kind of unsure, and then, um, finally, he approved this one and he was a-okay with all the changes that were made, um, so, that being said, chantal, I want to know which change made you the most upset.
Speaker 2:Them not bringing in. I think the change that made me the most upset was definitely them not bringing in the tertiary characters Like we definitely needed to. Like I feel like that was a hitting point of the book, like, for example, the like the side sister, where her like living, who actually is living that good ass life. Like them not bringing her in and like illustrating that it's not just like we are not necessarily the the sole purveyors of this kind of lifestyle, this whole like experience, you know, and I think that, um, that made me the most upset because I was like we needed that. That was, that was a part of the book we needed in the movie you know what I mean. Like we really got more of like the brother and his like miserable, like, uh, you know I'm gay now miserable. Like, uh, you know I'm gay now, do my thing, now vibe and we. Also.
Speaker 2:Another thing that made me really upset was, um, how they killed off the sister. Like they flattened that character to, like they made her into a pancake, you know saying's such a dynamic individual she had, so much like her job alone, the fact that she like put herself on the line every day, like you know, the fact that she stayed home to take care of her mom in that way before these guys came back, the fact that, like it had so, like that character had so much to say about Black women in general, and like how much we are willing to do and sacrifice and give and promote to a to a family, that I'm really upset that they let. They just like, oh, she had a chest pain. Oh, bro, that killed me. I was like, what are y'all doing? What's going on over there?
Speaker 3:like y'all need to straighten that up, and I know that it probably would have made the film longer, but they need to put that back in the film no, I don't even think it would have made it longer, like and I think the reason why I was upset too about that is like she was in you know a doctor in a women's hospital, uh, and then especially with like what's going on now with like abortion being limited in the country, like why wouldn't they done that? Like that would have been a you know a good scene that went back to you know a tragic scene. That would be a little bit. That would have, like I would have more meaning.
Speaker 1:Like you did in the book.
Speaker 3:Yeah, like, yeah, like it did in the book. Yeah, like it did in the book. So yeah, I agree with Chantel on that. I also agree that the secret sister, we were robbed by not putting her in the film because, as Chantel said, she actually did live in the ghetto as the book the other book was called, and then the stuff about the father and his extramarital affairs which leads up to the sister, that was lightly touched on, Like, oh yeah, we know, dad was know stepping out, but then that's it, like we didn't. There was no examination of that in the movie. Um, this was a small point, um, but I I didn't realize this. Somebody else told me this, but jeffrey was great in the movie, but he is not the description of Monk in the book. So the Monk in the book is a darker skinned black man. I didn't know that.
Speaker 3:Yeah.
Speaker 2:I don't recall that. I think I just skipped past that. Anyway, go ahead.
Speaker 3:Someone told me too it was in the first chapter. I didn't recall that. I think I just skipped past that anyway. Someone told me too they were like it was in the first chapter. I said I didn't, I didn't recognize, like, and I went back and I saw like. It literally says it. And so, and somebody was saying I forget who I was listening to a podcast. Another podcast was saying something about like, what that may like. That changes his story too, about his, you know, skin tone you know Jeffrey Wright's skin tone, I guess.
Speaker 3:But anyway, yeah, so that's those two or three things and there's something else I think that's it that I can think of pick up, but yeah, definitely the big thing about the system, the um, um, that first part we just mentioned about um and I'm just blanking, but yeah, what do you think you?
Speaker 2:yeah, what did you think? What was missing, what made you upset?
Speaker 1:I feel the same way about the sister's death. So for those listening that haven't read or seen the film in the book, his sister works, as Raymond mentioned, in a women's health clinic where they do abortions and she actually dies because, like these, anti-radical, anti-abortion people come in and shoot her um, and in the film she gets a heart attack while she's driving.
Speaker 2:I I think that's what it is right um and like a restaurant, I think, and she, she just has a heart attack at the restaurant.
Speaker 1:I remember she was sitting. I don't know why, I thought she was driving, but yes, restaurant, she was sitting down. That's the important thing. Yeah, they were just. That is the important thing, yeah.
Speaker 3:She's doing something non-heroic. When the heart attack came?
Speaker 1:Yes, yes, exactly so that's how she dies. And yeah, when I read that in the book, I was also very curious as to why they changed it, and the only thing I could think of and this is just complete and total speculation, because I was not in the writer's room or anything like that but I know that lately there has been a lot of uh talk rightly so about Black trauma and specifically Black trauma for Black women. So I'm just wondering if they to keep it a lot lighter and because the film definitely has more of a comedic tone, that's the only thing I can think of is they changed it to not have, like such a traumatic Black woman death. But I don't know.
Speaker 2:I think it's a possibility, but I also think that, like it's possible that they just didn't want to distract from the centralized story. I feel like um in the film they tried to keep it so streamlined to like monk and then, like it went, it felt play by play by play by play, like they didn't really feel like. I feel like everything in the film could have been a little bit more like gelled together. He goes into his rage about writing um my pathology, it's like. He goes into this room, he sits down, he starts to have these visions and then keith david is there. Like you know, it's just, it's just crazy, right. And uh, I feel like in the book there was more, like a little bit more build up and like a little bit more stewing. So I don't know, that's just my speculations yeah, that I mean you're.
Speaker 1:I feel like yours makes a little bit more sense than mine yeah, I was just gonna say, that could be it.
Speaker 3:I just feel like what you're saying, yuvie, but I think also, it's just like they could have just not killed her.
Speaker 2:She didn't have to die.
Speaker 3:That would have been the ultimate change in the net. Just keep her in the story because I mean she had a good Tracee Ellis Ross character had a very good role for what she was the 10, 15 minutes she was in the movie. Why not just keep her in the storyline, like?
Speaker 1:Yeah, that's also very true. Yeah, because I mean.
Speaker 3:To be honest with you, you know who they could have got rid of not killed, but like scrapped all together. They should have just got rid of the girlfriend yeah, excuse me, household look.
Speaker 3:Okay, I don't feel like she was more of a central character in the book than the movie the girlfriend could have. I'm saying, if you kept the sister and then just got rid of the girlfriend character, maybe the sister could have performed some of that same kind of storyline about like her reading my pathology was like, oh, this book is good, mom, because you know they were bonding about that in the beginning of the movie, about you know, your, your book has changed my life. I use it as a doorstop right, and so they could have played around with that by. Just they kept the sister in there and she could have been a foil for whether or not the book that he ends up writing later on is like how it's seen by an everyday person, or something like that.
Speaker 1:That's interesting.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I feel like they flattened the girlfriend too. Yeah, they flattened all like the film flattened pretty much all the women in the film.
Speaker 1:I will agree with that. Yeah, definitely, and I this is when I had. I was like physically reading it, and even you mentioning that he's supposed to be a darker skinned black man did not enter my consciousness. So I'm glad you brought that up because I love Jeffrey Wright. But, yeah, that does. That would change the trajectory of the story. So I'm curious if you have anyone in mind or you Chantel with this in mind who you would cast instead of Jeffrey Wright.
Speaker 3:I guess it's easy.
Speaker 1:Okay, let's hear it.
Speaker 3:Mr Brothers.
Speaker 2:Yeah, facts, that's what I was just about to say, because I'm like, if it makes sense, they should have just switched to the brothers. Yeah, facts, that's what I was just about to say, because I'm like, if it makes sense, they should have just switched the brothers, like Sterling K Brown could have played Monk and Jeffrey Wright could have played the debaucherous brother doing the most.
Speaker 3:He could have Because he's played. I feel like he's played a role like that before he would have. I can't remember what it was, but he could have done it.
Speaker 1:Jeffrey Wright could have done it. Yeah, you know, I like that. I was fully expecting a full-on casting change, but I like that we're keeping the same actors, because I love them both, and just switching roles. So I'm here for that. I'm trying to think if there's, is there any changes that you did like? It's okay if there isn't.
Speaker 3:Any changes in the film that was different from the book.
Speaker 1:I did like that there was more of the author of Wee's Lives in the Ghetto. I like that she had a bigger role in the film um. Yeah, I I do wish we had more of the sister, um, and the, the girlfriend being a little bit more important, but I do like that at least that author had we we got to see more of her and and the dynamic between her and Monk.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I like the fact that they included the whole knocking him down a peg in the final face-off between them two. That was good.
Speaker 3:I wanted more of that. I felt like when the other lady judge came in and interrupted the conversation, I wanted them to say leave, so they could continue on with their debating, because I thought the points that they were hitting were very interesting, which is something that wasn't in the book, and I thought it was a very fascinating discussion between them about the nature of like writing and these voices and these stories that need to be, that, should or shouldn't be told, and this, that and the other. So that could have been like I could have had more of that, or I could have had that in this book. That would even probably made the book better for me um, all right, cool, so we're.
Speaker 1:we are running out of time on my Zoom, but is there any last minute things that you just have to get off your chest about, either the book or the film, before we get into our final votes?
Speaker 2:I want to say one oh, go ahead, raymond, you were ready Go.
Speaker 3:I was just going to say Leslie Uggams, who played the mom in the movie, deserves all her flowers. Yes, leslie Uggams, who played the mom in the movie, deserves all her flowers um yes, 80 years old and when she was getting down. Wait, she's 80, yeah, she's 80 something, yeah she looks great.
Speaker 1:I was not expecting her to be 80 yeah, so anyway.
Speaker 3:That's all I have to say um.
Speaker 2:So what I was going to say was basically that I thought the film at the ending, when, like I think in the end he just jumps in the car and they leave the filming lot, right, I thought that that was really great. I thought, like, um, like it was such a good way to. I mean, I love the ending of the book when it's like he got some on television or whatever. That was like the dopest ending to me. I thought, oh my God, he's so funny and he's just so smart. Like that was such cause I kept wondering how is this book going to end. But like the fact that that's what happened, I was like this. He just he nailed it and then leaving the lot in the film. I'm sorry I'm ruining it for, uh, anybody who's never seen. I'm so sorry. Like, all right, you gotta throw a spoiler on there. Cut this part of part.
Speaker 1:Cut this part off I think people know by now that if you're listening to this podcast, there's spoilers.
Speaker 2:Okay um, but I thought that that part was so great because it's like I thought it highlighted the fact that it's just fiction, like, like you could be anything, you could do whatever you want. You're not, you're not, you don't have to die, you don't have to get shot up by these agents, like, and I think that that's just a highlight of like, like the whole thing, like the diversity, diversity needed, understanding different things. Like you know, we don't have to go out like this every single time. It's a book. You can write anything. Just like Raymond said that we could have had Tracee Ellis Ross character still going, she could have still been in the film.
Speaker 1:Yes, so we know Raymond's vote. His vote is for the film and we know Chantel's vote. Her vote is for the book. I'm going to have to go with Raymond on this, and I did like the film a little bit more than I liked the book.
Speaker 2:Okay, okay, okay. Well, I'm still going for the book. I thought it was so well executed, but I feel like I would skew that way every single time. So I'm terrible that way, like when it comes to films, I'm like it's never going to be as good as the book.
Speaker 1:That's okay, but I agree with you for the most part. So but yeah, I think for me it was the acting that kind of pushed it over the edge and I the ridiculousness of that ending in the film.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I think that's what it was. That ending it was something it was definitely that could have got me over to the film side.
Speaker 1:I was like the ending's good. Raymond, do you have any thoughts on the ending of either or both?
Speaker 3:I did not like the ending of the book because I don't like opening the endings and like what does this mean? I had to look up that little Latin phrase at the end and still didn't understand what it was saying. And then the movie was a little. I liked it. It was fine, you know. It was better than the end of the book.
Speaker 2:Chantel's rolling her eyes over here Rolling my eyes. I'm rolling my eyes.
Speaker 3:I'm standing in my truth.
Speaker 2:Okay.
Speaker 1:I love that. So thank you both for being here. I really enjoyed this discussion. I love Chantel's passion and Raymond, all the points you brought up and, yes, so we leave it up to you. Chantel says read the book.
Speaker 2:I do Thanks, Yuvia, for having us. It was fun.
Speaker 1:Yeah, thank you.