Review: Howl's Moving Castle by Diana Wynne Jones

"I think we ought to live happily ever after." - Diana Wynne Jones, Howl's Moving Castle

I was introduced to this story first throuh the Studio Ghibli animated film. Although confusing at first, it's earned its place in my heart as one of my all-time favourite movies. Once I discovered it was based on a book, that got added to my TBR so freaking fast, and after putting it off for forever, I finally got around to buying it and giving it a readthrough.

Howl's Moving Castle follows Sophie, a young hat maker who gets cursed by the Witch of the Waste and is turned into an old woman, unable to tell anyone she is actually under a spell. After running away from home, so as not to cause confusion or fear, she turns to the mysterious moving castle, and the wizard Howl who owns it. There, she strikes a deal with the demon Calcifer--break his contract with Howl, and he'll break the spell the Witch put on her.

Although Howl is well known for eating the hearts of young girls, Sophie soon learns the rumours running wild aren't as true as she believed--but his contract with the fire demon is much more complex and mysterious than she originally anticipated. On top of it all, things are never very ordinary around the castle--from a door that opens to four different places, to a magic scarecrow following them across the hills of Ingary. Sophie must navigate through this world of magic, spells, and curses, if she ever wants to return to her true self.

The problem I have with any book-to-movie or book-to-TV adaptation is that I have a big tendency to prefer the version I experience first, and Howl's Moving Castle seems to be no exception. One of the only reasons I kept reading was my love for the movie. (Another was that I was too far into it and didn't have time to read through another book before my review was due WELP.)

Don't get me wrong, though--the world was just as magical as the movie portrayed it, for which I was grateful. They don't often go into too much detail or backstory about the world, and just sort of let you take the reigns and run with it. Heavy world building is what normally turns me away from the fantasy genre, so I like that a book with a premise so highly dependent on fantastic elements is able to make the world come alive without having to go into the whole history of how it all began. That much, at least, the book did right.

This version of the story failed me, though. The things that I found most interesting--namely, Howl's history and background in Wales--wasn't explored anywhere near as much as I thought they should have been. I wanted to know how he found Ingary, why he left Wales, what form magic takes in our world. Instead, we got no explanation--we just had to accept that that was Howl's history and move on, with little more detail or answers. 

Meanwhile, my favourite bits that were included were sort of left up in the air until the last minute. Sohpie and Howl's relationship barely seemed to progress at all until the final few chapters, until suddenly Sophie was jealous and they were in love. I got absolutely no indication of Howl or anyone knowing of the curse, and quite frankly the appearance of her family towards the end was just kind of random. I did love Michael's relationship with Martha, and enjoyed watching as that progressed on the sidelines. But that was about the only saving grace for me.

I don't know. I feel like this book had so much potential, but as much as I loved the movie, the book just didn't give me the same feeling.

Final rating: 2.8

Until later,

- Justyne

Is the Book Really Better Than the Movie?

Have you ever seen Howl's Moving Castle? I rewatched it the other day. God, it's a good movie. You should go watch it.

Anyway. Rewatching the movie reminded me that it's actually based off of fantasy novel by Diana Wynne Jones, which I haven't read, because I've found that fantasy books aren't normally my thing. (Which is a whole other can of worms for a whole other blog post.) Despite this, though, nothing will prevent me from looking up reviews for this book as a form of procrastination--so I did.

Just about every review on Goodreads, though, makes reference to the movie in one way or another. Which isn't necessarily bad--it just reminds me of all of the people who preach and cry, "READ THE BOOOOOOOOK!!1!" every time a new book-to-movie adaptation comes out.

The popular belief is that the book is always, always, always better than the movie. (Always.) Which, in my opinion, isn't true. The book is always different. The book always has more detail. But I, for one, do not believe that the book is always better than the movie. Sometimes, but not always.

I feel like a lot of people confuse faithfulness to the original plot with actual good quality. I used to be the same way--I'd read a book, before spitefully watching the movie adaptation and critizing every change they made. It got to the point where I'd put off reading a book I was excited for, just so I could see the movie first and not be disappointed by the lack of depth.

If I've learned anything in recent years, though, it's that books and movies are completely different mediums and need to be treated as such. Think about it--would you compare an abstract painting to an artistic photograph? Would you compare a poem about a bird to a sculpture of one? I mean, you can, and there are probably benefits to doing so, but you still recognize that each artwork captures the subject differently. It's just like you wouldn't compare a Stephen King thriller to a children's picture book--because really, how can you compare the two at all?

I'm a very big fan of the Divergent trilogy. I was actually first attracted to the books by the first trailer for the movie back in 2014, so heck yes I was super excited for the movie! And, all in all, they were fairly faithful to the book...but not in the way I would have liked. They made mostly minor changes (and one bigger one towards the end), none of which really made sense to the story. They changed one of the overall themes of the book, and I really didn't think it worked in the movie's favour.

But Insurgent? I liked it. It's damn near ridiculous plot wise, and took many more liberties in changing its course of events from the book, which I think is the reason most people dislike it. (Most original fans of the book, anyway.) But I still liked it, way more than the first movie.

Here's the thing: the theme in Insurgent (the novel) is very deep, dark, and complex--and I was so, so scared that they were going to try and adapt it into the film and ruin it--because, to be honest, there's too much there to really portray it accurately and faithfully in a couple hours.

When it came time to actually watch the movie, I was pleasantly surprised--they switched the theme around completely, adapting something totally new. And even though it wasn't as deep or emotional, it was still well done (in my opinion, anyway), and I appreciated the fact that they were willing to change something so central in the books, in order to make the movie a little better.

I've also found a pattern in my own personal movie-going and book-reading experiences--whichever version of the story I'm introduced to first is the one I tend to favour.

Example A: The Princess Diaries, originally a series by Meg Cabot. I grew up with the movies, as many people my age did, and it wasn't until I was in middle school that I realized they were actually based off of a really popular book series. I hold the movies very near and dear to my heart, so I was eager to pick up the first book and give it a try.

I didn't like it. Maybe I'm biased because I have a nostalgic attachment to the movie version, but I just didn't like that version of the story. I stopped after the first book, and just never bothered to read any of the others.

Example B: Avalon High. Coincidentally, another book by Meg Cabot, and one that I actually really love. In 2010, it was adapted into a Disney Channel movie that I was super excited to see--and, inevitably, was disappointed by. It was basically the same old story; I didn't like the changes they had made, I thought that the quality of the story in the book was better, etc etc.

BUT. Here's the thing: it wasn't a bad movie. (Of course, Princess Diaries wasn't a bad book, either.) The sets were incredible, and I have to admit--their twist was pretty good. (Not, like, world shattering or anything. But I certainly wasn't expecting it, and I'm sure few people who read the book were. Which makes me think that that might have been the point.) If it weren't for the pre-existing novel that I had already read and loved, I genuinely think I would have enjoyed the movie more.

BUT--and here's one super big exception to everything I've mentioned thus far--I didn't feel that way about W.i.t.c.h. W.i.t.c.h. was, originally, an Italian comic book, that was translated into several languages and adopted into a novel series (with comic excerpts at the start and end) in North America. It was super duper big, went on for, like, ten years, and was adapted into a television show that lasted two seasons.

I started reading the books first. Unfortunately, as much as I absolutely adore this series, I never finished it completely, basically because North America sucks. (They only adapted the first two story arcs, when the Italian version went on for, like, twenty, and also started full comic translations without ever finishing them. My soul never healed, friends. I am bitter to this very day.) I read the books and loved them and looked forward to their releases for a long, long, long time.

And then I watched the TV show.

The TV show adaptation took a lot of liberties with the story--it changed a lot of plot points, a lot of character designs, and a lot of details of the world it was set in. But I honestly didn't mind--I enjoyed these changes, as much as I enjoyed the original novels / comics...sometimes even more so. (Caleb and Cornelia, guys. CALEB. AND. CORNELIA.) Now I don't even want to read the original comics because I know my dreams will be dashed.

SO. What do you guys think? Do you think the book is always better than the movie, or do you judge it on a case-by-case basis like me?

Until later,

- Justyne