Hmmmmm, I was wondering.

I don't believe that there is any controversy among people who read books --the book is always better than the movie. The question I have is, "Does it matter when you have read the book in relation to having seen the movie?

This is why I ask. This past week I was having lunch with several teaching colleagues. The topic turned to the newly released movie, "Where the Crawdads Sing" based on the best-selling book by Delia Owens of the same name. One of my friends purchased the book for the purpose of having read it before she took her mother, who wanted to see the movie, to the theater. She was very disappointed in the movie. A second coworker had read the book quite a while before seeing the film and thought they were both good. Finally, a third person in the conversation never read the book but really enjoyed the movie.

Saturday, my wife and I went to see the show. Pam had never read the book, but I had quite a while ago and felt the book was wonderful. We both enjoyed the movie.

I (perhaps rudely) joined a conversation two older ladies were having about the show. Both ladies thought the movie was great. One was saying that she also read the book, but it was some time ago, and she didn't remember it all until she saw it on the screen.

This raised the question in my mind. Does the amount of time between reading a story and watching the movie impact the amount of enjoyment that the reader will get from the movie? As I look back on the movies that I have watched after reading the book (I personally have never read a book after seeing the movie) I have come to the conclusion that there is a direct correspondence. I seem to enjoy the movie more the further removed it is from my reading of the book. Of course, the quality of the movie and the producers' adherence to the story is the number one factor. I am curious. What do you think?