And yet, here we also have the fallacy of the adaptation, for literature is an interior art. This is its power, that only in a book can we enter another person’s imagination so directly, animating his or her language even as we are inhabited by it. That’s the reason landmark fiction rarely makes good drama; it is already self-contained.
Actually, I think the reason that landmark fiction rarely makes good drama is purely statistical. Most dramas are bad to start with. I’d wager, actually, that landmark fiction makes for better drama than non-landmark fiction.
Amazon’s Luxembourg arrangements have deprived European governments of hundreds of millions of dollars in tax that it might otherwise have owed, as reported in European newspapers. But a Reuters examination of accounts filed by 25 Amazon units in six countries shows how they also allowed the company to avoid paying more tax in the United States, where the company is based.
It shouldn’t be shocking that giant companies do all sorts of gymnastics to avoid taxes. It should be shocking that any of this is remotely legal. Capitalists gonna capitalize.
Lab lit is not science fiction, and in my opinion it’s not historical fiction about actual scientists (though some fictionalized biographies do appear on the list). Instead, in the Web site’s words, it “depicts realistic scientists as central characters and portrays fairly realistic scientific practice or concepts, typically taking place in a realistic — as opposed to speculative or future — world.”
Maybe a character in a “Lab lit” novel will create a virus that kills anyone who names a new genre “[x] lit.”