Recently I was asked to defend a book to a person who'd seen only a stage version of the story -- and clearly did NOT like it. My response? A novel is a piece of art that ought be judged on the basis of literary criteria, not theatrical. They are two different beasts, completely.

When it comes to a flick, a play, or a novel, I almost always choose the novel. Why? Because candy for the eyes is tasty, but not nearly as long lasting as a picture in the mind. In our current culture, however, I fear that I'm in the minority. Instant gratification is the winner of the day.

I will admit, however, to one movie that was better than the book. The 2002 version of The Count of Monte Cristo was way better than Dumas's opium-smoking hero. And I'll also give you that the BBC production of Bleak House brought Dicken's classic to life in the perfect way. Other than that, though, books always trump. Why?

For the very reason today's culture turns to two-hour movies . . . time. When you invest time into the reading of a book, you connect on a deeper level than when you sit through a one-hundred-twenty minute whiz-bang collection of special effects. You experience the emotions of the characters in a way that is deeply personal and it makes a larger imprint on your brain.

Also, you see a character for what he is on the inside, not just the glamorous (or ugly) skin version on a screen. You hear their thoughts, understand their motivations, and see the full scope of how they change throughout the story because of it.

Sure, I still go see movies and plays, but I always make sure to read the book format first. Where do you stand? Feel free to sound off in the comment section.