>>213327572
Acquiring an interest in the Dostbunny was more akin to a recommendation from a pal. Finding out that Bobby and Camus thought highly of him was enough to check him out. It's because I respect their opinions on art because I respect their art. I wouldn't really be interested in reading the stories that Bobby adapted. They seem like minor works in D's oeuvre.
>Also
Hum... Sometimes. It's not often that this happens, though. I read Hill House after Robert Wise's movie but it was mostly because I wanted to see how the lesbianism was handled in the book (and the movie is, in a rare instance, the version where it's more explicit). But I find that rarely do you get a director making the movie that is on the same level of his craftmanship as the writer of the novel was. So a lot of time you watch an adaptation and it's pedestrian. American Psycho was especially disappointing, it was like a telenovela version of the book and didn't even attempt to translate the "abstract ideas" you mentioned.
After many disappointments, I just decided to let each medium be separate. I've read 30 books this year but I haven't gone on to watch any adaptations. I've watched a hundred movies more than that, a lot of them were adaptations but either I hadn't read the book or if I did I didn't take into consideration how it stacked up. Francis's Dracula is a terrible translation but I think it's a great movie... I guess it's the same mentality that lets me enjoy a movie that people hate for "ruining" a prior film in a franchise, e.g. Alien 3, which I enjoy, and which a lot of people can't because they can't take it on its own. I guess that was a long-winded way of saying I like to take everything on its own.
It's not to say that I don't let new avenues of exploration be suggested to me tho as you rightly pointed out. I became a Sonic Youth fan after thirst watching a Maggie Cheung joint.
>not to send you flying
That's okay. That's the only way one can explore the universe :)