The Purist Mindset, Does It Hinder Creativity And Good Novel Adaptations?

We are fully immersed in the streaming platform era, there are countless platforms warring for your attention, and money. While it may cost more than ever to watch TV—especially if you want fewer ads (looking at you, Prime Video)—there’s a silver lining that comes with this new media landscape: adaptations. Over the past few years, particularly since the start of the COVID era, there has been an explosion of book-to-screen adaptations. Though many of these adaptations are TV shows rather than films, they’ve carved out a distinct subgenre in an already vast entertainment landscape. The sheer number of novels being adapted into visual media, just this year alone, is staggering.

This surge in adaptations (just check out this list from 2024 alone) seems like a dream come true for book lovers, right? What could be better than seeing beloved characters and worlds come to life on screen? But with this surge comes an undercurrent of controversy, and that's what I want to explore today. As exciting as these adaptations are, they also bring out the purists—fans who hold an unwavering loyalty to the source material. These diehard fans can be fiercely protective, rallying around the original novels and often criticizing changes or creative liberties taken by filmmakers and showrunners.

For these purists, any deviation from the book can feel like a betrayal. Whether it's changing a character’s backstory, omitting key scenes, or even altering the tone of the narrative, the purist mindset often views these changes as diminishing the integrity of the work. And while it's easy to dismiss these reactions as overzealous fandom, there are times when their frustrations are valid.

But where do we draw the line between justifiable critique and hindering creativity? Can this purist mindset actually get in the way of good storytelling or even prevent a faithful adaptation from becoming a great one? These are the questions I’ll be diving into today, using two specific examples of novel adaptations. In one, the fan outrage is arguably warranted, while in the other… not so much.

The Netflix Witcher Disaster, A Waste Of Potential

With a title this pointed, you might assume I’m one of those raging fans. You’d be right—at least when it comes to The Witcher franchise. So, bear with me for a moment. Imagine you’re a writer at Netflix, and suddenly in your lap lands a prebuilt roadmap to your very own Game of Thrones. This roadmap comes with a treasure trove of already-written novels, a series of critically acclaimed games, a massive fanbase hungry for more, and a fully fleshed-out world. Sounds like a golden opportunity to create a money-printing machine, right? Well… not quite.

In a perfect world, we could have gotten the next sprawling fantasy epic to rival the most popular shows out there. Instead, we ended up with a mess. Rather than follow the carefully laid-out roadmap, Netflix (and I say Netflix here, as it’s unclear exactly who pulled the strings behind the scenes) opted to invent characters, rework existing ones beyond recognition, and add new plot points. Now, reinvention and creative liberties aren’t necessarily a bad thing. The issue is how it was executed—and it’s especially problematic given the unique challenges of adapting something like The Witcher.

Whereas (spoiler alert for later) The Silmarillion is a collection of short stories meant to set up the wider world of Middle-Earth and is up to vast amounts of interpretation, Andrzej Sapkowski’s Witcher series doesn’t have that luxury. The books are more tightly defined, with less room for creative deviation or re-imagination. The Witcher is far more structured, with a clear narrative path that is crucial to its identity. That’s part of what makes the series so beloved—and part of why it’s so challenging to adapt without alienating fans. To complicate things further, Sapkowski is still very much alive, unlike Tolkien, who can no longer weigh in on adaptations of his work. This difference adds another layer to the issue at hand: there’s an inherent tension between honoring the source material and making bold creative choices.

Here is an overview of some of the most drastic changes that upset the most people:

• Yennefer in the book is a good albeit, morally questionable at times character. In the show she is straight up evil. Her backstory in the show is also fabricated. This lead to weird moments in later seasons. To make this worse, after the second season and the outrage, Netflix and the writers aggressively spend the entire third season undoing everything the second season did. This was funny, and confusing. It lead to moments when Yennefer was eating dinner with Geralt and Ciri who she tried to kill, sitting in silence. In the novels, she was a mentor and mother figure to Ciri.

• Fringilla’s role was significantly expanded and altered, making her a primary antagonist (for no reason, likely for diversity) with a stronger political arc, which deviates from her more minor role in the books.

• Dara. Ciri’s elf companion was an entirely new character invented for the show. While this gave Ciri more interaction early on, many fans felt it was unnecessary and detracted from her individual journey.

• In the show, Nilfgaard’s aggression is portrayed as religious fanaticism, whereas in the books, it is more politically and militarily motivated. This change was seen as simplifying Nilfgaard into a more one-dimensional villainous force. This lead to a boring opposing force who just waved their giant military hand around to advance the plot.

• In the books, Geralt’s relationship with Ciri and his reluctance to accept "destiny" is gradual. The show’s emphasis on destiny and prophecy was seen as heavy-handed, and Geralt’s initial connection with Ciri felt forced to some fans, who wanted a slower burn similar to the novels.

There is a lot more, but to avoid this seeming ranty and not enlightening let me focus back up. Creative changes are needed in order to make a novel fit the big screen (or small screen if you watch on a phone or laptop) but the changes done in The Witcher where so drastic with no real point they felt what I like to all ‘agenda pushing’ and useless. To top it all off the lead star, Henry Cavill is a outspoken fan of Andrzej Sapkowski work and CDPR’s massively successful gaming series. He has played the games and is invested into the story, so much so he left after the third season. He to was upset with the changes made to the overall world, that and he was injured during filming. That was the final nail in the coffin for many and while Liam Hemsworth is a great actor, there is just no one else who can play that character as well. I do hope the rest of the show goes well enough for everyone to get paid and move on, as the show will no longer be produced after its 5th season and all spin offs outside of “Sirens Of The Deep” have been canceled. That leaves 4 or 5 book to be condensed and wrapped up in two seasons.

Lord Of The Rings: The Rings Of Power Debate

The Witcher was a poor novel adaptation. There’s no sugarcoating it, and fans have every right to be upset. However, The Rings of Power is a fantastic adaptation, and the backlash it’s facing from purists is misguided and unjustified.

Now, before anyone accuses me of being just another casual fan defending the latest shiny TV show, let me make one thing clear: I’ve studied Tolkien. I’ve written academic papers on him while earning my English degree, and The Lord of the Rings is a cornerstone of why I became a writer in the first place. I know Middle-Earth like the back of my hand, and I don’t take its legacy lightly. That’s exactly why I’m standing my ground on this.

With The Witcher, Netflix took an established roadmap and threw it out the window. They invented characters, twisted existing ones beyond recognition, and added plot points that didn’t belong. The changes weren’t just creative liberties—they were chaotic, undermining the essence of Sapkowski’s world. Fans were rightfully upset, and I’m with them on that.

But The Rings of Power? That’s a completely different story. Yes, there were creative liberties, but the showrunners had the near-impossible task of filling in gaps with limited rights to certain parts of the lore. Given the circumstances, they managed to deliver a visually stunning, narratively rich experience that respects the spirit of Tolkien’s world while offering something fresh.

And this is where the purists get it wrong. Adaptations don’t need to be line-for-line recreations to succeed. They need to capture the heart, the themes, and the soul of the original work—and The Rings of Power does exactly that. Tolkien’s works, especially The Silmarillion, leave room for interpretation and expansion. The showrunners took that opportunity and created a version of Middle-Earth that’s both faithful and innovative.

What’s more, Tolkien isn’t here to guide these adaptations, and that creates an additional challenge that The Witcher doesn’t face, as Sapkowski is still very much alive. The creative team behind The Rings of Power had to make judgment calls that respect the original without being bound to it—decisions that, in my opinion, resulted in a fantastic viewing experience. Even more so the Tolkien family is heavily involved in the production of the show. Tolkien scholars also stand behind The Rings Of Power saying there is no official ‘bible’ of Tolkien canon, we only have the half completed Silmarillion. This statement I mostly agree with, but that’s besides the point here.

To those who believe any deviation is a betrayal of Tolkien’s legacy, I say this: adaptation is about transformation, not replication. Yes, there will be differences, and yes, some choices might not align with your expectations, but that doesn’t make it a failure. Not every creative decision is a personal affront to the lore. It’s possible to honor Tolkien’s world while bringing new elements to the table, and that’s exactly what The Rings of Power achieves.

So, while The Witcher deserves criticism, The Rings of Power deserves appreciation. It’s time to stop conflating the two and acknowledge that, sometimes, creative liberty leads to greatness.

I do hope to see all five seasons of The Rings Of Power as new Lord Of The Rings in 2024 is a gift. Remember when you watched the original trilogy and ever since you wish you could relive that sense of wonder and excitement? That is exactly what this show does, and its fantastic and rewards you for knowing your lore. An informed reader could see plot points that payed off in season two that where set up in season one. And if you are a lore nerd like me, then you even see a famous sword make its appearance. I’ll leave you with that.

Conclusion

In an era where streaming platforms are constantly vying for our attention (and wallets), one of their most effective strategies has been turning beloved books into screen adaptations. We’ve never seen so many adaptations—both great and terrible. And while there’s always room for debate about whether a show stays true to its source material, it’s that very discussion that often helps a series improve from season to season. The Rings of Power listened to fan feedback, and it shows in the stronger second season. On the other hand, The Witcher disregarded much of its fanbase, resulting in a show now on its last legs.

However, what there’s no place for is cancel culture and the premature death of projects before they’ve had a chance to find their footing. It’s a delicate balance—The Witcher deserved its criticism, but The Rings of Power is a different case entirely. Instead of mob-driven hate and destructive outrage, we should encourage healthy debate, constructive feedback, and meaningful conversations. If we can do that, I believe we’ll see far more fantastic shows emerge, rather than snuffing them out before they have the chance to truly shine.

Imagine if Game of Thrones had started with a season as weak as its last, and the outcry led to its cancellation. We would have missed out on all the incredible seasons that came before it. Just some food for thought.