Meaning: This quote by Richard Schickel, a prominent film critic and author, delves into the distinction between great novels and their movie adaptations. Schickel argues that a great novel is primarily concerned with the interior lives of its characters as they navigate the narratives that fate imposes on them. He suggests that the intricate and complex inner worlds of the characters are central to the power and impact of these literary works. This focus on the characters' internal experiences, emotions, and struggles is a fundamental aspect of what makes a novel great.

When Schickel describes the narratives imposed by fate, he is likely referring to the events and circumstances that shape the characters' lives in the novel. These narratives can encompass a wide range of experiences, such as love, loss, conflict, and personal growth. The characters' responses to these narratives are crucial to the development of the story and the exploration of universal themes that resonate with readers.

Schickel's critique of movie adaptations of great novels is particularly intriguing. He argues that such adaptations often fail because they become mere exercises in interior decoration. This metaphor suggests that the visual and aesthetic elements of the film, such as set design and cinematography, overshadow the nuanced exploration of the characters' interior lives. In other words, the depth and complexity of the characters' inner experiences, which are central to the novel's greatness, are often diluted or overlooked in the transition to the big screen.

One interpretation of Schickel's perspective is that the medium of film, with its emphasis on visual storytelling, may struggle to capture the rich inner worlds of characters as effectively as the written word. Novels have the advantage of delving deeply into characters' thoughts, feelings, and motivations through internal monologue and narrative description. In contrast, films often rely on external cues, such as facial expressions and dialogue, to convey characters' emotions and inner turmoil.

Moreover, the process of adaptation itself presents significant challenges. Condensing a multi-layered novel into a two-hour film requires significant editing and interpretation. As a result, certain aspects of the characters' interior lives may be sacrificed or simplified to fit the constraints of the cinematic medium. This can lead to a loss of the depth and complexity that made the novel compelling in the first place.

It is worth noting that successful adaptations do exist, where filmmakers have managed to capture the essence of a great novel while honoring the interior lives of its characters. However, Schickel's critique draws attention to the potential pitfalls and artistic compromises that often accompany the translation of literary works to the screen.

In conclusion, Richard Schickel's quote offers valuable insights into the fundamental differences between great novels and their movie adaptations. It highlights the central importance of the interior lives of characters in literary works and raises thought-provoking questions about the challenges of bringing these internal worlds to life on screen. This perspective invites readers and viewers to consider the unique strengths and limitations of each medium in conveying the depth and complexity of human experience.