Literature and film both carry forward narratives but the manner in which they do so are markedly different. If one were to use a metaphor from science one could say that in interpreting literature there is one degree of freedom more in that one is first translating the words into sensual data and then into meaning, whereas in cinema, the translation into imagery has already been done. When Grigori Kozintsev translates Shakespeare’s King Lear into the language of cinema, it is like the ‘word made flesh’. When the word has been made flesh, an idea has been given concrete shape and one could say that an idea at it source is superior as an artefact to be used or something to be consumed than the material object made out of it. This is the same way an unrealized intention is purer in every way than the intention carried out. On the other hand, many films are also superior to the literary sources they draw from, especially popular literature and I would cite The Godfather as an example. The reason is that popular literature often caters to the baser instincts through titillation and awakening the voyeuristic impulse while a serious work of cinema naturally refuses to exploit such opportunities. It is also possible that the literary source, in offering a profusion of words, would benefit through understatement. As an instance I would say that Dostoyevsky is one of the most excessive of great writers while Robert Bresson is among the sparest of filmmakers, which is perhaps why Bresson’s version of A gentle woman improves upon the writer. What is valuable about the book is the vast array of issues raised - directly or indirectly. Even when an issue has not been explicitly articulated there is always the sense to be got - of the deep probing that the subject deserves. It is with these questions in mind that I wish Dipsikha Bhagawati’s Literature and Film : From Mute to Motion all success.