[Strange Horizons](http://www.strangehorizons.com) has a new [interview with Daniel Wallace](http://www.strangehorizons.com/2004/20041011/dwallace-a.shtml), the novelist who wrote BIG FISH. It’s definitely worth checking out his perspective on the movie, and how the original writer deals with seeing his work changed in the process of adaptation.
Big Fish
Good book vs. movie comparison for ‘Big Fish’
[Boxofficeprophets](http://boxofficeprophets.com) has a well-considered article by Kim Hollis that looks at the differences between Daniel Wallace’s book and the movie version of Big Fish:
John August’s screenplay does take great liberties with the story detailed in the novel. Much is added or embellished, which is almost necessary given the brevity of the book. None of the expansion feels forced or off, though. It’s perfectly in keeping with the story of a man whose life was truly monumental.
You can read the rest [here](http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=8537).
Thanks to [Daniel](http://danielwallace.org) for the forward.
A very, very big fish
This from Daniel Wallace, a photo of two guys who have apparently caught Edward from BIG FISH.
Like Mulder from X-Files, I Want to Believe, but in the age of Photoshop, pretty much anything can be faked. But I welcome your opinions. Maybe this really is the biggest catfish in the Ashton river.
Transcript of my first meeting with Daniel Wallace
I first met [Daniel Wallace](http://danielwallace.org), the author of BIG FISH, on October 26, 1998. We met at an IHOP in Richmond, Virginia, and talked about his book and the prospect of making a movie from it.
I had this interview up at the old site, but it was kind of buried. So here it is, reformatted and reader-friendly.
John: What was your original intention with Big Fish? Did you sit down thinking, “I’m going to make a novel about this,” or was it pieces that came together?
Daniel: It started with bits and pieces. Originally, the very beginning was my interest in myth. I’ve always thought of myth as being a way to explain things that we can’t understand otherwise.
John: Like, why there’s thunder.
Daniel: That’s exactly right. It’s always easier to have some sort of explanation, even when you may know it’s not quite accurate or not quite real. It satisfies something. Anything’s better than not understanding. Even untruth sometimes is better than not knowing anything.
John: Did you write it from beginning to end, or did you write in bits and pieces?
[Read more…] about Transcript of my first meeting with Daniel Wallace