Ryan Murphy’s television adaptation of Bret Easton Ellis’s novel The Shards has sparked a debate over the intersection of queer identity and creative authorship. According to cultural critic Caroline Ringskog Ferrada-Noli, the series diverges significantly from the source material’s tone, trading the novel’s cold, sharp aesthetic for a moralistic, tonally inconsistent drama that relies on tropes the author previously avoided.
The Conflict of Creative Vision: Murphy vs. Guadagnino
Before the series was released, rumors circulated that Luca Guadagnino, known for Call Me by Your Name, would helm the project. Many observers, including Ferrada-Noli, argued that Guadagnino’s visual language would have better captured the novel’s landscape. Instead, the production went to Ryan Murphy, a choice that has drawn scrutiny due to his established aesthetic.
The tension between the source material and the adaptation highlights a broader critique of “essentialist” storytelling. Ferrada-Noli notes that there is no singular “gay way” to tell a story.
Aesthetic vs. Substance in Modern Streaming
While the series succeeds in capturing the visual “vibe” of Los Angeles—the palm trees, the shimmering heat, and the architectural plastic of the era—critics argue it fails to capture the novel’s soul. In the book, age-gap dynamics are portrayed with a chilling, clinical detachment characteristic of Ellis’s style. In the television adaptation, these scenes are often reframed through a moral lens that simplifies the characters into binary categories of “good” and “evil.”
Did you know?
The term “aura,” as referenced by philosopher Theodor Adorno, is often used to describe the unique, untouchable quality of an original work of art. Critics of The Shards suggest the series lacks this “aura,” replacing artistic depth with formalist tropes.
The Problem of Genre and Voyeurism
A significant point of criticism involves the series’ treatment of its teenage subjects. Ferrada-Noli describes the show as a “teen drama,” a genre she argues often veers into a form of pedophilic voyeurism.
Where the novel used its environment to reflect internal states of mind, the series is accused of using trauma as a primary motor for the plot. This approach—treating the body as a site of repetitive, brutalized spectacle—is viewed by some as “flat pornography” rather than meaningful storytelling. For viewers seeking a more nuanced depiction of the era’s tension, films like Tom Ford’s A Single Man (2009) are often cited as more accurate tonal companions to the work of Bret Easton Ellis.
Pro Tip: Evaluating Adaptations
When comparing a book to a screen adaptation, focus on the “musicality” and “pacing” rather than plot points. Great adaptations often deviate from the source text to preserve the original’s emotional intent, whereas poor adaptations often get stuck trying to replicate the plot while missing the narrative’s rhythm.
Frequently Asked Questions
- Is the series a faithful adaptation of the book? According to critical reception, the series changes the tone significantly, moving from the book’s clinical detachment to a more moralistic, plot-driven teen drama.
- Who directed the series? The series is directed by Ryan Murphy.
- What is the primary criticism regarding the show’s aesthetic? The main critique is that the show relies on “trauma as a motor” and a shallow, formalist style that lacks the “aura” of the original literary work.
Have you read the novel? How do you feel the screen adaptation compares to the original text? Share your thoughts in the comments below or subscribe to our newsletter for more deep dives into literary adaptations.
Worth a look