As a writer, I love to read, and I think everyone should read a real book from time to time. But watching TV is definitely easier and more popular, and there are plenty of books that have been turned into amazing TV shows: the following may be even better than the books they originated from.
Shōgun
A show that takes you to the peak of ancient Japan
Few recent adaptations have felt as definitive as Shōgun. James Clavell’s 1975 novel is a sprawling historical epic, and I’d recommend that anyone who appreciates Japanese history should give it a read. But personally, I think the most recent television adaptation improves on the book by fundamentally rebalancing the story. The novel generally filters feudal Japan through the gaze of foreigner John Blackthorne, coloring everything from the perspective of an outside observer.
By allowing the audience to see the direct perspectives of the Japanese characters as well, the TV series gives them much greater dimensionality, autonomy, and narrative weight. Instead of just staging and telling history, Shōgun immerses viewers in the political strategy, social ritual, language, and religious tensions prevalent during that time period. The visual medium allows Shōgun to render atmosphere and hierarchy with a precision the novel can’t match in quite the same way.
The adaptation feels less like a Western man discovering a foreign culture and more like a story about power, survival, and competing worldviews. Both options are fine on their own, but in this age of desired drama and compelling interpersonal relationships on the screen, I think many people would prefer the 2024 TV show. If you enjoyed Game of Thrones, you’ll almost certainly enjoy Shōgun as well. Just make sure to watch it in the original Japanese.
The Queen’s Gambit
Chess has never looked quite this cool
Walter Tevis’s The Queen’s Gambit is a strong novel, and you’d never see me claim otherwise. It’s smart, psychologically attentive, and admirably restrained, which is something you don’t see much of in popular books these days. The Netflix series really manages to make all of that very arresting, on top of one incredibly impressive feat: it makes chess fun to watch. Chess has always been interesting. Is it fun to watch as a casual viewer? The Queen’s Gambit makes that happen.
One might expect all the chess in this show to be over-explained or ham-fisted for viewers who don’t know much about it. Instead, it’s turned into peak cinema: Beth’s rise is not just a sequence of victories but a truly impressive display of aesthetics, costume design, and superb acting that draws you into the intensity of a chess match between experts. You’re really drawn into the entire experience, almost like you were one of the players. I don’t think the book manages to make chess itself seem interesting just on its own.
Of course, a huge part of the show’s appeal is Anya Taylor-Joy’s portrayal as Beth and the faithful direction of her character. She seems almost mythical in her prowess and intellect, but she remains grounded with her flaws: lonely, prickly, vulnerable, and self-destructive. She’s a compelling character in a show that uses chess in an interesting way to dive into psychology. The book is excellent, but many people will probably enjoy the show more.
Orange Is the New Black
A show that highlights some harsh realities
Piper Kerman’s memoir, Orange Is the New Black: My Year in a Women’s Prison, is compelling, humane, and eye-opening. But it is also limited in the way memoir often is, in that it only tells the story from one person’s vantage point. That makes sense for a memoir, but it can be a little confining. The TV series goes beyond the perspective of one character, creating drama, interest, and attachment to the many relationships, both positive and negative.
The series outgrows its source material. What begins as one woman’s fish-out-of-water prison experience expands into a complex drama about race, class, immigration, sexuality, bureaucracy, and systemic cruelty. The show is more ambitious precisely because it decentralizes Piper, the book’s main perspective. Her self-discovery is interesting, but not as much as the expanded focus the show creates for multiple characters.
Admittedly, this means the TV series is not a truly faithful adaptation of its source material, and it’s not my place to say that Piper’s journey of self-discovery in a memoir is less valuable as a story than a show that turns the focus on the problems inherent in institutionalized incarceration. But considering modern trends and issues, I do believe Orange is the New Black is more compelling as a TV show that tackles real issues that apply to more than just Piper.
Dexter
Is it bad to like a bad guy?
Jeff Lindsay’s Darkly Dreaming Dexter introduced a very compelling premise: a serial killer who channels his urges into murdering other murderers. It was perfect for TV, and Dexter absolutely delivered on the screen, becoming an instant classic. I’m just saying, whenever people talk about Dexter, they are always talking about the show. No one is ever discussing the book. A ton of people don’t even know there is a book.
It’s a shame, because the book is good, but Dexter benefits enormously from Michael C. Hall’s performance in the show, which supplies Dexter Morgan with a charm, wit, and melancholy the books just can’t match. Hall turns Dexter into a beloved and unforgettable character. He’s funny and eerie, detached and oddly sympathetic, a man who sees himself as empty while constantly revealing traces of humanity. He’s more compelling than his book version by a long shot.
The early seasons, in particular, sharpen the moral tension at the center of the story. The show leans into the dark comedy without losing the psychological drama, and it builds a richer supporting world around Dexter’s secret life. The book provided an excellent groundwork, but the show elevates it from a pulp-friendly premise and turns it into something more textured, more addictive, and way more culturally impactful.
If you plan on watching Dexter: Resurrection, you should definitely watch the original TV series first.
House of the Dragon
Drama, intrigue, and politics of the medieval variety
Comparing House of the Dragon to George R. R. Martin’s Fire & Blood is slightly different from comparing a conventional novel to a conventional adaptation. Fire & Blood is written as a pseudo-history, a chronicle assembled from competing accounts rather than a traditional narrative. That structure is clever, but it also keeps the reader at a distance. Characters can feel more like contested records than flesh-and-blood people you want to follow.
That distance is exactly what the show improves upon. House of the Dragon takes the historical outline and turns it into compelling drama. It gives emotional logic to political decisions, complexity to rivalries, and vulnerability to figures who are more abstract on the page but more real on the screen.
The series also benefits from the intimacy of excellent actors and performances. A glance, hesitation, or sudden flare of resentment can reveal more than the description of a gesture on a page. In adapting a fake history into a character-driven drama, House of the Dragon creates a more immediate and affecting version of the story than the book offers. Not that the book is bad by any means, but I think more people have watched the Game of Thrones series than read it, don’t you?
Outlander
Romance that lasts through all time
Diana Gabaldon’s Outlander novels are sprawling, immersive, and passionately loved, but I can’t deny that they are a bit prone to excess. If anything, they have the opposite problem most of these other books had before they were turned into shows. The books are almost a little too broad. The television adaptation improves on the books by imposing shape and discipline without sacrificing the impressive sweep of the romance at its core.
On screen, Claire’s and Jamie’s relationship becomes more focused and emotional. Their chemistry does much of the work that lengthy exposition and narrative sprawl handle in the novel. The historical settings also come to life in a way the books can’t match, no matter how good the prose is. The mud, candlelight, danger, and texture of 18th-century life hit a lot harder when you can see them instead of just reading about them.
The show compresses the best qualities of the book into something great. It trims, streamlines, and emphasizes the most compelling emotional threads, highlighting what was always strongest in the source material while reducing some of its bloat. The result is an adaptation that feels more confident in its storytelling and, in many stretches, more compelling than the novels that inspired it.
Sex and the City
The most relatable women in television
Candace Bushnell’s Sex and the City began as a sharp, observational collection rooted in dating culture and urban social performance. It had wit, style, and a strong sense of place. But the TV show adaptation was really special, something with a lot more cultural impact and longevity. It’s hard to specify what might have made the big difference, but I think I have some idea.
The TV series understood something the book did not; Carrie Bradshaw’s observations about men and Manhattan weren’t really the most compelling thing to focus on. It was the chemistry between the four women at the center of the story. The friendships between Carrie, Miranda, Charlotte, and Samantha give the show its emotional architecture. Their conversations, disagreements, loyalties, and evolving identities transform what might have been just a clever cultural snapshot into something warmer and more universally beloved.
Bridgerton
Regency drama is better when it’s contemporary
Julia Quinn’s novels are beloved because they’re breezy, romantic, and compelling. But Bridgerton, the television series, takes that foundation and makes it feel larger, more vivid, and more appealing to modern audiences. The books tend to work as charming individual romances, but the show turns them into an entire social ecosystem, and you know how much people love that kind of drama these days.
The TV series allows side characters, family dynamics, gossip networks, and social hierarchies to take on a life of their own. It makes the world feel bustling and interconnected instead of narrowly focused on whichever couple is at the center of a given installment in the books. The adaptation also brings a stronger sense of spectacle, with lush production design, contemporary energy, and a self-aware sensibility that makes Regency drama feel surprisingly accessible.
All of these shows, and their books, are amazing
Ultimately, everything I’ve stated in this list is an opinion. I do believe all the TV shows I’ve listed are truly great, but I believe the books they were based on are great, too. Maybe I’m full of it. Maybe you’ll disagree. But to do that, you’d have to watch each show and read the books they were based on.
It’s a tall order, but in this era where it feels like no one can just slow down and enjoy a good story, I highly recommend watching some great shows.
- Subscription with ads
-
Yes, $8/month
- Simultaneous streams
-
Two or four
- Live TV
-
No
- Price
-
Starting at $8/month
Stephan is the sports journalist for the Maple Grove Report.
