book vs movie

as in many adaptations, there are a lot of differences between the novel and the film - some are plot differences (for example, in the novel magid never sees samad kissing poppy burt-jones; in the film he does - much of the ww2 stuff with samad and archie is missing from the film - like samad's drug addiction, etc, and, sadly, the film only very briefly references the histories of mangal pande and ambrosia bowden, which factor much more prominently in the novel). some differences are differences of characterization, etc (for example, i felt the film really misrepresented the character of millat in unfortunate ways - the film made him into the stereotypical angry brown man, where in the novel his character is more complex and more funny than that - alsana is also a much less powerful and complex character in the film than the novel). i would also say that the novel is much, much funnier than the film - compare, for example, the scene with samad in the pta meeting about the harvest festival in both texts.

overall, i think the book is MUCH better than the tv adaptation, though i should also say that i am a HUGE zadie smith fan. and, to be fair, the film does stand up on its own. still, i've heard rumors of an upcoming adaptation of smith's third novel, "on beauty," and i hope it does a better job transforming smith's original work.