I read two articles, "One Nation, Under Google, with Wikipedia Access for All: Information Entitlement" by Derrick Clements and "'Some Text': E.B. White's Web of Primary Texts" by Carlie Wallentine. These two made me think about the attitude of access toward different mediums of novels.
My little brother doesn't like to read. As much as it saddens me, he doesn't. When I read a book that amazes me, that keeps me up reading, I haven't given up begging that he give it a try. He always replies, "I'll wait for the movie." When I explain to him that they might not make it into the movie, he scoffs and says, "Then it must not be a very good book."
With a digitalized world, we've come to expect several different mediums from our primary sources. Why read Great Expectations when PBS made it into a movie? Why spend the time on Shakespeare when you can Sparknote it (for free, no less)?
Having access to several different mediums of a primary text is a wonderful thing. I myself enjoy watching different portrayals of Pride and Prejudice from the traditional Regency, to Bollywood, to a modernized vlogger version. But does easier mediums take away from people's decision to access the original? Do too many people expect a movie, and without a movie the book isn't worth a read?