"Now a Major Motion Picture"
My book club sometimes tries to do themes for our monthly selections. Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter for October (Halloween); Nasty Bits by Anthony Bourdain for November/Thanksgiving/food. When February came around, we were asked to contribute ideas for Valentine's Day or chocolate.
I did a little research, and came up with a few suggestions. I was hoping the organizer would pick The Chocolate War, but I also found an obscure book called Valentine (by Tom Savage). It's about a mystery novelist who's being stalked. (I can't find a static link to it, but you can find it on Amazon or Google Books or GoodReads.) Of course that's the one Patti picked. We all enjoy twists on themes (like Life of Pi for our "pie" theme), so I figured she'd appreciate the Valentine stalker. (An amusing side note: Patti actually missed our meeting tonight because she had a date. :) )
My copy (purchased for $.01+shipping on Amazon) has a little "now a major motion picture" logo. While neither the book nor the author has a wikipedia page, the movie does. I looked at it briefly before reading the book, really just noting the cast.
As I read the book, I could picture a movie. Since I'd looked it up, it even had a cast. Others felt the same way, and someone said it felt like it was written with the intent of making a movie. It's the kind of book that could be made into a movie without losing anything, which is pretty annoying. Actually, most of us felt a movie would be better. For example, it made no sense for the character to get freaked out by the first anonymous Valentine's Day card. As the reader, I knew she had reason to worry, but I couldn't see that she had any clues. A movie would have had ambiance and background music to make it dramatic. And maybe when she later grinned at a florist, I would've understood what it meant. Was she reassured about something? Reassuring the other woman? Figuring something out? Amused by the woman's drunkenness? I DON'T KNOW!!!
The movie in my head was still a bad movie. (Denise Richards has top billing, so...) Then tonight we looked at the wikipedia entry in more detail. It's says "The film is loosely based on the novel of the same name by Tom Savage." Emphasis mine. As I read the synopsis, we found that the two stories had nothing in common. They even changed the names of all the characters, so there isn't anyone named "Valentine"! Okay, maybe there are one or two similarities. Like the fact that the bad guy has reconstructive surgery in both stories so people don't recognize him. Is that enough to justify a "Now a Major Motion Picture" sticker? Apparently some people think it is.
To his credit, Savage did manage to surprise us at the end. It's always nice when you didn't predict the reveal. When I skimmed through the book to look for clues, everything fit together, but I didn't find noticeable foreshadowing. Just misdirection. Nicely done, that. If only he was better at bringing the story to life.
I did a little research, and came up with a few suggestions. I was hoping the organizer would pick The Chocolate War, but I also found an obscure book called Valentine (by Tom Savage). It's about a mystery novelist who's being stalked. (I can't find a static link to it, but you can find it on Amazon or Google Books or GoodReads.) Of course that's the one Patti picked. We all enjoy twists on themes (like Life of Pi for our "pie" theme), so I figured she'd appreciate the Valentine stalker. (An amusing side note: Patti actually missed our meeting tonight because she had a date. :) )
My copy (purchased for $.01+shipping on Amazon) has a little "now a major motion picture" logo. While neither the book nor the author has a wikipedia page, the movie does. I looked at it briefly before reading the book, really just noting the cast.
As I read the book, I could picture a movie. Since I'd looked it up, it even had a cast. Others felt the same way, and someone said it felt like it was written with the intent of making a movie. It's the kind of book that could be made into a movie without losing anything, which is pretty annoying. Actually, most of us felt a movie would be better. For example, it made no sense for the character to get freaked out by the first anonymous Valentine's Day card. As the reader, I knew she had reason to worry, but I couldn't see that she had any clues. A movie would have had ambiance and background music to make it dramatic. And maybe when she later grinned at a florist, I would've understood what it meant. Was she reassured about something? Reassuring the other woman? Figuring something out? Amused by the woman's drunkenness? I DON'T KNOW!!!
The movie in my head was still a bad movie. (Denise Richards has top billing, so...) Then tonight we looked at the wikipedia entry in more detail. It's says "The film is loosely based on the novel of the same name by Tom Savage." Emphasis mine. As I read the synopsis, we found that the two stories had nothing in common. They even changed the names of all the characters, so there isn't anyone named "Valentine"! Okay, maybe there are one or two similarities. Like the fact that the bad guy has reconstructive surgery in both stories so people don't recognize him. Is that enough to justify a "Now a Major Motion Picture" sticker? Apparently some people think it is.
To his credit, Savage did manage to surprise us at the end. It's always nice when you didn't predict the reveal. When I skimmed through the book to look for clues, everything fit together, but I didn't find noticeable foreshadowing. Just misdirection. Nicely done, that. If only he was better at bringing the story to life.