Big Little Book Talk

[ElectricBoogaloo]

This is a thread for book readers to discuss the book freely without worrying about spoiling non-book readers.

[Ms Blue Jay]

I just read it for a second time.  I love it.  I think I mentioned this elsewhere, but I've tried to read a bunch of Liane's books and unfortunately BLL is by far my favourite.  I liked What Alice Forgot as well, but I'm really not liking her other books as much.  Would love to hear anyone else's thoughts.

[chocolatine]

3 hours ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

I just read it for a second time.  I love it.  I think I mentioned this elsewhere, but I've tried to read a bunch of Liane's books and unfortunately BLL is by far my favourite.  I liked What Alice Forgot as well, but I'm really not liking her other books as much.  Would love to hear anyone else's thoughts.

BLL is my favorite as well - I've read all of Liane's books. She has an engaging writing style, but I don't always warm up to her characters. BLL was a slam in dunk in that I really liked two of the main characters (Madeline and Jane).

[Ms Blue Jay]

I agree, I love Madeline.  The problem is the second time I read the book I kept picturing Reese and it killed my love for Madeline a bit.  Nothing against Reese it just kind of dulls the spark.  But Mad is a great character.

[sportsgirl]

I've been on a two-week Liane Moriarty kick as friend recently gave me four of her books (I'd read the Husband's Secret, Truly Madly Guilty, and ...the one with the house on the island before). I started with Big Little Lies in anticipation of the series, and I loved it. I think it's my favorite of all of hers (I only have What Alice Forgot left to read). The mystery unfolds well, and all three main characters hold their own on the page in a significant way: their stories are all interesting and "even" in some ways (which isn't always the case with Moriarity's other books -- ugh, Three Wishes).  Like others have said, I love the character of Maddy: the way she plays against her own type, with the backstory of her first marriage and her fumblingly lighthearted attempts at suburban perfection. I never would have pictured her as Reese Witherspoon, because I saw her as more manic and warm, but I'm excited about the casting. I'm looking forward to the stilettos scene, and her aggravation with Bonnie. Jane, too, I'm anxious to see on the screen, although I'm having a more difficult time imagining Shailene Woodley as someone so mouse-y.  (Is Tom not in the TV series? He's only listed as being in one episode on IMDB, which is disappointing as I loved their friendship-turned-relationship.)

Celeste concerns me the most out of the three -- I really can't see Nicole Kidman in that role (though she's the only Aussie of the bunch! I wish they'd kept the setting....) as written, but she could do something interesting with Celeste's cool coverup/dismantling of her perfect life.

[sportsgirl]

Book comparisons to the first episode!

-I think that so far, they've done an excellent job translating the story to the small screen. The acting is fantastic, and I love the interpretation of Jane, Celeste, Perry, Bonnie, Abigail, Renata, Ziggy, Chloe, and Nathan so far. (And even Harper with her thirty seconds of airtime nailed her role as Renata's lackey.) Maddie strikes me as the most unlike her counterpart on the page, but I think it's because Maddie-as-written would not have translated so well as a "real" person. Reese's choices, therefore, had to be the most original, but so far, I like the heart she brings to the role. The scenes between her and Abigail were key to understanding the perspective we will get on her character (combined, of course, of her instant friendship with Jane).

The only disappointment for me so far is Adam Scott's portrayal of Ed -- I loved Ed on the page, and so far, he's so bland in the show (but I love Adam Scott, so I hope that changes).

-I'm intrigued by the changes -- namely where the petition against Avenue Q is going (will this replace the petition to expel Ziggy? Why? To make it more personal against Maddie?) and Jane's need to keep a gun under her pillow (in a small apt with a sleepwalking 6 year old?).  Interesting that Maddie's son was cut -- he was her "in" at the school, her "experienced mom" card, but they really do have a lot of kids in the cast -- at least five of whom whose personalities and reactions are essential to the plot -- so I understand the cut 'em where you can attempt.

[jeansheridan]

I can see why they chose Monterey/Carmel although neither of those communities are commuter cities for the wealthy.  It fits the setting of the novel.  The beachiness and small town vibe.

And I like show Abigail a thousand times more.  

I think Liane Moriarty 's novel suffers from a tonal problem just like the show.  The slapstick of the parents during the investigation does not blend well with domestic violence and rape.  Comedy is hard.  Satire is hard.  She is a sincere writer and her attempts at humor fail after the first chapter.

I also think Reese is too brittle as Maddy.  Maddy is FUN.  Charming, almost excessively so.  A big personality.  Maybe more of a Deborah Messing.  Big easy smile with some bitchiness.   

One notable line change.(paraphrasing)  Book Maddy: " Jane is just young like we used to be."  On the show Maddy says "you".  Much meaner.

And I pictured and older Ed.  More of a Martin Freeman.  Nice, average looking, kind.  Adam Scott was a bit too young.  Hard to see him parenting Abigail.  

I do love Laura Dern as Renata.  Instantly Renata has more character.  

Edited February 21, 2017 by jeansheridan

[Slovenly Muse]

Well, I was midway through reading the book when the series premiered, so I held off watching the first episode until I finished the book (today), just in case they restructured things for the series and spoiled the ending. Interestingly, having seen the show posters but not any clips or anything, I actually assumed Reese Witherspoon would be playing CELESTE, and Nicole Kidman would be Madeleine, not the other way around. So for the last half of the book, once those posters came out, I had a very different picture in my head! I actually think it would work better that way. Kidman has the gravitas for the kind of conflict Madeleine lives for, the warm "do-it-all" mothering energy, the depth for her anger and frustration over "losing" Abigail to Bonnie, and the tough, fiery "stand your ground" fierceness of a mother bear protecting her cubs. Witherspoon is smaller, slighter, has that fragility and vulnerability that, even though it's well-hidden, makes Celeste so compelling. I think the role would suit her better, because honestly, I don't really like her as Madeleine. She doesn't quite have the range for it, and I don't get the sense from her that she has the POWER to do things like rabble-rouse an army of moms into battle, or shelter Jane and Ziggy from slander with nothing but the force of her personality. Whereas Kidman, as Celeste, seems so wise and self-aware. I can feel her love for Perry, but I don't get that helpless naivete that Celeste had in the book, her belief that she's somehow bringing it on herself, or is an equal participant in the abuse, or that the "real Perry" is truly kind and good. Kidman's Celeste seems to understand EXACTLY what is going on in her marriage, and is just doing her best to survive it. I think Witherspoon could bring that sense of innocence and optimism that makes Celeste's situation so heartbreaking as she gradually comes to terms with the truth of it. And I don't actually know how old any of these actors are, but Kidman looks to be an age where she might plausibly be in a second marriage and parenting a teenager, while Witherspoon would look more at home with other first-time mothers of 6-year-olds. I'm a bit perplexed as to why they cast it this way, other than, I suppose, because making the series was Witherspoon's idea and she probably wanted this role.

Apart from the casting, I mostly like this adaptation, but I am really sorry to see people in the episode threads say the characters aren't "relateable." What I really loved about the book was that it made ALL the characters extremely relateable, and took you right inside the minds of all the various participants in the schoolyard conflict. You could see and understand the basic pain, struggles and humanity going on inside characters who could easily be dismissed as "archetypes:" the struggling, harried single mom, the gorgeous rich mom who has everything, the high-powered career woman/helicopter parent, the busybody who can't fix her problems with her daughter so tries to fix everyone ELSE'S problems instead... I think this book should be required reading for ALL parents of school-age children, it does such a good job of examining the various relationships parents have with their children, children have with each other, and parents have with other parents, and how those levels of relationships all affect each other. I'll be interested to see how those deeply personal, insightful moments play out visually, and whether that sense of "relateability" will become a hook for the series as well.

I mean, the book was better. Isn't it always? But I think I'm in.

[Atlanta]

Quote

 really loved about the book was that it made ALL the characters extremely relateable, and took you right inside the minds of all the various participants in the schoolyard conflict. You could see and understand the basic pain, struggles and humanity going on inside characters who could easily be dismissed as "archetypes:" the struggling, harried single mom, the gorgeous rich mom who has everything, the high-powered career woman/helicopter parent, the busybody who can't fix her problems with her daughter so tries to fix everyone ELSE'S problems instead... I think this book should be required reading for ALL parents of school-age children, it does such a good job of examining the various relationships parents have with their children, children have with each other, and parents have with other parents, and how those levels of relationships all affect each other. I'll be interested to see how those deeply personal, insightful moments play out visually, and whether that sense of "relateability" will become a hook for the series as well.

Slovenly Muse, as a mom of a minor child, I can totally relate to the book and show. I got the feeling that Maddie's family is upper middle class (in the book) where Celeste is flat out rich and of course there's the struggling single mom. There's this strange socio-economic system of kids and parents. The book really nails that. I don't know of LM has kids, but she really got it down pat. Like Otter Bay, I live in an area where people move in because of the reputations of the schools. I've seen posters question why a rich person would send their kid to public school. If it's just as good, why pay private school prices?

I wonder if they are going to include Abby auctioning off her virginity?

Spoiler

I heard they are giving Maddie an affair. I really hope they don't go that route. It's extremely out of character. Sure, let her be tempted, but I hope they don't have her do that.

Edited February 28, 2017 by Athena
Added spoiler tags

[Athena]

Quick reminder that book spoilers are fine in this book talk thread, but show spoilers or speculation should be spoiler tagged. Thanks!

[Giesela]

Hello?  I would love to be book spoiled!  I did find that Perry was the one pushed over a cliff by a character name I didn't recognize as one of the main characters.  I do sort of suck at names though.  

Would love to know who choked Amabella among other things.  Not that its anyones job here or anything.  Its for people who have actually read the book which I have not.  

[Atlanta]

Since this is the book thread, Giesela:

Spoiler

Bonnie throws Perry over the balcony. She grew up in an abusive home and recognized the signs. One of the twins choked Amabella. There was a 'nice' twin and a 'nasty' twin. I'm relistening on audio.

[Giesela]

Thank you, it says Book Spoilers so I'm assuming its discussing the book, in full as...opposed to book discussion or something for the other book forum?  IDK its a little confusing but with spoilers in the title I dont think you should have to hide anything.  

I had read a review or something on the internet and knew about Perry but I can't place Bonnie.  Ohhhhhhh wait, the step mom!  

So is it real abuse between Celeste and Perry?  The second episode made it look like consensual foreplay.  

[Atlanta]

Giesela, I assume it's okay to mention since it's part of the book that Perry is abusive to Celeste and not in an S&M consensual way. Early in the book she mentions leaving him as soon as the boys graduate high school. I was confused and later figured it out. He's an abusive, cheating d-bag.

PS: I think the show is trying to show how she justifies his behavior even though she knows it's wrong.

[Giesela]

Huh.  did you watch the commentary with the....director? writer? at the end of the episode?  He said it wasnt normal domestic abuse and talked about when you have two strong independent characters.  That was sort of confusing because I don't see Celeste as that strong although she hit him back and doesn't seem a hopeless wreck.  However coping mechanisms can be complex or so I understand.  I do think the show is screwing with us a bit.  

[kassandra8286]

Gisela, in the book you get Celeste's POV, so you are privy to her thoughts and memories. You understand how she fell for Perry and how the abuse gradually began. I believe the director says she is not a "typical" abuse victim because she does fight back sometimes. She justifies their relationship a lot in her own mind (it's both of us, we are terrible to each other, we're both violent, he's so great with the kids) before things happen that finally make her snap and take steps . But it's clear to the reader, and Celeste herself when she's being honest, that it's not "equal" AT ALL and that there is something very, very wrong with Perry.

Edited March 1, 2017 by kassandra8286

[Giesela]

to the we are both comments, is it odd that she seems to enjoy the sex?  I feel like maybe I'm being insensitive or strange asking that but I don't understand it and she doesn't seem to be faking but a willing partner?

[Atlanta]

27 minutes ago, Giesela said:

to the we are both comments, is it odd that she seems to enjoy the sex?  I feel like maybe I'm being insensitive or strange asking that but I don't understand it and she doesn't seem to be faking but a willing partner?

She has a LOT of internal conflict about it. She feels like she's screwed up and doesn't understand it herself.

[Athena]

@Giesela et al. I have moved posts from the Book Spoilers thread. That one is more suitable for questions about books policy. This is the actual Book Talk thread. If you don't want to fully spoiled, please let me know.

[Slovenly Muse]

Yeah, I really hope they make this clearer in the show, because from the sound of it in the episode thread, people are a bit confused. In the book, Celeste is VERY conflicted, thinking about her relationship as a "twisted dance" that she and Perry do together, that she is equally at fault for, because she does things like hit him back, or deliberately provoke him into hurting her when she can sense it's coming anyway and wants to get it over with... she wonders if this is normal, and asks her friends if they "fight" with their husbands, and then is frustrated when they say "yes," and don't seem to mean what she means... And when she acknowledges that it's NOT normal, she thinks it's just shameful and reflects badly on them BOTH and doesn't want anyone to know.

I'm not sure if Kidman is playing it quite the same way. I'm not quite getting a read on their situation either, so I hope we get some more explicit explanation of what is going on in her head. I can feel her love for Perry, her lust for him, even with all the violence, and her wariness of his moods. And trying to get them to a counsellor is consistent with her lukewarm attempts in the book to seek help. But I'm not quite getting her conflict, her wondering if this is a normal or acceptable way to live. The shame over her role in it. Things like her conversation with Madeleine (in the book, she was sounding out Madeleine to see if her fights with Ed were physical as well. On the show, she was opening up about her and Perry's relationship, just talking around the violence, which Book-Celeste would never do), and the way she, not Perry, is the unofficial Social Media Coordinator of their household (meaning she, not he, is the one most invested in presenting a normal, happy, idyllic face to the world), seem to indicate a shift from paper to screen in this relationship and how Celeste feels about it, but I don't quite have a sense of what that is yet. But the show seems to be making good choices so far in how it's revealing the characters' inner thoughts and feelings, so hopefully we will get a clearer picture of Celeste's in coming weeks.

I also have to say, I was NOT feeling Witherspoon as Madeleine in the pilot, but as of Episode 2, she is really growing on me. I saw Book-Madeleine as being quite in-control and always knowing what to do to help, just totally unable to let things go once she gets started on them. But Show-Madeleine gives a sense of being more... I guess, at the mercy of her own righteous indignation. I kinda like it! Looking forward to the next ep, for sure.

[Giesela]

2 hours ago, Slovenly Muse said:

Yeah, I really hope they make this clearer in the show, because from the sound of it in the episode thread, people are a bit confused. In the book, Celeste is VERY conflicted, thinking about her relationship as a "twisted dance" that she and Perry do together, that she is equally at fault for, because she does things like hit him back, or deliberately provoke him into hurting her when she can sense it's coming anyway and wants to get it over with... she wonders if this is normal, and asks her friends if they "fight" with their husbands, and then is frustrated when they say "yes," and don't seem to mean what she means... And when she acknowledges that it's NOT normal, she thinks it's just shameful and reflects badly on them BOTH and doesn't want anyone to know.

I'm not sure if Kidman is playing it quite the same way. I'm not quite getting a read on their situation either, so I hope we get some more explicit explanation of what is going on in her head. I can feel her love for Perry, her lust for him, even with all the violence, and her wariness of his moods. And trying to get them to a counsellor is consistent with her lukewarm attempts in the book to seek help. But I'm not quite getting her conflict, her wondering if this is a normal or acceptable way to live. The shame over her role in it. Things like her conversation with Madeleine (in the book, she was sounding out Madeleine to see if her fights with Ed were physical as well. On the show, she was opening up about her and Perry's relationship, just talking around the violence, which Book-Celeste would never do), and the way she, not Perry, is the unofficial Social Media Coordinator of their household (meaning she, not he, is the one most invested in presenting a normal, happy, idyllic face to the world), seem to indicate a shift from paper to screen in this relationship and how Celeste feels about it, but I don't quite have a sense of what that is yet. But the show seems to be making good choices so far in how it's revealing the characters' inner thoughts and feelings, so hopefully we will get a clearer picture of Celeste's in coming weeks.

I also have to say, I was NOT feeling Witherspoon as Madeleine in the pilot, but as of Episode 2, she is really growing on me. I saw Book-Madeleine as being quite in-control and always knowing what to do to help, just totally unable to let things go once she gets started on them. But Show-Madeleine gives a sense of being more... I guess, at the mercy of her own righteous indignation. I kinda like it! Looking forward to the next ep, for sure.

I understand from reading that many people into alternate forms of sex and relationships - bondage, masochism, swinging, bi, loving anal, whatever it is that may not be mainstream or "normal" tend to have a lot of internal conflict.  (Hell, anyone not mainstream in non sexual ways can suffer a lot of self doubt about why they aren't "normal".)  So that is hardly surprising.   However, that is who they are, they like sex that way, whether made, born or some combination.  The way the show is portraying it, or at least how I'm seeing it so far, is that it suits Celeste sexually.  I wouldn't be surprised if yes she has a lot of conflict about it,  thinks it makes her a screwed up person etc. but that wouldn't necessarily change the fact that she has the sexual relationship she wants/needs.  Did the book resolve that part ?  Go into past sexual relationships, did she feel something was missing or did she enjoy "normal"?  

If not I think the show is portraying this, has chosen that interpreation from the book? that sexually this relationship suits her.  The control not so much.  I get the impression that she doesn't like the domineering part of it - 'this is who the kids will play with' etc.  It may be hard to separate them since one does lead to another in this relationship whereas I can imagine, whether its possible or not, a couple who recognizes and can separate the way they like to get their rocks off from the realities of raising kids, managing a relationship etc.  So far its the more interesting relationship and not just because its sex but because its such a complicated thing.  

I like Reese and I like Madeline but I keep seeing bits of the the spunky Delta Nu from rich LA.  Haven't decided if that's because the character is some grownup rich LA version of the legally blonde character whose name is escaping me or if Reese is not taking her character somewhere else because she lacks the skill.  

Guess I'm going to have to see if my library has this:)

[Slovenly Muse]

Well, I don't know what the show is going for, but in the book, this is DEFINITELY abuse, and not just a screwed-up relationship, or a consensual sado-masochistic one. Celeste loves Perry, and thinks of him as a good, kind, husband and father, who has sudden bursts of temper and hurts her (like a darkness taking over), and then the REAL Perry comes back and is horrified by his behaviour and treats her like a queen out of guilt until the bruises fade and it happens again. Celeste's conflict comes from the fact that she knows she should leave him, but she loves him and can't bring herself to. And she TELLS herself that because she hits back, or deliberately provokes him sometimes (to bring on an incident that she knows is coming anyway, on her terms), this means that she's an equal participant in the "twistedness" of the relationship, which makes her feel ashamed. And the fact that these incidents always end in sex makes her feel like maybe this is all a bunch of twisted foreplay, and because other couples talk about "fights" leading to sex, this could be normal. Part of Celeste's journey in the book is coming to terms with the fact that the Perry who hurts her IS the "real" Perry, and that her response to his behaviour IS normal and something experienced by many victims of domestic abuse, and that her justifications for why it really isn't a big deal, or why it's her fault too, or why she's really safe with him no matter how bad things seem, or why really she deserves this, those justifications are systematically dismantled throughout the book until Celeste can finally see Perry for who he truly is. And it's pretty great.

As for Show-Celeste, I don't know what they were going for with the sex scene. Was she into it? It looked to me like Perry threw her around a little, he got turned on by it, and mauled her up against the wall. Did she stay because she wanted it? Or did she stay because if a cat is toying with you, your best option might be to stay still and give it what it wants, rather than try to slip away and risk igniting a pursuit, and a more vicious take-down? I honestly couldn't tell. It was a pretty short encounter, and she didn't seem to get a lot of pleasure out of it (seems like it ended as soon as he came?), but when she recalled it later, she seemed to be remembering it with a hint of fondness or passion. DID she enjoy it when it happened, or is this a lie she tells herself afterward, that they have this great sex life with this unfortunate foreplay? I honestly don't know, and I really hope we get some clarification on this soon!

[Atlanta]

Muse, you couldn't have said it better. *slow cap* I'm relistening on audio and there's so much I forgot. 

[ElectricBoogaloo]

11 hours ago, Slovenly Muse said:

As for Show-Celeste, I don't know what they were going for with the sex scene. Was she into it? It looked to me like Perry threw her around a little, he got turned on by it, and mauled her up against the wall. Did she stay because she wanted it? Or did she stay because if a cat is toying with you, your best option might be to stay still and give it what it wants, rather than try to slip away and risk igniting a pursuit, and a more vicious take-down? I honestly couldn't tell. It was a pretty short encounter, and she didn't seem to get a lot of pleasure out of it (seems like it ended as soon as he came?), but when she recalled it later, she seemed to be remembering it with a hint of fondness or passion. DID she enjoy it when it happened, or is this a lie she tells herself afterward, that they have this great sex life with this unfortunate foreplay? I honestly don't know, and I really hope we get some clarification on this soon!

For me, it looked like she wanted him to leave her alone but he refused to. He hit her, she hit him back, then he apologized and put his head on her stomach and she looked like she just wanted him to go away. When he stood up, she tried to resist and he grabbed her wrists. She told him, "You should go" (or something similar) and he rubbed up against her, clearly turned on and ready to have sex. At that point, I thought she was resigned to the fact that she was going to have to have sex with him before he left because this is part of their routine (having sex to make up after he abuses her), so she unzipped his pants to get it over with. Most telling to me was that as soon was it was over, she walked away from him and stood by the window. I'm not saying that cuddling is a post-coital requirement, but her attitude seemed to be along the lines of "you came, this process is over (until the next time), now I want to get the hell away from you."

Later when she gets home from drinks with Madeline she has a flashback to having sex with Perry and it's different from what happened. She has one arm around his neck and his has his hand on her hair, so she justifies his abuse by pretending it's something more intimate/consensual than it really was.

I agree that in the book, it's much clearer how Celeste feels because we are privy to her inner monologue whereas here all we are getting so far are a few inscrutable facial expressions.

[Giesela]

What about Perry?  Is he a decent guy with some sort of.....sudden black rage....problem?  He seems good and funny with the kids.  He does seem a little controlling but a lot of guys who don't use their fists are so.  

[Trixie Belden]

I'm having SUCH a hard time watching this after having read the novel a couple years ago. Everyone is perfectly cast except for Nicole Kidman. There is a key difference in her character between the book and this show and it changes her whole story. Oddly enough, when I read the book I pictured the Renata character I pictured in my head was Laura Dern. She is absolutely amazing in her role and she's fascinating to watch, especially when you know how everything ends.

[Giesela]

I doubt it is Nicole's acting but more that the director, writers etc have changed Celeste's story arc.  The directors commentary after the first episode I think backs up that he sees the character from the book differently. 

[Giesela]

So someone found on IMBD that Jane's rapist was played by a different actor than Perry. But Perry is the one that dies.  On wiki it says that Perry used to use his cousins name and that he is the rapist and told Jane his name.  Not sure I understand why they used a different actor in the scene

On 2/27/2017 at 3:42 PM, Atlanta said:

 

I wonder if they are going to include Abby auctioning off her virginity?

  Reveal hidden contents

I heard they are giving Maddie an affair. I really hope they don't go that route. It's extremely out of character. Sure, let her be tempted, but I hope they don't have her do that.

Wait, what? Abigal auctions off her virginity?  That is screwed up

Edited March 7, 2017 by Giesela

[Atlanta]

20 hours ago, Giesela said:

So someone found on IMBD that Jane's rapist was played by a different actor than Perry. But Perry is the one that dies.  On wiki it says that Perry used to use his cousins name and that he is the rapist and told Jane his name.  Not sure I understand why they used a different actor in the scene

Wait, what? Abigal auctions off her virginity?  That is screwed up

In the book, she's 15 and wants to auction it off to raise money for Amnesty International.

[Giesela]

Thats is both sort of crazy and a pretty impressive idea from a PR standpoint

[lovinbob]

On 2/9/2017 at 10:55 AM, Ms Blue Jay said:

I agree, I love Madeline.  The problem is the second time I read the book I kept picturing Reese and it killed my love for Madeline a bit.  Nothing against Reese it just kind of dulls the spark.  But Mad is a great character.

Madeline is a great character, and I love Reese's Madeline, but I had a different impression of the character when I read the book. I remember the book's Maddie as being more earth mother and even slightly hippy dippy. When people talk about seeing Elle Woods or Tracy Flick in the show, that feels wrong. But three episodes in, I like what Reese is doing, even though it doesn't feel quite like the same character.

[Ms Blue Jay]

The book's Maddie is like lovably goofy.  Affably clever, silly.

Reese's Maddie, there's a lot more going on behind the surface or something, she's a lot more hardened, and maybe a perfectionist.  

I enjoy both interpretations.

[chocolatine]

2 hours ago, lovinbob said:

I remember the book's Maddie as being more earth mother and even slightly hippy dippy.

No, that's Bonnie. Maddie is, per Jane's description, a "sparkly girl". She always wears dresses with stilettos and many accessories. And she's just as dramatic in the book as Reese Witherspoon portrays her, but she keeps some of her nastier thoughts to herself. In the book we have the benefit of the characters' inner monologues, on the show we don't, which is why Maddie comes across a bit "saltier" on the show.

[lovinbob]

No, I understand the Bonnie character. I guess I meant that Madeline in the book wasn't a vision of perfection, and she was a bit of a ditz--with an edge that emerged when necessary. Or at least that's how I saw her. But it's possible I'm conflating her with other characters in books I read around the same time. 

1 hour ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

The book's Maddie is like lovably goofy.  Affably clever, silly.

Yes, that's what I meant! 

Edited March 10, 2017 by lovinbob

[Ms Blue Jay]

I kind of feel like maybe Liane Moriarty sees herself that way, because Alice in "What Alice Forgot" is even sillier and 'light'er than Madeleine in BLL.

[jeansheridan]

I think the book did a better job with the three economic levels of the main characters.  Madeline is really comfortable, but not over the top wealthy.  She talks about selling clothes so she can buy new clothes (because hateful Bonnie of course donates her clothing to the right charities).  Maddy's house on the show is INSANE.  It's a multi-millionaire's house, period.  I also liked Ed just being a local newspaper man.  Maybe that wouldn't work on this show, but it would have been nice if he had a more modest job.

That said, I do think Adam Scott and Reese have chemistry.  I buy them as a couple. Ed so adores Maddy in the book and I feel that from Adam Scott.

I'm adoring Laura Dern as Renata.  After her terrible hippy dippy show she did a few years ago for HBO, I couldn't stand her, but she's great as a high powered CEO with a mother's insecurity.  And I think it's funny she's played both Reese Witherspoon's mom and Shailene's mom!  Yet look at her.  She's stunning in her odd way.  Such a better version of Renata who was so one-note in the book until suddenly she mattered WAY too much.

I also wanted to discuss the therapy scene from last week.  I think Kelly made some interesting changes to the book.  I don't know if I like them, but it gives Perry a little more depth.  Which I guess is fair because we can't have his POV in the book.  I like how he admitted to just a tiny bit of abuse.  How he expressed shame, made himself smaller (Skarsgaard really is a tall drink of water, isn't he?  He totally towers over Kidman which is so rare for her). And how Celeste looks confused, trying to see a way through this without leaving him.  And still keep her self-regard.  I think how he grabbed her was kind of perfect too.  Not too overt, not too loud, but putting her down, intimidating her with his strength and size.  

But then we got the sex play between Renata and her husband.  He deliberately got all alpha and demanding.  Take off your clothes.  We're having sex here and now.  And then she negotiated where.  So we get to see how perhaps a healthier couple negotiates such push/pull play.  I'm actually kind of bummed out that he will likely cheat on Renata if they true to the book because I like Renata so much.  I love how she overcompensates at the party with those HUGE gift bags.  Heh.  But also how she's all about her daughter at the actual party.  It's hard to hate a character when she cares so much about her child and said child seems to be pretty sweet.  Plus she didn't lie to her kid about why Chloe wasn't coming. That is a huge plus in my book. So I will give props to Kelly for giving Renata more depth.

Does anyone else feel that maybe Jane is suffering from a lack of attention?  Shailene is fine in the role, but I feel she doesn't get much to do other than look worried about Ziggy. I mean I know we had the rape reveal this week, but Jane seemed so much more personality in the book. She was a bit wary of Maddy, had her solo and silent walks with Celeste, was working on her food issues (which seems to be dropped in the show). And I miss her parents a lot.  I thought they were such a lovely support for her. And explained a bit where she got her spine from.

[Atlanta]

Kelly is making Maddie very OOC. I loved book M and E's relationship and she'd never be a cheater. Not in a thousand years. She mentions him getting sexier as he gets older. Talk about character assassination. The play issue is annoying. This never happened in the book. They were working on a harmless production. Celeste wasn't a pot head either. Not that DEK and Co care, but this show is losing me. I may just wait to watch the last ep. He's making LM's book a typical Hollywood farce. Drug usage=check. A cheater outside of the book characterization=check. Extraneous f-bombs=check. She's a producer. Did she okay this crud? There was enough going on without the 'padding.' Call me a prude, but the book never bugged me like this. Is this HBO and DEK being desperate to be edgy?

Edited March 13, 2017 by Atlanta

[chocolatine]

I also really hate the cheating storyline. Ed and Madeline were the only central characters with a happy relationship in the book. I guess the fact that it's HBO requires a certain amount of "edginess".

[laprin]

Tonight left me wondering how much more Kelly plans to veer from the book. Celeste practicing law? Maddie cheating? And they have made Nathan more of an asshole and Ed kind of pervy.  Not loving those changes at all. Also, no mention of Celeste keeping an apartment just in case.  I do like that Jane's character is a little more feisty as shown by her practicing at the gun range. 

[jeansheridan]

I don't think Australians jump to use guns like Americans do.  So such a thing would never be in the book.

I don't mind seeing Celeste be a lawyer.  It was fun to have them around that table talking issues for the most part.  

I hate the affair.  Such a stupid addition.  Can't believe Reese green lighted it.  Ed and Maddy are a great couple.  They argue but they get each other.   

I don't see Ed so much pervy as awkward around a sweaty sexy woman.  But I love Ed so fingers crossed Kelly doesn't ruin him too.

Smoking weed isn't that big of a deal in California.   Smoking tobacco would be more shocking!

Edited March 13, 2017 by jeansheridan

[Ina123]

So disappointed that they spoiled the Maddie character by having her cheat on Ed. Oh, writers. Why can't you leave well enough alone?

[Iimabean]

I love a lot of the casting and the scenery. Reese, Nicole, and Laura are all high points for me. I'm not enjoying some of the plot deviations. In the book, Jane's biggest and most lasting problem with the rape was the horrible things he whispered in her ear during the act. That whole aspect just didn't happen in the show -- it seemed to be a nearly wordless encounter. But then in episode 4 Jane said a line from the book -- something like, "It's almost like telling you the words he said to me took their power away." But ... she never talked about any awful words he said to her that held power over her all this time. 

[jeansheridan]

Also she has an eating disorder.  Moriarty really piled on the issues!  But I would rather have that then Maddy' s affair.

I also suspect we won't get Abigail selling her virginity. That plotline was ham handed in the book. Best dropped.

Seems like the unspoiled people have figured out the rape, the real bully, but not the killer or victim yet.

On 3/12/2017 at 9:19 PM, Atlanta said:

Kelly is making Maddie very OOC. I loved book M and E's relationship and she'd never be a cheater. Not in a thousand years. She mentions him getting sexier as he gets older. Talk about character assassination. The play issue is annoying. This never happened in the book. They were working on a harmless production. Celeste wasn't a pot head either. Not that DEK and Co care, but this show is losing me. I may just wait to watch the last ep. He's making LM's book a typical Hollywood farce. Drug usage=check. A cheater outside of the book characterization=check. Extraneous f-bombs=check. She's a producer. Did she okay this crud? There was enough going on without the 'padding.' Call me a prude, but the book never bugged me like this. Is this HBO and DEK being desperate to be edgy?

I think the book was just as raw.  Rape scene, abuse, and I am fairly sure there was swearing.  Maybe not as much on page sex.  Moriarty' s book had some tone issues.  Slapstick in parts, serious issues in others. The ending was a total letdown in which two previously background characters suddenly took over the action.  Really it the sort of book not to examine too closely.  

[Giesela]

Got the book a couple of days ago and just finished  Quite the ride, like watching domino's falling over first slowly then faster and faster.  In short reflection I think the book and the show diverge quite a bit.  Personally I think movies and tv shows should reflect the books if they carry the same name.  Otherwise its just..plagerism and false advertising.  Not saying this hits that level in any egregious way but.  It does seem like it wrapped up super fast.  Jane moved to find Saxon Banks and is now in love with Tom, Celeste is living in the city, Abigal moves home Celeste confesses and is acquitted all in 20 pages or less. 

 I agree with an up poster about how there was more of a spread re the characters economics.  Madeline and Eds house is described is pretty normally suburban with toys and surf gear spread around, not on the beach.  Monteray and the money in the show really puts it in a bubble  "Those" parents, the uber rich, act like that etc.  I think everyone seeming so rich in the show takes it out of reality to the land of the truly entitled fantasy land.  

Ed and Maddy seemed most changed in show, the money I think makes Maddy seems more like an entitled rich bitch in competition with other rich bitches who hates her ex etc. vs the girly girly girl tough enough to play cricket and loves some outrage on behalf of the underdog.  Which I loved.    It undermines Maddy enduring pain at being walked out on when Abigal was 8 weeks old and just turns it into something unremarkably bitter.  Ed on the show is sort of a passive zero who Maddy married because he is a good man who loves her but is bored by, maybe doesn't respect, doesn't really love or have much interest in.  In the book she loves Ed.  I didn't need the affair to get that Maddy on the show doesn't really.  I'm not sure why the change. Maybe they will have an arc in the show to correct it.  

One of the most interesting conversations was between Celeste and Maddy re the rape.  Was it a rape or an assault?  And Jane's repeated thoughts on how she made it a bigger deal than it was.  Because I've had both those thoughts myself.  

Renata's seeding the charity benefit with news of other affairs was sort of brilliant and funny and probably unrealistic but I liked it.  

The author writes some hilarious but true paragraphs like the one on pg 444 about parents making the decision whether or not to let the children go to the funeral.  Or the bit in authors notes that her kids school parents are all disappointingly well behaved.  

[Atlanta]

2 hours ago, Giesela said:

Got the book a couple of days ago and just finished  Quite the ride, like watching domino's falling over first slowly then faster and faster.  In short reflection I think the book and the show diverge quite a bit.  Personally I think movies and tv shows should reflect the books if they carry the same name.  Otherwise its just..plagerism and false advertising.  Not saying this hits that level in any egregious way but.  It does seem like it wrapped up super fast.  Jane moved to find Saxon Banks and is now in love with Tom, Celeste is living in the city, Abigal moves home Celeste confesses and is acquitted all in 20 pages or less. 

 I agree with an up poster about how there was more of a spread re the characters economics.  Madeline and Eds house is described is pretty normally suburban with toys and surf gear spread around, not on the beach.  Monteray and the money in the show really puts it in a bubble  "Those" parents, the uber rich, act like that etc.  I think everyone seeming so rich in the show takes it out of reality to the land of the truly entitled fantasy land.  

Ed and Maddy seemed most changed in show, the money I think makes Maddy seems more like an entitled rich bitch in competition with other rich bitches who hates her ex etc. vs the girly girly girl tough enough to play cricket and loves some outrage on behalf of the underdog.  Which I loved.    It undermines Maddy enduring pain at being walked out on when Abigal was 8 weeks old and just turns it into something unremarkably bitter.  Ed on the show is sort of a passive zero who Maddy married because he is a good man who loves her but is bored by, maybe doesn't respect, doesn't really love or have much interest in.  In the book she loves Ed.  I didn't need the affair to get that Maddy on the show doesn't really.  I'm not sure why the change. Maybe they will have an arc in the show to correct it.  

One of the most interesting conversations was between Celeste and Maddy re the rape.  Was it a rape or an assault?  And Jane's repeated thoughts on how she made it a bigger deal than it was.  Because I've had both those thoughts myself.  

Renata's seeding the charity benefit with news of other affairs was sort of brilliant and funny and probably unrealistic but I liked it.  

The author writes some hilarious but true paragraphs like the one on pg 444 about parents making the decision whether or not to let the children go to the funeral.  Or the bit in authors notes that her kids school parents are all disappointingly well behaved.  

Spot on, Giesela. However, it was Bonnie that confessed, not Celeste. ;) LM incorporated spots of humor where the show has chosen to go completely dark. As I've said before, I'm most disappointed to the in Maddie and Ed's relationship. In the book, they were one of the few happy couples which was a nice break with all the angst. I loved Ed's snark. As far as Jane's rape or assault, the show makes it seem like rape, but in the book it's a bit more ambiguous. Was it rough sex? Was it rape? 

Ditto on if you are going to make a show or movie based on a book, give the book its due. I can understand the need for composite characters and condensing storylines for expediency, but to make the characters very OOC... IMO, that's wrong.

[chocolatine]

4 hours ago, Atlanta said:

I can understand the need for composite characters and condensing storylines for expediency, but to make the characters very OOC... IMO, that's wrong.

As is making up entirely new storylines, like the Avenue Q debacle and Maddie's affair with the director - neither the mayor nor the director even existed as characters in the book. 

[Atlanta]

2 hours ago, chocolatine said:

As is making up entirely new storylines, like the Avenue Q debacle and Maddie's affair with the director - neither the mayor nor the director even existed as characters in the book. 

Yep. Totally out of the blue. Is this lazy script writing? DEK relying on old Hollywood tropes? Hint, JMV/DEK we're over that crap. Not that they care.

Edited March 17, 2017 by Atlanta

[ElectricBoogaloo]

My general view of book adaptations is it's okay to leave things out because I know they don't have time to include every little detail, but it bothers me when they add or change things. I was okay with adding the Avenue Q issue because it provided us with:

(1) Celeste agreeing to help Madeline which led to
(2) Perry freaking out about her going back to work
(3) Celeste and Madeline admitting that being moms wasn't fulfilling to them in the same way that working used to make them feel

But I do think that when you have a limited amount of time to tell a story, you need to be very careful about what you deem important enough to include, especially when the source material is very popular. I had the same issue with some of the later Harry Potter movies. They left stuff out and then added in things like a long attack scene that wasn't even in the book. If the source material isn't as well known beforehand, you can get away with making more changes (as was done with The Vampire Diaries).

One thing I've never understood is when an adaptation changes the name of a character. What is the point of that? I recently saw the Broadway musical version of Amélie and they changed the name of her pet goldfish who is a plot point for all of a few minutes. So no, it didn't drastically alter the overall story, but changing the name didn't make it better either so why bother?

[MeloraH]

On 3/13/2017 at 0:07 AM, laprin said:

And they have made Nathan more of an asshole and Ed kind of pervy.  Not loving those changes at all.

Yeah, at first I thought it was interesting that they had kind of switched Nathan and Ed's personalities but the longer the show goes on the more it doesn't work for me. The balance with Maddie's book husband being an uncomplicated, laid-back, surfer type that she settled for makes sense because that guy doesn't can handle being settled for more than Adam Scott's character can. It just seems like adding extra drama for drama's sake to make Ed a quiet, insecure weirdo.

I'm choosing to be ok with the cheating if it gives us a Santiago Cabrera sex scene. When I heard he was cast in it I thought it was going to be as the restaurant owner but I'll take what I can get.

[Atlanta]

Ugh. Adding more stuff that would have never happened in the book. Seriously. It's becoming a joke or a drinking game. The car accident never happened. It's becoming a series that's merely 'inspired' by a book rather than based on a book. Jane getting high while driving? Seriously? Mischa Barton called and wants her DUI back.