Big Little Book Talk

[lmsweb]

6 hours ago, meisje said:

The unfolding and final Perry scenes were so lackluster on tv. Instead of tension and a series of revelations, we just got him King Kong-ing out to the patio and randomly smashing at women or throwing them aside. One of the most powerful parts in the book reveal was Jane's exclamation followed by Perry's "It didn't mean anything," and the moments right after that. The psychological implications are what made the scene hefty, not the brute force of his violence or that it was wildly indiscriminate. The whole ending was just so truncated and instead we got a super duper day at the beach and bookended Rolling Stones?!

It wasn't like they didn't have the time either, they just decided to give Zoe a chance to sing, and then Adam Scott a chance to lip sync, and for Adam and Nathan to do another stupid chicken dance and the 25 stares at Madeline from wife of affair guy. Not a good use of the last hour...

Yes, and in the book, this all happened with a few men getting into a fight and bursting out onto the balconey they were one (as opposed to the women being alone with Perry way off from the party). In fact, I found the whole Greek Chorus and sniping in that part of the book hysterical, because there was a big to do over the fact that 1) the catering truck never arrived and everyone was starving to the point of stealing chips and 2) the teachers who mixed the drinks/punch apparently couldn't do basic math and the drinks were like 4 times stronger than they should have been. Basically, mostly everyone was shit faced by the time The Event happened.

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Yes! Everyone was drinking the extra strong drinks on empty stomachs so they were completely drunk, which made everything they said to the police even more unreliable (but hilarious).

[larapu2000]

8 hours ago, KaleyFirefly said:

I didn't like the subplot of Maddie cheating on Ed either. Totally unnecessary filler on the show. And the Avenue Q thing never happened in the book either. Also, a lot of people were saying it seemed too much of a coincidence that Perry turned out to be Jane's rapist. But the book explains it by saying that Jane remembered, that night, seeing a flyer for real estate at that beach, and Perry telling her he was thinking of buying a house there. So she ended up moving there because subconsciously she wanted to find him and confront him.

I was going to point out this very thing.  Jane is TRYING to find Ziggy's father by moving to the beach, which I thought made the coincidence plausible and sensical, but in the show, the randomness is just too much.

One of the best bits in the book, in my opinion, is when Ed asks Madeline if she's really asking him to lie to the police about Bonnie.  If she really wants him to compromise his integrity and character in a crime that he thought would be dismissed, for NATHAN.  To me, it was such a subtly brilliant way to see how men view crimes against women, even the "good" guys like Ed.  Not for Bonnie.  Not for Bonnie and her family.  Not for Abigail and the stepmother she clearly loves.  But how he sees it as being for Nathan.  

I just really loved that part in the book, and I wish it had been included in the series.  It's SO good.

[jeansheridan]

I had forgotten that Ed scene.  Especially since he is a reporter in the book.  

I am glad that some non-book readers hated the neatly wrapped up ending too.  Moriarty just isn't a mystery writer.  I liked What Alice Forgot.  The Hypnotists Husband needed editing in a big way.  She struggles with her tone.  I wish she would just write the flat out comedy she seems to want to write.  

I guess I liked the physicality of the ending.  This beast throwing women off of himself.  Not subtle but messy in a way I like.  

In the book it was so random.  The chair tipped over the railing.  Imagine that on screen?  The silliness of it.  This big bad sitting on a stool and just tipping over more due to physics.

And I don't need Bonnie's back story in the TV version.  We know she is fit.  We saw her stop a fight with Ed and Nathan, mostly with a kiss.  We know she is an activist.   Of course she would get in the mix.  She is not a physical coward.

Maddie of all of them was probably the least effective partially because she was so drunk.  

[Guest]

I preferred in the book it was explained that Maddie got her gossip wrong and that's why she thought Tom was gay.  It was another Tom business owner on the street.  I liked that it came back to a pitfall of gossip and reiterated we can't believe what we hear.  And I liked how it got revealed-- with Jane changing clothes not too far from Tom due to being soaked and then remarking on his gayness in that context.  

[lmsweb]

One more thing I wanted to add that would have added layers to the Show Jane - book Jane is much more fleshed out. For example, one of the things in the book she does, that the other ladies notice, is chew gum. Constantly. Turns out that when Perry was raping her, he told her that her breath stinks. I believe he said something about her weight too, which led to an eating disorder. (I think this is shown somewhat by Jane's non-stop running). I really liked Book Jane, and I found it hard to like Show Jane the same way until the last few episodes. 

And YES! Laparu is right, I loved that part too. Ed was the only one of the few men to know what actually happened. Also, I think it was Renata in the book who called 911 and very coolly handled the whole thing. 

[Guest]

I liked that book Jane wore a severe ponytail all the time until the end.  I know the show tried to dress Jane shlubby but to me it just felt more 'not a lot of money or interest in fashion, or need for approval' there.  In the book I felt like she wanted to fit in more but wasn't ready to really let herself feel pretty again yet.  I think in the book both Jane and Celeste wore no makeup.   

[jeansheridan]

What works in a book wouldn't work well on screen.   The gum chewing would just be annoying.   And an eating disorder would be too much.  Perhaps realistic but too much.  I think Celeste was the showcase story.  Even Moriarty ends with her.

Giving show Jane more of a reason for moving there would have been good.  Her whole subplot of trying to find the rapist does work much better in the book.

It just occurred to me too that book Maddie is more overtly managed by Ed.  He taps her if she is going too far or her tone is too cutting.    And she doesn't mind.  Ed handling her moods is part of their dynamic.  But it does feel slightly unfeminist.   Like this 40 year old woman needs a handler.

[Guest]

The things Moriarty had Perry say to Jane during the rape probably wouldn't have played well on screen but I think it added a layer of cruelty to his acts in the book.  I kind of wish they'd had some suggestion of it in her flashbacks.  Maybe Skarsgard's voice is too distinctive, though.  

I could hear both of their accents slipping through a little in the arguing.  Though he sounded vaguely Australian in some words, which I know he's not, so I wonder if he was partly parroting some of her pronunciations of things.  I think it was how they'd both say "kids".  It had a "kee-ids" sound to it.  

I wish Gordon could've had the affair with the nanny.  In the book each woman had a secret bad thing pertaining to their family.   

Edited April 3, 2017 by Guest

[Carolina Girl]

6 hours ago, lmsweb said:

One more thing I wanted to add that would have added layers to the Show Jane - book Jane is much more fleshed out. For example, one of the things in the book she does, that the other ladies notice, is chew gum. Constantly. Turns out that when Perry was raping her, he told her that her breath stinks. I believe he said something about her weight too, which led to an eating disorder. (I think this is shown somewhat by Jane's non-stop running). I really liked Book Jane, and I found it hard to like Show Jane the same way until the last few episodes. 

And YES! Laparu is right, I loved that part too. Ed was the only one of the few men to know what actually happened. Also, I think it was Renata in the book who called 911 and very coolly handled the whole thing. 

In the book, Celeste coolly saying to Renata - "call the ambulance NOW!" and then letting out the bloodcurdling scream that sends everyone to the balcony - AFTER it happened.  

And I agree that the book is a better explanation of how Jane came to be in "Monterey" (Pirriwee Peninsula in the book)- she had seen the brochure for the house.  The ending in the series is too random.  And Perry totally ignores Jane when she says "we have met before" - he shrugs her off as a nobody and tells Celeste - "it didn't mean a thing."  

Celeste's reply is the best - "it meant something to HER."

[Giesela]

18 hours ago, jeansheridan said:

I won't spoil the last episode but I personally think the show made the murder scene work better than the book.  Murder scene and cover up.

I disagree.  While I thought the idea of Perry, who is very very into control, hitting Celeste once in the book was sort of unrealistic, the idea of him totally off his nut and beating the shit out of her for whole minutes on the show was really off.  At least with one pop he can then, you know, hit, her, call her a name, tell her he's going to fight her for the kids, and walk off.  You can almost see him doing that once he realizes that with Celestes knowledge of Jane's rape he can't manipulate  her into staying so he gets in that one last shot.  But he is just too controlled to just start wailing her in front of everyone.  

[chocolatine]

26 minutes ago, Giesela said:

I disagree.  While I thought the idea of Perry, who is very very into control, hitting Celeste once in the book was sort of unrealistic, the idea of him totally off his nut and beating the shit out of her for whole minutes on the show was really off.  At least with one pop he can then, you know, hit, her, call her a name, tell her he's going to fight her for the kids, and walk off.  You can almost see him doing that once he realizes that with Celestes knowledge of Jane's rape he can't manipulate  her into staying so he gets in that one last shot.  But he is just too controlled to just start wailing her in front of everyone.  

Yes, the pummeling seemed very off to me as well (though some commenters' interpretations that Perry had nothing to lose at that point were interesting). I thought the book made it sound like the one slap was almost like a reflex, something he's done many times before and he just momentarily forgot that they were in a public place. But if Bonnie hadn't pushed him, I don't think he would have kept hitting Celeste. He would have made a big show of contrition, blamed it on the alcohol, etc.

[Ms Blue Jay]

If anyone who did not read the book is curious

1) In the book, Ed was involved in the final crime with the rest of the women
2) In the book, Ed and Madeleine also have a boy named Fred, who is a bit older than Chloe
3) In the book, the Audrey and Elvis party has way too much alcohol and the catering got screwed up or something, so everyone was incredibly drunk, not just Madeleine

7 hours ago, lmsweb said:

One more thing I wanted to add that would have added layers to the Show Jane - book Jane is much more fleshed out. For example, one of the things in the book she does, that the other ladies notice, is chew gum. Constantly. Turns out that when Perry was raping her, he told her that her breath stinks. I believe he said something about her weight too, which led to an eating disorder. (I think this is shown somewhat by Jane's non-stop running). I really liked Book Jane, and I found it hard to like Show Jane the same way until the last few episodes. 

She, a very deliberately plain character, also got a sexy Audrey Hepburn-esque haircut for the party that ended up giving her a bit of a makeover :)

Shailene is not plain to me, which is why the whole thing is so weird.  I hate when Millennials are blamed for anything, but after a poster suggested how popular Shailene is, I get why she was brought in, maybe for that demographic.  And in the book Bonnie is not sexy whatsoever ;)

Edited April 3, 2017 by Ms Blue Jay

[Giesela]

The thing I really missed, along with the everyone starving and drunk and the fight, 

was Renata's "planting seeds" that started the fight.  I guess they transmuted her nanny sleeping with everyoe into Maddy's affair but Maddy's affir was so useless.  Renata getting her revenge on the inevitable gossip by the seed planting was so unexpected and funny.  

[Giesela]

1 hour ago, chocolatine said:

Yes, the pummeling seemed very off to me as well (though some commenters' interpretations that Perry had nothing to lose at that point were interesting). I thought the book made it sound like the one slap was almost like a reflex, something he's done many times before and he just momentarily forgot that they were in a public place. But if Bonnie hadn't pushed him, I don't think he would have kept hitting Celeste. He would have made a big show of contrition, blamed it on the alcohol, etc.

In the book she says that when Jane reveals he is the rapist his response is so very so what psychopath no emotion so when Celeste confirms his arm whips out and cracks her, the book says almost casuallysolutely knew exactly what he was doing (or would if he were a real person:) I think he abo I'm reading into it my own interpretation but he does have his "reputation" to lose and visiting rights with the kids.  So that's why I think he takes his shot and that would have been it.  I think at that point he knew it was over and wouldn't apologize or he never would have hit her publically in the first place.  People can rationalize the one hit.  

[laprin]

Quote

I re-read the book just before the show started, and an age difference was definitely not mentioned. The only reference to age was that Celeste was 25 when she met Perry. 

I know I'm late, but I just listened to some of the book (Audible) because I wanted clarity on a couple of other things, and it is mentioned that Perry is younger in the book.

[Atlanta]

24 minutes ago, laprin said:

I know I'm late, but I just listened to some of the book (Audible) because I wanted clarity on a couple of other things, and it is mentioned that Perry is younger in the book.

When the show started I listened again on audio and knew I wasn't on crack. lol The narrator is hilarious.

[ninjago]

12 hours ago, lmsweb said:

And YES! Laparu is right, I loved that part too. Ed was the only one of the few men to know what actually happened. Also, I think it was Renata in the book who called 911 and very coolly handled the whole thing. 

The thing I loved in the book was when Renata, who had  been sucking up to Perry desperately all along and who was seen as the enemy of the stay at home moms, is the one who jumps in when he starts verbally attacking Celeste at the party.  He says something like, "Celeste doesn't do shit but spend money." And Renata is the one who says, "Whoa!  Stop right there!"

[jeansheridan]

19 hours ago, Atlanta said:

The narrator is hilarious.

This is why the book didn't work for me. So many heavy issues and a weirdly satiric tone. It felt like she added the abuse/rape/eating disorder /bullying to give it weight.  Or maybe it was her odd opening.  And the snide Greek Chorus.  The ending is quite sincere .  I think she clearly knows these are serious topics but somehow couldn't tackle them directly. What Alice Forgot worked better for me.

[SusanSunflower]

I must say that the book ending sounds much more responsible and reasonable. I'm a bit disconcerted by all the Sisterhood is Powerful because the Big-Bad Monster is Dead (oops he fell -- act of god -- or Bonnie -- or something) and they all lived happily ever after (so far) ending. Claire and her sons have an gigantic adjustment to make, as does Jane  -- oddly enough -- now that her moment-by-moment center-of-the-universe (besides Ziggy)  monster is also vanished.  Funny that thing about "answered prayers" ... but book Bonnie confessing and doing community service is much LESS likely to be haunted in the future. People (not just women) feel guilty about the strangest things, even their prayers. 

[hoodooznoodooz]

On 4/3/2017 at 10:32 AM, lmsweb said:

One more thing I wanted to add that would have added layers to the Show Jane - book Jane is much more fleshed out. For example, one of the things in the book she does, that the other ladies notice, is chew gum. Constantly. Turns out that when Perry was raping her, he told her that her breath stinks. I believe he said something about her weight too, which led to an eating disorder. (I think this is shown somewhat by Jane's non-stop running). I really liked Book Jane, and I found it hard to like Show Jane the same way until the last few episodes. 

And YES! Laparu is right, I loved that part too. Ed was the only one of the few men to know what actually happened. Also, I think it was Renata in the book who called 911 and very coolly handled the whole thing. 

In the book, does Jane tell Maddie that she remembers her rapist smelling bad?

Also, if Maddie does not cheat on Ed in the book, what drives her to step away from the crowd and end up on the balcony? Thank you!

[Guest]

I think she said his cologne smelled like money is all, if I remember right.  Maybe that's what the show was referencing when she referred to 'that smell'.  Show Jane mentioned that he said awful things to her but just in passing.

And I think weren't the women on the balcony just to get some air because of drinking too much or just to talk or something?  It felt normal for people at the event to be out there.  It wasn't that removed from the party, but the party was at the grade school, not some big lavish theater patio.  Didn't the men's fight over the Klein's nanny's affairs kind of spill onto the balcony and that's how a couple women got hurt?  Jeez, I just read it like a week ago, too.

Referencing some comments in the ep thread... I feel like the show director, writer or actor kind of missed the mark on Perry some.  My impression of book Perry was he really was a good man and good father outside the isolated incidents of physical abuse, though I suppose some feel that's impossible.  But I think that was what Moriarty intended, realistic or not.  I think that was part of understanding Celeste's staying, not so much that he had mind-fucked her into being his prisoner because he was truly 100% monstrous but because he was otherwise a good, loving husband and father-- "almost worth it" as she put it.  I would suspect they just decided to change show Perry to full-on monster except for Vallee's comments in the media sound like he was aiming more for the book Perry.  

Edited April 5, 2017 by Guest

[hoodooznoodooz]

Does Renata learn at the fundraiser that her nanny has been having sex with Gordon and several other husbands? Yikes!

[Guest]

1 minute ago, hoodooznoodooz said:

Does Renata learn at the fundraiser that her nanny has been having sex with Gordon and several other husbands? Yikes!

I think so.  The nanny was sleeping with Gordon and I think Harper's husband, and it started a physical fight.  I liked that because it gave the Kleins a dirty little secret like the other women.  And Harper, come to think of it.  

[jeansheridan]

On Wednesday, April 05, 2017 at 6:45 AM, Winston9-DT3 said:

My impression of book Perry was he really was a good man and good father outside the isolated incidents of physical abuse, though I suppose some feel that's impossible.  But I think that was what Moriarty intended, realistic or no

Perhaps if she had not also made him the rapist I would agree .  But Book Perry is pretty much a monster by the end.  He even had the gall to use his real cousin's name as his alias when he was raping Jane. For a while Celeste is grossed out that Saxony is also a violent person.  

I think there is probably a way to write a redemption story for an abuser but not in this book.

Edited April 8, 2017 by jeansheridan

[Guest]

2 hours ago, jeansheridan said:

Perhaps if she had not also made him the rapist I would agree .  But Book Perry is pretty much a monster by the end.  He even had the gall to use his real cousin's name as his alias when he was raping Jane. For a while Celeste is grossed out that Saxony is also a violent person.  

I think there is probably a way to write a redemption story for an abuser but not in this book.

Very true.  I think he started out good but only in Celeste's mind.  

[SusanSunflower]

You don't have to redeem Perry to recognize that Celeste is going to have a lifetime of dealing with the twins' absent and, of course, dead father .. as well as her own marital and "romantic" history whenever she decides to put a toe in the water and get involved with someone in the future.  

As moms the world over say, "No it wasn't all bad, I got my kids out of the relationship" and yet, I think there were better, even good times, in the early years of that marriage ... While Celeste had rented a bolt hole and made plans, had she really really truly given up 100%? I don't know.  A least she "magically" got spared what would have undoubtedly been an ugly and "too public" custody battle ... seriously, its one of the reasons some women don't leave, because getting sole custody can be almost impossible (even with police reports) and shared custody, visitation and hand-overs are so fraught ... although with first graders that too long to gamble you'll survive. 

Edited April 8, 2017 by SusanSunflower

[KaleyFirefly]

So I read "Big Little Lies" and "The Husband's Secret" so far. Any recommendations from the book readers of which LM book to read next?

[Ms Blue Jay]

What Alice Forgot.  I liked that a lot more than The Husband's Secret, which I didn't like.  So far, I REALLY didn't like Truly, Madly, Guilty and I haven't been able to get through any of the others.  I've been stuck halfway through The Hypnotist's Love Story forever and I find it really boring.

Edited April 9, 2017 by Ms Blue Jay

[chocolatine]

9 hours ago, KaleyFirefly said:

So I read "Big Little Lies" and "The Husband's Secret" so far. Any recommendations from the book readers of which LM book to read next?

 

1 hour ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

What Alice Forgot.  I liked that a lot more than The Husband's Secret, which I didn't like.  So far, I REALLY didn't like Truly, Madly, Guilty and I haven't been able to get through any of the others.  I've been stuck halfway through The Hypnotist's Love Story forever and I find it really boring.

My experience with most writers is that they have one or two standouts and the rest of their work is just decent, and sometimes even mediocre. I think BLL is Moriarty's standout, and I agree with @Ms Blue Jay that What Alice Forgot is pretty good too, but none of her other books are great.

[Ms Blue Jay]

I think it's pretty unique that Liane's written a whole slew of books but (in my opinion) her second most recent one, BLL, is her best work.  Time and time again I find that fiction writers write a great first book and then their second is a bad copy of the first, which is why I understand there to be a stereotype that sophomoric efforts are poor.  Though, again, it's not like I've read so many books compared to the heavy readers I do know, so my experience is limited.  I guess it's comparable to somebody like Gillian Flynn, where I love Gone Girl but I really can't get into her other books, and Lord I have tried.

I really enjoyed Paula Hawkins' The Girl on the Train and I'm really curious to see how her next one will turn out.

Edited April 9, 2017 by Ms Blue Jay

[ninjago]

5 hours ago, Ms Blue Jay said:

What Alice Forgot.  I liked that a lot more than The Husband's Secret, which I didn't like.  So far, I REALLY didn't like Truly, Madly, Guilty and I haven't been able to get through any of the others.  I've been stuck halfway through The Hypnotist's Love Story forever and I find it really boring.

After I read and loved BLL, I tore through all of LM's books and....yeah, I liked What Alice Forgot a lot, The Last Anniversary as okay, but Three Wishes, Hypnotist's Love Story and The Husband's Secret were blah.   And by the time I got to Truly, Madly, Guilty, I was offended by how phoned in and formulaic it was!

The truth is, I think the TV show was way, way, way more sophisticated and high quality than the book, which I thought was a good chick-lit/beach read.

[sportsgirl]

On 4/9/2017 at 9:29 AM, KaleyFirefly said:

So I read "Big Little Lies" and "The Husband's Secret" so far. Any recommendations from the book readers of which LM book to read next?

These were two of the four I liked the most. Like others, What Alice Forgot was my favorite, then Truly, Madly, Guilty (though that was tonally different and the characters felt out of her usual world).

The only one I really didn't like was Three Wishes. The Hypnotist one was OK, and I was thrown by the Last Anniversary because the central character was so off, though the mystery was kind of cool. 

[goodbyeglittergirl]

Just finished binge-watching the series and I am LIVID that they

a) Made Madeline a cheater. Unnecessary. Cruel. Big fat didn't like.

b) Left out a lot of Jane's character development. In the series she's just sad sack rape victim and put-upon single mom. She had much more depth in the book. 

The casting was mostly great (not a huge fan of Shailene but she was okay) and I had high hopes but to be honest, I was so pissed about the Maddy cheating stuff that I couldn't get over it. 

[SerenityNow721]

One of the key elements of the book was Maddy's love for her husband. She loved him for being the regular guy that he was.  She even daydreamed about what it would be like to have Perry for a husband and decided Ed was more suited to her.  It was such a sweet part of the book. So I also hated that she had an affair in the movie.  

And the Ed in the movie was so needy - not the mellow Ed of the book, who was completely unfazed by Maddy's OTT personality.  I thought the actor who played Ed was wrong for the part.  I would have liked to see John Corbett play Ed.  

Other than that, I liked it.  

[truthaboutluv]

On 4/27/2017 at 2:00 PM, goodbyeglittergirl said:

Just finished binge-watching the series and I am LIVID that they

a) Made Madeline a cheater. Unnecessary. Cruel. Big fat didn't like.

 

On 4/27/2017 at 4:37 PM, SerenityNow721 said:

One of the key elements of the book was Maddy's love for her husband. She loved him for being the regular guy that he was.  She even daydreamed about what it would be like to have Perry for a husband and decided Ed was more suited to her.  It was such a sweet part of the book. So I also hated that she had an affair in the movie.  

Just gone done watching the series after reading the book a month ago and yeah, this was the one change in the series that really bothered me. I'm actually very curious to know why the producers/writers thought it was necessary and I assume Lianne gave her okay, since she is credited as a producer. But I really hated it because one, I couldn't stand Joseph and thought he was very gross and skeevy looking and two, I loved Ed and Madeline's relationship in the book and I especially did because it was made clear that they worked because they were so different. Ed was the perfect calm foil to Madeline's crazy and it allowed them to have this very cool and sweet dynamic. 

The change also made me dislike Madeline, while I loved her in the book. Don't get me wrong, Reese did a good job but while book Madeline was too nosy, a little frustrating and attracted to unnecessary drama, you still loved her because there was an inherent sweetness and kindness about her. The series played up this idea of Madeline actually being kind of mean spirited with a rich, entitled "too good for others" attitude. The only reasoning I can think of with the change to Madeline's character is that a big theme of the book/story is people putting on a face for the world but having all these secrets and nothing being exactly as it is. 

To the world, Perry and Celeste were the perfect family, right down to Perry's picture perfect family pictures on Facebook. Jane told people Ziggy was the product of a one night stand but of course didn't mention that that one night stand was a violent, sadistic asshole who assaulted her. With Madeline though, yes she was struggling with her fear of losing Abigail but she and Ed really were "what you see is what you get". So maybe the writers decided she too needed a "putting a front for the world" story line and so they added the affair. Once again though, I really wish they hadn't. It was the one thing that ruined my enjoyment of the series. 

 

On 4/27/2017 at 4:37 PM, SerenityNow721 said:

And the Ed in the movie was so needy - not the mellow Ed of the book, who was completely unfazed by Maddy's OTT personality

In fairness, that change was probably deliberate because book Ed was happy and confident in his marriage and in his wife's love for him. Series Ed wasn't and with good reason, since she had no desire to have sex with him and apparently spent three months banging some loser because he turned her on while her husband didn't.

Edited April 20, 2018 by truthaboutluv

[Crs97]

I thought I read that Reese wanted the change so that Madeline was more flawed and had a big secret like the other two.  I think it was a huge mistake and hope they can rectify it in the second season.

 

Edited because found the quote from the interview:

Quote

 I haven’t read the book, but I know that David E. Kelley rewrote a lot of Madeline for you. I know the affair with her play’s director, for example, wasn’t in the book. What was behind the decision to add that?

 

Well, we talked about it. I just felt like everybody sort of has a secret in the show. All five of us have a secret. We’re all hiding something from each other and I felt like Madeline needed something she was hiding as well; it added a new conflict for her to resolve. It was just something interesting to play instead of just being a busy body.

Edited April 21, 2018 by Crs97

[truthaboutluv]

6 minutes ago, Crs97 said:

I thought I read that Reese wanted the change so that Madeline was more flawed and had a big secret like the other two.  I think it was a huge mistake and hope they can rectify it in the second season.

 

Edited because found the quote from the interview:

Yup, as I figured. Madeline didn't have that "big" secret in the book like Jane and Celeste, so they threw in the affair. Definitely think it was a mistake. Curious to know how non-book viewers felt about the story line since they didn't have the benefit of Madeline's character from the book. 

[Nessie]

This non-book reader hated it, but I hate cheating story lines in general.  It certainly made me think less of Madeline, and it was really weird to me when she confessed it to her daughter.  That's just...not a thing you "connect" with your children over.

[chocolatine]

I feel like changing Maddie's storyline was a pure ego move by Reese. She didn't want her character to be less edgy than Nicole's or Shailene's. In the book, Maddie's is the dominant POV, but, other than Abigail trying to auction off her virginity, nothing dramatic happens to her.

[goodbyeglittergirl]

17 hours ago, Nessie said:

This non-book reader hated it, but I hate cheating story lines in general.  It certainly made me think less of Madeline, and it was really weird to me when she confessed it to her daughter.  That's just...not a thing you "connect" with your children over.

I super duper hate cheating storylines, especially when they are thrown in there for flavor like it seems this one was. And ditto to her sharing with her child about it. WHAT? Ugh. 

[Mabinogia]

On ‎4‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 1:32 PM, truthaboutluv said:

Curious to know how non-book viewers felt about the story line since they didn't have the benefit of Madeline's character from the book. 

Madeline was my least favorite character. The cheating was a huge part of that. I didn't read the book but I might now, just to see how I react to Madeline without that. 

18 hours ago, chocolatine said:

I feel like changing Maddie's storyline was a pure ego move by Reese.

Totally! And a shame because it ruined her character. I think I would have preferred Maddie the one who has the "perfect" life but craves drama being all up in everyone else's business because she kind of has no business of her own to be all up in. I think the show would have been well served by having one of them without some deep dark secret, but Reese didn't want to be left out of the Emmy running so she needed a dramatic storyline. Joke's on her because that was the lamest affair I've ever seen. It wasn't hot, it didn't feel all angsty or dirty or guilty. It was just kind of sad. 

[chocolatine]

6 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

I think I would have preferred Maddie the one who has the "perfect" life but craves drama being all up in everyone else's business because she kind of has no business of her own to be all up in. I think the show would have been well served by having one of them without some deep dark secret, but Reese didn't want to be left out of the Emmy running so she needed a dramatic storyline. Joke's on her because that was the lamest affair I've ever seen. It wasn't hot, it didn't feel all angsty or dirty or guilty. It was just kind of sad. 

Book Maddie actually loves her life. She's been through the wringer with Nathan, so she really loves and appreciates Ed for being her rock.  She even says at one point that she prefers her simple life with Ed to the "perfect" life that Celeste has with Perry. And it's not so much that she wants to be all up in other people's business, she's just fiercely loyal to the people she loves and goes a bit over the top sticking up for them if she feels they're being wronged. To me, Maddie is the warmest, most likable character in the book, but the show has ruined her.

[truthaboutluv]

8 minutes ago, chocolatine said:

Book Maddie actually loves her life. She's been through the wringer with Nathan, so she really loves and appreciates Ed for being her rock.  She even says at one point that she prefers her simple life with Ed to the "perfect" life that Celeste has with Perry. And it's not so much that she wants to be all up in other people's business, she's just fiercely loyal to the people she loves and goes a bit over the top sticking up for them if she feels they're being wronged. To me, Maddie is the warmest, most likable character in the book, but the show has ruined her.

Completely agree. I loved her in the book and found myself laughing at a lot of her antics and especially how Ed just calmly and quietly dealt with her crazy. In fact, I liked her so much that it made me really not stand Abigail, even though I knew she was a teenager and teenagers can be brats. But I seriously wanted to smack that kid at times. I actually thought they made Abigail more tolerable in the series. She definitely had her bratty moments but she wasn't nearly as annoying and obnoxious as Abigail in the book. 

I also thought they made Nathan more dickish in the series, probably to further push this ridiculous thing between him and Ed that wasn't really a thing in the book (I mean they certainly weren't the best of friends but this pissing contest that occurred in the series didn't exist). Yes, Nathan in the book was a total asshole who just abandoned his wife and kid because "he couldn't deal" and thought because enough years had passed, Maddie should get over it. But he was still sufficiently embarrassed enough and awkward because of his embarrassment at times to sort of shrink in Maddie's presence. Series Nathan had some entitled bullshit attitude that made no sense, considering he walked out on his wife and kid.

In fact, I thought the show didn't stress this enough because I think some non-book readers might have just thought he and Maddie divorced when Abigail was a baby and he wasn't around as much. As opposed to the book making it clear that he just one day up and walked out, never to be seen again for another how many years where Madeline had to literally do everything regarding Abigail, by herself. Which of course is what made Abigail's moving out and moving in with Nathan and Bonnie, such a betrayal to her. 

One thing I also hated about their making Ed in the series seemingly weaker and needier because they had to drive home how not into him Madeline was, is it removed an aspect of Ed's that I loved in the book, which is his great ability to read and understand people. One of the best lines in the book, in light of what would later be revealed, is when after meeting Jane, he told Madeline that she, just like Celeste was clearly damaged. Madeline thought he was crazy because hello, Celeste had the "perfect" life but Ed recognized that there was something off in both Celeste and Jane. That they were both broken in some way. 

The funniest part is Madeline then gets offended that she too wasn't broken, just because she had to be included. And Ed tells her that yes, when he met her, her heart had been broken because of  Nathan's actions but that she herself was never broken. I loved that scene in the book. I need to stop because I just get more bitter about the mess they turned the pairing into in the series. I am curious to see where they go with them in Season 2. 

[Mabinogia]

1 hour ago, chocolatine said:

Book Maddie actually loves her life. She's been through the wringer with Nathan, so she really loves and appreciates Ed for being her rock.  She even says at one point that she prefers her simple life with Ed to the "perfect" life that Celeste has with Perry. And it's not so much that she wants to be all up in other people's business, she's just fiercely loyal to the people she loves and goes a bit over the top sticking up for them if she feels they're being wronged. To me, Maddie is the warmest, most likable character in the book, but the show has ruined her.

So other than the name, show Maddie sounds nothing like book Maddie. Show Maddie seemed jealous of Celeste's "perfect" life. not bitterly so, more teasingly, but with a hint of real envy. I can see why they did that, to make the reveal of how truly horrible Celeste's life was behind the façade, but I never got the impression just watching the show that Maddie was actually happy with her life. 

They did do well with the fiercely loyal aspect because she reminded me very much of a guard dog with her friends. She was the defender of all her broken friends, which is why I think the show shouldn't have added the affair. It wasn't needed and it was nice that just one of them wasn't broken but was the protector of the broken in a way. I would have liked Maddie more if the show had made her this woman who was happy with her life and wanted desperately to make sure her friends were just as happy as she was. But I didn't get the impression she was happy. I don't think anyone who is having an affair is truly happy with their life. 

41 minutes ago, truthaboutluv said:

In fact, I thought the show didn't stress this enough because I think some non-book readers might have just thought he and Maddie divorced when Abigail was a baby and he wasn't around as much. As opposed to the book making it clear that he just one day up and walked out, never to be seen again for another how many years where Madeline had to literally do everything regarding Abigail, by herself. Which of course is what made Abigail's moving out and moving in with Nathan and Bonnie, such a betrayal to her. 

Having not read the book I would say you are correct. The show didn't stress that at all because I never got the impression he just up and abandoned them so much as he decided he slowly realized he didn't want that life and eventually left. 

You all are making me more and more curious to read the book because honestly, the main reason I wasn't all that interested is I really don't like Maddie (on the show) and had no interest in spending more time with that character. But if she is as different as you say, I think I'm going to prefer book Maddie. 

[chocolatine]

2 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

So other than the name, show Maddie sounds nothing like book Maddie. Show Maddie seemed jealous of Celeste's "perfect" life. not bitterly so, more teasingly, but with a hint of real envy. I can see why they did that, to make the reveal of how truly horrible Celeste's life was behind the façade, but I never got the impression just watching the show that Maddie was actually happy with her life.

Yes, the show has stripped away details that were essential to Maddie's character, and added in details that were unnecessary and incongruent. Book Maddie is very content with her life; the only thing she's unhappy about is that Abigail chooses to live with Nathan and Bonnie after Nathan had been absent for most of her childhood and Maddie had done all of the hard work raising her. Unlike show Maddie, book Maddie is well and truly over Nathan, and she's only jealous of Bonnie because of her bond with Abigail, not because Nathan loves her more than he loved Maddie. She's not at all jealous of Celeste, it's more of an admiration. If anything, I think the fact that Maddie became close friends with both Celeste and Jane shows that she doesn't care about status and superficial stuff, she relates to people on a deeper level. Another thing I loved about book Maddie, and that the show didn't fully capture, is how uproariously funny her POV is. It's a good balance to the dark and serious POVs of Jane and Celeste.

19 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

You all are making me more and more curious to read the book because honestly, the main reason I wasn't all that interested is I really don't like Maddie (on the show) and had no interest in spending more time with that character. But if she is as different as you say, I think I'm going to prefer book Maddie. 

It's a engaging read, even if it's not going to win any literary awards; I certainly recommend it. 

[Crs97]

I watched the series and then read the book.   Book Maddie is so much better, and I loved seeing Ed and Maddie so happy and settled in the midst of the chaos around them.  Disappointed TPTB felt it necessary to change them.

[Mabinogia]

12 hours ago, chocolatine said:

It's a engaging read, even if it's not going to win any literary awards; I certainly recommend it. 

Good. I could care less about award winning books. I just want to be entertained. I'll give it a go.

[Llywela]

Interesting to read the opinions of book-readers on the changes made to the story and characters for TV dramatisation - about which I'm in two minds, myself, because I enjoyed the show and thought it worked perfectly well as was, but I know that if I'd read the book I'd be annoyed about fundamental changes to characterisation too!

On 4/20/2018 at 3:44 PM, truthaboutluv said:

But I really hated it because one, I couldn't stand Joseph and thought he was very gross and skeevy looking and two, I loved Ed and Madeline's relationship in the book and I especially did because it was made clear that they worked because they were so different. Ed was the perfect calm foil to Madeline's crazy and it allowed them to have this very cool and sweet dynamic. 

This comment has got me thinking about how we react to actors according to the kind of character they are playing, and how it can really colour our impression of that actor. Because you describe Joseph as skeevy looking, whereas I, having followed Cabrera's career for about a decade, think he's really good-looking. But I first encountered him in one of the romantic hero roles that are where he usually gets cast, while the character of Joseph is very much playing against type for him, which is probably what attracted him to the role, the chance to do something different. So if you've never seen him in anything else, the nature of that character influences how you see the actor. It's interesting!

[truthaboutluv]

Just now, Llywela said:

So if you've never seen him in anything else, the nature of that character influences how you see the actor.

I know I said he "looked" skeevy and gross but my opinion has little to do with the actor himself and rather the character. It is Joseph the character that annoyed me. His presence, as the character is what I found gross and annoying. I actually have no opinion of the actor himself. He did well enough with the material he was given. I just really did not like Joseph. If anything colored my view, I'd say it's the fact that I read the book and loved Ed and Maddie's relationship and was totally bitter that the writers went down that route.