(no subject)

[owlectomy]

What they did in adapting Blood and Chocolate for the screen was akin to going into a slightly overgrown rose garden in order to weed it, and pulling out all the roses.

Clearly I'm capable of reading too much into it, having read it once for pleasure and once for pulling out every bit of its thematic argument, but the most interesting thing about the novel was how different its thematic argument was from the conventional story of forbidden love. If you turn it into a completely conventional story of forbidden love... just... WHY?

Comments

[dianamcqueen.livejournal.com]

Was blood and chocolate the book good?
Because the movie made me want to claw my eyes out.

[takumashii.livejournal.com]

It had nothing in common with the movie.

(a) It was not set in Romania; it was set, if I'm remembering correctly, in western Virginia, or that area nearish to the Appalachians.
(b) The wolf pack were not bad guys. They were frat boys who had a lot of growing up to do, but they were more complex than in the movie.
(c) That whole bit about the alpha wolf choosing a new mate every seven years? Uh, no.
(d) Gabriel was a lot more complex than in the movie.
(e) The book was actually about Vivian, not just about the men!
(f) Vivian's human boy was a more complex character; he wasn't just shiny and fluffy and cute, he was a coward.
(g) The ending was completely different.

I'm hesitant to recommend it wholeheartedly because the ending reads kind of... odd. Unconventional. The first time I read it I didn't think it was that justified within the context of the story; the second time, I got what was going on metaphorically and I liked it much better although the execution could've been improved. But, yeah, it's worth reading.