Merrily Watkins

[poliphilo]

I watched the TV series and now I'm reading the books- and rather admiring the way the film people streamlined the books without betraying them. The books are leisurely- with ample space for lore and landscape and character development- while the TV show goes,"Here's a murder, here's a ghost, here's another murder."  I like them both. The books are a long draught of- well- it has to be cider, doesn't it-  Herefordshire cider- and the TV show is a shot of apple schnapps.

The screenplay takes enormous liberties- conflating characters, changing the way they look, eliminating back story, cutting to the chase- but the essential things- an approach to the otherworldly which neither discounts nor misrepresents and a sense of place- remain.

I remember- oh- ten years ago- someone in the pagan world recommending Rickman to me and my thinking, "jolly little paperbacks, and a heroine with a twee name"- not my thing at all." And I was wrong. If I had the talent- which I don't- these are exactly the kind of books I'd write myself.

Comments

[davesmusictank.livejournal.com]

I enjoyed the three part TV series as well and will want to explore the books.

[heleninwales.livejournal.com]

I'm afraid I was very disappointed in the ending of the TV series. The first ending in the cathedral was fine, but the bit with the bishop on the roof made no sense at all. Possibly the dramatisation lost too much in the condensing for TV?

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

The books are excellent.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I haven't finished book two yet, so I don't know how the ending goes.

The bit with the bishop on the roof was ambiguous. Did he jump? Was he pushed? Did God smite him? It wasn't a great ending but it sufficed.