By
Scott D. Parker
Season 3 of "Reacher" is out and I'm loving it! But a friend and fellow writer considers it "downright awful."
What? Are we watching the same show?
To be fair, my fellow writer has read all the Lee Child novels. I've read none of them. For me, Reacher is a TV show starring Alan Ritchson. It had me at the opening segment of the first episode when Reacher did the Sherlock Holmes thing and observed and made correct deductions. I blew through seasons one and two and am eagerly waiting each week as new episodes of season three roll out.
So I'm coming at the show from a different point of view. But awful? I don't agree.
Reading the Book Before...or After...
A co-worker and I talk books. He has read many if not all the Reacher books and gave me a short list of his favorites.
Season 3 is based on the novel Persuader. As this new season approached, my co-worker queued up the audiobook on his phone and re-listened to the novel prior to watching the show. I asked why and his answer was that he wanted to refresh himself with the story.
Fair enough. I used to do that as well. Memorable examples include The Empire Strikes Back and Batman '89. One of my fellow SF book club guys re-read The Lord Of the Rings in 2001 for the same reason.
But starting with the Star Wars Prequels in 1999, I opted for a different approach: if I read the novelizations, I do it after seeing the movie. I am still able to compare the two--the three Star Wars prequel novelizations are great--but I chose to watch the movie first. I learned that I like to do my comparisons by reading vs. by watching a movie. Movies and TV shows by definition do things differently, making choices that align with a good visual medium and leaving some other things in the novels. Tom Bombadil anyone?
What do you do? Do you read the book first? Second? Or not at all?