Eric
Want to give this a second read after watching the movie.
For anyone who hasn't read the book yet, the movie is much more literal with what "bad thing" is going on than the book is. I'm not sure which is better: being told (in the movie) that it's a World War-induced, multifaceted psychological warfare attack, or being a little unsure if the characters are simply letting their imaginations run wild about what's happening "out there." I also feel like the movie was much more generous about assuring the audience that G.H. is being honest and a good guy; in the book I feel like it's much murkier for much longer whether he's conning the family or not.
Which is why I wanted to reread it, to see if my memory is right or if I projected some preconceptions in.
I do think it's especially funny to see reviews of the movie blame Sam Esmail (the movie's director, of Mr. Robot fame) of an unsatisfying lack of closure at the end -- I recall the book being far worse at leaving the ending open-ended.
Want to give this a second read after watching the movie.
For anyone who hasn't read the book yet, the movie is much more literal with what "bad thing" is going on than the book is. I'm not sure which is better: being told (in the movie) that it's a World War-induced, multifaceted psychological warfare attack, or being a little unsure if the characters are simply letting their imaginations run wild about what's happening "out there." I also feel like the movie was much more generous about assuring the audience that G.H. is being honest and a good guy; in the book I feel like it's much murkier for much longer whether he's conning the family or not.
Which is why I wanted to reread it, to see if my memory is right or if I projected some preconceptions in.
I do think it's especially funny to see reviews of the movie blame Sam Esmail (the movie's director, of Mr. Robot fame) of an unsatisfying lack of closure at the end -- I recall the book being far worse at leaving the ending open-ended.