On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 12:10:20 PM UTC-7, Barry Margolin wrote:   
   > In article <1bwpv5z4zr.fsf@pfeifferfamily.net>,   
   >  Joe Pfeiffer  wrote:   
   >   
   > > Russell Watson  writes:   
   > >   
   > > > On 10/1/2015 5:12 PM, Your Name wrote:   
   > > >>   
   > > >> Well, according to that review the movie leaves out a lot of the book   
   > > >> ... as usual in Hollyweird "adaptations".   
   > > >   
   > > > Yes, a certain amount of streamlining of plots is typical. I like to   
   > > > refer to screen treatments as "Based on the 'Reader's Digest Condensed   
   > > > Books' version of the novel.   
   > >   
   > > That could work to this story's advantage.  After a while I felt like   
   > > the book's author was afraid it would be too short, so he started   
   > > padding it with new problems to stretch it out.  I enjoyed reading it,   
   > > but did come away thinking it would have been better as a novella.   
   >   
   > I think he deliberately wanted it to be like a "Perils of Pauline". The   
   > point of it seemed to be that even after he solved a problem, and seemed   
   > to be doing OK, some new disaster would befall him. If it didn't cascade   
   > like that, there wouldn't have been as much point to it.   
   >   
   > Also, the problems were all so different, so it showcased his ingenuity   
   > in being able to solve problems in different domains.   
   >   
   > Instead of a movie, this book could realistically have been translated   
   > into a TV series, where each week he has to solve another problem, a la   
   > MacGyver.   
      
   Would Mark have to encounter monsters?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)