Dark Places Dark Places discussion


549 views
Am I the only one that notice?

Comments Showing 1-18 of 18 (18 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

Erica About halfway through the book and maybe i read this wrong...but it bothered me and wanted to know if I am the only one that noticed that Diondra got pregnant "fast" within one day?

In one of the earlier flashback chapters, after her and Ben finished sex she said she was pregnant (January 2). The next flashback chapter, it had the same day later time and it said her belly swelled up in couple days or months (sorry poor memory here). Can someone clear this up for me? Because it's the same day but later time, it didn't make sense how her belly got "bigger" :/ or did i miss something here?


Laura I took it as she's pregnant in all the flashbacks, Ben just doesn't mention it/is in denial. This is supported by one earlier part where he's fantasizing about their future and mentions that he's deliberately leaving one detail out


Thomas Elliott I was confused as well, but I realized that when Diondra said "The baby's kicking," she wasn't just now telling Ben. He had known all along, having boughten the new clothes and chosen the baby names. So I think she had been swollen all along.


Jeffery Lee Radatz I was noticing an observation! Why does EVERY book written have to turn into a movie? Is it for the people who do NOT read and would rather watch a movie instead of a book? Is it because it gives Hollywood big shot actors and actresses a job by acting out instead of sitting in their 25-room mansions? Of course, many of these movies make people want to read that certain book, but, unfortunately, many would rather watch a movie than the book. I am just saying!


Alaska Young shes been prego


Anne Jeffery wrote: "I was noticing an observation! Why does EVERY book written have to turn into a movie? Is it for the people who do NOT read and would rather watch a movie instead of a book? Is it because it give..."

Because that's where the money is made. Our society has become so enamored with instant gratification that no one reads any more. If a book is very good, and has a lot of fans amongst those few who still read for pleasure, then the publishing company realizes they can hit the big bucks by licensing it to be made into a movie. So it is, so it has been, so it will be unless more people realize that reading is the greatest adventure many of us will ever have. (Doubtful.)


Jeffery Lee Radatz Anne wrote: "Jeffery wrote: "I was noticing an observation! Why does EVERY book written have to turn into a movie? Is it for the people who do NOT read and would rather watch a movie instead of a book? Is it..." I see where you are coming from, Anne, money makes the world go round I understand that, but jeez!


Jeffery Lee Radatz Jeffery wrote: "Anne wrote: "Jeffery wrote: "I was noticing an observation! Why does EVERY book written have to turn into a movie? Is it for the people who do NOT read and would rather watch a movie instead of a..."

I supposed that if I wrote a book and it became very successful, and there was a chance to turn it into a movie, well, then yes, I, too, would want to make the mega-bucks also.


Anne I think where that goes awry is when the author relinquishes total creative control to the publishing and/or movie production companies. The best book-to-film transitions arguably occur when the author retains some form of control over their story and characters, i.e. the Harry Potter films. J.K. Rowling was very involved in their production, and, although many fans of the books were still unsatisfied, I think they were a better translation than, for example, the How to Train Your Dragon series.


Jeffery Lee Radatz That is true. I have seen movies from books a few times and you can tell the difference on who has more control. Sometimes, though, the movie has been better than the book.


message 11: by Anne (new) - rated it 4 stars

Anne I've never ever seen a movie that was better than the book. Can you give an example? I'm curious.


Jeffery Lee Radatz In my opinion, I thought the " The Green Mile" was better than the book. "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" another one, and "The Shining". Nobody plays Jack Torrance better than Jack Nicholson. I read the book and I'm sorry, but the book was dull! I am a huge fan of Stephen King, but Jack Nicholson made the part!


message 13: by Anne (new) - rated it 4 stars

Anne I've been arguing with a friend of mine, who is a huge Kubrick fan, for years on the book v. the movie on The Shining. I think the book far outstripped the movie, simply because the book had layers and layers of characterization that the movie lacked. The movie was all about visceral fear evoked by people jumping out at Danny, etc., rather than the creeping psychological terror that the book brings out.

As for The Green Mile, I think they did a very good job of staying true to the book and evoking the same emotions, but, as usual, the layers that King's work always possesses simply cannot be recreated with a film.

I've never seen or read One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Would you recommend the book?


Jeffery Lee Radatz I agree with you that books tend to bring out the narrator's thoughts or ideas that is impossible to bring out in movies. I am NOT against movies over books, in fact I am FOR books over movies, but for the fear factor, visually, some movies are better brought out than books. I have read and seen "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest". Because the book came out before the movie, there were parts in the book that were not in the movie that might have messed up the plot and storyline. In the book, the Indian was the narrator, and thus the main character in the book. As far as should I recommend the book over the book, I would recommend reading it yes. As far as watching the movie...well I will let you decide!


message 15: by Anne (new) - rated it 4 stars

Anne Based purely on what makes me jump, yes, sometimes movies are scarier.

Thanks for the recommendation!


message 16: by RoseAnn (last edited Sep 18, 2015 12:20PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

RoseAnn Jeffery wrote: "In my opinion, I thought the " The Green Mile" was better than the book. "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" another one, and "The Shining". Nobody plays Jack Torrance better than Jack Nicholson. ..."

It is telling that most of your examples are Stephen King books. IMO, Stephen King is a good storyteller but a terrible writer. Once the story has been translated for the screen, it plays much better than slogging through the written version.


message 17: by Anne (new) - rated it 4 stars

Anne RoseAnn wrote: "It is telling that most of your examples are Stephen King books. IMO, Stephen King is a good storyteller but a terrible writer. Once the story has been translated for the screen, it plays much better than slogging through the written version...."

Wow. Gonna have to agree to disagree on that score. I'm pretty sure if he were a terrible writer, he wouldn't have over 50 bestsellers.


Jeffery Lee Radatz Yes, I am going to have to disagree with you also RoseAnn. I felt that Stephen King is a great writer. Also there would not be so many movies based on his books if he was that terrible.


back to top