What I've Noticed While Reading Kathy Reichs
Posted 22 January 2009 in Books by Catriona
Now, in order to read this post without tutting and shaking your head, it’s necessary for you to know three things:
1. I’ve never read any Kathy Reichs before.
2. I’m not quite one hundred pages through Deja Dead, the first book.
3. Everything I know about Kathy Reichs, therefore, I learned from watching Bones.
My startling conclusion, then, will come as no surprise to anyone whose familiar with both texts: they are nothing alike.
(See, I get to the heart of the big, serious issues on this blog.)
It’s true, though. Now, I’m not claiming that Bones is the best television out there.
I’m glad they dropped much of the whole “Temperance doesn’t understand pop culture references, because she’s a scientist and serious and stuff,” because that was becoming increasingly implausible.
Angela, too, has come to drive me insane over the course of the last series or so: I’d like her to realise that there are some problems and unhappinesses in life that can’t be solved by sleeping with a range of different people, but I don’t think there are any problems in Angela’s life that can’t be solved in that way. (Although the fact that her father is one of the members of ZZ Top? That makes me laugh every time, it’s so uncontextualised and therefore amusingly surreal.)
Hodgins, too, is coming to annoy me, too—purely by reason of his association with Angela and the fact that he got caught up in one of my least favourite TV plots—should they be together? Yes! Oh, but now we’ve lost the tension. Break them up!
And I’m not getting into the whole Zack thing right now, because I don’t have the time or the patience.
Still, I watch it, and I make sure that I’m not watching it during dinner, and I laugh at intentional jokes.
There’s not much laughing to be done in the novels. Seriously—they’re not funny at all. Which is fair enough, I suppose: grotesquely mistreated corpses aren’t really supposed to be funny.
(Does that make me a bad person? Laughing at the TV series? Oh, well.)
I do like the facts that the books are bilingual and the details on Montreal, but I’m not doing much giggling.
But the issue I’ve really noticed is a fairly standard one in these types of adaptations: the television Tempe seems to be much younger than the one in the books.
Now, I don’t know for sure how old book-Tempe is. But according to Wikipedia (and why would Wikipedia lie to me?), television-Tempe is my age: thirty two, born in 1976. Book-Tempe must be older than that: in Deja Dead, published in 1997, she has a college-age daughter. Even if the daughter is only eighteen and book-Tempe was young when she gave birth, there’s no way she’s as young as twenty-one.
Television-Tempe, at thirty-two, seems barely old enough to have completed undergraduate studies (four years) and a Ph.D. (five years, although I seem to remember she has a dual Ph.D.? Is that right?). Sure, that gives her, at a generous estimate, at least five years post-graduation, but then the programme’s been running for four years and she certainly wasn’t positioned as an early career researcher in the first season.
But, then, isn’t this fairly typical? One of the reasons I liked The Closer—well, liked it until I completely forgot about it and then never watched it again—was that the actress actually seemed old enough to have her character’s attainments.
That’s rare, though, and it seems to be getting rarer—though perhaps I’ve just reached an age where people seem too young for their attainments? I know I find myself looking at medical doctors in advertisements for A Current Affair and thinking, “You’re not a doctor! What are you, about twelve?”
Maybe I should hold my breath for an adaptation of Elizabeth Moon’s Familias Regnant series that casts a nineteen-year-old as Heris Serrano.
Share your thoughts [11]
1
Wendy wrote at Jan 22, 10:00 am
My mother has read nearly all the KAthy Reichs novels. She is the true crime fiction fan, surprising somewhat given that she gets all queasy and faint at the sight of blood.
One night she decided to try watching Bones and was absolutely disgusted at how ridiculous it was compared to the books.
She never watched it again.
Sad, but true!
2
Catriona wrote at Jan 22, 12:38 pm
See, I’m working from the opposite direction—I enjoy Bones even though I know it’s silly, so I’m reading the books and thinking, “Wait, they did what? And . . . ew, really? Oh, wow, that’s foul!” and wanting a bit of a giggle.
I don’t know how far I’ll go through them—apparently, my mother (who reads nothing but crime fiction) became bored with them a few books through, and I think the same might happen with me, because they remind me a little of Patricia Cornwell, and I became bored with her Scarpetta books rather early on.
3
Tim wrote at Jan 24, 08:05 am
> Angela, too, has come to drive me insane over the course of the last series or so: I’d like her to realise that there are some problems and unhappinesses in life that can’t be solved by sleeping with a range of different people, but I don’t think there are any problems in Angela’s life that can’t be solved in that way.
Wait. What?
4
Catriona wrote at Jan 24, 08:24 am
I need more information, Tim.
I’m talking mainly about the insipid, pseudo-psychological advice she’s always giving people about love, at least as far as she interprets love.
Well, that, and the absurd storyline with her husband and Hodgins and now this girl whose heart she broke in college.
She’s awfully pretty, but she’s starting to drive me up the wall.
5
Tim wrote at Jan 24, 12:19 pm
Two or three different people is… well, I guess it is technically a range. But I haven’t seen the last couple of episodes, so I may be missing a new turn.
6
Catriona wrote at Jan 24, 01:27 pm
Well, if this is partly a critique of the accuracy of my use of the word “range,” then that’s a whole different reply I should be writing.
;)
But it’s not just those three people: those were simply the examples of storylines that have annoyed me recently. It’s also her advice to Bones and her general tone of conversation.
She started out as a (somewhat stereotypical) free spirit who was more successful at romantic relationships than Bones but she seems to have turned into someone who is exclusively and obsessively interested in relationships. Shallow, essentially.
It’s partly, I suppose, the relationship with Hodgins, which I think was handled poorly by the writers (in that it was both inconsistent and cliched) but it also seems to me to be a general shift in the treatment of the character.
And it annoys me.
7
Nick Caldwell wrote at Jan 24, 02:06 pm
Tim, are you doing that whole Devil’s Advocate thing again? Or are you suggesting an alternative reading for Angela’s characterisation?
My take on Angela is that she’s quite effective as a foil for Bones but the attempts by the writers to develop her backstory as a standalone character have been quite dismal.
8
Catriona wrote at Jan 24, 11:51 pm
And I think what Nick’s just said it what I was trying to say in my third last paragraph in comment 6—only Nick’s said it far more succinctly than I did.
9
Tim wrote at Jan 25, 05:04 am
> Tim, are you doing that whole Devil’s Advocate thing again? Or are you suggesting an alternative reading for Angela’s characterisation?
Partly devil’s advocacy, but mainly not having seen past episode 4.6.
I agree that her characterisation has deteriorated, but I’d suggest that applies to everyone on the show, not just Angela.
10
Catriona wrote at Jan 25, 05:08 am
Oh, absolutely I agree that the characterisation overall has deteriorated—hence my references to Hodgins (and I admit I tied that up confusingly with my irritation at Angela, because of their dual storyline) and Zack, which I’m still annoyed about.
It just happens that Angela is the one who is annoying me the most.
11
Tim wrote at Jan 25, 06:44 am
Fair enough.