I got it all backwards. I watched the series first and then read the book. Maybe that was the problem?
I am one of the seemingly very few people who have loved every single episode of the TV series ”The walking dead”, despite its slow pace (or maybe because of it). I was aware that it was only loosely based on the graphic novel of the same name, but I wasn't prepared as to just how loosely that was.
The central characters are the same. There are zombies. There are guns. The central characters shoot zombies. And that's where the similarities end.
The first mistake that almost anyone talking about a film based on a book ever makes is comparing the film to the book. And yet I walked right into that one. But I think it's relevant, so bear with me.
I'm by no means an avid graphic novel reader. As an adult I've read maybe 3-4, and I've been an adult for almost two decades. Still, I have nothing against them. But I couldn't help wishing that this one had been...more, somehow. It could be that I'm used to reading fat, wordy novels that over analyse and describe in minute detail, but I found it compressed and lacking in emotion. I didn't care about the characters, and I certainly did not feel the imminent threat from the zombies. I suppose that when you try to fit into 144 pages what has the potential to be such a huge story (having, despite that fact, made bold claims in the introduction of the book that it will be powerful, with strong character development etc), then you're bound to have to leave stuff out.
Of course, ”The Walking dead” is a series of graphic novels, and should perhaps be judged in its entirety. Problem is, I don't feel so inclined to buy the rest of them after reading the first one. It was entertaining and easy enough to make me want to read it in one sitting, and I wouldn't say it's bad, exactly, but I think I'll stick to the television series to get my zombie fix.
I am one of the seemingly very few people who have loved every single episode of the TV series ”The walking dead”, despite its slow pace (or maybe because of it). I was aware that it was only loosely based on the graphic novel of the same name, but I wasn't prepared as to just how loosely that was.
The central characters are the same. There are zombies. There are guns. The central characters shoot zombies. And that's where the similarities end.
The first mistake that almost anyone talking about a film based on a book ever makes is comparing the film to the book. And yet I walked right into that one. But I think it's relevant, so bear with me.
I'm by no means an avid graphic novel reader. As an adult I've read maybe 3-4, and I've been an adult for almost two decades. Still, I have nothing against them. But I couldn't help wishing that this one had been...more, somehow. It could be that I'm used to reading fat, wordy novels that over analyse and describe in minute detail, but I found it compressed and lacking in emotion. I didn't care about the characters, and I certainly did not feel the imminent threat from the zombies. I suppose that when you try to fit into 144 pages what has the potential to be such a huge story (having, despite that fact, made bold claims in the introduction of the book that it will be powerful, with strong character development etc), then you're bound to have to leave stuff out.
Of course, ”The Walking dead” is a series of graphic novels, and should perhaps be judged in its entirety. Problem is, I don't feel so inclined to buy the rest of them after reading the first one. It was entertaining and easy enough to make me want to read it in one sitting, and I wouldn't say it's bad, exactly, but I think I'll stick to the television series to get my zombie fix.
Haha nä inga zombiesar här! Jag hade en vampyrperiod men den gick över lika snabbt! Nu läser jag Påven Johanna! Jättebra men en helt annan genre! Fredagsmys på dig!
ReplyDelete