Which is Better? The Man in the High Castle Part 2

Since there was a lot to say about this show, I broke the post down into two weekly segments. Huzzah! Let's get into it.

Ed McCarthy - what a thankless role even up until the very end. However, DJ Quall just sells it, and he's turning into a good supporting actor in his age. However, if Frank was my friend, I would tell him to turn Juliana loose and just get on the bus to get out of the Pacific states. I mean, really.... I wouldn't even mess with him anymore after he locked me in the bathroom when he went to go kill the Crown Prince. Maybe I'm just not that good of a friend to take the gun from the guy and attempt to melt it down in the very place the Japanese are looking for it? Frank had some redeeming qualities at the end, but surely it didn't have to take the entire series to figure out that Ed meant more to him that Juliana did.

Mr. Tagomi - I really liked what they did with his character in the show. In the books, he did have a moment of clarity where he sees into "our" world, the world where the Axis didn't win the war, but couldn't handle it, and retreats back into his own world. It is literally interpreted in the show but the exciting scene in the book where the SD/Nazis try to kill Baynes and company is not there, so we don't get to see Mr. Tagomi fire off a replica gun from the American Old West. The actor that plays him is also just brilliant; he's able to take the Japanese stoicism and put a kind sheen to it, making him sympathetic but also still a mystery. What is his motivation? I hope we find out in season 2.

Mr. Childan - Here is a character that I really didn't care too much about in the book until he is invited into the home of Paul and Betty Kasoura. I thought his groveling and his desire to be Japanese (or really, just to be part of the powerful class) a bit boring, but as other characters do, they sneak up on you and all of the sudden you care about what happens to them. I guess it's the mark of a good writer. So, in the book, he stands up to the Japanese when they suggest that the jewelry that Ed and Frank make could be reproduced for the poorer countries because it has "Wu." Childan, enraged that he was used and then insulted, broke free of his desire to be accepted and refused to sell the jewelry that Ed and Frank made. Now, in the show, I think they used him just enough. He's the embodiment of a person who turned his back on his country and culture in order to make a life among his conquerors. You see his hopes dashed when he's invited to dinner with the Kasouras and it's revealed that they only viewed him as a novelty. They are disappointed and Childan realizes that no matter what, he will never be one of them. He aids Frank and Frank helps him with pulling one over the Japanese. His character was used just enough in the show.

The Marshall - Completely a show creation, I thought the Marshall was tacky and a bit cheesy. The actor that played him, is a notable British actor, and he takes the idea of The Marshall, an outlaw bounty hunter, and makes him AN OUTLAW AMERICAN HUNTER WHO WEARS A COWBOY HAT AND LEATHER DUSTER AND HAS A RIFLE. He even has a toothpick? He's supposed to be terrifying, but he comes off as a cartoon character. I thought he propelled the story and got Juliana and Joe out of Cannon City, but... meh.

Lem Washington - Another character they added into the story, and much needed as well. My husband and I were worried that they would kill him off, because usually that's what happens to the Noble Black Man troupe, but thankfully they didn't. He's one of the leaders of the resistance, but his characters get muddied over the course of the show. To be honest, I remember what Juliana and Joe did, but not quite sure about Lem. He even had a family at Cannon City and there he was in San Francisco? Or was it New York? I don't even remember!

Paul and Betty Kasoura - The notable Japanese couple that treat American history and culture as novelty and kitsch, but do not really want to have American friends. They use Childan and are not interested in anything other than superficial American ideas.

If someone is in the mood for something that dove into an alternative timeline and wanted to be simply entertained, than the show is for you. The book deals with the philosophy of what it means to be an American, and what would happened to America if it never won the war. However, the show is designed to do a few seasons, and I'm really looking forward to how they deal with Russia, Africa and other parts of the world. I liked the book, but the show is much more my speed. I found myself not quite caring whether Ed and Frank got their jewelry business off the ground, and more interested in the drainage of the Mediterranean Sea by the Nazis. I read interviews by PKD who mentioned he wanted to do a sequel to The Man in the High Castle, but never managed to get it off the ground. The show has a chance to do this.

My husband commented that the show slowed down after the 3rd episode, but after reading the book, I felt the pacing was good. I'm also relieved that Juliana figured out who Joe was and that Frank and Juliana were separated by the end of the first season. Here's to hoping there is a season 2!

Marvel Mondays: The Amazing Spider-Man #1

This idea was given to me by my husband, who does a sketch comedy show in Baltimore parodying his beloved comic books. I have reviewed some comic books before (mostly She-Hulk) but since they are coming out with new number 1s of all the issues, why not review them? He also buys them, so it's mostly him spending the money for me to read.

I randomly picked out the Amazing Spider-Man #1. There are so many movies about this character that it's hard to not know who Peter Parker is by this point. He's a high school kid who's down on his luck, lives in the poorer part of New York and has unspeakable tragedy. He has a tough time with girls but despite of that, he's a witty, snarky guy. My husband and I have had many conversations about Spider-Man and how there is a comic about Miles Morales, which would be a better match for Spider-Man. What frustrates us the most is that there isn't really much diversity in comic books. Don't get me wrong, they are trying and doing a better job of expanding diversity when it comes to some reboot of some characters, but... well, they failed when it came to the reboot of Spider-Man.

Peter Parker is a new age industrialist with branches all over the world. The series opens with Spider-Man and Agent Morse, or Mockingbird, fighting a few bad guys from the Zodiac. Spider-Man is snarky, like he usually is, but... there is something off about Peter Parker. It goes flashbacks to him learning how to drive and learning Chinese at the same time. There is some important bits about S.H.I.E.L.D, but I don't really notice because I'm perplexed to why I dislike Peter Parker so much. Finally, the chase scene ends with them capturing this dude with a lion mask on, who works for Zodiac, who is important... but for the life of me I can't remember why. All I'm concentrating on is why Peter Parker is like Tony Stark, with his gadgets and technological know how. I mean, wasn't he a photographer?

The next scene shows Peter Parker in a suit, discussing the future of his company, and the start of the Uncle Ben foundation. I guess he's using Parker Industries to help the world? Fair wages and raising the quality of life for every person that he employs in the countries his company resides in? Then Slott and company really hit the nail on the head with a reporter calling Peter Parker a "poor man's Tony Stark." Peter leans heavily into it, by patting himself on the back and stating that he's wages are that of middle management and that he couldn't feasibly give himself a pay raise above his junior executives.

...what?

Look, I get what Slott and company were trying to do. In a way, I appreciate it. It's providing commentary for greedy CEOs and Wall Street and the 1%. However... why Peter Parker? Why Spiderman? I feel like they were going to do this with Tony Stark, and at the last minute, decided to go with Spiderman. I'm not very well versed with super hero legend, or the continuity of Marvel.... but it just doesn't fit. There is already a few heroes in Marvel that own their own companies and do what Parker is trying to do (or unabashingly doesn't do it) but Parker doesn't feel like one that needs to do something like that. Isn't the appeal of Spider-Man is that he's a regular Joe that just happens to have superpowers? Wasn't that the reason those movies were so popular and one of the first that Marvel put out, because he was so relatable?

There is a smart bit of Hobie Brown also being Spider-Man to keep Peter Parker's cover intact. However, I don't know Hobie Brown from Adam, and it sort of falls flat. Oh, and there is a gay wedding thrown in there, which I also don't know from Adam. I see that Hubbie also bought the second issue of Amazing Spider-Man, so I hope it really picks up. But the verdict? Peter Parker is another rich white dude who's trying to use his money for good, which isn't a bad thing, but this trope would look better on Tony Stark.

Which is Better? The Man in the High Castle Part 1

So after watching AKA Jessica Jones, I was excited to finally finish watching The Man in the High Castle by Amazon. I watched the first two episodes before I read the book, and I'm not sure if that tainted my experience reading the book because even though the book and the show are in the same vein, so to speak, they are very different in their approaches. What I found frustrating with the book is that even though PKD does a good job of using sci-fi to explore philosophical ponderings, there isn't a whole lot of action, and the journey means much more than the ending. I also found the book frustrating because all I wanted to do was explore the world where the Nazis and the Japanese won.

The show does that expertly. Amazon spent a whole lot of money to make it look realistic and beautiful, and they did exactly that. I also loved the interpretation of the book and the familiarity of the characters, but some breathed new life into them. I think the best way to review the show and then finally answer the question of which was better is to go by character, which I did in Anne Rice's Queen of the Damned Which is Better? review. As well, I am going to split my "Which is Better?" post into 2, to reduce the length. I am going to cover some of the main characters such as Juliana, Frank, Joe Blake, John Smith and Rudolph Wegener.

However, before I go into the characters, I would like to say that I thought it was very clever that the book, The Grasshopper Lies Heavy was turned into films. I think it would be more comprehensive and attainable for viewers to grasp than a book. However, what I also liked about the change is that they expanded the alternative universes, and even suggested it was used by Hitler to win the war. The provides a lot of questions and if there is a season 2, a lot of material to work from. However, I wonder if they'll go into the alternative timeline that was depicted in the book, where the UK is essentially the USSR and the cold war happens between the two.

Juliana Crain - In the book, Juliana and Frank are divorced, and Juliana lives in Cannon City, in the neutral territory. She's beautiful and a wanderer, and for the first part of the book, is seen through the lens of men. When PKD reveals her inner monologue, she is indecisive and searching, which gets her in trouble with Joe Cinnadella, who is revealed to be a Nazi assassin tasked to kill the man There is some sort of friction between Frank and Juliana in the book, but they never meet up. In the movie however, they are boyfriend and girlfriend, and leaves him in the dust when her sister is killed. She takes up her half-sister's mantle, and goes on a mission to deliver the film. Motivated by her sister's sacrifice, she leaves a path of destruction in her wake, which drives Frank's story. Which lead's me too...

Frank Frink - His grandfather is a Jew, which is a source of anxiety for Frank in both the book and in the movie. However, instead of opening up a jewelry store with Ed and gets in trouble for it, his story is motivated by Juliana's actions. When she leaves to deliver the film, Frank is taken into custody and is grilled by the Kempeitai about Juliana's whereabouts. They bring in Frank's sister and his niece and nephew. Motivated by the man in the cell next to him, Randall, Frank realizes that he's going to die anyway, regardless of whether he tells them. His sister and his niece and nephew is killed, but he is released after they find someone else with the film. I feel like both the book and the show Frank are just both... wet blankets. I felt like in the show the writers made the most boring decisions for him. He doesn't get on the bus, he goes and saves Joe Blake and almost too late, he runs in to save his friend Ed when he is pinned for assassinating the prince of Japan.

Juliana and Frank - After her decisions to carry out her sister's destiny, Frank's life is absolutely destroyed. I'm not quite sure why they remained together until the end. It's almost painful for them to remain together, and despite Juliana's actions directly impacting Frank negatively, he still sticks around. I wish they had done something different, or at least broke them up like they did in the book.

Joe Blake - Joe Cinnadella is a secondary character who is killed by Juliana towards the end of the book. I like how they broadened his character and made his journey much more enjoyable to watch. He's a spy for the Nazis, and is tasked with obtaining films for Hitler. Even by the end of the show, I haven't be able to see whether he's truly changed, or whether he's just that good of a spy. He managed to complete his tasks, though he does disobey a direct order from Obergruppenfuhrer John Smith: he doesn't kill Juliana. I'm so over Juliana and Frank. My OTP is Joe and Juliana. I hope they see each other again if they do a season 2.

John Smith - He is not a character in the book, but someone that fills the hole that is left when Joe Cinnadella becomes Joe Blake. However, I loved how they turned John Smith into an actual human being and not just a Villain! I loved the episode where the viewer glimpses into Smith's home life, but his loyalty to the idea enables him to turn over his friend Rudolph Wegener. However, the viewer sees him wrestling with his son's illness, which the state mandates that he exterminates him.

Mr. Baynes/Rudolph Wegener - In the book he is an undercover agent, who is a high ranking Nazi who wants to stop the start of WWIII between the Nazis and the Japanese. He enlists the help of Mr. Tagomi and Baynes uses Mr. Tagomi as a cover to meet with a high ranking Tokyo General. In the show, the character of Mr. Yatabe is wrapped into Mr. Tagomi, who plans with Mr. Baynes to prevent the war between Japan and Germany. They predict the power vacuum when Adolf Hitler dies or resigns, and realizes that Japanese is falling behind technologically compared to the Third Reich. I like where they went with Rudolph and the writers took what was implied in the book and drew it out. I also liked the friendship with John Smith and Rudolph, and though Smith feels a bond with his friend, his loyalty to the Reich, and to Hitler, wins out.

What did you all think of The Man in the High Castle? Have any of you read the book? Stay tuned for next week as I continue to dissect the show and compare it to the book, and decide, 'Which is Better?'

The Man in the High Castle by Philip K Dick

Alright, even though I consider myself an avid science fiction reader, I really didn't know much about Philip K Dick. When the Man in the High Castle show was advertised on youtube to premier on Amazon, I was super excited.... and unaware that it was a book before. My darling husband informed me that this was the same author who wrote the book that inspired Blade Runner with Harrison Ford. 

Always finding opportunities to review book and then make the ultimate comparison, I hurriedly bought the book and dove into reading it before the premier of the show. Now, Amazon released the first 2 episodes of Man in the High Castle in their competition with Netflix and AKA Jessica Jones and I loved it! I was really excited to read the book and see the differences and similarities. PKD wrote tons of books and I think a few more were made into movies. 

The book was written in the 1960s, 20 years after the end of WWII. PKD took that concept and flipped it on it's head. He changed the outcome and posed the question, 'how would the world look if Germany and Japan won the war?' However, his focus wasn't on world building, or setting up a straight protagonist to uncover the truth... or have a traditional plot of any sort. He creates a few characters and uses them to view Americanism if the Allies had not won WWII. What is America if Germany and Japan won the war? 

I think it's a really cool concept and the parts where he discusses (casually through dialogue and inner thought monologues) how the word has changed (Nazis have dried out the Mediterranean, brutally conquered Africa and built rocket ships to Mars for instance) and it was easily the most fascinating parts of the book. However, I found myself waiting to get to the exciting plot points and I found myself frustrated when PKD focused on Childan and Tagomi (for most of the book, until the exciting parts where they discovered parts of themselves and revealed their true character in times of crisis) but up until then, I found myself rolling my eyes and using the "hurry up" gesture when I read their portions. 

The character Juliana, I feel, was used to drive the ultimate story to completion and doesn't stand alone as a character. She stumbles, like Tagomi, onto the book within the book, The Grasshopper Lies Heavy, where the plot of that book is our timeline and the Allies won the war. At first, other characters view Juliana through their lens (Joe Cinnadella, Frank Frink) and have some very anti woman thoughts about her. They view her as sort of a manic pixie dream girl. She's unstable, quirky, unable to guide her own life and exist for the purpose of men. Despite their thoughts about her, they are still drawn towards her and still are incredibly attracted to her. 

PKD then introduce her own POV, and it seems like what other people perceive of her is actually true. She is aimless, unstable and casual. She relies on Joe, who reveals himself to not be an Italian truck driver, to give her a good time, and goes off with him to a strange place to meet the author of the book. Then there is a switch, or a few switches that happen, Juliana falls apart, and then Juliana, after her conversation with Abelson, becomes cool and calm. I'm not sure if her character development is more realistic, or less. It felt to me that Juliana's decisions was based on what PKD needed to finish the story, not because it was genuine to her character development. 

I think this book is good for those that enjoy exploring those philosophical questions of the "What If?" I also enjoy those "What If?" questions, but I feel like I would have enjoyed this book more if there was much more direction. I also wanted to find out more of what the Nazis, and the Japanese did after the war. How did the world look? I wanted to see exactly how they eradicated Africa and exterminated all the Jews in the world. I wanted to read about the new world order, and maybe a deeper insight of how the changeover of the Third Reich would happen, and more political drama instead of the Baynes and Yatabe secret meeting and fall out. 

It's probably me being a book series supporter, but the kind of information, and the wealth of world building potential in this book would look great as a book series. Maybe each person has their own book? Maybe each book takes on someone new stationed in a place, like Africa, or even on a rocket ship to Mars, and discusses the implications of that life? That maybe the book, Grasshopper Lies Heavy is found, they read it, and go on their own journey of discovery? 

I'm excited to see where they take the show. I'm not sure if I will read another PKD book, but then again, I did watch Blade Runner. 

Royal Babylon: The Alarming History of European Royalty by Karl Shaw

I came across this book like I do so many others, randomly. A teacher was retiring at the end of the school year and he was giving away books by the dozens. I took a few other ones, and on my second trip there, I found this book, with a picture of Queen Victoria with a crown that is too big on her head.

Even though it was a free book, I wasn't sure if I should pick it up or not. I love history, and I love reading about history.... when the writer is good. It's so easy for history to become boring and bogged down with what actually happened, instead of letting the story unfold naturally. Sure, history is a recount, but also, people were involved and as I get older, I realize just how crazy people are. Anyway, I bit the bullet and took the book home, and then moved the book when I bought my house. 

And boy, I am glad I did. Usually books that I am not really into takes me a few weeks (even a month) to get through, and I was finished this book in a few nights. The tone and attitude of the book is pretty judgemental and catty, which is fun when you get into the mindset of a typical teenage girl (or boy). I imagined being invited into a conversation while drinking in a mysterious pub or bar by someone who experienced first hand these ridiculous people and these ridiculous people happen to be famous Monarchs, all related to the British royal family. 

The book is fun and silly if one disregards the tone towards mental illness. It's very obvious the book was written over 15 years ago, because along with mental illness (and the sequential jokes), Shaw also discusses homosexual and transgender royals and likens them to pedophiles or sexually deranged. I can see what he was trying to do: poke fun of the idea of a royal family and question why they have all this power and money when really, they are just as fucked up as the rest of us! However, as I was reading goodreads, a lot of people felt that he was poking fun of serious mental issues. I also felt as a person reading this book in 2015, he was seriously dated in how he portrayed homosexuals and transgender people. 

Another issue that many reviewers had of the book, which I also have a problem with, is the lack of footnotes. There was a bibliography in the back, but I would have loved to see where he got his information and his research on the topic. There was also a few complaints about how incomplete his stories about certain monarchs, like George VI and George III and reducing their reigns to stories about their madness. 

Finally, Shaw ribbed about the rampant inbreeding and ugliness of the royal families across Europe, which made me laugh because the propaganda machine and stereotype of beautiful ladies and gentlemen with refined tastes and loads of money is just that, assumptions. Many royal families were obsessed with keeping the royal line pure, but in doing that, their gene pool became more shallow. I also didn't realize that the Kaiser Wilheim I, Czar Nicholas II and King George V were all first cousins. What I also didn't know was that the current British royal family is exclusively German, and changed their names to Windsor in response to anti-german sentiment during WWI. King George V, though Shaw ripped into him as a classless man, was a man who modernized the royal family and refined their duties for the present day. 

 This book could use the benefit of a rewrite for more modern times, but I would also love to see an update on the selection of Princess Diana when she was to marry Prince Charles. Shaw ripped into him earlier in the book, but was decidedly mum when it came to the progression of the current British royal family. I can only say that Diana passed only just a few years before this book came out, and the grief felt by the world was probably why Shaw didn't write about her. 

If you like a book that treats history like juicy gossip, then give this book a whirl. However, take it with a grain of salt. There is a lot of bits about madmen, homosexuals and sexual depravity, all in the same sentence. Take it as you will. 

Which is Better? The Red Dragon

Whereas Silence of the Lambs was a masterpiece and a movie that was so unexpected that it won a few Oscars, the movie Red Dragon unfortunately, a prequel shot 10 or so years after Silence of the Lambs, falls flat. Now, I am unsure if my opinion on the movie Red Dragon is the result of over saturation of all things Hannibal Lector or if I really was just underwhelmed with the movie in general, but I digress.

There are a few major problems with the movie.The first problem was the casting of Will Graham. In the book, Harris takes you through the downfall into madness of Graham and his relationship with Hannibal Lector. Lector isn't very involved in the book, but Graham, in looking at Francis, starts to lose his sense of self. In order to catch a serial killer, he has to think like one, and in the book, it just tears him apart. In the movie, Norton is just walking around like he owns the place and that he is not phased by what he has to do.  In the movie, Edwards Norton is a badass. He isn't overpowered by Francis at the end and he sort of regains his life after Francis is shot by Molly. His relationship with his wife and stepson falls apart in the book and alludes to a divorce.

The second major problem with the movie is that the book, is set before Silence of the Lambs, but the movie is made over 10 years later. Anthony Hopkins is noticeably older and my husband pointed out that Hopkins wore a girdle to keep himself trim. They recasted Crawford... and I get why they brought Hopkins back, but I think it would have been well served if they got a younger Hopkins look alike to play his younger self. In the movie, after watching Silence of the Lambs, he just looks ridiculous.

I really liked the backstory of Freddy Louds in the book. I was able to see his inner workings and how he was shafted for most of his life and just decided to take control of it. He was really valued at The Tattler, but everyone hated him in the journalists world. Throughout the book, he was a guy that knew that no one would look out for him but him, and he did what it took to be successful. All he wanted was to be a serious journalist with lots of money and it was very sad when The Dragon took him. In the movie, I didn't really didn't feel any sort of way for him. He was played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, who does sarmy very well. There was never any sort of backstory to him other than skeevy gossip journalist.

In the movie, they alluded to his backstory and showed the time with his grandmother when he wet the bed when he was a child. What is lost in the movie is the time frame. This whole serial killer case was done in the 1970s, which makes Francis' low self-esteem and self loathing due to his cleft palate much more probable if the audience knew that he grew up in the 40s and 50s.

Reba's interpretation in the movie is mostly spot on. She's white with golden pageboy hair and she's blind. I liked her inner monologue in the book, but in the movie, you lose that. You feel for her because she genuinely likes Francis and he can't get past his own abuse (or really, into therapy) to be available for her. He is so far gone by the time he meets Reba. It's sad because The Dragon helps him be more confident and strong but also drives him to kill people and encourage him to kill Reba.

All in all, Red Dragon is better as a book than a movie. You get more material and the motives of characters which is lacking in the movie. It would have been better served to recast Lector just for the simple fact that Hopkins is noticeably older in a movie that was supposed to take place before Silence of the Lambs. The movie is entertaining, however, so if you want to just settle for watching something thrilling, then it's a good way to spend a few hours.

The Red Dragon by Thomas Harris

So, I came back to the blog enthusiastically with my Thomas Harris books, the movies and the TV show. I watched all the movies, watched all of the show and finally finished my second Harris book, The Red Dragon. I finished my "Which is Better?" post about the book and the movie, (which will be published after this post) and then... I just ignored this unfinished review of The Red Dragon.

Why? Silence of the Lambs seemed pretty easy to write and to put together, so why did I avoid writing the review of the first book in the series? After much consideration, I think I have my answer.

I think it's a combination of being so saturated with all things Hannibal Lector and not enjoying Thomas Harris' writing. It feels that after watching the show, and then the movies, the time I got to the book, the story sort of falls flat. Besides for the background and inner monologue of a few characters that I will get into, the book doesn't offer anything new. It's not like it's drastically different, or the reader gets the complete inner workings of the main character that didn't carry through in the movie.

It's just... Will Graham is not that interesting in the book. The way he captures Hannibal Lector is also not very interesting or indepth like the TV show. Of course, I didn't expect 2 seasons of Will and Hannibal capturing serial killers like they did on the show in the book, but... Graham and Lector met twice. Lector was never a consultant for the FBI. Graham just sort of figured it out and then Lector stabbed him.

On the show, Graham's descent into madness after thinking like serial killers is disturbing and thorough. In the book, Graham seeks Lector's help and essentially Lector sends The Dragon after him... his marriage falls apart, but Graham doesn't seem to change all that much during the course of the book. Harris seems to beat his fists and tells the reader that he's changing, but... I barely knew who Graham was before Harris tells us that he lost it all.

However, what the show and the movie missed out on is the sad, sad stories of Francis Dolarhyde and Freddy Louds. Freddy Louds' motivation and backstory is completely lost in both the show and the movie. In the book, he's a short, rat of a man who realizes that he is not going to get anywhere in life hoping that others open the doors of opportunities. So he leaves, goes to a tabloid paper and is treated like a king. Everyone hates him, but he doesn't care because he's on his way to getting a book deal and making even more money. Louds grabs life by the throat and is not afraid of taking risks.

However, it ends tragically for him. He is burned alive and accuses Graham of making him "his pet." Graham is left wondering if he really meant to do that, which left me with a chill.

Now Francis Dolarhyde's story is sad and disturbing as well. I loved how Harris made a point to state the time period, which would make it hard for children with cleft palates to gain self-confidence and be accepted by their families and society. It also just so happened that Dolarhyde had the shittiest family ever, and coupled with severe paranoia, turned him into a self loathing individual that identified with a dragon later in life. I'm not sure if that makes him a serial killer, but it also makes his story a bit more tragic when he meets a woman that likes him for him and he cannot escape the dragon's reach.

So overall... I'm not sure how enthusiastic I am to read the final 2 books in Harris' Hannibal Lector series. You may want to read the book first before venturing into the movie and the tv show. Otherwise you may be left underwelmed.