I'm going to feel so out of place here. I do, in every respect, LOVE Bones. Especially her ridiculous cultural ineptness. But the thing is, I prefer the book version of Temperance Brennan. She has that illogical side to her that makes her seem a bit more human, in my opinion. Not that it shouldn't be done, because people have every right to do so, but comparing the books with the television series is almost silly, and, to quote a friend, almost unfair to do so. It's like comparing - and this is going to sound like a weird analogy - Justin Timberlake's solo music with his music while with N*Sync. Sure, they have their similarities, but to say that they are meant to be the exact same thing is weird. He didn't go on his own to be compared to his older stuff. He probably did it because he wanted to branch out and do his own thing.
But the thing about the books and the TV show is that they aren't one and the same. The idea for the show is loosely based off of the books (i.e. taking the basic concept of Forensic Anthropology and turning it into prime time entertainment). By no means are the two Temperance Brennans the same person. They have the same name, but their lives are completely different. Tempe in the novels is an alcoholic, separated from her husband, with a daughter. I've read eight of the books, and have learned to keep the TV Tempe separate from the book Tempe. It's not like Harry Potter, where you read the books, and then watch the movie, which is supposed to be as much like the book as possible. Bones is a show with its own characters, save for Temperance. But at the same time, Temperance on the show is a completely different character than Temperance in the books. Completely different life stories, starting from the day they were born.
And, the way the book Tempe is portrayed seems almost as a Mary Sue. But, as you get into the first book, you learn very quickly that she is not. I'm not spoiling anything, but I'll tell you that most Mary Sues will not be alcoholics who almost get killed on multiple occasions. And they definitely do not have Luc Claudels riding their asses all the time, either. They are loved by all, with no flaws. By no means is that Tempe Brennan.
I believe that Kathy Reichs did an incredible job developing her character throughout the eight books I've read. Her relationship with Andrew Ryan has always fascinated with me, and I know that it's because of my shipper heart being completely relentless (I ship real life relationships, for God's sake!). When I'm reading the novels, I don't think I've ever been able to imagine Temperance Brennan as Emily Deschanel, which only goes to prove - in my opinion - that they are two completely different people. And as for the book version being wimpier, I don't see it. She has a better connection with her emotions, which doesn't necessarily make her weaker. It actually makes her a bit more human. The TV version is emotionally detached, hiding them until they build up to the breaking point. The book version doesn't do that anywhere near the extent that the TV version has.
When it comes to comparing Andrew Ryan and Seeley Booth, I kind of have to giggle. I do know that Booth must have been loosely based off of Andrew Ryan, but is nowhere near the same character as him. I could never choose between them, because they are both so wonderful. And besides, that's like comparing David Boreanaz with Eddie Cahill (he's who I imagine as Andrew when I read the novels): You just can't do it without melting in the process (well, at least I can't).
Anyhow, that's my piece. I know it's long winded, but I can't seem to make an opinion without it being that way. If it comes off as an attack, I apologize. That is not how it is meant to be. I'm just stating an opinion.
Amanda Ruth :angel:
