The Men Who Stare At Goats... THE BOOK!

The movie looks like it's going to be awesome, but I just finished reading the book, WHICH I LOVED! :D

The difference, put simply, is that the book is completely non-fiction -- the information therein researched and verified as thoroughly as possible by the author -- and the film is a work of fiction.

I'm still going to see the movie! It looks like a hysterical flick, and if they can balance the duality of comedy and disturbing fact the way Jon Ronson does in his book, then the flick should be a great after-movie-coffeehouse-discussion topic! In fact, if the filmmakers get a larger audience discussing some of the things the book brings to light, then this could be an all-time favorite movie!

The book deals with Military Intelligence investigating paranormal abilities, with the intent of creating super-effective, super-inexpensive super soldiers .

It is not, however, a pro-paranormal book, lol. It's clear that Jon Ronson puts NO stock in claims of the paranormal abilities, and a lot of the humor comes from just how silly such people look to non-believers!

In fact, it gave me a new (much more amusing) vision of myself on Saturday nights, wandering around in the darkness looking for ghosts with equipment that was most decidely not designed for that purpose. :D

But that's really just the tip of the iceberg.

As Ronson tracks the effects of this stort-lived experiement in military human potential and observes how the ideas proposed in the 1970s have morphed into techniques for current PSYOPS, the book looses some of its wacky humor, but remains edge-of-your-seat riveting.

I had actually wanted to read the book before I found out there was a film version. It was mentioned (if memory serves) by a guest on one of the paranormal podcasts I listen to, which piqued my interest. (In particular, I believe the guest mentioned the military experiement in which a soldier stared at a numbered goat, attempting to burt its heart, until the goat next to it toppled over from a heart attack.) So when I saw the commercials for the flick, I figured I should read the book before the movie comes out because (a) the movie looks hysterical, and I suspect folks will be talking about it for a while, and (b) if I saw the movie first, I might be less inclinded to read the book. (I'm a lazy sort.)

Plus, it's always more fun to have the book in your mind when you see the movie. They have to cut a lot of information out of books to transform them into movies, and that extra information can sometimes make a poor adaptation a little more enjoyable. To illustrate: The Harry Potter films work just fine the way they are; Twilight was fine as a film, but the book is better (natch) and the movie is better when you know what's missing; the film version of Hannibal (if you even remember that flick) is really weak, so seeing the movie after having read the book makes you feel better by reminding you that you had previously enjoyed a different incarnation of this story.

But in the best of situations, it seems to me that a great adaptation of a great novel just create 2 great -- but different -- products. Like the Harry Potter films, Jurassic Park and other good Michael Crichton adaptations, the good Stephen King adaptations, as so on... No matter how good the movie is or how many times you watch it, you still get in the mood to go back and reread the original from time to time.

So, anyway, I wanted to have the book in my head before I saw the movie.

And I'm SO GLAD I did! :D GREAT READ!

Okay, just 1 hour 45 minutes left in my shift, so I'm going away now.

Hope you had a great Guy Fawkes Day yesterday!

:)