This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
The pages for the show and the book it is based on both feature the Guardian review. The one for the book is favourable, the one for the show is unfavourable. Fair enough (if drearily true to form). But these reviews arrive at their respective conclusions both by focussing on the plot: the show is bad because the plot is boring, the book is good because the plot is "fantastically creepy." What gives? If the show fumbled by altering this "fantastically creepy" plot, this would be worth remarking upon on the main page. Or perhaps the show is faithful, but this "fantastically creepy" plot only works on the page when you have to imagine things rather than being made to look at them. In either case, the cause for the diverging receptions is worthy of discussion. (I am aware that the Guardian employs different people for book and TV reviews and that they are entitled to have different opinions; but the point is that these reviews are held up as examples of the general consensus, which is what this question is really about.) 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:DC22:28AF:72C5:E5B (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
