MovieChat Forums > Place of Execution Discussion > Anybody read the book?

Anybody read the book?


If so can you spoil it and tell me who did it? Been reading the synopsis online and the show starts tonight but don't want to wait 3 weeks to find out the conclusion lol

reply

I can't believe that it is on for three weeks. They are totally racing through the book. They have added characters in and taken some out. The book is excelllent by the way.

*SPOILER ALERT*
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Nobody did it. She isn't dead. It was a cover up by the entire village to get rid of her stepfather who has been badly abusing the village children. Alison got pregnant by him and went to live with an aunt. George Bennett goes back to the manor years later and Alison opens the door, claiming to be somebody else. George is traumatised that he has sent an 'innocent' man to the gallows, but mainly he wants the villagers and Alison to just be left alone

Well that is what happens unless they change it.
.


"Never Eat More Than You Can Lift" - Miss Piggy.

reply

Spoiler!




Yep that's it. Plus, the nasty lord raped the documentary maker when she was a kid.

reply


Not in the book. In the book she was a writer not a documentary film maker, and she had had no contact with the executed guy at all.

That stuff was changed and added for the tv show. The book was far better.

"Never Eat More Than You Can Lift" - Miss Piggy.

reply

I much preferred the book. The fact that George Bennett, in the book, had a wife and a child on the way added to his determination to get to the bottom of the 'mystery'. I also didn't like the fact that Catherine Heathcote seemed to be a central character in the TV version, yet only played a very small part in the book. I hate the way books are hashed about for the telly.



reply

I think if George had a wife & child on the way in the TV version, the viewer would have been less likely to doubt his motives & suspect that he was in some way involved or implicit in the crime. The fact that on the face of it he was a trustworthy, moral policeman yet had (what appeared to be an obsession) with Alison meant that there was always the chance he was not all he seemed to be. In my opinion, it was alot easier to be suspicious of a single man than a family man.

Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail-R.W Emerson

reply

That's good to know, cause that was the stupidest thing in the movie, though the whole village conspiracy thing was implausible too.

reply

I agree this book is her best. It is one of my top 10 mystery books of all time. I couldn't believe it when I read the twist. This book totally got me. I could not put it down. When I worked in a book store I suggested it to every customer looking for a good detective story. I hand sold at least 30 copies of it over 4 years and had lots of repeat customers because of it. I had no idea they even made it for television. Must see if I can get my hands on it.

reply

Yes, the book was wonderful. Why couldn't they left it the way it was written.I believe they ruined the story with the new changes. Very disappointed!

reply

I saw this twist coming early on when the wife called the police about finding the weapon. It would have been so easy for her just to plant them. Plus there was never a body found, it was obvious she could still be alive. I was actually hoping George would be the killer, that would have been both a darker and more plausible ending. With the Greg Wise character instead being this mass child rapist, why didn't someone just kill him or go the police? It seemed ridiculous that the village would come up with this complicated murder plot. I didn't believe it for a minute.

reply

I have not read the book, I have just seen the dramatization of it on Masterpiece; but to answer part of your question: the reason state by Alison of why the other parents did not go to the police was because the police would remove the children and place them in the British version of foster care, thus emptying the village of all of its children.

reply

And you're buying that was plausible? I'm not. Unless the parents were so stupid and negelectful that they let the kids keep going to be photographed/raped by the Bad Man after they knew what he was doing. If that's the case, they should have had their kids taken away, because they were culpable.

reply

I don't think you understand how totally isolated the village was, nor how small it was. The book made it clear that the village was all but inaccessible due to its isolation. Nor for that matter, how inbred it was. If I recall the book correctly, everyone in the tiny village was related to everyone else. It is perfectly plausible that they banded together under the forceful leadership of one old woman to fake the kidnapping/disappearance—a fact that was not made clear in the filmed version.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

From my recollection of the book (which I read some years ago), this was not the reason that Alison's mother and the other adults in the community didn't report the abuse to the authorities. They wanted Hawkin to die as punishment for his abuse of the children but also because that would mean that his wife would inherit his property, which was basically all the land tenanted by the community, and they would no longer be subject to the "ownership" of a outsider as their "squire".

Had they simply reported Hawkin's crimes to the police, he'd presumably (but not necessarily) have been convicted and gone to gaol, but on his release would have been free to return to his house and land and would also likely have changed his will to benefit someone other than a wife who'd given evidence against him in criminal proceedings.

Added to this, like many insular and isolated small communities, they had an inherent distrust of and wish to distance themselves from the outside world, of which the police force was a part. They preferred to dispense their own version of justice.

reply