From http://weeksnotice.blogspot.com/2012/...I read Peter Bryant's 1958 novel Red Alert, which was the inspiration for the movie Dr. Strangelove. The two diverge in very significant ways that ultimately highlight Stanley Kubrick's creative talents, not to mention Peter Sellers'. The novel is earnest and dead serious. A rogue general (the novel's Quentin becomes Jack D. Ripper in the movie) decides the only way to save the world is to destroy the Soviet Union's nuclear arsenal, even though that means killing millions of people. He uses a top secret plan that tells bombers to attack, then puts his base on lockdown so that no one can recall them.What Kubrick saw was that the story was so serious, crazy, and yet ultimately rather believable that the narrative deserved to have a mocking tone. Dr. Strangelove is not in the novel, nor are there references to "precious bodily fluids," or George C. Scott's goofy gum chomping general, or the Colonel Bat Guano's constant references to commie "preverts." The novel, in fact, does not have the Doomsday Machine either. Instead, there is the very human drama of a U.S. president agreeing to allow the destruction of a U.S. city (Atlantic City) if a Soviet city were hit first. It shows some optimism about how human beings can work together, whereas the Doomsday Machine is out of any human hands.The most important difference between the two is that the serious work had a happy ending and the farcical work ended with the destruction of the planet.Anyway, if you haven't seen Dr. Strangelove, or haven't seen it recently, check it out again, as I did. There's always something new to find in it.
I was introduced to the movie Dr. Strangelove in college, and this is the book the movie was based on. An Air Force general decides the only way to beat the Soviet Union is to strike first, so he initiates a plan designed in case of a nuclear attack on the US that leaves it leaderless, thus the plan doesn’t need a politician’s approval. Thirty-one bombers set out to drop their nukes on the Soviet Union, and no one but the general can stop them or communicate with them. Bryant created an interesting scenario for the reader—you can’t help sympathizing with the crew of one of the B-52s, the Alabama Angel. They are, after all, just doing their job. They assume that if Plan R has been initiated, their country is in ruins. On the other hand, the Russians have a doomsday device hidden in the Ural mountains, one their leaders will detonate should their country be attacked with nukes, one that will kill the earth off within a few months from the massive radiation it releases. So the reader also wants the Alabama Angel to be shot down before it can complete its mission, because if they succeed, the earth will be destroyed.How does this differ from the movie? It had a very different tone. The characters, from the Soviet Ambassador to the crew of the Alabama Angel, are more likeable (at least in my mind). No one on the bomber wears a cowboy hat. No fluoridation conspiracy. And the ending is far different from the movie’s ending. Fast paced and frightening. During the Cold War, it must have been even more so.
Do You like book Red Alert (2008)?
I began Red Alert knowing it would be a straightforward thriller about mutually assured destruction and that the satire present in Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, which is based on the book, would not be present. Essentially, excluding the ending, both the movie and the book are similar in structure and events. The book was simply missing the satire. There was a great deal of military style technicalities and I remember beginning to feel invested when reading about what Quinten did, about the time Howard realized as well. These scenes began to push the book into thriller territory and I felt confident that it would continue to improve.I became lost when the actions of the people no longer made sense. I have to keep in mind that the book was published in 1958 by someone who experienced the Cold War. I am unable to relate. I found the interactions between the President and the Marshall ridiculous, to the point that I was wondering if maybe the book was supposed to be satirical. I can easily see why Kubrick felt confident in the success of making his version solely a satire. The President was portrayed as tough, stubborn, and unwilling to give further. My problem with this, and part of why Kubrick was able to create President Merkin Muffley so connvincingly, is that there was nothing further for the President to give after he (view spoiler)[offered up an American city (hide spoiler)]
—Kathryn
This was an interesting read and a bit hard to rate. Film geeks will like it (as I did) if only to see the kernel that inspired Dr. Strangelove (who unfortunately does not appear in the book). From a strictly literary perspective though, this is more of a 2 star book. It's not great - the writing is a bit stilted, shifting from academic to preachy at times. But there is a story here. I didn't go in to this expecting a funny book as some other reviewers did, and maybe that's why I wasn't truly disappointed. What's really interesting is that most of the book (at least the first half) really follows the plot of the movie, but it's written very seriously as opposed to the same story being told in an absurd way with the movie. So that's fun. I'd really only recommend it to film geeks.
—Lindsay
Purchased as a Nook ebook while reading P.D. Smith's THE DOOMSDAY MEN. The work is reported to be the original premise for Stanley Kubrick's 1964 film, DR. STRANGELOVE. The film is, in my opinion, one of the best Peter Sellers movies ever!
—Richard Buro
