Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Invasion of the Body Snatchers by Jack Finney is our June 2020 group read for the Golden Age of SF (1940-1959). It was first published in 1955 & has inspired quite a few movies, more than the 3 mentioned in the book blurb below.

On a quiet fall evening in the small, peaceful town of Mill Valley, California, Dr. Miles Bennell discovered an insidious, horrifying plot. Silently, subtly, almost imperceptibly, alien life-forms were taking over the bodies and minds of his neighbors, his friends, his family, the woman he loved—the world as he knew it. First published in 1955, this classic thriller of the ultimate alien invasion and the triumph of the human spirit over an invisible enemy inspired three major motion pictures.

Great book. I read it for the first time about 2 years ago although I probably saw the the movie the first time more than 60 years ago. I believe the original title of the novel was just "The Body Snatchers".

That was a nice one. I liked that in the end finally the female realised that she could actually participate instead of watching and fainting from time to time.

I'll start this soon, although I read it just a couple/few years ago. IIRC, both the 1956 & 1978 films did a great job following the book except for the end. I've got that all mixed up in my memory. I'm a fan of Donald Sutherland, so I like the 1978 film the best.

I started this. I last read it 7 years ago & am still impressed by how spooky & well it starts off.

I'm over 1/2 mark and I long ago saw the 50s version, which as far as I recall it, is quite close. For me this is horror, not SF - instead of researching pods, having them as a material evidence instead of their 'crazy talk' they destroy them

I finished it and I found it awesome. It is quite advanced for the age. I watched all the four movies but it was some time ago so my memory is not very clear, I think that the first movie is the most accurate but the ending.

I need to clarify some things. It is framed in the 70s or when it say that is a typo in my edition? It states Watergate. What Watergate was it? It foretold the future? Nixon's scandal?

Rafael wrote: "I need to clarify some things. It is framed in the 70s or when it say that is a typo in my edition? It states Watergate. What Watergate was it? It foretold the future? Nixon's scandal?
."

My audio edition also mentioned 1970s, but at the beginning, where copyrights are notes, they gave three dates, so quite possibly there are different editions, one from the 70s

Oh, that's interesting. According to (Contains spoilers!) Finney revised it in 1978 & that must have included the Watergate reference. I wonder how much he changed it? Has anyone read both? I've only read the 1955 version of which there are 2. I doubt they varied much.

The Wikipedia entry also cleared up my confusion about the ending - the book differs from the first 3 films.

I didn't get to read any of this yesterday & won't get much this morning. Hopefully, I'll get some time this afternoon.

I tried looking on the internet to see if I could find out what was changed in the 1978 edition but found some other interesting stuff instead. Den of Geek had an interesting article.



It mentions that shortly before he died, Don Siegel, director of the 1956 film, "noted that the world seemed to be increasingly populated by pod people. Director Philip Kaufman has said the same thing. They may well be right about that. The ongoing legacy of cinematic adaptations of The Body Snatchers is an odd, twisty, and, at times, confounding one with more than a few hints that the pods themselves might be behind it all."

It appears that the use of the term "pod person" to mean "a conformist person, especially one who lacks personality or originality" (Wiktionary) started to become a part of our culture in the early 70's and came from the movie.

I think it's possible that Finney updated his novel in 1978 because of the release of the second movie at that time. In a review of the 1978 movie Roger Ebert wrote that it "was said to have something to do with Watergate and keeping tabs on those who are not like you�.

I finished this today. Again, I really liked it. Finney painted the mood & feelings wonderfully without ever bogging down which is difficult to do. I was a little disappointed by the explanation of the lack of life on other planets. It not only dated it, but also didn't make much sense. The ending was great, better than the first few movies.

Jim wrote: "Oh, that's interesting. According to Wikipedia (Contains spoilers!) Finney revised it in 1978 & that must have included the Watergate reference. I wonder how much he changed it? Has anyone read bo..."

I hope he haven't changed so much. If he did there will be actually two different books.

The Invasion of the Body Snatchers was an entertaining and fun book. The only thing I didn't like was that the women were always reacting to what was going on by going completely to pieces. Becky actually risked their lives by having a fit about how the blood looked on the skeletons. Later she steps out of character and insists that she really can help and comes up with a risky plan that requires her to be brave.

Jim wrote: "Oh, that's interesting. According to Wikipedia (Contains spoilers!) Finney revised it in 1978 & that must have included the Watergate reference. I wonder how much he changed it? Has anyone read bo..."

I don't know if it would be worth the effort but it would be interesting to find out just how much Finney changed the 1978 edition to keep it topical and if any of the changes actually impacted the plot. I read the book in April 2018 but I doubt if it was the 1978 version because I would have noticed the 1970's references and probably would have remembered the incongruity.

Long long ago, I read The Puppet Masters by Robert A. Heinlein. Does that have much in common with the Body Snatchers?

Up until now I have only watched the films. Read the '78 version. Quite good. Kept me engaged from beginning until end. Appreciated towards the end when it was realized women can do hard things as well.

Ed wrote: "Long long ago, I read The Puppet Masters by Robert A. Heinlein. Does that have much in common with the Body Snatchers?"

As I note in my review, (here ) I much prefer RAH's version as more SF and more consistent. For me this book has more thrills, but the very idea how aliens get to Earth, what they do and the ending are all handwavium

The ending is especially unrealistic (view spoiler)[they fly away. wtf? what is their energy source to leave orbit? what are their chances to find another planet to procreate? are they so vulnerable to a rhetoric?! (hide spoiler)]

Ed wrote: "Long long ago, I read The Puppet Masters by Robert A. Heinlein. Does that have much in common with the Body Snatchers?"

Only at a high level. The both have the theme of aliens taking over humans but the methods they use are very different and the aliens themselves are very different.

Ed wrote: "Long long ago, I read The Puppet Masters by Robert A. Heinlein. Does that have much in common with the Body Snatchers?"

You should read it. It's fun & short.

I agree with the hand waving at the end. I still liked it, but I had to swallow a lot. I think that I could is a testament to how well the characters were drawn.

Jim wrote: "You should read it. It's fun & short...."

I intend to. But I will not re-read Puppet Masters, so that is why I ask. I assume Puppet Masters had more nudity.

The impression I get from extensive research (about 2 minutes worth) is that Jack Finney's work is typically light and not very concerned with science. More like Twilight Zone, which aired some of his stories.

Now thinking about the matter I realize that my idea that this book was progressive to its time could be just a result of its update. How it talks about women behavior and its comparison to "damsels in distress" cliché the relationship between the protagonists. I thought it too modern for a book written in the 50's.

Ed wrote: "I intend to. But I will not re-read Puppet Masters, so that is why I ask. I assume Puppet Masters had more nudity...."

It does, but it also has a kind of James Bond thing going on. It reminds me of Double Star & Friday in some ways. A lot thinner than the latter, though.

"On a quiet fall evening in the small, peaceful town of Mill Valley, California, Dr. Miles Bennell discovered an insidious, horrifying plot..."

I'd forgotten the Mill Valley setting. Likely still a quiet, small Marin town then. Still nice, but not so small, or quiet, as in the mid-50s! And VERY expensive, now.

I liked the book, back in the day. I may even still have a pb copy. Time, to reread?

I'm going to dig up a copy of The Puppet Masters. Sounds interesting to compare.

I'm at chapter 8. In the first paragraph says "breakfast was a gay affair." Someone can explain me what does that mean please? Since English is not my first language, and Google Translate isn't of any help with that term. Would it be like saying "breakfast was a trivial/insignificant affair"? Because it's obviously not saying "breakfast was a homosexual affair" like G Translate says lol

Gosh, it appears in the next page too... "we were a little too gay, almost high, in reaction against what had happened" ¿?

Lautaro wrote: "Gosh, it appears in the next page too... "we were a little too gay, almost high, in reaction against what had happened" ¿?"

I guess gay as funny/easy-going/light. There are quite a few songs from the 30s-50s to use it this way, e.g. from 1946

Back then Gay generally meant lot of fun, with laughter and smiles, which means they had a fun time eating breakfast.

Thanks!!

I plan to read it, but haven't started yet.

In the meantime, I was amused by the fact that I've recently randomly come across things that reference this old book/movie. Here is one. An article about Capgras syndrome, where people think their friends have been replaced by pod people:

Lautaro wrote: "we were a little too gay, almost high"

Gay is obviously a reference to "The Flinstones".

"Have a yabba dabba doo time. A dabba doo time. You'll have a gay old time!"

Now, can someone explain what "high" meant there?

Ed wrote: "Now, can someone explain what "high" meant there?"

This is why they were gay. They were high.

high = feeling good, flying high, high spirits

Finished! And I loved it. It was a thrilling read.

Ok, my two cents:

A planet dies, slowly and over immeasurable ages. The life forms on it - slowly and over immeasurable ages - must prepare. Prepare for what? For leaving the planet.

We, humankind, are approaching Mars (all this NASA - Musk fuzz). So we are following our intrinsic nature, we are following our instinct of survival. We are profoundily attached to our nature. It's natural for us to leave The Earth, sooner or later will be unhabitable. So it kinda looks like we don't have much of a free will, we are just going to Mars beacuse it's in our nature. It doesn't look like a conscious decision, right?

Anyways, hopefully yall get what I was trying yo say. And I'm saying 'we' as humankind when I could easily say 'they', this rich people with lots of scientists all around. So maybe that's not so correct.

I'm glad that this book made me think a bit :)

First published as a three-part serial in Collier's Magazine (November 26 - December 24, 1954) and a novel in 1955, I am reading the author's 1978 rewrite and really enjoying it. I found the Collier's version of the story here (the last three issues of the year): . The start is very similar to the 1978 book. I'll come back and skim the Collier's version once I've finished the 1978.

The modern trend among SF writers, it seems to me, is to write in ways designed to go above a reader's head at first. The reader can grasp the meaning only upon reread. None of that for Jack Finney. He writes with the reader in mind from the outset and is as clear as can be. It makes it fun not to have to try so hard to grasp meaning, but to just sit back and enjoy the ride.

Kyk wrote: "First published as a three-part serial in Collier's Magazine (November 26 - December 24, 1954) ..."

Thanks for the link to the Colliers edition. I decided to read it that way, even though dealing with the PDFs is a nuisance, since that is the original version. It is also nice to see it in the context of all those old ads. Seems like most of the ads are for intoxicants (alcohol, tobacco, and coffee) and pain relievers (aspirin, magnesium salycilate (Doan's pills), and ephedrine (Vick's Va-Tro-Nol)). It is almost as if people only needed the pain medicine because of side effects of the other products.

While pondering that conspiracy theory, please do not wander elsewhere on that "unz dot com" website to consider the more dangerous conspiracy theories it spreads. Mr. Unz promotes the idea that the Holocaust never happened, Jewish people run the world, and the covonavirus was created by the American military and deliberately released in China.

While the novel is set, I believe, in Mill Valley, the original story is set in Santa Mira.

So many horrors have befallen that town through the years. First came the body-snatchers, later it suffered through the events of Halloween III, Dark Tower VII, and at least 4 sharknados. (Or is it sharknadoes? I never can remember the plural.) That's not even half of the stories that have been set in that non-existent town.

I hope they destroyed all the pods. I don't want to think what might happen if some pods got sucked up into a sharknado.

Ed wrote: "...the covonavirus was created by the American military and deliberately released in China."

What! That's crazy! Everyone knows the Coronavirus is a hoax perpetrated by the Deep State in order to consolidate power, cancel November's elections and roll back centuries' worth of civil liberties! ;-)

I finished the story, the magazine version. I've seen 2 of the 4 films made from this story and I enjoyed both of those better than this original story. That doesn't mean the story is bad or anything.

I remember in watching the first of the movies that it seemed like it could have some sort of political message. The pod people might represent blind conformity, whether that was conformity to communism, or McCarthyism or just general 1950s American culture, I'm not sure. Whatever. The magazine story had no hint of anything like that. The pods were from outer space and that's all there was to it.

I was surprised to learn that there is a film version starring Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig and written by the Wachowskis. (It is called either "The Invasion" or "The Visiting" and deviates greatly from the novel.) I suppose I didn't hear about that because it is generally considered to not be good. I am now curious to watch it though because it might be unintentionally funny.

Some more interesting ads in the magazine....

There were two ads for cigarette filters that both claimed to allow you to enjoy the delicious flavor of burning tobacco leaves without getting so much of that unwanted nicotine. Quite a change from today where people vape to get as much nicotine as possible without smoke. The 1950s was when filters started becoming popular. Too bad that some of them were made from asbestos.

One ad from some petroleum institute advertised how cheap gasoline had become. Another advertised a car that gets 200 miles per gallon! I want that car! It was advertised as a toy car for kids, but I'm not proud! I'll drive that around town.

Ed wrote: "I was surprised to learn that there is a film version starring Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig and written by the Wachowskis."

There's also "Body Snatchers" (1993). I think I tried watching both & quit. One made it like the camera was the person (not sure what that technique is called) so there was a lot of jerky movement that turned me off quickly. Might have gotten better after that, though.

Ed wrote: "...there is a film version starring Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig and written by the Wachowskis. (It is called either "The Invasion" or "The Visiting" and deviates greatly from the novel.) I suppose I didn't hear about that because it is generally considered to not be good. I am now curious to watch it though because it might be unintentionally funny."

Regrettably, it's just OK. Death by mediocrity. The 1956 version is my favorite, followed closely by the 1978 version.

Jim wrote: "There's also "Body Snatchers" (1993)...."

That's the only one I haven't seen. I'm in no hurry to change that.

I just finished the 1978 revised novel form and then skimmed the 1954 Colliers original version. They are in all important aspects exactly the same story, start to finish. The 1978 version has a lot of small wording changes that don't actually improve the story even slightly. It's strange to me that Finney would take the time and trouble to try to do so. There was nothing substantially wrong with the 1954 version. The change in titles is symbolic of all these changes. Is The Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) any better a title than The Body Snatchers (1954)?

The only two even moderately significant differences I saw was one reflecting a cultural change. In the 1954 version, unlike the 1978 version, Miles and Becky never had sex. There's an awkward almost obligatory expression of loving each other near the end in both versions. In the 1954 version Miles expresses regret at them not having married, with which Becky (once Miles takes the lead to express it) agrees, of course. There's no mention between them of wishing to be married in the 1970s version.

The other change is even smaller. In the 1954 version, at the end, Jack and the FBI appear to help save Miles and Becky from the pods. Finney must have decided in the intervening years this was far-fetched and unnecessary because in the 1978 version the pods just burn up and float away.

In the 1954 version, the fictional town of Santa Mira, which was located close to San Francisco was used extensively. All Santa Mira fictional references were changed to the very real town of Mill Valley for the 1978 version. I've no idea why either the fictional town name was preferred in 1954, or why it was changed to a real town in 1978.

Both versions are about equally long in terms of word count, I would imagine. Maybe the 1978 version has a couple hundred extra words for the couple places where Finney drew out an explanation. Every paragraph of the 1978 version has substantial word changes that really don't amount to anything I can detect. My personal preference is for the 1954 version. I don't mind reading a novel that has a few minor blemishes left in. It brings us closer to that unvarnished author who wrote the original story. In 2020, both stories reflect cultural values that are about equally out of step with our time, so what do the minor cultural updates matter?

Finally, there is the question of political intent. As I was reading it I very clearly saw this novel as a red scare book. Watch out America--the commies are out to get you! What will be the result of the communist revolution? A uniform drab sameness of small town America where everyone is equal, certainly, equally poor that is. Communism sucks away the will, personal ambition, all desire to achieve greatness, leaving only a mindless conformity to Marxist doctrine in its place. How will this communist revolution take place? It only requires Americans to relax their vigilance, to go to sleep as it were, then the insidious ideology will infiltrate into our schools, our stores, every fabric of our daily lives. Things might look normal for a while, but communism ultimately impoverishes all. And so on the red scare propaganda goes.

Jack Finney was asked if he meant his book to contain a political ideology statement. By all accounts Finney denied this all his life, sometimes vehemently, claiming to just want to write a good SF thriller. Some critics disbelieve Finney's denial. The anti-communist message is just so stark. Finney's motive in denying the political message of his book could be that he had no desire to be a darling of the radical right. If he were to become one, he would alienate half his audience. Look what happened to Heinlein! It's understandable Finney would not want his personal beliefs, whatever they may have been, to be on display for criticism and attack from the other side. Or maybe all Finney truly did want was to just tell a ripping good SF yarn. I think we'll never truly know for sure.

Thanks for the great update, Kyk.

So probably I have a different edition, because the FBI never shows up, the pods just get burned and then disappear into space... but everything happens in Santa Mira... 1999 edition by Prion Books, in case someone wants to check it out.

My pleasure. According to this Wikipedia article, , the fourth film version of Finney's story grossed $40.2 million and cost only $65-80 million to make. Sounds like the definition of a flop to me.

Kyk wrote: "I just finished the 1978 revised novel form and then skimmed the 1954 Colliers original version. They are in all important aspects exactly the same story, start to finish...."

Thanks for the summary of the changes! I don't feel any need to read the novel version myself.

"...The other change is even smaller. In the 1954 version, at the end, Jack and the FBI appear to help save Miles and Becky from the pods. Finney must have decided in the intervening years this was far-fetched and unnecessary because in the 1978 version the pods just burn up and float away...."

The FBI coming in did seem far-fetched to me. How would that guy (I forget his name, so I'll say "Mr Smith") convince the FBI that he was not a nut? And just a few paragraphs before that Miles had become definitely convinced that Mr Smith was a pop person.

"...As I was reading it I very clearly saw this novel as a red scare book..."

I didn't. Not at all. I did have that feeling in the original movie, though it wasn't completely clear to me even there. In the story I see absolutely no hint of political allegory. You can read it that way if you want. You could also read it as allegory about cult religions. But I just see it as a simple alien invasion horror story.

Oleksandr wrote: "... For me this is horror, not SF ..."

I basically agree. It is a horror/thriller story with one SF trope (aliens) thrown in.

This book is mentioned multiple times in a delightfully cheerful non-fiction work I recently read: The Conspiracy Against the Human Race: A Contrivance of Horror. The ever-hopeful Thomas Ligotti considers the plight of the pod people to be the worst horror imaginable. I don't exactly understand why he thinks it is so horrible. Something about still being conscious but not having free will.

Rosemarie wrote: "Back then Gay generally meant lot of fun, with laughter and smiles, which means they had a fun time eating breakfast."

Oddly, the word "gay" never appears in the 1950's Collier's version. Did he make it gayer when he re-wrote it? Or did Collier's un-gay it?

They do get "high" at one point. And that is even before they start popping Benzedrine, which was Philip K Dick's drug of choice when he lived in Marin.