I finished my film script entitled The Foreman Case the other day. Today I started writing it in book form as planned. I wrote an introduction, which was basically explaining how the story came about but not really starting to tell the story. I also wrote the first chapter, where the proper story telling begins. It takes a slightly different format to the film script. The film script starts off with the murder of Vincent Foreman. The book starts off with a bit of background to Vincent Foreman and his wife and next door neighbours and a client of Vincent's who is on the wrong side of the law. There is a lead up to the murder in the book. The background in the film script is dealt with much later as memories of some of the characters. A different approach but both versions ultimately tell the same story. So once you read the book you'll know the outcome of the film and vice versa. The only thing then is, if you read the book first will it be worth seeing the film, and if you see the film first will it be worth reading the book? I think the different ways of telling the story make it worthwhile trying both. Even if it's only to compare one with the other. I've often heard people say things like "the book was way better" or "it was exactly like the book" or " I would have chosen someone else to play such and such a character". Maybe one of the good things about the different ways of telling the story could be that it gets people talking. That would at least make yet another murder mystery a little bit more memorable.