CW Adapts ‘Vanishing Act’ Books As Series From Carol Mendelsohn And Natalie Chaidez

COMMENTS (11)

• I was over the moon after reading the headline, as I have long thought this character would be great for the movies or a cable show. But the changes they’re making to make it a CW series sound awful. One of the most important things in the novels is that Jane never has a company, never has an office and just helps people that manage to find her. She’s also not a character with a lot of angst. What makes her easy to root for is her competence and the fact she’s out there on her own (much like Lee Child’s Jack Reacher). I don’t know if I want to see a Jane mooning over her lost parents. Still, congrats to Thomas Perry, a great writer who has long deserved the visibility an adaptation brings!

  Comment by briguyx — Monday November 12, 2012 @ 6:04pm PST  Reply to this post

  • I have to agree with you about the changes. Jane’s knowledge of her fathers Native American ancestry figured prominently in the books. Why change that? All this agonizing over her, “real parents” just sounds like the product of a soap opera mentality, which the concept of Jane Whitefield NEVER was. I’m not fond of basing her in Oregon — as opposed to upstate New York, either — just sounds way too trendy. Jane was a woman ahead of her time. I’d hate to see her reduced to some whiny character with existential angst. That’s not Jane. Jane is about getting things done.

    Comment by Bronwyn Tudor — Monday June 3, 2013 @ 3:57pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Seems like a cool idea. CW is really expanding.

  Comment by LT — Monday November 12, 2012 @ 7:50pm PST  Reply to this post

• I can’t wait to read the novel version and see how close the novel and the series will be. Good luck to the new team.

  Comment by CHARLES DAVID HASKELL — Tuesday November 13, 2012 @ 3:51am PST  Reply to this post

• Great concept that could definitely work for the CW. Looking forward to hearing more.

  Comment by Jared — Tuesday November 13, 2012 @ 7:34am PST  Reply to this post

• This sounds just awful.

  Which makes it perfect for the CW.

  Comment by firebrand — Tuesday November 13, 2012 @ 8:31am PST  Reply to this post

• Thomas Perry’s Jane Whitefield books are breathless action-suspense novels that oughta be required reading for thriller fans. And this pitch doesn’t even sound remotely near the Jane in the books:

  1. Jane’s parents are dead. Her father (a full-blood Seneca) was killed in a construction accident; her mother (a blue-eyed blonde knockout) died some years later, before “Vanishing Act,” the opening book in the series.
  1b. Oh, and she knew who her parents were. No if, ands or buts about it.
  2. Jane lives in a small town near Buffalo, New York, nowhere near Portland (the better to shoot it in Vancouver, natch), in the house where she was born and raised. (Well, she did until she got married in “Shadow Woman,” the third book in the series.)
  3. Jane’s not “quirky.” She’s methodical, scary-smart and tough as nails. And she’s no navel-gazer.

  This CW variant might be based on “Jane Whitefield,” but it sure as shootin’ ain’t Jane Whitefield.

  Comment by aw crap... — Wednesday November 14, 2012 @ 4:27pm PST  Reply to this post

  • Spot on!firebrand. Jane Whitfield is a complex woman, one who lives by her smarts and her focus. She is a Seneca, from the WNY region, not a Portland parent searcher.

    Comment by SKM — Monday June 3, 2013 @ 3:27pm PDT  Reply to this post

• Very excited to hear this! I love the Jane Whitefield stories

  Comment by Janet Krey — Friday November 16, 2012 @ 5:22am PST  Reply to this post

• Ouch! It’s a shame CW didn’t learn from Graham Yost about adapting very good fiction for television. The writer’s characters, as written, are the pivot point of a successful show. Justified grabbed Elmore Leonard’s Raylan Given’s and only filled in the corners as needed. He was already a viable, three-dimensional character and thus he remained, and thus Justified is some of the best writing on TV. Jane Whitefield is another, fully realized character. She’s not ‘quirky.’ She’s the sum of her history. If you think she’s ‘quirky’ if you try to sell her as ‘quirky’ and if you try to re-write her in the screenplay as ‘quirky’ then look forward to a one-and-done production. Have the courage to accept the author’s character and then find the writers and the actors up to the challenge. When you say ‘quirky’, I read pedestrian trash. When you change Jane’s heritage, the fundamental, sustaining, driving force for her character, you better have the chops to fill that void with gold and the guts to measure it by Thomas Perry’s standards. Include him in the process would be the professional, courageous approach. Exclude him at your peril. I’ve looked forward to a “Jane” project for decades, (think ‘The Equalizer’ with American Indian rather than British undertones) but when I hear ‘quirky’, I wonder if it would be better to continue to wait.

  Comment by Ed Erwin — Monday June 3, 2013 @ 3:43pm PDT  Reply to this post

• The Jane Whitefield series is my favorite of all time. When I read the title I was so excited for Thomas Perry and myself to be able to see this Seneca heroine converted to the screen.
  Then I read the article. Jane, quirky? I think not. She is strong, intelligent, methodical and interesting. Jane, searching for her parents? Again, I think not. She is half Seneca from Upstate New York. It was this Seneca background that made me pick up Vanishing Act in the first place all those years ago. I guess I will pass this by. I just hope that no one believes that Thomas Perry wrote the scripts because I am sure they would stop reading his novels then.

  Comment by Spirit — Monday June 3, 2013 @ 9:07pm PDT  Reply to this post