Here follows part 2 of my Survivors retrospective.
Part 1, covering the original series (75-77) can be found here and Part 3 which compares Survivors 1975-77 to 2008 can be found here.

The original cover to the novelization of Survivors
A year after the first series of Survivors Terry Nation published his novelization of the series, which tells the original Abby and Son story-arch and the long-term consequences of the aftermath. Out-of-print since the late 70s, the novel has recently been republished by Orion Books (UK £6.99) in conjunction with the new BBC television incarnation of the show broadcast in the Fall of 2008, which, much like the recent republication of John Christopher’s Death of Grass, allows post-apocalypse and Survivors fans to experience the novel without having to spend an arm and a leg on an overpriced second-hand copy. Unfortunately the new version of the novel comes with a terribly bland cover showing actors from the new Survivors posing like models in a Little Woods catalogue rather than the edgier graphic cover of the original print, although this – I suppose – is a small price to pay to save some cash in these credit crunch times we live in.
The first two-thirds of the novel stays pretty true to the first six episodes of the first series and is probably guilty of spending a little too long on setting the scene before the catastrophe rather than concentrating on what the post-apocalypse junky is really interested: i.e. getting on with the aftermath itself! Nation’s prose is functional and generally terse, but his TV heritage shows, as the novel lacks a literary edge of other better post-apocalypse novels and we get little inner-dialogue of the characters. Still Nation can tell a good story and his writing is no worse than much to be found in genre fiction: his plotting is tight and the action is punchy.
Interestingly he chooses not to go into the minute details of the agrarian rebirth of society as the series does, instead he paints a picture with broader brush strokes. The story told in the first series of Survivors covers no more than six to eight months of th aftermath, whereas this novel finishes some five to six years after the ‘Death’ as the plague is called. Admittedly I think this kind of more expansive storytelling is probably much easier to handle in the context of a novel than an episodic TV drama, but still it is hard to understand why the series spends so much time micro-managing the apocalypse.
Parts of the novel are a little clunky. Perhaps it is also a little episodic in places and the emphasis on Abby’s sexual fantasies/frustration (an aspect which the series doesn’t delve into at all) is hackneyed to say the least. However the real reason to check out the novel if you are a fan of the original series is to find out what exactly happens to Abby’s search for her son, which the television series drops like a brick after series 1. And here the novel gets a big two thumbs up! The Survivors novelization delivers a sucker punch that puts many ‘real’ novels to shame. Of course there are other ways of finding out the plot if you just want to know without the hassle of reading the novel (the extras on the DVD lets it slip for a start and I’m sure you wouldn’t have to Google too long for our friend the good old internet to spill the beans), but if spoilers were good enough then no one would ever read a book or see a movie. No, we want to experience the ending through the story (or at least I do) and not just be told what happens. Needless to say that there is a sting in the tail for Abby, although I won’t spoil it for you here.
Although Survivors: the novel, is no classic, it is a decent enough read if your expectations are not too high and probably quite enjoyable for even for those who don’t know the series. For fans of the series, it is pretty much essential reading: for it shows a direscton in which the series could have gone in (surprisingly in the direction of the Mediterranean as it turns out) and – more importantly – it shows us dramatically what happens to Abby in the end, poor thing.

If you think this cover is better then you have the aesthetic tastes of a toad and should poke your own eyes out - you don't deserve them any more
[...] Survivors: the novel by Terry Nation (1976) [...]
Pingback by Survivors to come! « the english assassin — 27, May, 2009 @ 5:43 pm
[...] The third and last part of my Survivors retrospective where I compare the 2008 re-make with the original show. Follow the links for Part 1: Survivors 1975-77 and Part Two: The Novel of Survivors [...]
Pingback by Comparing Survivors: 1975-77 vs. 2008 – which is the best? « the english assassin — 29, May, 2009 @ 11:50 am
[...] 2, covering the novel can be found here and part 3 will follow [...]
Pingback by Survivors: The TV Series 1975-1977 « the english assassin — 29, May, 2009 @ 11:54 am
Thanks for an excellent 3 part review.
I vaguely remember the original series as a kid but a lot of it was over my head or past my bedtime [I was about 6 or 7] but I watched the new series as I love a good drop of post apocalypse/dystopian stories and films!
What I found with the new series was that they overused and overplayed everything, as you have yourself said: characters screaming a lot, overly jerky camera shots, drenching the scene in horrendous music/sound and complete overuse of visual effects on the camera, such as shalow depth of field and tilt shift [check the end of scene where the new Abby cries out to God to not be the only one].
Judicial use of any of these techniques would add incredible impact to the drama but instead it’s like having a cake with different layers, lots of filling, smothered in icing with lots of sweet, sickly garnish and decoration. Completely over-egged.
With the new series, I sensed that it was overloaded with the above because some of the acting was frankly paper-thin and, if there was any depth to it then it was cardboard. All the acting in scenes in the ’secret lab’ were ridiculous and terrible.
All apart from one, who was amazing: Samantha Willis.
She got up my nose so much because of her small minded officious bureaucratic, nauseating self importance that I really wanted to wring her bloody neck and I see that as either a talented actor or someone who can play themselves very well on screen.
I’m interested to see where the second series of the ‘next generation’ of Survivors goes and how they play out the various characters. In the meantime, I have the boxset of the 3 series of the original being delivered in the next few days.
Once again, thanks for the review(s)!
Comment by chris — 19, June, 2009 @ 8:35 pm
Oh, another thing is WTF is going on with the reprinted book cover and also the micro-website, with people who died in the first episode being featured as principle characters? Why is Freema Agyeman on the book cover instead of say, Anya?
Comment by chris — 19, June, 2009 @ 9:02 pm
Hi Chris, thanks for your kind words. I can’t disagree with anything you’ve said re: the new Survivors. It’s not, in fairness, especially bad, but it just does a lot of things poorly, especially the acting. When I see a show like that I just think the producers just don’t have any faith in it, so they throw the kitchen sink at it and hope something sticks.
Hope you like your old school Survivors DVDs. As I said the first series is pretty good really, the second pretty boring and the third is almost a return to form. Survivors isn’t my all time fave cult TV show or even close, but despite its many problems, I do very much like it.
Cheers
Si
Comment by the english assassin — 21, June, 2009 @ 12:07 am