(This post contains affiliate links. If you click on a link and it takes you to Amazon, we make a commission and it doesn’t cost you anything extra.) I haven’t seen E.T. the movie in decades. I’m sure I saw it when it came out in 1982. I probably saw it on commercial or cable TV back when those were a things, but I haven’t seen it since. Still, nostalgia and Gen X pos(t)ers hit hard sometimes. (I’m kidding with the posers crack, and I fully expect one of them to comment “Your mama’s a poser!” I mean I would expect that if we were friends because that’s how ‘80s friends knew they liked each other.) So, when I saw the paperback novel adaptation of the movie in Goodwill for 75% off the Goodwill price, I bought the book. And it’s wild.

Movie Nostalgia

I remember E.T. following the path of Reese’s Pieces. M&Ms (the Mars company) wanted to see the script, and Steven wanted to keep everything about the movie secret. M&Ms deliberated too long, and Spielberg moved on to Reese’s, who needed a way to publicize their pieces released in 1978.

I remember the flying on the bike. Oh, how I would have gone to Universal to fly on one of those bikes if Disney wasn’t such a strong pull on family vacations. (Two years later, the Neverending Story would come out, and I would dream of flying with Falkor, which I ended up doing when I toured the studios in Munich.)

I remember the frightening containment scene. I remember the comical E.T. drinking beer scene, though the specifics are a little fuzzy, probably like they are for E.T. and Elliott. I sort of remember the Yoda scene, but that may be more due to social media than any actual memory from the ‘80s. E.T. would also phone home and be right here. And I think Neil Diamond sang a song about him, something about Heartlight, which is a story on it’s own.

So, the overarching story is there. The details aren’t.

E.T. Novel Adaptation and M&Ms

Both the book and the movie were released in 1982, and it’s clear that the book was written, either without consulting the movie or before the movie details were worked out. The E.T. novel adaptation author, William Kotzwinkle, based his work on the Melissa Mathison screenplay. He kept in the M&Ms because I guess he didn’t need to get permission, and he obviously didn’t know about the change in the movie. Not only did he keep the iconic melt in your mouth not in your hands candy in the book, he talked them up. From E.T.’s point of view, M&Ms were a miracle food. They also help him learn the alphabet.

Bad Mom

Mom is lonely, self-centered, and diet-obsessed. It’s the ‘80s, so maybe cut her a little slack. She also doesn’t like her kids in the book. At the beginning she seems close to hating them. They’re noisy, they play stupid games, they interrupt her when she’s trying to do whatever it is she’s trying to do. She just can’t deal. She’s a single parent. It’s hard, but it also makes her lonely…

Oh, so lonely… I’m guessing this is a conscious choice on the author’s part. E.T. magnifies the feelings of those around him, and he sends out his own emotions. E.T. is lonely for his home, and mom gets hit with all those vibes but translates them to loneliness of being a single mother and her sexual needs.

Basically, mom is written as if she is a single mom imagined by a man, which she is for Kotzwinkle. I don’t remember her that way from the movie. Maybe she’s like that, and in the 1980s, I was focused on the cool alien.

Katy Perry’s E.T.

For some reason, Kotzwinkle had E.T. fall in love with Elliott’s mom. Whaaaa? His telepathic abilities have her dreaming of a three-foot tall suitor. (It’s a kid’s movie, so they gotta keep it mostly clean). E.T. sees her in the shower. (I know I just said it was a kid’s movie.) E.T., at some point, decides to reveal his love to her – a goddess in his eyes – but he gets interrupted, and it never happens. You could make a point that Lotzwinkle was making a social commentary on beauty ideals and how they affect body image because E.T. does feel that he is ugly during these scenes, but I don’t remember any of that from the movie.

Elliott Is a Twerp

The fact that Elliott is a self-described twerp at the beginning of the book doesn’t mean he was one in the movie, but it’s more believable than the Alien love story. Kevin McCallister of 1990’s Home Alone fame, is the Twerp archetype, but it may be that Elliott was there before him. The book plays him as a brat, which means between the mom and him, you’ve got to try really hard to like the humans. Elliott’s little sister isn’t introduced until later in the book.

Book Vs. Movie

The E.T. Novel Adaptation has some interesting choices that make it just different from memory to keep it interesting. But now, I’m going to have to watch the film to see how close the book came to the portrayal of the other characters.

If you want to read more about the ‘80s, check out My Life in the Projects. I also highly recommend How He-Man Mastered the Universe; read why He-Man is essential for Gen X.