Book Review: Legally Blonde (Part 1 of 2)--Why The Movie Was So Much Better

 I'll save you the trouble--don't bother with this book. The movie was better in so many ways, and not nearly as boring as the book.
Now, if you want to hear my more exact criticism, read on.

I read this book, Legally Blonde by Amanda Brown, after seeing the movie that it is (allegedly) based on. (It is presently on Netflix streaming, if you want to watch it. The movie is quite fun, and I'm a big fan.)
However, other than the main character's name, Elle Woods, and the basic plot that she goes to law school to win back her love and finds a love of law along the way, it has very little in common with the movie.
Her dog in the book is named Underdog, not Bruiser, though he is still a Chihuahua. She goes to Standford, not Harvard. The "evil" fiancee of her recent ex-boyfriend is Sarah Nottingham, not Vivian Kensington. Even the name of her sorority is changed. In all of these cases, I am loyal to the movie.
Underdog may be a good name, in the sense that Elle is supposedly a (very rich and privileged) "underdog" at her new school, however it's a little obvious in its symbolism. The author, Amanda Brown, would have done better in choosing a name like David, Gideon, or Jason, something more subtle in the theme of the little guy taking on and conquering the big guy or the mythical monster.
I also think that "Vivian" connotes more of the upper crust than "Sarah," though Vivian might also be a bit matronly (though still lovely and aristocratic). 

Key scenes from the movie, with hilarious lines, are missing entirely in the book. There is no, "You got into Harvard Law?" to which she does not reply, "What, like it's hard?" in Reese Witherspoon's perky voice. There is no subplot with Elle Woods rescuing her manicurist's dog from an abusive ex-husband. The manicurist is also French in the book, for some reason. Beyond that, we know literally nothing about her.
When Warner breaks up with Elle, she does not make a scene and loudly demand, "You mean my boobs are too big?!" He does not convince her to let him drive her home by saying, "You'll ruin your shoes." She does not need convincing.
She does not have an epiphany in the beauty salon, after he dumps her, that she needs to become a law student to win him back. She simply decides automatically that she has to do that. There is no line where she says, "That's what I have to be!" pointing to a picture, and the Asian woman next to her asks, "Practically deformed?" (Indeed, there are no Asian women in this book, not even in the beauty salons. More on that later.)
The LSAT admissions tests are not mistaken for a vaginal rash by her sorority sisters.
She does not choose to walk by Warner when she first sees him in law school, letting him discover her. I remember this scene in the movie very well, because when I saw it the first time, my mom pointed it out to me, saying, "She does a very smart thing here!" She doesn't do the smart thing in the book.
The party she is invited to is an actual Halloween costume party, in the book--she wasn't told a normal party was a costume party as a trick, like in the movie. She dresses as a goth girl, not a Playboy bunny, like in the movie. The Playboy bunny in the movie actually goes better with her blonde persona than a goth girl. She does not say, "...but when I dress up as a frigid bitch, I try not to look so constipated," in reference to Sarah's (not Vivian's) normal clothes. She does not say, "I'm never going to be good enough for you, am I, Warner?" and go out to buy a laptop for her classes.
She never speaks in class unless called on, in which case she is not listening--much less talking about "masturbatory emissions" being reckless abandonment ("Why now? Why this sperm?!"), or saying that she would rather defend a client who is innocent. She never has a chance to then change her mind, while looking into her romantic rival's eyes and saying, "Actually, I'd pick the dangerous one, because I'm not afraid of a challenge."

She slacks off in all her classes, too, skipping class or reading a fashion magazine half the time. She doesn't have to work hard to get good grades and an internship at a law firm. She's not very relatable.
She never slaps a "dorky" guy in front of the women rejecting him, pretending that he broke her heart, in order to help him with his love life. This is just as well, because I've always wondered why the guy in the movie would want to go out with a woman who had just called him a loser.
She never has a chance to say that she doesn't use the word "dyke," and that the other woman must have heard it from Warner's new fiancee. (My line would have been, "I am a dyke--if I call you one, it's a compliment!")
There is no liposuction as a secret alibi for the accused murderess. Instead, it's a support group for home shopping addicts, so we don't have the famous personal fitness instructor screaming in despair, "Normal women don't have this ass!"
The fitness instructor isn't even in the same sorority as Elle, in the book.
There is no poolboy claiming to have an affair with the accused, and so Elle does not figure out that he's gay because of his knowledge of her designer shoes. More on the total lack of LGBT representation later.

The scene where Elle interrogates the stepdaughter of the accused, getting a confession out of her on the witness stand, is done much better in the movie, also. In the movie, the judge interrupts her, asking if the story about her friend's perm is relevant, while everyone in the courtroom rolls their eyes. In the book, Elle simply states, "It is relevant," right off the bat, then has a very long conversation with the stepdaughter about her hair, a conversation which is not interrupted or objected to even once.
Stating that it's relevant beforehand might also have tipped off her witness to be on her guard, if anyone in this book had a brain.
The confession is also built up better in the film, as Elle keeps yelling at her, baiting her, demanding to know why she shot her father, until the stepdaughter breaks down and screams, "Because I thought it was you!" pointing to Brooke, the accused. There is much more tension and drama this way.
In the book, Chutney, the witness, talks about her stepmother of her own accord, then suddenly says that that's why she shot her father, because she thought it was Brooke. This doesn't seem very realistic at all.

There is also no nice new love interest in the book (which is actually good in a way, because does there always have to be one?). There is no strong female professor who gives her a hard time but then becomes a huge ally to her (which I missed). There is also no older male professor sexually harassing her. One thing that could have been in the movie was the professor who was always drunk for his lectures.

The one thing I do like about the book is that Elle invented her own major: Socio-Political Jewelry Design. She invented her own major! That's pretty badass!
It has the same problem that the movie did, though, in that she already had a passion, extensive knowledge of her subject, and a desired career in life, before law school, so it wasn't really character growth when she decided she wanted to practice law. (So I'm not sure why everyone in the movie and book thinks that she's not "serious" about her life, and why the story seems to imply it.) The movie, though it portrayed her as a simple fashion student, did an excellent job of showing her extensive knowledge of fabrics and designers before law school. Again, it surpasses the book in yet another area.