Comparing Blood On The River And Written In Bone

Both Blood on the River and Written in Bone provide information about the people who lived at Jamestown. Which piece do you feel better develops their ‘characters.’ What information regarding the people/characters is added or altered from Blood on the River? Why would the author make those decisions?
In a well written paragraph, analyze which genre, historical fiction or informational text, better develops their ‘characters’. Choose one character to focus on and provide text evidence. Make sure you include evidence from both works to support your reasoning.

Blood On The River is better developed the characters because it has better details, more emotion, and has dialogue. Blood On The River Is categorized as a historical

fiction novel. Blood on the River has better developed characters in the book. One example of this is, when A boy named James is introduced as a character in the book. An example of when he shows character is when he tries to save James from being killed by the Native Americans when they were under attack (78 Carbone). Another reason why Blood on the River is a better option to learn is because, in the book it shows actual emotion. For example, When Samuel feel sad that he doesn't feel like he fits in with the other boys at the orphanage, he says”I wonder if Colin and the other boys were right… maybe I don't belong here”(64 Carbone). another one of the more interesting reasons is that the novel has dialogue. the text evidence for this is, When Master Wingfield says,” Nonsense!”, and Captain John Smith says,”They raise such a fuss.” Although Blood on the River is an excellent option for learning about the 13 colonies, the book Written in Bone written by Sally Walker is more factual but a little on the dry side. Even though Blood on the River is not as factual as written in bone, Blood on the River is still a better option because it has more emotion, dialogue, and character interpreted into the novel itself.