Wilson Rawls is a great American author. In 1961, “Where the Red Fern Grows” was published. It was a very touching book with lots of emotion. The movie counterpart of this book came out in 1971, directed by Norman Tokar. This movie was also very sentimental and heart-breaking, but it was not as good as the book. While both “Where the Red Fern Grows” movies and books are by Wilson Rawls, they are quite different. But which is better? For many reasons, the book is better. To begin, I can think of many ways of how the character aspect of the story is much better in the book than in the movie. One of them is because of how much detail the characters have in the book, and how much better they are described than in the movie. First of all, the characters …show more content…
In the book, scenes are described in much more detail. “Our home is in a beautiful valley far back in the rugged Ozarks. The country was new and sparsely settled.” (Rawls, page 6). This entire page is extremely detailed and the scenery is described very well. This page helps me visualize things that the movie doesn’t have. The movie has the visual aspect, but the visuals from the movie just don't capture what was said in the book. Another reason why the settings in the book are significantly better than in the movie is because of how well different senses are described. “The silence was shattered by one long, loud bawl from Old Dan. I'd never heard my dog bawl like that. It was different to the other. His voice rang out over the mountains, loud and clear. The vibration of the deep tones rolled in the silence of the frosty night, on and on, out over the flats, down in the canyons, and died away in the rimrocks, like the cry of a lost soul.” (Rawls, page 116) This scene describes hearing very well, and it helps me connect and visualize with the book better than in the movie. This scene was also described really well from its description of the mountains and the canyons. Finally, the last reason why the settings in the book are far better than in the movie is because of how well the actions are described. For example, “I saw her when she stopped searching. With her body half in the water, and her front feet curved over a piece of driftwood, she turned her head and looked toward the shore. I could see her head twisting from side to side. I could tell by her actions that she had gotten the scent. With a low whine, she started back.” In this scene, it described Little Ann’s actions in a very complete way. Additionally, this scene also describes what happened step by step in detail, on the other hand, in the movie it was just a quick glimpse of Little Ann.
Is your heart still in the right place? Has a story ever run with it and broken it, with tears running down your face? If you have read Where the Red Fern Grows, it has definitely happened, making your heart buoyant with happiness and and break with tragedy. The strong-willed Billy, with his faithful redbone hounds, the brawny Old Dan and the brainy runt Little Ann, toy with your emotions as you follow them through their adventures and their tragic losses. Even though the movie based off the book is meant to be similar, and is, there are still differences between them.
This is my view on the movie and book. I likes the movie better the book because the
Second there is more detail in the book than the movie. Well, I think that more detail is better because the more you know the better you understand the movie or
The book Where The Red Fern Grows written by Wilson Rawls was made in 1961. Then the movie came out in 1974. In my personal opinion the book is better but that's just me. The reason i like the book better is because it has more detail i feel like the movie went by way too fast. Where The Red Fern Grows is about a little boy who wants some coonhounds and when he finally gets them he raises them into some of the best hounds.
I like the reading book better than watching the movie because there are more facts in the book than the movie. Maybe I just like reading books better than watching movies. That’s my opinion. What’s yours (if you’ve read the book and seen the movie)?
Where the Red Fern Grows by Wilson Rawls takes the reader on an adventure through the Cherokee country. The setting takes place in the Ozark Mountains of Missouri or Oklahoma during the 1920’s. Most of the story is set in the wild outdoors and in the country home of Billy Coleman. The story has an inspiring but sad tone. Wilson Rawls tells a story of a boy, his hounds, and true love.
A "hook" in literature is a compelling start to a story. Reread the first sentence of the book and discuss how these words were used to seize and then hold the reader's attention. Do you feel that it made you want to read more? Could the author have done a better job? Is there another book that did a good job with their "hook" at the beginning of the story?
“Like Water for Chocolate” by Laura Esquivel, is a beautiful romantic tale of an impossible passionate love during the revolution in Mexico. The romance is followed by the sweet aroma of kitchen secrets and cooking, with a lot of imagination and creativity. The story is that of Tita De La Garza, the youngest of all daughters in Mama Elena’s house. According to the family tradition she is to watch after her mother till the day she does, and therefore cannot marry any men. Tita finds her comfort in cooking, and soon the kitchen becomes her world, affecting every emotion she experiences to the people who taste her food. Esquivel tells Titas story as she grows to be a mature, blooming women who eventually rebels against her mother, finds her true identity and reunites with her long lost love Pedro. The book became a huge success and was made to a movie directed by Alfonso Arau. Although they both share many similarities, I also found many distinct differences. The movie lost an integral part of the book, the sensual aspect of the cooking and love.
The movie lacks a lot of insight onto the other characters in the book, it mostly focuses on Ponyboy. For example, in the movie there was a lack of detail on characters such as Darry and Sodapop even Dally. Dally was a major character in the book but his death in the movie seemed a bit minor because there wasn’t much detail for viewers to get attached to his character. I felt as if his death was glazed over and easily forgotten in the movie while in the book it was described for at least two pages.
In conclusion, details involving the characters and symbolic meanings to objects are the factors that make the novel better than the movie. Leaving out aspects of the novel limits the viewer’s appreciation for the story. One may favor the film over the novel or vice versa, but that person will not overlook the intense work that went into the making of both. The film and novel have their similarities and differences, but both effectively communicate their meaning to the public.
Usually movies try to take the story to a different level or by adding parts or just try to change it to a completely different story. Some of the differences between the movie as to the book are some little and large differences. They might also try taking little parts away that will change how the readers see the story characters. An example of that would be Walter not smoking in the movie (Pg 115). Walter usually smokes because he is stressed or just as a way to relax. Walter also does not get punched by Mam...
Overall, the movie and book have many differences and similarities, some more important than others. The story still is clear without many scenes from the book, but the movie would have more thought in it.
I have only included what I have to believe are largely important plot gaps and differences in the movie version in comparison to the book one, and so I apologize again if I have missed any other major ones. Forgive me, please.
One thing that can make a book good is characters. In the book, there were many more animals in the farm. The movie did not show many animals except for the main animals. Even thought this is a small difference, it can be noticeable. In the book, Mollie was a character.
A contract is an agreement between two parties in which one party agrees to perform some actions in return of some consideration. These promises are legally binding. The contract can be for exchange of goods, services, property and so on. A contract can be oral as well as written and also it can be part oral and part written but it is useful to have written contract otherwise issues can be created in future. But both the written as well as oral contract is legally enforceable. Also if there is a breach of contract, there are certain remedies for that which are discussed later in the assignment. There are certain elements which need to be present in a contract. These elements are discussed in the detail in the assignment. (Clarke,