In the year 1961, a 48 year old man, Wilson Rawls, published a book. This book is a very emotional book for many people. This book is known as, “Where The Red Fern Grows”. Fortunately, 13 years later, a 55 year old man, Norman Tokar, made a movie out of the book. This movie is all based on the book with good acting and a well developed pace. “Where The Red Fern Grows” is a story about a boy who wants two hunting hounds that will hunt with him. In this story, there are lots of plots and engaging parts that will keep you reading or watching. In this essay, I’ll be talking about the movie and the book. I will also be comparing and contrasting the movie and the book together and seeing which one will have a more entertaining story. “Where The Red …show more content…
Once you read the book you can start to visualize that the setting they are in is described the way you would probably not assume because of the large amounts of detail. Even in the “ Where The Red Fern Grows” movie, you can actually see what the place looks like because it's a movie. In the scenes shown, the time frame could be very short to show something like a dog house or a camp. Some movies have narrators that speak for most of the movie that is being presented, but this one did not. Deep in the heart of the sparrow hawk mountains, night overtook me. There in a cave with a stream close by, I put up for the night.”( Rawls, pg 55) This is a quote from the book when Billy had to rest up in the night after he got his hounds. The place that Billy and his hounds were at was so well described and I couldn't even find this part in the movie and when I did I realized how much lack of detail it was missing out on. The very first page of the book had a scene of a dogfight with Billy in it, and in the movie there wasn’t even a dogfight. “I was walking along whistling when I heard a dog fight. At first, I paid no attention to it. After all, it wasn't anything to get excited about, just another dogfight in a residential section.”( Rawls pg.3) This part wasn’t the most important part, but it was nice to see because it’s an appealing …show more content…
Having these big chunks of different events happening that are frequent, makes you keep reading and it makes you not want to stop. The movie had little plots that weren’t even fun to watch. When I watch a movie, the number one thing I care about is being engaged in what I'm watching because I don't want to sit there in pure boredom. The book and the movie both have the same story but you can tell which one you enjoyed more because you were engaged and with zero to no plots you won’t be engaged. Billy, the main character, has so many parts in the book where you would want to just keep reading and even small little events like the two screeching owls can really show feelings and the story. One plot that really stuck out to me was when one of Billy’s hounds, Ann, won a beauty contest at the championship coon hunting contest. Billy won a silver cup from this and he was very proud because at the start of the book there was a mantle on his fireplace with a silver cup on it, which he used to put his saved up money in. The thing is, there wasn’t even a beauty contest in the movie, that would have been very engaging for most people and would have shown more of a story in the movie. The next morning when I stepped outside the tent I saw men everywhere. They were combing and brushing their dogs, and getting them pruned for the beauty contest.”
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.
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.
One of the differences between the movie and the book lies in the settings or rather the surrounding in both the movie and the book. The book depicts an exemplary factual tale, one of mountain myths, situated in 1930's Northern parts of Canada. The book portrays an account of C...
The parts that I found boring were when there was a lot of description going on from the author. I do realize that it is necessary to set up the scenes and locations so that us as readers can have a better understanding of what is happening in the book, however I felt like at times he went too far into detail and had me nearly sleeping at times, literally.
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.
I found the book to be easy, exciting reading because the story line was very realistic and easily relatable. This book flowed for me to a point when, at times, it was difficult to put down. Several scenes pleasantly caught me off guard and some were extremely hilarious, namely, the visit to Martha Oldcrow. I found myself really fond of the char...
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?
I think that most of the event in the movie were not in the same order that Jeannette had wrote them. After reading the book I had a different picture in mind of how each character would look and it threw me off for the rest of the movie. I did like the fact that I could see what was happening and not just imagine things in my head that I thought was happening, as I was watching the movie I was seeing the same thing everyone else was and not just what I was picturing while reading the
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.
From the start, the movie is adapted from the novel and therefore it could not cover everything, some actions or acts in the novel are too dense such that it is not of any importance to angle them in the movie. It is very realistic to everyone that the movie cannot cover every single paragraph in the novel even the memorable ones. Some materials are left out in the film, and others were changed.
The book and the movie were both very good. The book took time to explain things like setting, people’s emotions, people’s traits, and important background information. There was no time for these explanations the movie. The book, however, had parts in the beginning where some readers could become flustered.
...d in this quote, “The action of the story continues nearly nonstop pausing occasionally to look at the stars or talk about southern gentlemen but only for a short time before rushing ahead” (Daly 17). The action of the story can make the reader get bored of it quickly or it can continue to keep the reader interested. Some of the action was forced to keep the book going but overall it was not bad. Many young readers like reading a book with lots of action so this is why the book is such a big hit.
When in the movie there was just a whole bunch of action back to back with not much dialog which is way more entertaining than what the book showed. Finally on how they showed and portrayed the final rumble, I had a better listening and watching experience with the movie rather than the book. Hopefully anyone that reads this will agree with me and my
throughout the novel allows the audience to gain a better understanding and personal compassion for both the character and the author. 	The novel is written in a short, choppy sentence structure using simple word choice, or diction, in a stream of consciousness to enable the reader to perceive the novel in the rationale of an eleven-year-old girl. One short, simple sentence is followed by another, relating each in an easy flow of thoughts. Gibbons allows this stream of thoughts to again emphasize the childish perception of life’s greatest tragedies. For example, Gibbons uses the simple diction and stream of consciousness as Ellen searches herself for the true person she is.
Although the story is extremely old, the new generation of kids still love to watch the movie/ read the book. For most people, it shows that you shouldn’t judge a book by it’s cover, and that everyone deserves a chance at true