"To Build a Fire"

After compare/contrasting the movie and the short chronicle versions of To wee-wee a Fire, the taradiddle version is a more efficient art form. If you take the grade and the book, of course stories ar more detailed. Movies are too, but not as a broad(a) deal as stories. Stories are more understandable. Because you can go ski binding and express it, if you dont understand.

The difference between the story and the movie was the story was more detailed and descriptive. It was also more interesting culture the story. When you see the movie its too dull and plain. In the story the piece of music is explained better and how he acts is better. The five senses are set forth better in the story than in the movie. The story shows how it is good and interesting; the movie is just a man and a cad trying to head to camp. The dog is better set forth in the story than in the movie. So overall to me the story was much more interesting and detailed than in the movie.

The similarities in the movie and the story were they had the setting and everything the same. It also had the same characteristics. The man and the dog looked looked just like they were described in the story.



And it looked like the man didnt have an imagination like it said in the story. Both were descriptive and fun to do. When you watch the movie and read the story you can sort of sense how cold it is. The dog in both acted just like he was explained, cold, harmless, and boring. too in common they had tried to make a fire.

After comparing/contrasting the movie and the short story versions of To Build a Fire, the story version is a more effective art form.

If you want to get a full essay, monastic order it on our website: Ordercustompaper.com



If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my paper