"To Build 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 take the story and the book, of course stories are more detailed. Movies are too, but not as much as stories. Stories are more understandable. Because you can go back and read it, if you don't understand.

The difference between the story and the movie was the story was more detailed and descriptive. It was also more interesting reading the story. When you see the movie it's too dull and plain. In the story the man is explained better and how he acts is better. The five senses are described 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 dog trying to head to camp. The dog is better described 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 didn't 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. Also 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. I think that because the story is more realistic. When the movie was on it seemed more fake. But overall I think that the story was a better way to understand it.