Has anyone read the book?

There's some major changes but only in minor scenes, if that makes sense. For example, the main plot of Inman travelling, getting captured at the freaky whore house, etc etc is all the same -- but in the book when he was captured he escapes in a completely different way. The movie edits things for overall length, but doesn't really mess with the plot. It cut out a good 30% of the content and added in all those gruesome war scenes at the very beginning (the war itself was never graphically described by the author.) The book was slow like the movie, but also much more thoughtful and calm. A good read as long as you're in the mood for it.

My wife is the kind of person who will buy books by the box-load from garage sales, clearances, etc without knowing what they are.

This book was in one, hardcover and looked like it had never been opened. I liked what the liners said and read it, amazing!

Well, there I am scrolling through the tv listings and see 'Cold Mountain', checked it out and wow it's the book on film, I had no idea they made one. We sat down and watched it together, amazing!

Not many book to film adaptions are faithful to the source for whatever reasons, but the tone and story were all there, by the end we were in tears.

If you liked the film, read the book, both are very well done.

Judging by many of the comments on this board, my guess would be no. Almost everything that people have complained about in regards to this movie, from the plot to the characters to the ending, and have said the movie would have been better off without, were all integral elements of the novel-the very things that gave the story its heart, soul, quirky charm, and character.

To answer your question, as far as movie adaptations go, it was very faithful. They did condense some of Inman's adventures (for time's sake, I'm sure) and as I recall, I don't believe Teague was as dominate a character in the book as he becomes in the movie. But as for everything else, it followed the book very closely.

I actually loved that they didn't ruin this film by "Hollywooding it up" which was my biggest fear when I heard it was going to be made into a movie. But I think the fact that it remained so faithful to the book is what threw a lot of people off. Like most literary works, it's a quiet story that speaks more about "the human condition" than grand plot twists, or Good Triumphs Over Evil or a typically sappy love story in which the hero returns home and everyone lives happily ever after. It's not about the "getting there" but, rather, what these people discover about themselves and about love during the course of the journey. How can two people who have sustained on fantasy and longing for three years now build a life when their world and everything in it-including themselves-has been destroyed? When they have had to become, in essence, totally different people from what they once were? As it turns out, they have exactly 24 hrs to learn those answers.

I think the movie captures that quality, which is the essence of Frazier's novel, beautifully.

I wish more people who complained about this movie would read the book. I think then they would have a much better idea of the unique challenges Minghella was facing in adapting this story-and what a beautiful job he did!

http://www.allforloveblog.com
A Blogsite Dedicated to Michael Jackson

[deleted]

I'm afraid I must disagree with most posters on this board in that I don't think the film was very close to the book. I actually listened to this book on audio-disc on a series of long drives during the course of a long distance relationship (which made for a truly beautiful and sometimes cathartic listening experience). I had seen the film before and was immediately surprised by how different the order of the narrative was. After that I realized I was in for a different experience than I had expected based on the film and just let my preconceptions go.

Consequently I experienced the book in a much different way. The characters all became new to me. The main element that is lost in the film is the prevalence of the stories of the people Inman and Ada encounter. A big part of the novel was made up of these side stories (most of which were very interesting and heartbreaking in their own right). The love story in the film is romanticized somewhat (it had a cut-and-dry realism in the book that I found touching by its honesty). The figure of Ada is also a bit romanticized in the film. I absolutely adored her character in the book. She was elegant, but had a rather bleakly practical outlook that almost matched Ruby's, coupled with a dark-humored sense of irony that was brutally incisive, and sometimes hilarious. I didn't get this as much from Kidman, who seemed more the storybook heroine. Several of the big plot points were there of course, but in different order, somewhat condensed, occasionally altered so that the outcomes moved the story along faster. The decisions were made to allow for time...that's part of making a movie and I understand and respect this. It simply wasn't the book. That being the case, I honestly love the film.

As someone who saw the movie first, I highly recommend the book. I hope you, as I did, fall in love with the story again in a whole new way.

P.S. has anybody read Thirteen Moons. I've been curious to pick it up, but am a trifle reluctant because I don't find the cover story as compelling. What do you guys think (no spoilers please).

Just some things I noticed that were starkly different between the book and the movie (in no particular order)...and **BEWARE** -- this might spoil parts of the book if you are looking into reading it!

-I believe the book's character named "Swimmer" was depicted in the movie as being right alongside Inman at Petersburg (if I am correct, he's the one who gets shot in the chest by friendly fire after they charge into the woods). In the book, however, it is never mentioned that Swimmer took part in any fighting, other than that he "may have fought past the mountains somewhere." In fact, he is only mentioned when Inman remembers his days as a youth in the mountains with the Cherokee.

-The Swanger family did not meet its end at the hands of Teague's men. An identical scenario IS recounted in the book by a prisoner in the town near Black Cove, but the Esco Swanger never gets impaled by a saber and all of Sally's fingers survive the war (as far as the reader knows). However, it is mentioned in the book that their sons were probably killed in action on the frontlines.

-Teague, in fact, was not that much of a central character in the book. His "quest for all the farms of Cold Mountain" was never mentioned in the book, and he never courted Ada. He did ride around leading the Home Guard, and he was certainly not a nice person, but he was not as power hungry in the book.

-In the novel, the ferry girl did not die. As a matter of fact, the crossing of the river was actually made at night, and all three survived the trek across the river, although they had to overturn the boat to make cover against the gunfire.

-From my reading of the book, I never picked up much on the topic of slavery, save a few bits and pieces. The Monroe's didn't own slaves -- instead, they had a few hired hands before the elder Monroe's death, and it is implied that these were poor whites. Inman DOES come across a group of slaves on his journey (in the novel), but they are friendly to him, give him food and shelter, and guide him towards the western Carolina mountains. In the movie, however, Inman comes across the standoffish runaways in the corn fields and then hears them die at the hands of the Home Guard. That scene never occured in the book.

All I can think of for now...and hopefully I didn't spoil the book for anyone!

The book is an absolute masterpiece. Charles Frazier won the National Book Award (the literary equivalent of an Academy Award) for his debut effort and it is one for the ages. It absolutely stands up with Faulkner or McCarthy in terms of capturing that Southern poetic essence. Readers of contemporary literature will almost assuredly downplay the brilliance of the book by decrying its "slow' pace. In reality, Frazier writes Cold Mountain in a style and eloquence that is reminiscent of the greatest novelists of all time. His subsequent novels, Thirteen Moons and Nightwoods, have unmistakable flashes of brilliance and breathtaking flourishes. But Cold Mountain will likely stand as his magnum opus. There has been no better piece of fictional prose written in the past quarter century.

This was literally the worst book to movie adaptation I have seen to date. It is even worse than the travesty that are the Harry Potter movies.