Question 5: Story's End
385 views
Skip to first unread message
Mrs. Pilgrim
Dec 9, 2008, 5:35:09 PM12/9/08
to Candlewood The Pearl
The ending of The Pearl is very powerful, yet controversial. Why did
John Steinbeck end the story the way he did? Did it have to end that
way?
Imagine you are a movie director making a new film version of the
novel. Argue for or against changing the story's ending. What
details must remain the same to stay true to his story? Would
changing the outcome of the ending change the story's theme?
John Steinbeck end the story the way he did? Did it have to end that
way?
Imagine you are a movie director making a new film version of the
novel. Argue for or against changing the story's ending. What
details must remain the same to stay true to his story? Would
changing the outcome of the ending change the story's theme?
shan4
Dec 21, 2008, 2:10:37 PM12/21/08
to Candlewood The Pearl
I liked the ending of The Pearl. I thought it was dramatic and sad,
but so realistic. John Steinbeck chose that particular ending because
it made sense and it could happen to someone in real life. He showed
the world that money could bring even the strongest man down and that
this could happen to anyone. Kino had to take responsibility for his
actions, even if it meant that his son had to die. Although John
Steinbeck could have chosen for Kino to live with the wealth of the
pearl, forever unhappy, or Coyotito living and Kino continuing to live
on the run, this ending was the right one. Yes, the book had to end
this way to fully bring closure to the story. Every action in life
has consequences and reactions. When you drop a pebble into a pool of
water, waves are created and the will ripple throughout the pool.
Likewise, everything Kino did had a consequence. Coyotito had no say
over Kino’s actions and even if he did, Kino was so blinded by the
‘pearl of the world.’ Kino had so many chances to throw away the
pearl, but he never took them. In the end, instead of paying with his
soul, he paid with his son’s soul.
If I was a movie director making a new film version of the novel, I
would keep the ending like it is in the book. Since the book is not
very long, keeping most of the details would definitely be important
in order to remain true to the story. The most important details
would be Coyotito being injured, Kino finding the pearl, Kino
attacking the man in the night, Kino attacking his wife, Kino running
away with his family, Coyotito dying, Kino returning to the village
with Juana, and Kino throwing away the pearl. Changing the outcome of
the ending would change the stories theme. By Coyotito, Kino and
Juana’s first born son, dying it shows how Kino should have and could
have prevented that. When Kino throws the pearl away, it shows how it
took a big tragedy like his son dying to stop the pearl from warping
his thoughts. I had predicted before hand that the pearl would be the
end for Kino, and it was. The whole meaning of The Pearl and its
lessons of man’s nature and greed wouldn’t be correctly portrayed if
the movie doesn’t stay true to the book.
but so realistic. John Steinbeck chose that particular ending because
it made sense and it could happen to someone in real life. He showed
the world that money could bring even the strongest man down and that
this could happen to anyone. Kino had to take responsibility for his
actions, even if it meant that his son had to die. Although John
Steinbeck could have chosen for Kino to live with the wealth of the
pearl, forever unhappy, or Coyotito living and Kino continuing to live
on the run, this ending was the right one. Yes, the book had to end
this way to fully bring closure to the story. Every action in life
has consequences and reactions. When you drop a pebble into a pool of
water, waves are created and the will ripple throughout the pool.
Likewise, everything Kino did had a consequence. Coyotito had no say
over Kino’s actions and even if he did, Kino was so blinded by the
‘pearl of the world.’ Kino had so many chances to throw away the
pearl, but he never took them. In the end, instead of paying with his
soul, he paid with his son’s soul.
If I was a movie director making a new film version of the novel, I
would keep the ending like it is in the book. Since the book is not
very long, keeping most of the details would definitely be important
in order to remain true to the story. The most important details
would be Coyotito being injured, Kino finding the pearl, Kino
attacking the man in the night, Kino attacking his wife, Kino running
away with his family, Coyotito dying, Kino returning to the village
with Juana, and Kino throwing away the pearl. Changing the outcome of
the ending would change the stories theme. By Coyotito, Kino and
Juana’s first born son, dying it shows how Kino should have and could
have prevented that. When Kino throws the pearl away, it shows how it
took a big tragedy like his son dying to stop the pearl from warping
his thoughts. I had predicted before hand that the pearl would be the
end for Kino, and it was. The whole meaning of The Pearl and its
lessons of man’s nature and greed wouldn’t be correctly portrayed if
the movie doesn’t stay true to the book.
akoenig6
Dec 21, 2008, 7:28:17 PM12/21/08
to Candlewood The Pearl
I thought that the end of The Pearl was dramatic and a really great
ending. John Steinbeck chose to end the book that way because it was
kind of like a cliffhanger. You are not quiet sure if Kino if going to
be devastated or if this is going to really affect the whole
neighborhood. I am sure that Kino had a lot of courage to actually
throw the pearl because it was taking over his life. He made the
correct decision to through away the pearl though because if he didn't
his life would just get harder and it is already really hard because
his son just got killed. I think if the book did not end like this, it
would go on forever and then it would get really boring. Also, if the
story continued on, it wouldn't make any sense at all. If I were a
interesting I would keep most of the details the same. There aren't
that many big details in the novel so you can't really take any away
and you can't add any or else it wouldn't make sense. Changing the
outcome of the ending would change the story's theme. It would change
the theme because since Coyotito is Kino and Juana's first born, and
he got killed, shows that Kino didn't protect him with all of his
might. He tried to protect the pearl more than Coyotito. When Kino
threw away the pearl, it shows that he actually really cared and he
prevented the pearl from taking over his life. The theme of The Pearl
wouldn't be correctly portrayed if the ending of the story were
changed.
ending. John Steinbeck chose to end the book that way because it was
kind of like a cliffhanger. You are not quiet sure if Kino if going to
be devastated or if this is going to really affect the whole
neighborhood. I am sure that Kino had a lot of courage to actually
throw the pearl because it was taking over his life. He made the
correct decision to through away the pearl though because if he didn't
his life would just get harder and it is already really hard because
his son just got killed. I think if the book did not end like this, it
would go on forever and then it would get really boring. Also, if the
story continued on, it wouldn't make any sense at all. If I were a
movie director making a new film version of the novel, I would keep
the ending like it is in the book. Since the book was short and
interesting I would keep most of the details the same. There aren't
that many big details in the novel so you can't really take any away
and you can't add any or else it wouldn't make sense. Changing the
outcome of the ending would change the story's theme. It would change
the theme because since Coyotito is Kino and Juana's first born, and
he got killed, shows that Kino didn't protect him with all of his
might. He tried to protect the pearl more than Coyotito. When Kino
threw away the pearl, it shows that he actually really cared and he
prevented the pearl from taking over his life. The theme of The Pearl
wouldn't be correctly portrayed if the ending of the story were
changed.
sefthymiou4
Dec 28, 2008, 1:03:05 PM12/28/08
to Candlewood The Pearl
The ending of The Pearl was very dramatic. I liked it because
it was not one of those happily ever after stories, it showed real
life. It showed how things in ones life can change them completely.
The power of greed that came with the pearl destroyed Kino and his
family. It tore them apart and in the end one of the things Kino
lived most was gone. John Steinbeck ended the story the way he did
because he wanted to show and warn readers about this. He wanted to
show that no matter what kind of a person you are, if you are not
careful,you can be torn apart by material things and greed. Every time
the pearl forced Kino to take drastic measures it pushed him deeper
and deeper into a hole that he will never get out of. He killed a man
and was on the run in order to save his pearl. I believe that this
way one of the ways to end the pearl's power over Kino, Coyotito's
death was what opened Kino's eyes into seeing what a horrible thing
the pearl was and what it was doing to him and his family. Every
action that Kino took made him take even more actions that were
hurting him. It is like when you tell a lie, you have to keep on
telling a lie.
If I were a movie director making a new film version of the
novel I would argue against the changing of the story's ending. The
ending is what makes the story what it is. It is what shows you the
main ideas that John Steinbeck was trying to express through his
writing. Kino would have to find the pearl, kill the man, hit his
wife, go on the run, and Coyotito would have to die. If he didn't
die, then Kino would go on in his life thinking that the pearl was
great when it was the thing destroying his life. Finding the pearl is
what gave Kino hope, it's like winning the lottery now. Slowly
though, the pearl starts bringing misfortune upon Kino and his
family. He has chances to get rid of the pearl but he does not take
them. His wife, Juana, tries again and again to tell him that the
pearl is evil but he does not listen. The beauty and size of the
pearl blinds his eyes and mind to everything else. Yes changing the
outcome would definitely change the stories theme. By all these
things happening in the story, they were events that led up to the
final part which was the particular ending that this story had.
it was not one of those happily ever after stories, it showed real
life. It showed how things in ones life can change them completely.
The power of greed that came with the pearl destroyed Kino and his
family. It tore them apart and in the end one of the things Kino
lived most was gone. John Steinbeck ended the story the way he did
because he wanted to show and warn readers about this. He wanted to
show that no matter what kind of a person you are, if you are not
careful,you can be torn apart by material things and greed. Every time
the pearl forced Kino to take drastic measures it pushed him deeper
and deeper into a hole that he will never get out of. He killed a man
and was on the run in order to save his pearl. I believe that this
way one of the ways to end the pearl's power over Kino, Coyotito's
death was what opened Kino's eyes into seeing what a horrible thing
the pearl was and what it was doing to him and his family. Every
action that Kino took made him take even more actions that were
hurting him. It is like when you tell a lie, you have to keep on
telling a lie.
If I were a movie director making a new film version of the
novel I would argue against the changing of the story's ending. The
ending is what makes the story what it is. It is what shows you the
main ideas that John Steinbeck was trying to express through his
writing. Kino would have to find the pearl, kill the man, hit his
wife, go on the run, and Coyotito would have to die. If he didn't
die, then Kino would go on in his life thinking that the pearl was
great when it was the thing destroying his life. Finding the pearl is
what gave Kino hope, it's like winning the lottery now. Slowly
though, the pearl starts bringing misfortune upon Kino and his
family. He has chances to get rid of the pearl but he does not take
them. His wife, Juana, tries again and again to tell him that the
pearl is evil but he does not listen. The beauty and size of the
pearl blinds his eyes and mind to everything else. Yes changing the
outcome would definitely change the stories theme. By all these
things happening in the story, they were events that led up to the
final part which was the particular ending that this story had.
cblachly4
Dec 31, 2008, 3:40:16 PM12/31/08
to Candlewood The Pearl
I think that the ending of The Pearl is a very important part of the
story. If Kino had on living his life with the pearl, it wouldn’t show
the real life consequences. It would be a story with no moral, and
stories without morals are hard to relate to. John Steinbeck decided
to end the story with a consequence for Kino to show the reader that
there are always consequences for your actions. He wanted the reader
to be able to learn that there are always consequences, instead of
having no consequences for Kino like a fairytale. The story could have
had a different ending, like Kino or Juana dying instead of Coyotito,
or some other type of consequence for Kino. But, I feel that even
though it is a sad ending, Coyotito’s death is probably the best
ending.
If I was making a movie from this book, I would try to keep everything
the same, especially the ending. The ending ties the whole story
together. If the ending was changed, the whole theme of the story
would change. If Coyotito had lived and Kino had a wonderful life with
no consequences, the story would be different. The theme of the story
is to show that every action has a consequence. If Kino had no
consequences, the theme would be that there are not always
consequences for your actions. That would make the theme the exact
opposite. I also think it would be important to show how Kino
struggles with the pearl, and how it made him lose sight of what is
important in his life. I would make sure the movie had scenes when
Kino told his neighbors what his future would be like, him getting
attacked for the pearl, the doctor coming to his house, him beating
Juana up, him killing a man, and Coyotito’s death.
story. If Kino had on living his life with the pearl, it wouldn’t show
the real life consequences. It would be a story with no moral, and
stories without morals are hard to relate to. John Steinbeck decided
to end the story with a consequence for Kino to show the reader that
there are always consequences for your actions. He wanted the reader
to be able to learn that there are always consequences, instead of
having no consequences for Kino like a fairytale. The story could have
had a different ending, like Kino or Juana dying instead of Coyotito,
or some other type of consequence for Kino. But, I feel that even
though it is a sad ending, Coyotito’s death is probably the best
ending.
If I was making a movie from this book, I would try to keep everything
the same, especially the ending. The ending ties the whole story
together. If the ending was changed, the whole theme of the story
would change. If Coyotito had lived and Kino had a wonderful life with
no consequences, the story would be different. The theme of the story
is to show that every action has a consequence. If Kino had no
consequences, the theme would be that there are not always
consequences for your actions. That would make the theme the exact
opposite. I also think it would be important to show how Kino
struggles with the pearl, and how it made him lose sight of what is
important in his life. I would make sure the movie had scenes when
Kino told his neighbors what his future would be like, him getting
attacked for the pearl, the doctor coming to his house, him beating
Juana up, him killing a man, and Coyotito’s death.
dschneider4
Jan 2, 2009, 10:51:16 PM1/2/09
to Candlewood The Pearl
John Steinbeck ended the story the way he did to show us how Kino has
come full circle from the beginning to the end. He started out with
nothing and ended up loosing his son. At the end of the book the pearl
means nothing to Kino because now he doesn't have Coyotito. To Kino,
the pearl meant Coyotito's future. Now there is no future for
Coyotito.
I think the story had to end this way to make the impact that it did.
If he had sold the pearl, and reached all of his goals it would have
just been another story. The ending Steinbeck used made you feel sorry
for Kino and Juana. As I was reading the book, I wanted to see Kino
prosper from the pearl but as you are reading on you see that will not
happen. I was really shocked when I read that Coyotito had been
killed.
I can't imagine the story being written any other way to have the
impact that it did. Again, I think the fact that the author has
Coyotito killed just makes the impact that much stronger.
I think that just the fact that Kino threw the pearl back into the
water really set the theme. Changing facts such as who was killed
didn't change the theme. Even if the author had Juana killed or Kino
captured, the theme would have still been the same. No one prospered
from the pearl. The evil music stayed with Kino through the whole
book, and didn't dissapear until he got rid of the pearl. It's almost
as if Kino will be back to his old self, but I wonder what music Kino
will be hearing now. I guess it will not be as happy as the beginning
of the book, but now more on a sad note.
come full circle from the beginning to the end. He started out with
nothing and ended up loosing his son. At the end of the book the pearl
means nothing to Kino because now he doesn't have Coyotito. To Kino,
the pearl meant Coyotito's future. Now there is no future for
Coyotito.
I think the story had to end this way to make the impact that it did.
If he had sold the pearl, and reached all of his goals it would have
just been another story. The ending Steinbeck used made you feel sorry
for Kino and Juana. As I was reading the book, I wanted to see Kino
prosper from the pearl but as you are reading on you see that will not
happen. I was really shocked when I read that Coyotito had been
killed.
I can't imagine the story being written any other way to have the
impact that it did. Again, I think the fact that the author has
Coyotito killed just makes the impact that much stronger.
I think that just the fact that Kino threw the pearl back into the
water really set the theme. Changing facts such as who was killed
didn't change the theme. Even if the author had Juana killed or Kino
captured, the theme would have still been the same. No one prospered
from the pearl. The evil music stayed with Kino through the whole
book, and didn't dissapear until he got rid of the pearl. It's almost
as if Kino will be back to his old self, but I wonder what music Kino
will be hearing now. I guess it will not be as happy as the beginning
of the book, but now more on a sad note.
NBADARACCO4
Jan 3, 2009, 2:08:55 PM1/3/09
to Candlewood The Pearl
I think the ending to the story was the right one. I think that
John Stienbeck ended the story that way because
Kino and Juana could of kept raoming to different towns. So the book
would of been repetitive. I also think thatit was the perfect ending
for the book. It was interesting and unexpected. Although the book
didn't have to end that way. There could be so many more endings for
this book. Kino and his family could get caught by the trakers or they
could lose the pearl in the woods.
If I was a movie director making a film of this novel would not
change the ending of the story. Whats the point of making a movie
about a book if nothings the same. All the details in an ending must
be the same. Inorder to create the same message as the book. In this
particular book I think the message is be careful what you wish for
cause you just might get it. If the ending in the book is that K
On Dec 9 2008, 5:35 pm, "Mrs. Pilgrim" <leslie0...@optonline.net>
wrote:
John Stienbeck ended the story that way because
Kino and Juana could of kept raoming to different towns. So the book
would of been repetitive. I also think thatit was the perfect ending
for the book. It was interesting and unexpected. Although the book
didn't have to end that way. There could be so many more endings for
this book. Kino and his family could get caught by the trakers or they
could lose the pearl in the woods.
If I was a movie director making a film of this novel would not
change the ending of the story. Whats the point of making a movie
about a book if nothings the same. All the details in an ending must
be the same. Inorder to create the same message as the book. In this
particular book I think the message is be careful what you wish for
cause you just might get it. If the ending in the book is that K
On Dec 9 2008, 5:35 pm, "Mrs. Pilgrim" <leslie0...@optonline.net>
wrote:
NBADARACCO4
Jan 3, 2009, 2:18:22 PM1/3/09
to Candlewood The Pearl
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: NBADARACCO4 <LAXXE...@yahoo.com>
Date: Jan 3, 2:08 pm
Subject: Question 5: Story's End
To: Candlewood The Pearl
I think the ending to the story was the right one. I think that
John Stienbeck ended the story that way because
Kino and Juana could of kept raoming to different towns. So the book
would of been repetitive. I also think thatit was the perfect ending
for the book. It was interesting and unexpected. Although the book
didn't have to end that way. There could be so many more endings for
this book. Kino and his family could get caught by the trakers or they
could lose the pearl in the woods.
If I was a movie director making a film of this novel would not
change the ending of the story. Whats the point of making a movie
about a book if nothings the same. All the details in an ending must
be the same. Inorder to create the same message as the book. In this
particular book I think the message is be careful what you wish for
ends up throwing the pearl back into the water. If the ending in the
movie is he gets eveything he wants it would change the message
completly
On Dec 9 2008, 5:35 pm, "Mrs. Pilgrim" <leslie0...@optonline.net>
wrote:
> The ending of The Pearl is very powerful, yet controversial. Why did
> John Steinbeck end the story the way he did? Did it have to end that
> way?
> Imagine you are a movie director making a new film version of the
> novel. Argue for or against changing the story's ending. What
> details must remain the same to stay true to his story? Would
> changing the outcome of the ending change the s- Hide quoted text -
wrote:
> The ending of The Pearl is very powerful, yet controversial. Why did
> John Steinbeck end the story the way he did? Did it have to end that
> way?
> Imagine you are a movie director making a new film version of the
> novel. Argue for or against changing the story's ending. What
> details must remain the same to stay true to his story? Would
- Show quoted text -
jmarino10
Jan 4, 2009, 12:04:31 PM1/4/09
to Candlewood The Pearl
PForrester6
Jan 4, 2009, 7:16:48 PM1/4/09
to Candlewood The Pearl
The Pearl ends when Kino and his family are hiding from the trackers
preparing to attack them. While Kino is about to strike the rifle-man,
Coyotito whimpers, drawing the attention of the rifle-man,
Consequently, Coyotito is killed, but Kino kills the trackers and is
safe to do what ever he pleases. The ending of the Pearl is very
controversial, the ending is not very happy, and though a lesson is
learned, it is not through a slap on the wrist, but through the loss
of something very dear. I believe that the ending is very well suited
though, because it provides a large amount of closure, while still
leaving the readers mind to imagine what else will happen. It was very
short and abrupt; this concentrates all the emotion of the book into a
small amount of pages, thus making the ending more epic, instead of
drawing the book out with an epilogue. Steinbeck usually writes this
way, for him to have a happy ending would be rather atypical. Most of
his other books have similar endings such as Grapes of Wrath and Of
Mice and Men. This story was based upon a folk tale of the area. I
believe he could have easily changed the ending if he wanted to, but
doing so would eliminate the severity of the story, and Steinbeck has
some form of obligation to keep the story the way it was originally
told.
If I was to make a film adaptation of the story I would not change the
ending. The ending is essential to bringing together the story, it not
only provides a dramatic closing to the story, and it also perfectly
conveys the idea of direct consequences of action. Through Coyotito's
death Kino is more hurt than any other way possible. He constantly
imagined bringing change to Coyotito's future that was all gone. With
Coyotito being dead Kino had no purpose for the pearl. The ending
makes allot of sense. Changing the ending would be very complicated,
because all the pieces finally came together. Changing the ending
would be too much work, and would not explain later actions. One of
the most underlying themes was that an innocent person was affected
most by the actions of others, if Coyotito didn't die this theme would
no longer exist.
preparing to attack them. While Kino is about to strike the rifle-man,
Coyotito whimpers, drawing the attention of the rifle-man,
Consequently, Coyotito is killed, but Kino kills the trackers and is
safe to do what ever he pleases. The ending of the Pearl is very
controversial, the ending is not very happy, and though a lesson is
learned, it is not through a slap on the wrist, but through the loss
of something very dear. I believe that the ending is very well suited
though, because it provides a large amount of closure, while still
leaving the readers mind to imagine what else will happen. It was very
short and abrupt; this concentrates all the emotion of the book into a
small amount of pages, thus making the ending more epic, instead of
drawing the book out with an epilogue. Steinbeck usually writes this
way, for him to have a happy ending would be rather atypical. Most of
his other books have similar endings such as Grapes of Wrath and Of
Mice and Men. This story was based upon a folk tale of the area. I
believe he could have easily changed the ending if he wanted to, but
doing so would eliminate the severity of the story, and Steinbeck has
some form of obligation to keep the story the way it was originally
told.
If I was to make a film adaptation of the story I would not change the
ending. The ending is essential to bringing together the story, it not
only provides a dramatic closing to the story, and it also perfectly
conveys the idea of direct consequences of action. Through Coyotito's
death Kino is more hurt than any other way possible. He constantly
imagined bringing change to Coyotito's future that was all gone. With
Coyotito being dead Kino had no purpose for the pearl. The ending
makes allot of sense. Changing the ending would be very complicated,
because all the pieces finally came together. Changing the ending
would be too much work, and would not explain later actions. One of
the most underlying themes was that an innocent person was affected
most by the actions of others, if Coyotito didn't die this theme would
no longer exist.
T.Battistelli6
Jan 4, 2009, 7:59:06 PM1/4/09
to Candlewood The Pearl
T.Battistelli6
I think the ending of the book The pearl was very good. I think john
Steinbeck was making the ending much like real life. Money can ruin
anyones' life and family and he showed that by writing this book. Kino
had the chance to live on the run, unhappy and still have alot of
money which he was going to do until Coyotito died and thats when he
reliezed he must get rid of the pearl. He did that because the pearl
had took over his life. The book had to end like that to show that
having so much money wasn't good at all.
If I was a movie director about to make a film of this book I
would not change anyhting about the book. The Pearl had a very strong
message and very detail needed to stay the same for the message to
show it's point. If you were to change the ending the theme would
deffinetly change.
I think the ending of the book The pearl was very good. I think john
Steinbeck was making the ending much like real life. Money can ruin
anyones' life and family and he showed that by writing this book. Kino
had the chance to live on the run, unhappy and still have alot of
money which he was going to do until Coyotito died and thats when he
reliezed he must get rid of the pearl. He did that because the pearl
had took over his life. The book had to end like that to show that
having so much money wasn't good at all.
If I was a movie director about to make a film of this book I
would not change anyhting about the book. The Pearl had a very strong
message and very detail needed to stay the same for the message to
show it's point. If you were to change the ending the theme would
deffinetly change.
Jkaplan6
Jan 5, 2009, 4:18:37 PM1/5/09
to Candlewood The Pearl
jakek6
John Steibeck ended The Pearl the way he did for situational irony. I
had no idea that kino would throw away the pearl the way he did. He
could have made it so Kino reached the capitol and got a better price
for the pearl and had a happily ever after, but Kino now has nothing
but his rifle, his son, and his brother and wife. Not really the
ending we all thought it would be. He made the ending dramatic and
sad, but how life could really end up for someone. He also showed that
anyone can become strong with a good mindset.
If I were a movie director, I would not change anything. The ending of
the movie would be a big hit from the drama that goes on. I think the
theme of the story right now is that you might not alaways achieve a
goal that you have, but it can make you a stronger person, mentally
and physically. If Kino had sold the pearl at the capital, then the
theme would be that anyone can acomplish a set goal if they try. That
is why I would not change anything in this book if I made a film
version of this book.
dyeung6
Jan 5, 2009, 7:46:39 PM1/5/09
to Candlewood The Pearl
The ending was very powerful and controversial. John Steinbeck ended
The Pearl the way he did to show that Kino had learned his lesson. He
chose to end it this way to show how greediness can lead to
consequences, and those consequences can have a great affect on
oneself or others. Kino was blinded by the pearl and and risked
everything he had just to get wealthy. Without this ending, the moral
would be erased and Kino would probably be living a great life.
Coyotito's death was the best way to show that Kino had learned his
lesson.
If I were a movie director, I would keep the ending because it is an
integral part to the story. It brings the entire story together and
tells us what happened to Kino and his family. Most of the details
need to remain the same, especially Coyotito's death and when Kino
throws the pearl away. Those details are essential to the story's
theme. Without these details, the story wouldn't be able to show that
every action has consequences.
On Dec 9 2008, 5:35 pm, "Mrs. Pilgrim" <leslie0...@optonline.net>
wrote:
The Pearl the way he did to show that Kino had learned his lesson. He
chose to end it this way to show how greediness can lead to
consequences, and those consequences can have a great affect on
oneself or others. Kino was blinded by the pearl and and risked
everything he had just to get wealthy. Without this ending, the moral
would be erased and Kino would probably be living a great life.
Coyotito's death was the best way to show that Kino had learned his
lesson.
If I were a movie director, I would keep the ending because it is an
integral part to the story. It brings the entire story together and
tells us what happened to Kino and his family. Most of the details
need to remain the same, especially Coyotito's death and when Kino
throws the pearl away. Those details are essential to the story's
theme. Without these details, the story wouldn't be able to show that
every action has consequences.
On Dec 9 2008, 5:35 pm, "Mrs. Pilgrim" <leslie0...@optonline.net>
wrote:
dvega4
Jan 6, 2009, 4:48:44 PM1/6/09
to Candlewood The Pearl
I think that John Steinbeck ended the story in the best possible way.
By having Coyotito die, he showed the reader and Kino that the pearl
was nothing but evil. The end showed that riches can drive men mad,
and make their lives miserable. The ending confirmed the theme of the
entire story, and the whole purpose of the book would be taken away if
the ending was changed. The story had to end the way it did, and I’m
glad that John Steinbeck finished the book that way.
If I was a director trying to make a movie of The Pearl, I would make
sure that I kept the ending of the book the same as the movie, but
maybe not the entire book. I would need to keep the ending because the
ending made the book worthwhile, and it would be the same with the
movie. I would portray the ending to the finest detail, Kino and Juana
walking into the village, and showing Kino throw away the pearl to
prove that it was evil.
By having Coyotito die, he showed the reader and Kino that the pearl
was nothing but evil. The end showed that riches can drive men mad,
and make their lives miserable. The ending confirmed the theme of the
entire story, and the whole purpose of the book would be taken away if
the ending was changed. The story had to end the way it did, and I’m
glad that John Steinbeck finished the book that way.
If I was a director trying to make a movie of The Pearl, I would make
sure that I kept the ending of the book the same as the movie, but
maybe not the entire book. I would need to keep the ending because the
ending made the book worthwhile, and it would be the same with the
movie. I would portray the ending to the finest detail, Kino and Juana
walking into the village, and showing Kino throw away the pearl to
prove that it was evil.
bballe...@yahoo.com
Jan 7, 2009, 6:21:56 PM1/7/09
to Candlewood The Pearl
I think the ending of the book was sad and predictable. John
Steinbeck chose that ending for relation purposes. He related the
ending to a real life situation. The ending also showed the reader
that money comes with responsibility and it can make someone take a
turn for the best, or the worst. "To every action there is an equal
and opposite reaction." This quote by Isaac Newton can be applied to
the whole story. For every action (risk) Kino took trying to receive
credit for the “Pearl of the world” a very negative reaction occurred.
John Steinbeck could have completely changed the ending of the story.
He could have chosen to spare Coyotito’s life and let the three live
the same “on the run” life they had before the unfortunate scorpion
accident.
If I were making and directing a new film version of the novel, I
would not want to change anything. The book by itself is short.
Details that must remain the same in the book for the ending to be
true are part of the main idea of the story. If Coyotito had not been
stung, the story would be completely different and most likely Kino,
Juana, and Coyotito would be living the same life they had been
before. Going back to the ending, if Coyotito had not died the story
could have had a totally different theme. If Coyotito had lived and
the story ended with Kino turning in the pearl for a great amount of
cash, the theme of the story of the story wouldn’t be realistic. This
would have been more of a fairytale ending than a real life ending.
Steinbeck chose that ending for relation purposes. He related the
ending to a real life situation. The ending also showed the reader
that money comes with responsibility and it can make someone take a
turn for the best, or the worst. "To every action there is an equal
and opposite reaction." This quote by Isaac Newton can be applied to
the whole story. For every action (risk) Kino took trying to receive
credit for the “Pearl of the world” a very negative reaction occurred.
John Steinbeck could have completely changed the ending of the story.
He could have chosen to spare Coyotito’s life and let the three live
the same “on the run” life they had before the unfortunate scorpion
accident.
If I were making and directing a new film version of the novel, I
would not want to change anything. The book by itself is short.
Details that must remain the same in the book for the ending to be
true are part of the main idea of the story. If Coyotito had not been
stung, the story would be completely different and most likely Kino,
Juana, and Coyotito would be living the same life they had been
before. Going back to the ending, if Coyotito had not died the story
could have had a totally different theme. If Coyotito had lived and
the story ended with Kino turning in the pearl for a great amount of
cash, the theme of the story of the story wouldn’t be realistic. This
would have been more of a fairytale ending than a real life ending.
nmaindiratta4
Jan 7, 2009, 7:04:35 PM1/7/09
to Candlewood The Pearl
This story could not have ended a different way. If it did, the theme
would not be the same and the lessons would not have been learned.
Kino had to learn that withn greed comes consequences, even if he had
to learn it the hard way. Throughout the novel, Kino kept getting
greedier and his familys lives kept getting worse. John Steinbeck
ended this story the way he did because he had to teach everyone the
same lesson that kino learned. If the story had ended differently,
then the whole purpose and reason for the book had to be changed.
If I was a movie director making a film version of the novel, I would
keep the ending the same for the same reasons that John Steinbeck
wrote the ending the way he did. I would want people to remember the
movie, just like he wanted people to remember his book. So I would end
it with this great lesson that he thought of. Not all of the details
would have to stay exactly true to the story. I would make it longer
and add more events to show just how much Kino was getting consumed by
his pearl. A book this small does not have enough story in it to make
a full movie. Some people in the public would want the ending to be
changed, because they would not like to see a movie where a baby dies
at the end. But if I changed it, it would not have the same impact
that it did on the readers who read his book.
would not be the same and the lessons would not have been learned.
Kino had to learn that withn greed comes consequences, even if he had
to learn it the hard way. Throughout the novel, Kino kept getting
greedier and his familys lives kept getting worse. John Steinbeck
ended this story the way he did because he had to teach everyone the
same lesson that kino learned. If the story had ended differently,
then the whole purpose and reason for the book had to be changed.
If I was a movie director making a film version of the novel, I would
keep the ending the same for the same reasons that John Steinbeck
wrote the ending the way he did. I would want people to remember the
movie, just like he wanted people to remember his book. So I would end
it with this great lesson that he thought of. Not all of the details
would have to stay exactly true to the story. I would make it longer
and add more events to show just how much Kino was getting consumed by
his pearl. A book this small does not have enough story in it to make
a full movie. Some people in the public would want the ending to be
changed, because they would not like to see a movie where a baby dies
at the end. But if I changed it, it would not have the same impact
that it did on the readers who read his book.
myan1
Jan 7, 2009, 8:46:03 PM1/7/09
to Candlewood The Pearl
I think that the ending that John Steinbeck gave for the book all made
sense because Kino has finally learned that if you get too greedy,
then you or someone close to you will pay eventually. By making
Coyotito die, he finally made his point from the story that Money can
only buy happiness for a little while until you start to get corrupted
with the want for more until you finally lose everything, For example:
When Kino gets his pearl, he becomes excited for a while thinking
about what he can do with his pearl and the popularity that he was
getting, but eventually everybody got jealous of him becuase of his
potential wealth and he diden't really seem to care. So because of
this, He loses his house, his son, and pretty much even a reason to
stay in the village anymore by going to the capital all becuase of his
pearl. If Steinbeck had made Kino less greedy and make him find out
what was wrong with him earlier, then maybe non of what happend in the
end would have happend at all. Kino and Juana may have been able to
live a good life, he would still have a home, and his son would still
be alive. If I was the director of making a new film then I would not
change the outcome of the story because if Kino and his family managed
to sell the pearl with nobody dieing and go back to celebrate the
money he gained, then the whole point of the story would pretty much
be useless for trying to tell the theme. Kino would have learned
nothing seeing as he did not really care about anything but the pearl
and him during the time, the theme of the story that steinbeck tried
to make would not even make any sense with the story anymore so
keeping the story how it originally was if probably the best idea
On Dec 9 2008, 2:35 pm, "Mrs. Pilgrim" <leslie0...@optonline.net>
wrote:
sense because Kino has finally learned that if you get too greedy,
then you or someone close to you will pay eventually. By making
Coyotito die, he finally made his point from the story that Money can
only buy happiness for a little while until you start to get corrupted
with the want for more until you finally lose everything, For example:
When Kino gets his pearl, he becomes excited for a while thinking
about what he can do with his pearl and the popularity that he was
getting, but eventually everybody got jealous of him becuase of his
potential wealth and he diden't really seem to care. So because of
this, He loses his house, his son, and pretty much even a reason to
stay in the village anymore by going to the capital all becuase of his
pearl. If Steinbeck had made Kino less greedy and make him find out
what was wrong with him earlier, then maybe non of what happend in the
end would have happend at all. Kino and Juana may have been able to
live a good life, he would still have a home, and his son would still
be alive. If I was the director of making a new film then I would not
change the outcome of the story because if Kino and his family managed
to sell the pearl with nobody dieing and go back to celebrate the
money he gained, then the whole point of the story would pretty much
be useless for trying to tell the theme. Kino would have learned
nothing seeing as he did not really care about anything but the pearl
and him during the time, the theme of the story that steinbeck tried
to make would not even make any sense with the story anymore so
keeping the story how it originally was if probably the best idea
On Dec 9 2008, 2:35 pm, "Mrs. Pilgrim" <leslie0...@optonline.net>
wrote:
fcormio5
Jan 7, 2009, 11:01:15 PM1/7/09
to Candlewood The Pearl
The ending of the pearl was a very dramatic, and upsetting ending.
John Steinbeck ended the novel that way, because it showed the reader,
that life isn't really like a fairy tail, and that every man must take
responsibility for his actions. Also he ended it that way to show the
true evil, that was possessed in the pearl. John Steinbeck had to end
the novel this way, because if he didn't, the moral wouldn't exist.
I would not change the ending of the novel for my movie. Most of the
details would have to remain the same, because there aren't that many
of them. If you changed too many of the details u could not remain
true to the story. if the outcome of the story was changed, the
moral would not be the same, because Kino would not have taken
responsibility for his actions. Also, if it was an ending in Kino's
benefit, it would fool the reader into thinking everything in life has
a happy ending, which isn't true.
John Steinbeck ended the novel that way, because it showed the reader,
that life isn't really like a fairy tail, and that every man must take
responsibility for his actions. Also he ended it that way to show the
true evil, that was possessed in the pearl. John Steinbeck had to end
the novel this way, because if he didn't, the moral wouldn't exist.
I would not change the ending of the novel for my movie. Most of the
details would have to remain the same, because there aren't that many
of them. If you changed too many of the details u could not remain
true to the story. if the outcome of the story was changed, the
moral would not be the same, because Kino would not have taken
responsibility for his actions. Also, if it was an ending in Kino's
benefit, it would fool the reader into thinking everything in life has
a happy ending, which isn't true.
lstampfl6
Jan 8, 2009, 11:20:16 PM1/8/09
to Candlewood The Pearl
I feel that it was a good ending for the pearl. It was a bit sad and
yet feels like the story was real. It was ironic and controversial.
John Steinbeck ended the book the way he did because he didn't want
there to be a real happy ending. The ending should be considered a
cliffhanger considering all the lessons Kino has learned. The message
in the story is not just that being greedy will come back at you, it's
that it will also go at those you care about like how Kino's son
Coyotito had to die. They say that there are always happy ending, but
this book reminds about real life because in the real world not
everything is a fairytale and ends up the way you planned it. I feel
that the death of Coyotito brought Kino back into the real world about
what the cursed pearl had brought upon him his family, especially
Coyotito. It was the best way to show the readers that Kino had
learned his lesson.
If I were the movie director for this film I would not change much at
all. There is no need to change anything because if you change the
ending around then you change the theme of the story and you would
want to keep almost all the details because it's such a short book.
Knowing how Coyotito dies because of Kino's doing really shows Kino
how he could have probably saved the life of his first born, and that
will haunt him for the rest of his life. The doings that Kino had done
and had to suffer from is the theme. Actions always have consequences,
as Kino's son had to pay with his life. This shows how you always
must be careful in everything you do.
P Morales6
Jan 11, 2009, 8:11:45 PM1/11/09
to Candlewood The Pearl
I think John Steinbeck ended the story the way he did to make it very
memorable. It is all sort of a blur in the last chapter until "Wow."
Coyito just died. I think it was a great ending for that very reason,
it gives you a sense of just how greedy Kino had become, that he would
gamble with his own son's life and lose. All for a pearl. I think if
he just ended the story with Kino getting to the capital and selling
the pearl, and buying a house, and having Coyito go to school, that it
would be rather forgetful. I was really surprised by the ending, I
thought it would have that "Happily ever after" ending at the end of
chapter 4. I honestly couldn't have predicted Coyito's death.
If I were to make a movie, I would definitely keep the ending, just
because a tragedy is that much more memorable than a "Cliffhanger open-
ended" ending or a "Happily ever after" ending. Changing the outcome
definitely would change the story's theme. It would go from: "Taking
risks for greed could have grave consequences", which I think is a
very realistic theme, to: "Taking risks and perservering can
eventually pay off", which I think is a less realistic theme.
memorable. It is all sort of a blur in the last chapter until "Wow."
Coyito just died. I think it was a great ending for that very reason,
it gives you a sense of just how greedy Kino had become, that he would
gamble with his own son's life and lose. All for a pearl. I think if
he just ended the story with Kino getting to the capital and selling
the pearl, and buying a house, and having Coyito go to school, that it
would be rather forgetful. I was really surprised by the ending, I
thought it would have that "Happily ever after" ending at the end of
chapter 4. I honestly couldn't have predicted Coyito's death.
If I were to make a movie, I would definitely keep the ending, just
because a tragedy is that much more memorable than a "Cliffhanger open-
ended" ending or a "Happily ever after" ending. Changing the outcome
definitely would change the story's theme. It would go from: "Taking
risks for greed could have grave consequences", which I think is a
very realistic theme, to: "Taking risks and perservering can
eventually pay off", which I think is a less realistic theme.
JGennaro1
Jan 13, 2009, 8:27:41 PM1/13/09
to Candlewood The Pearl
The ending of the story was very different from many stories. Thats
what makes this story unique compared to other. He could of chose the
idea where he sells the pearl and lives wealthy throughout his life.
Maybe coyotito should of lived but Steinbeck chose a ending that
couldnt have been predicted easily. After all the corruption from the
pearl he finally, in the end, lets go and gets rid of the pearl.
If i were directing the movie I wouldnt have changed anything, I
would of kept it how it is written. It was sad but better then an
average book like this ending. If it were to change, the movie would
need to keep the death of coyotito and the end with the watchers. The
death of coyotito makes it more sad and dramatic and the watcher part
creates a sense of action. Also the end should be kept to leave a
somewhat happy ending that he finally got rid of what made him follow
this path.
On Dec 9 2008, 5:35 pm, "Mrs. Pilgrim" <leslie0...@optonline.net>
wrote:
what makes this story unique compared to other. He could of chose the
idea where he sells the pearl and lives wealthy throughout his life.
Maybe coyotito should of lived but Steinbeck chose a ending that
couldnt have been predicted easily. After all the corruption from the
pearl he finally, in the end, lets go and gets rid of the pearl.
If i were directing the movie I wouldnt have changed anything, I
would of kept it how it is written. It was sad but better then an
average book like this ending. If it were to change, the movie would
need to keep the death of coyotito and the end with the watchers. The
death of coyotito makes it more sad and dramatic and the watcher part
creates a sense of action. Also the end should be kept to leave a
somewhat happy ending that he finally got rid of what made him follow
this path.
On Dec 9 2008, 5:35 pm, "Mrs. Pilgrim" <leslie0...@optonline.net>
wrote:
kfitzgerald5
Jan 15, 2009, 7:14:06 PM1/15/09
to Candlewood The Pearl
The ending of the pearl was a very good ending.John stinebeck choose a
great way to end the pearl. The ending he chosse made sence and it was
implied to happen.
great way to end the pearl. The ending he chosse made sence and it was
implied to happen.
kfitzgerald5
Jan 15, 2009, 7:31:46 PM1/15/09
to Candlewood The Pearl
The ending of the pearl was a greatly choosen ending by John
Stinebeck. The ending was very dramatic and implied to happen. whe the
trackers are hunting them dow and coycotito makes the sound, you know
they are going to find him and he will die. Kino almost saves him but
doesnt kill the trackers in time.
The moral of the story is to care about family more the anything
elese. If Kino would have cared for his family more he would have got
ridden of the pearl and his family would be together. Insted Coycotito
is dead now because of Kino's money obsesition.
At the end of the story,Kino does the right thing by throwing the
pearl back into the ocean. Juana was right about it carring evil and
kino got rid of that evil inside of the pearl
Stinebeck. The ending was very dramatic and implied to happen. whe the
trackers are hunting them dow and coycotito makes the sound, you know
they are going to find him and he will die. Kino almost saves him but
doesnt kill the trackers in time.
The moral of the story is to care about family more the anything
elese. If Kino would have cared for his family more he would have got
ridden of the pearl and his family would be together. Insted Coycotito
is dead now because of Kino's money obsesition.
At the end of the story,Kino does the right thing by throwing the
pearl back into the ocean. Juana was right about it carring evil and
kino got rid of that evil inside of the pearl
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages