In “Call of the Wild” there were quite a few things I liked and disliked. Other parts of the book were ok, and I only saw a little bit of the movie. Most of what I know about “Call of the Wild” is from the book, but this is my opinion paper on “Call of the Wild”. There was a bit i liked and disliked. Mostly disliked. “Call of the Wild” is a book about a dog who is captured and used for a sled dog. He is captured due to needing sled dogs to get gold during the Klondike Gold Rush. The way it is told from a third person point of view is ok i guess, although from what i have seen of the movie it is told from Mr. Johnson’s point of view. I on the other hand in a way from what i have seen i think the way they tell it from a third person view is great. The movie is good and all from what I've seen but the book is just a whole lot better. …show more content…
Yea, but the movie just isn't as good as the book. I don't hate the books nor do i hate the movie I'm just not fond of them. The book uses words that are odd, and confuse me. It gets really boring at parts that i don't think should be there. The book is ok i love the way Jack London tell it from third person, and the way it is although the book. In the book it talks about the antagonist a little bit anyway. Spitz, one of the other dogs in the book, is the antagonist to Buck. Buck later kills Spitz and fights for his place as leader. This part gets me because usually you shouldn't fight for leader although they are dogs I get that, but the dogs have been working together for a bit now and they still aren't getting along. You would think they would start getting along a bit