MovieChat Forums > The Lords of Discipline (1983) Discussion > Read this book

Read this book

posted 15 years ago by jstang411
7 replies | jump to latest

Pat Conroy invests you in textured characters and then puts them in a series of galvanizing storylines that will keep you reading and reading when you know you should be going to sleep. After the book is done, you'll feel like it was a novella instead of the long work it actually is.

Does the movie live up to that? No, but then no film can do full justice to a great work that covers so much? And that may explain why the movie only covers the fourth year, which is only the last of four sections in the book (there is one for each year).

It is a good film, one that sits on my wall, but the book...

[–] Ezekiel_Stone 14 years ago

I saw the movie before i read the book, the movie was somewhat flawed but i enjoyed it enough to get the book. The book itself was a fantastic read, much better than the movie, it made characters more rounded and you understood them better. I would compare it to Mario Puzo's book the "Godfather" and how it had extra bits of back story that were not in the Godfather movie. The godfather movie was like 80% faithful to the book which was good. Lords of discipline was more like 45% faithful to the book and it left out stuff and changed parts, which led to it falling short of the mark

However i think the movie served as a good visual aid, when i read the book i was able to recall the actor's faces as i read the passages and it helped me envision the scenes in my head. If you read the book first and watch the movie afterwards i think you would be too bitter and disappointed at how they mangled the story to get anything positive out of it. So I would say watch the movie first and then read the book afterwards to get the best out of it, as they kinda compliment other.

[–] jstang411 14 years ago

So I would say watch the movie first and then read the book afterwards to get the best out of it, as they kinda compliment other.

We each like them both, but I disagree on that point. The book is magnifcent and should be read first. The movie is good in of itself, but if you are going to spoil the story for one of them it is better to do it with the film, which is far less important in my mind.

[–] Sonlee 14 years ago

The book would have been much better if Conroy had cut that entire useless Annie Kate side story. It was utterly useless and added nothing to the plot. The fact that he then tried to tie it in at the end as a clever plot built to distract Will only annoyed me more. Why do authors so often feel that everything, I mean EVERYTHING, has to tie in to the main story at the end? The book would have been about 100 pages shorter and twice as entertaining if Anne Kate had been completely removed and the principle story itself would have been unchanged. The decision to cut Annie Kate was one of the few things I think the makers of the film did right.

[–] Bernnard_Black 11 years ago

Agreed. The only thing interesting about that whole story was who the father of her baby was. Other than that, it was just pointless filler.

Here's to the health of Cardinal Puff.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jstang411 9 years ago

But the rest of it is still one great book. I thought he did a great job making it a chronological progression. And there is no doubt Conroy can write.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]