A longstanding debate amongst lovers of literature and film is: What’s better, the movie or the book?  To truly determine the superior form, each adaptation should be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.  In sticking true to these methods, I have read Delia Owen’s Where the Crawdads Sing as well as viewed the film.  After considering both forms of storytelling, I have decided the book is superior to the movie.  Now, while I admit I am an English major, and one could say I have bias, I have broken my argument down into three parts to explain why Delia Owens’ novel is better than the film adaptation.  My reasons for declaring the book superior are the book features a narrator with shifting perspectives and two linear plots that merge into one, descriptions of nature and how the main character Kya interacts with it, and the trials of Kya learning to read with her friend and first love Tate.    

Starting with the narration, Where the Crawdads Sing has a third-person omniscient narrator.  This type of narrator can give the readers a window into the lives, actions, and motivations of various main characters in the plot.  Taking advantage of shifting perspectives, Owens also includes two different plot lines.  One starts with the murder of hometown football star Chase Andrews.  The second begins with the first loss Kya ever faced, her mother leaving the family to be rid of her abusive husband.  Throughout these shifting plots, a murder investigation persists, and the readers are taken on a journey of Kya’s life.  With each chapter, both the readers and the police form more connections between Kya’s life and the mysterious murder of Chase Andrews.  Eventually, the plots merge with Kya’s arrest, and the book proceeds with one plot featuring Kya’s murder trial, reunion with Tate, and eventual death.  All of these nuanced complexities were removed from the movie. The film begins with Kya’s arrest—which taints her in the eyes of the viewers—because it connects her to Chase’s murder before the moviegoers even saw how their lives were connected.  

Beyond the movie’s simplification of the plot structure, major plot points of the book were not found in the movie or were merely brushed over as inconsequential.  One of the major plot points missing from the movie was Kya’s connection to nature.  Humans leaving Kya was a motif in the book; she faced the loss of her mother, brother, father, and Tate.  The movie mitigates Kya’s loneliness brought on by these losses by failing to include her relationship with the marsh.  With each loss, Kya’s trust in human beings decreases, so she further integrates herself into the nature of the marsh.  This is because Kya understands that all members of an ecosystem rely on each other to survive.  By becoming a member of the ecosystem, Kya guarantees her survival.  Her connection to the marsh is what kept her alive for so long; more than sustenance, it gave her a bond with living things, unlike many of the humans she encountered.  She found comfort in the birds she fed, the grasses that hid her from the glaring eyes of the townsfolk, the mussels that fed her, the ocean that enveloped her like a hug, and the tribunes that carried her boat, which allowed her to discover the secrets of the marsh.  

This deep connection to nature is what inspired Kya to write books about the unique flora and fauna of marshes.  However, Kya’s nature guides of the marsh would not have been possible without being taught how to read.  Prior to their romantic relationship, Tate teaches Kya how to read.  Since the movie removed the struggles Kya faced while learning to read, moviegoers lose Tate’s appreciation of Kya’s capacity and desire to learn, where Kya’s understanding of scientific research derived, and her movement from scientific reading and writing to poetry.  Further, the viewers lose the sense of pride the readers feel when Kya overcomes certain stereotypes of the townsfolk.  Focusing on poetry; throughout the novel, Kya would quote a local poet—Amanda Hamilton.  Hamilton would write about nature, describing its nurturing aspects, lack of emotion, and the predatory tendencies of female animals against males.  After Kya’s death, it is revealed to the readers that Amanda Hamilton was Kya herself under an alias.  Each of these poems hinted at Kya’s emotions expressed through free verse as she had no other outlet for them.  As I said above, nature has no emotions, and since Kya was only connected to nature, she needed some way to tell people how she felt.  This relay of Kya’s emotions is present in the final poem of the novel, which was about female fireflies eating male fireflies. Through this poem, Kya reveals that any form of female protection against males was justified, even if it resulted in death. This form of protection was justified in the laws of nature—the laws she was raised by.  

So, in the end, the movie Where the Crawdads Sing removes several key points of Kya’s character.  Framing Kya for murder at the outset of the movie taints her reputation with the viewers.  In removing Kya’s connection to nature, viewers of the movie do not understand the true loss she felt when people left her.  By briskly addressing Kya’s climb from illiterate to scholar and not mentioning her poetry, moviegoers lose a true understanding of Kya’s personality and motives throughout the plot.  In simplifying the plot and failing to include these three aspects, Kya’s character is undeveloped in the film; this simplification prevents the viewers from having sympathy toward and a connection with Kya.  To summarize, when it comes to Where the Crawdads Sing, read the book.

March 2023