Answer:
As I would like to think, I would prefer to peruse a book as opposed to review a film dependent on a book. Is the film more beneficial than the book? One motivation behind why is the point at which you are perusing a book, it will have numerous parts in the book that you may like. In a motion picture, it will forget about numerous great parts that the book had in light of the fact that a film just takes around one hour to three hours. That is an extra motivation behind why I like books more noteworthy than motion pictures is that it requires some investment to peruse them, and you can get more data than a film. One motion picture I saw that depended on a book was titled the kid in the striped night robe. In the motion picture, it forgot about various parts that were in the book. Rather, the film included parts that were not even in the book. The first occasion when I saw the film I perceived that the motion picture was nothing like the book. Likewise, the book passed on articles to the peruser that a film did not, for example, the foundation material, the setting, and what the characters are making. The book finale of the kid in the striped night wears you knew the two young men passed away in the gas chamber. The film, notwithstanding, you needed to discover what jumped out at them since it didn't state it like the book. The book likewise gave you insights concerning how they were feeling when they needed to get in the gas chamber. The book gave you data about the kid's family after he kicked the bucket and the motion picture did not. While you are understanding you are making your individual motion picture in your own impression, and you will settle a large number of the noteworthy parts like how the characters talk, what they will resemble, and what their encompassing will resemble. The writer causes the book in his individual way and the motion picture to can not be improved than the book on the grounds that the writer made the book and you can't improve it in the event that you are not the writer. Taking everything into account, I think you should preferably peruse the book overview of the film.
Explanation:
Hello, Ryjostjohn, <span>Direct characterization is how an author tells his or her reader about a character. Direct characterization occurs when the author specifically reveals traits about the character in a direct, straightforward manner. Direct characterization is also important in showing the character's motivation and </span><span>Indirect characterization is the process by
which the writer shows the character's personality through speech,
actions and appearance. When you watch a movie or television show, you
can usually gather what type of person the main character is based on
the character's actions and reactions in different situations.</span>
At midnight, the alchemist rides up on his horse while Santiago waits by the tent, carrying two dead hawks in his saddle.
When did Santigo meet the Alchemist?
Santiago strays that evening south of Al-Fayoum. He notices a tent that some Arabs passing by the claim is where genies live. The alchemist greets Santiago.
He rides a white horse, wears a black outfit, and carries the Philosopher's Stone, the Elixir of Life, and a scimitar. He frequently uses obscure language, but he is aware of the Soul of the World and the value of Personal Legends.
Hence/Therefore,
To learn more about Alchemist from the given link
brainly.com/question/16348487
#SPJ1
Answer:
Used to
Explanation:
"Too" means as well or excessively, so that does not make sense if you were to say "After I moved to Miami I had to get used too (as well/excessively) the weather."
Use to is in present tense, but if you will notice that whoever wrote the sentence used "After I movED", which shows its in past tense, and you cannot mix up past and present tense in the same sentence like that.
Hope this helps and isn't TOO confusing ! :)