Stone soup is a novel about a stingy old fisherman and two lazy people. The stingy fisherman still employs three children to do all of his jobs. The kids will prepare lunch and supper, clean the boat, break cod, and perform all other household activities. Unfortunately, the boys forgot to make dinner for the fishermen one day. The fisherman, who was irritated, wanted to scold the slackers. The boys appeared to be able to prepare stone soup for the fishermen. They drilled a pit and filled it with water and flavored rocks with shiny substances on the surface. When the operation is going, the lazy boys dupe the fishermen into making cups, chopsticks, and salt. While the stingy old fisherman was still busy, the kids took the vegetable, wild bird eggs, and fish, stirred them into the soup. This was purposely to add flavor the water. The vegetables were meant to float on top of the water on the hole to confuse the By the time the old man was through with his job of searching of salt and bowls, the boys had already made a nice king feast fit. Many authors have written an essay on this story. In this article, two essays on the same story of the stone soup are analyzed and compared to each other. The first essay is from the brief Macrgrey- hill reader on the stone soup while the second essay is a review of Stone soup by school library journal (Muth 321).
The two essays present some critical similarities while examining the stone soup tale. In both essays, the fisherman is portrayed as a selfish individual. Both articles claimed that the fisherman took advantage of the boys and made them do all the work for him with small payment. He made them clean boat, prepare lunch and supper, washes and does all the domestic work. Alternatively, he is portrayed as the non-friendly fellow who always complains even if the work done by the boys in his favor was perfect. However, in McGraw-hill reader essay, the fisherman is also portrayed as a person with little intelligence capacity. He could not realize that the lads fooled him. He went on praising himself in the entire village yet even villagers knew that he was fooled.
Nevertheless, the two essays also have a similarity in portraying the characteristics of the lads. They both describe the boys as the hardworking and obedient fellow who is good at cooperating with the old man in spite of the series of work they are given to do. The two essays claimed that that the boys show great personnel when they accept to work for the old stingy fishermen despite the man’s attitude of barking orders and with his endless series of tasks. However, on the same issues of the characteristics of the boys, some differences are noted between the two essays (Navon 216).
In the McGraw-Hill Reader articles, the boys are also viewed as silly and to some extent uncooperative with the law and rules. The boys tricked the old man on the issue of making a stone soup. They only filled the hole with water and made some stone and vegetable flavors to confuse the old man whom after conceding the deceit, went out in the village yapping and claiming that he knows how to prepare the soup. This essay argued that this idea was wrong and the boys should not have done it. Contrary, the piece from school library journals claimed that the boys had been patient and obedient to the old man. They have been doing for him all the work without compliance. The reward they usually get from the old man is assault and abuse and being branded stupid and lazy. In this sense, the essay claimed that the boys did the right thing based on that situation. Their action was modified by the condition or the situation they were.
Also, there are some similarities in the objective of the authors of these easy as they present the story and argue about it. Both the essay views the story of the stone soup as a culturally based story with an intention to show the history of some particular food in China and how the ideas of such menu were invented. The culture of the Chinese dish is highly exposed in this book as both essays give a glimpse of what these stone soups later become in the Chinese dishes. However, there is some difference in the manner in which the culture is express on the two essays. The articles by the library journal look at this issue as an innovation enhances by the continuity of doing one thing repetitively. The boys are who are branded as nice but lazy by the old fisherman are reported in this essay as have been doing this procedure on many occasions. Though they didn’t have any intention of using it as a trick, they had been mixing these components for some time. Contrary, the essay in the Macgrey-Hill reader claims that this is an invention by accident. Though the two articles argue that this invention has had an impact in China since the recipe of egg drop stone soup is now well known in China.
Both articles give the similar setting of the story. In both essays, the story is based on the Chinese country. The two articles claim the setting of the scene of the stone soup is on one river in china. The Chinese tradition is one of the major themes that come out clearly on both essays. The Chinese culture mostly their prefer recipe for Egg Drop Stone Soup is also portrayed. However, in an article by the library journal, the author does not clearly explain the rich cultural history of Chinese food that is depicted in the piece by McGraw-hill reader.
In conclusion, some of the Chinese traditional dishes have good history as described by the two essays. The assay has similarities on how the egg drop stone soup which is currently well known in China came to be. The article presents some significant similarities on the themes portrayed in the story. The essays also show similarities on the traits of the characters in this book. However, there exists a difference on how this issue is handled in both essays. One article describes the characters as funny while another piece portrays them as good. The stingy fisherman is displayed as non-appreciative individual with some malicious character. He is also displayed as a person with low intelligence and one who is easy to dupe.
Muth, Jon J. Stone soup. Scholastic Inc., 2003.
Navon, David. “Resources—A theoretical soup stone?.” Psychological review 91.2 (1984): 216.