Frank Thompson’s 2004 novel “The Alamo” is a Texan-patriotic, war-sucks novel.  There were just enough pages of tactics to make you feel smart.  I did tear up when Sam Houston was glared at by William Travis’ now orphaned son.  As a native Texan, the main thing that sticks out compared to all the other mythical accounts of the Alamo was the Davy Crockett love.  Crockett is an existential Jesus-Ghandi figure.  He doesn’t want to fight, has to fight, and makes the Mexican army swoon with peaceful thoughts when he plays his fiddle.  My favorite dialogue occurs between Joe and Sam, Travis’ and Bowie’s slaves.  At the bottom of a well, Sam introduces the world to the dark side of the Alamo freedom fighters.  Their freedom is for whites only.  The story ends with the deaths of two novel-only characters.  Their gasping breaths are over the top dialogue, but Thompson hammers home the “War is hell” message.

John Lee Hancock’s 2004 film “The Alamo” came before the novelization.  The novel follows the big plot almost exactly.  However, I read the novel first and enjoyed it much more.  Obviously, the novel was able to cram in more story.  Without any scenes showing the inept leadership of Fannin, the movie has a hard time painting Travis as a great leader.  The novel strategically foils these two so that you really are rooting for Travis.  But, how does the movie do as a movie?  The dialogue is a little wooden, especially Quaid’s, and the mythical characters don’t look as good with skin on.  The only time I cared about the characters I was watching was Joe and Sam’s well scene and the scenes with Bowie and his sister-in-law.  A husband lamenting the loss of his wife is pretty sad.

The take away: Mythical characters translate better to the page.  War sucks.  And more radically, freedom fighters may not want freedom for everybody.  Remember the Alamo.