Tuck Everlasting
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Tuck Everlasting | |
 Cover to the 25th anniversary edition |
|
| Author | NATALIE BABBIT |
|---|---|
| Country | United States |
| Language | English |
| Series | n/a |
| Subject(s) | Immortality |
| Genre(s) | Children's book, Fantasy |
| Publisher | Farrar, Straus and Giroux (BYR) |
| Publication date | 1975 |
| Media type | |
| Pages | 140 pages |
Tuck Everlasting is a fantasy children's novel by Natalie Babbitt, published in 1975. The book explores the concept of immortality and the reasons why it might not be as beneficial as it appears.
Contents |
[edit] Plot
Winnifred "Winnie" Foster, fed up with her restrictive, high-class life, flees into a nearby forest where she meets the Tuck family. She finds that by drinking from a magic spring, the Tucks have gained eternal life. As she spends time with the Tucks, she learns that immortality has cursed them with stagnation and isolation. She is offered some of the spring's water by Jesse, the Tuck family's younger son, but eventually refuses. The epilogue reveals that she has grown old and died.
[edit] Awards
The novel was selected as an ALA Notable Book as well as being included on the Horn Book Magazine Fanfare List. It has received numerous awards since its publication including the Janusz Korczak Medal and the 1976 Christopher Award for Best Book for Young People. It was also included in Anita Silvey's book The 100 Best Books For Children. It has 140 pages in the book (Including the Epilogue and Prologue)..
[edit] Adaptations
The novel has been adapted to film twice. The first was released in 1981 and distributed by One Pass Media. The second was by Disney in 2002. It was directed by Jay Russell and starred Alexis Bledel as Winnie, Jonathan Jackson as Jesse and William Hurt and Sissy Spacek as his parents. It has received mixed, but generally favorable reviews and currently holds a 61% rating at Rotten Tomatoes. The New York Post praised it as "handsomely crafted and well-acted".[1] It grossed $19,161,999 at the domestic box office, but it did not receive a wide-release in foreign territories.
[edit] References
- ^ Lou Lumineck. "New York Post film review".
