Thanks so much for the explanation! Will definitely be checking out the book to see the differences between the two.

@@MoviesWithMitchell I recommend the book a lot (it won a nobel prize), it's a masterpiece but it's not an easy read for sure. Reymont wrote it in 1904. In literature, peasants have often been portrayed as passive, "not much different than cattle" or their life close to nature was idealized and romanticized. So Reymont, who himself had a peasant background and spent part of his life in the countryside, wanted to show the true character of the peasants. Everyone is dependent on other people, subjected to tradition, but also has their own desires. Land is not only a material good. It is sacred, given from God, gives life and a sense of identity. "Love comes and goes, but the land stays." "You are like this sacred land to me, you have awakened me to life." People who owned it and managed it well were respected and had a higher position over others (like Boryna/Father). People who lost their land had to beg and live by the grace of other people. I interpret the ending this way: At the end Antek gives up his own desires by submitting to the will of the group. He returns to his father's land and takes his place as a community leader. Jagna was the loneliest person in the village despite the attention she received. She could not reconcile her own desires with the conditions of village life, where land and work are the most important things. She was too sensitive, detached from hard reality, and passively followed her feelings. She was too different from the rest for which she she exiled. I don't think Jagna was portrayed as entitled. Reymont wasn't judgemental about characters he created, it was more about showing how individuality can't win in such circumstances. As tragic as it is for Jagna, it's understandable from peasants's point of viev. It's a life full of hadships and dependance from others, if you can't get along with the group, you're out. Thanks for the review!