Feel free to pick and choose — you don’t need to run every question in one sitting, though you will want time at the end to discuss the rules on the wall of the cider house, and who wrote them, and who was supposed to follow them, and whether either of those things ever made any sense.

––––––––––––––––––––
JOHN IRVING AND THE NOVEL: THE AUTHOR WHO ADAPTED HIMSELF
––––––––––––––––––––

  1. Irving’s Most Political Novel
    The Cider House Rules is John Irving’s most explicitly political work — a 560-page argument for abortion rights embedded in a Dickensian coming-of-age story set in rural Maine. Irving spent years researching the novel, consulting with physicians and reading historical accounts of illegal abortion, and he has been explicit about his intent: the novel is an argument, not merely a story. Did the novel feel like fiction in service of a political argument, or like a political argument that also happened to be a compelling story? And does the film, which Irving adapted himself, feel more or less committed to the argument?
  2. The Author as Screenwriter: Irving Adapts Irving
    Irving wrote the screenplay himself — a choice that gave him control over which elements of his 560-page novel survived adaptation but also required him to make cuts he found genuinely painful. He has said the compression was the hardest part: he had to identify which scenes were essential to the argument and which were essential to the character study, and those were sometimes different. Did the film feel like an author’s considered distillation of his own material? And are there choices Irving made in the screenplay that feel like they served the film at the expense of the novel, or vice versa?
  3. Dickens and the Orphan Novel
    Irving’s novel explicitly invokes Dickens — the orphanage setting, the large cast of institutionally-shaped characters, the social critique embedded in melodrama, the Dickensian names (Wilbur Larch, Homer Wells). This is both affectionate homage and deliberate formal choice: Dickens’s novels were themselves arguments about social conditions dressed as entertainment. Did the film honor this Dickensian quality — the warmth and the darkness coexisting, the social argument carried by character rather than polemic? And does Irving’s Dickensian ambition work better on the page, where he has 560 pages to build a world, or in the film’s compression?
  4. The Rules on the Wall: The Novel’s Central Metaphor
    The cider house rules — posted on the wall of the apple-pickers’ bunkhouse by the orchard owners, listing regulations for people who never read them, in a language some cannot read — are the novel’s central metaphor for all rules that are made by people who aren’t subject to them, for the people who are. Homer Wells eventually takes those rules down and writes new ones. Did each version make this metaphor feel sufficiently central and sufficiently precise? And which version made the final act of taking the rules down feel most like the culmination of everything the story had been building toward?

––––––––––––––––––––
CHARACTERS: THE DOCTOR, THE BOY, AND THE WORLD THEY INHABIT
––––––––––––––––––––

  1. Casting Call from St. Cloud’s
    When Michael Caine appeared as Dr. Wilbur Larch — brilliant, compassionate, addicted to ether, providing abortions in a Maine orphanage in the 1940s with the specific dignity of a man who has decided that his conscience is a better guide than the law — did your mental image of Irving’s Larch say yes, exactly, or hold something in reserve? Same question for Tobey Maguire as Homer Wells, Charlize Theron as Candy, Paul Rudd as Wally, and Michael Clarke Duncan as Mr. Rose. Who felt most like the character Irving built, and who became the screen version?
  2. Larch: The Saint Who Breaks the Law
    Wilbur Larch is the novel’s great creation — a man of enormous moral seriousness who has concluded, through medical experience and ethical reasoning, that performing abortions is the right thing to do regardless of its legal status, and who lives with this conclusion with neither self-righteousness nor self-pity. Michael Caine won the Academy Award for the role. Did Caine find Larch’s specific quality — the dignity, the loneliness, the love for Homer, the ether — as fully as Irving’s prose? And which version made Larch’s moral position feel most like a genuinely examined conviction rather than a convenient narrative stance?
  3. Homer Wells: The Boy Who Must Find His Own Rules
    Homer’s arc — from orphan shaped by Larch’s world, to young man resisting Larch’s vocation, to adult who finally understands why Larch was right — is the novel’s bildungsroman spine. Tobey Maguire plays him with earnest openness. The novel’s Homer has more interiority, more duration, more of the specific texture of becoming over decades. Did the film give Homer’s transformation sufficient time and depth to feel earned? And which version made Homer’s final decision — to return to St. Cloud’s and take Larch’s place — feel most like a genuine act of self-determination rather than narrative inevitability?
  4. Rose and His Daughter: The Story the Film Almost Sets Aside
    The apple-picking community — led by Michael Clarke Duncan’s Mr. Rose, whose relationship with his daughter Rose Rose is the novel’s most devastating subplot — is where the abstract argument about abortion becomes most concrete and most personal. Irving has said this subplot is the novel’s moral heart: the situation that makes Homer understand what Larch understood. Did the film give Mr. Rose and Rose Rose enough time for their story to carry the weight Irving gives it? And which version made the connection between Rose Rose’s situation and the novel’s argument feel most clearly and most painfully precise?
  5. Candy and Wally: The Love Story That Grounds the World
    Candy and Wally — and Homer’s love for Candy, and the years of waiting and complication that follow — are the novel’s most conventionally novelistic material: a love story that requires time to feel real. The film compresses this substantially. Did the film give the Homer-Candy relationship enough development to make it feel like a genuine emotional anchor rather than a plot mechanism? And does the novel’s extended treatment of this relationship — the years, the seasons, the specific texture of deferred desire — make the story’s emotional core feel more or less substantial than the film’s version?

––––––––––––––––––––
HALLSTRÖM’S FILM: WARMTH, COMPRESSION, AND THE ARGUMENT THAT SURVIVES
––––––––––––––––––––

  1. Lasse Hallström: The Swedish Director’s American Story
    Hallström — whose My Life as a Dog and What’s Eating Gilbert Grape are also coming-of-age stories with specific regional textures — brings a quality of warm visual attention to Irving’s Maine world. Did the film feel like a director who genuinely inhabited the world he was depicting, or like a European filmmaker’s slightly beautified version of rural New England? And does Hallström’s characteristic warmth serve Irving’s novel — which is also warm despite its difficult subject — or occasionally soften something Irving left deliberately rough?
  2. The Compression Problem: 560 Pages to 126 Minutes
    Irving compressed one of his longest novels into a two-hour film, and the choices he made — which decades to skip, which characters to reduce, which subplots to cut — are all visible to anyone who has read the novel. Were there specific compressions you felt most acutely? And is there a case that Irving’s compressions actually identified the novel’s essential argument more clearly than the novel’s 560-page version — that the film is the novel’s best and most efficient restatement of what it most needs to say?
  3. Rachel Portman’s Score: The Warmth the Film Needs
    Portman’s score is melodic, autumnal, suffused with the specific quality of New England seasons — music that gives the film its emotional temperature and that helps the compression work by sustaining feeling across narrative jumps. Did the score feel like the right tonal equivalent of Irving’s prose warmth, or did it occasionally provide emotional reassurance that the film’s story should have earned more directly?

––––––––––––––––––––
THE ARGUMENT: WHAT EACH VERSION MAKES OF ITS POLITICS
––––––––––––––––––––

  1. The Pro-Choice Argument: Does Fiction Change Minds?
    Irving has been explicit that The Cider House Rules is a pro-choice novel — that it is designed to make readers feel the human reality of what abortion law means for specific people in specific situations. Did either version feel like it was genuinely engaging in argument, or like it was preaching to the converted? And is there a version of this story that could reach someone who disagrees with its politics — or is the novel’s moral vision so thoroughly embedded in its sympathies that it can only persuade people already sympathetic to its position?
  2. Rules Made for Others: The Novel’s Broadest Argument
    The cider house rules metaphor extends beyond abortion to any system of rules made by people not subject to them for people who must live by them. Did each version make this broader argument feel as present as the specific argument about abortion rights? And is the broader argument — about who makes rules and for whom — the more durable element of the story, or does the specific historical and political context of abortion in mid-twentieth-century America give the story its most urgent particularity?
  3. Larch’s Logic: The Ethics of Civil Disobedience
    Larch’s position is a classic argument for civil disobedience: he believes the law is wrong, he has concluded through his own ethical reasoning that he is right, and he acts accordingly. Did each version make Larch’s moral reasoning feel like a genuinely examined position rather than a convenient authorial stance? And do you find his logic convincing — that a doctor’s conscience is a sufficient guide when the law is unjust — or does either version raise doubts the story doesn’t fully address?

––––––––––––––––––––
PAGE VS. SCREEN: WHOSE MAINE WAS MORE REAL?
––––––––––––––––––––

  1. The Novel’s Duration: What Time Gives You
    Irving’s novel spans decades—Homer’s childhood, young adulthood, and early middle age—and the accumulation of seasons, relationships, and small changes builds the world that makes its argument feel real rather than schematic. The film compresses this to a few years. Did the compression make Homer’s world feel less inhabited, or did the film find ways to suggest duration without depicting it? Name one element of the novel’s time that the film’s compression cost the story most.
  2. Scenes the Film Staged Better Than the Novel Described
    Name one moment where Hallström’s direction gave you something Irving’s prose couldn’t: a visual rendering of the Maine landscape, a performance from Caine or Maguire, a scene whose staging made the argument visible rather than legible. Which cinematic moment felt like the ideal version of what this story needed?
  3. The Ether and the Orphanage: Atmosphere in Two Mediums
    The specific atmosphere of St. Cloud’s — the orphanage’s smell of ether, the particular quality of its institutional life, the world Larch has created inside the walls — is something Irving builds in prose over many pages and something Hallström has to establish in the film’s first twenty minutes. Which version made St. Cloud’s feel most like a real place that produces real people? And is the orphanage’s specific atmosphere — the ether, the books Larch reads aloud, the particular shape of its community — something prose can render more fully than cinema?

––––––––––––––––––––
OVERALL ADAPTATION VERDICT: WHOSE RULES SURVIVED?
––––––––––––––––––––

  1. Irving as His Own Best Adapter
    The Cider House Rules is unusual in this project because its author adapted it, making deliberate choices to compress and reshape his own material. Does the result feel like the best possible film version of the novel, or like an author who was too close to his material to make the cuts a more ruthless outside adapter might have made? And is the film ultimately a more or less honest version of what Irving was trying to do in the novel?
  2. What Each Version Does Best
    One gold star for the novel, one for the film. They don’t have to be for the same thing. (Suggested categories: Best Political Argument Embedded in a Dickensian Coming-of-Age Story; Best Performance of a Man Whose Moral Seriousness Is Also His Loneliness; Best Use of Seasonal Landscape as Emotional Architecture; Best Central Metaphor for Rules Made by People Not Subject to Them; Best Adaptation of a Political Novel That Keeps the Politics and the Story Simultaneously Alive.)
  3. Recommend: Read, Watch, or Both?
    If a friend had time for only one version — novel or film — which would you send them to first, and why? Would your answer change if they want the full Dickensian world-building? If they want Caine’s performance above all? If they’re interested in the political argument and want the version that makes it most clearly? And is there a case that the film is the more efficient delivery of the argument — that Irving’s 126-minute compression of his own 560 pages is actually the cleaner version of what he most wanted to say?
  4. Order of Operations
    Novel then film, film then novel, or just one and done? Does reading the novel first mean you watch the film mourning the decades of duration and the Rose Rose subplot’s fuller development? Does watching the film first give you Caine’s Larch inhabiting the novel’s pages, which either enriches or constrains Irving’s more internally rendered portrait? And is there an argument that the novel and film are genuinely complementary — the novel’s world-building alongside the film’s argument-efficiency giving you something richer than either alone?
  5. Final Club Gut Check
    On the dial from “perfect page-to-screen translation” to “an author compressing his own large political novel into a warm, efficient film that kept the argument but simplified the world,” where does The Cider House Rules land? And the question Irving keeps asking: who has the right to make the rules, and who is asked to live by them — and did either version make you feel that question with the urgency it deserves, or did the story’s warmth occasionally make it easier to sit with than the question itself warrants?

Use, tweak, or mash these questions as needed — your club, your rules.