Scan barcode
lyrareadsbooks's review against another edition
3.0
It’s an interesting exercise to read this early work after reading the absolutely masterful LaRose. There are hints of brilliance, but much is left semi-formed. Uneven, but worth reading.
gabriellesantiago's review against another edition
emotional
reflective
sad
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
lurdesabruscato's review against another edition
3.0
I really wanted to LOVE The Plague of Doves, a tale of tragedies and triumphs in a small North Dakota town and its neighboring Native American reservation. Told by several narrators, from a precocious "half white, half Indian" 10-year old to a world-weary doctor/town historian with eerie links to both communities, it weaves a decades-old mystery with modern blights. Erdrich's language is gripping and many of her characters stay with you. But the book's era-jumping and thin connections between chapters and characters made for more confusion than clarity.
jb_anderson's review against another edition
3.0
I decided to read this before reading "The Round House" and it was a bit of a disappointment. It took a while to get into and to keep track of characters, but then I read "The Round House"...
kaymarieplz's review against another edition
3.0
For me the book started out slow. Then the individual stories varied, some good and I couldn't stop reading, others I felt bored by. So many characters I'm still not 100% sure how they are completely woven together.
arielamandah's review against another edition
5.0
Loving this book (p 169).
Erdich's prose is deft and careful - when trying to think of a way to describe her writing, a short passge from Erdrich's description of Sister Mary Anita comes to mind:
Delicate. Sculpted.
This is the type of book I feel I should read more than once. It's cyclical. Referential. Just flipping back to find a passage or two, and reading what came before, makes me want to stop and start over. Dive back into what I didn't have context for then, and do now (169 pages later).
A passage from early on about salamanders:
Finished with the book.
Beautiful, stunning, complex, touching. Great contemporary literature.
Was surprised to realize, as I neared the end of the book that I recognized a chapter from a New Yorker story I'd read a few years back. It was almost a de ja vu experience, "I swear I've been here before..."
Erdich's prose is deft and careful - when trying to think of a way to describe her writing, a short passge from Erdrich's description of Sister Mary Anita comes to mind:
When she swept the air in a geature meant to include all of us in her opening remarks, her hands fixed our gazes. They were the opposite of her face. Her hands were beautiful, white as milk glass, th efingers straight and tapered. They were the hands in the hallway print, of Mary underneath the cross. They were the hands of the apostles, cast in plastic and lit at night on the tops of television sets. Praying hands.
Delicate. Sculpted.
This is the type of book I feel I should read more than once. It's cyclical. Referential. Just flipping back to find a passage or two, and reading what came before, makes me want to stop and start over. Dive back into what I didn't have context for then, and do now (169 pages later).
A passage from early on about salamanders:
The next morning, I got up before Joseph and found that th esalamander had revived and tried to crawl away, unraveling the piece of entrails that Joseph had pinned into the soft wood of the dresser. The trail of its insides stretched to the windowsill, where it had maanged to die with its nose pressed against the screen. That day, at the funeral, Joseph buried the dissection kit beside the salamander. He sigher a lot as we covered the plump little graying body, but he did not speak and neither did I. It was months before he dug up the dissection kid, and a year might have passed before he used it on something else.
Finished with the book.
Beautiful, stunning, complex, touching. Great contemporary literature.
Was surprised to realize, as I neared the end of the book that I recognized a chapter from a New Yorker story I'd read a few years back. It was almost a de ja vu experience, "I swear I've been here before..."
hedread's review against another edition
5.0
The story centers around a murder of a family in Pluto, ND. Told in a variety of voices, the story reveals Ojibwe and white interactions, historical injustice, violence, religious extremism, family, and love. A master storyteller, Louise Erdrich is one of my favorite authors.
lchamberlin97's review against another edition
4.0
As per usual, I teetered a lot between giving this book a four and a five. I settled for four not because of anything specific, but because after giving myself a little space from it I found myself remembering other books (that were on a comparable literary level) more fondly. Is that completely fair? I don't know. Because I truly really enjoyed reading this and was intrigued by it on many different levels. I just find myself wanting to save that "five star" for my absolute favorites.
Let's start with the characters, which (like all books I loved) were the main focus of the book. The STORIES. Beautifully unique and interwoven in subtle yet not too subtle ways. My favorite was Evelyn; as a girl in the first section, she was just so amusing - Erdrich captured the child's voice so perfectly. Although, the whole part with how much she loved the nun was slightly confusing; I couldn't tell what kind of love this was or why it had happened or what it was supposed to mean. But that's okay - being tricky is what this book does best.
By "tricky" I mean that it makes you think: what is Erdrich really trying to say here, when you dig beneath the clearly biased narrators and look at the actual facts of the story?
That was particularly important during Marn's chapter, for obvious reasons to anyone who has read the book. Taking that section literally will spin you in circles - but to pick out the parts that actually happened versus the parts that SHE believed happened versus the parts that OTHER people believed is a bit of work. Actually, I'm really not sure. I'm not even sure if you're supposed to be sure, though I'm leaning toward no.
I thought it was interesting that, in the judge's story about "C," he names her as C until the very end. Why? I thought it was going to turn out to be someone we already knew by name. (Shoot, now I'm questioning if we already knew her by name.) This is a genuine question I have about interpretation; I feel like in a book like this, it was done for a specific reason but different people can have different ideas about what that reason is.
THAT is why I liked this book.
It was exactly what I was in the mood for: an awesome complex story that keeps you on your toes not because of thrilling suspense but because of curiosity - because of the mystery of who is who and what is what, not what will happen.
Let's start with the characters, which (like all books I loved) were the main focus of the book. The STORIES. Beautifully unique and interwoven in subtle yet not too subtle ways. My favorite was Evelyn; as a girl in the first section, she was just so amusing - Erdrich captured the child's voice so perfectly. Although, the whole part with how much she loved the nun was slightly confusing; I couldn't tell what kind of love this was or why it had happened or what it was supposed to mean. But that's okay - being tricky is what this book does best.
By "tricky" I mean that it makes you think: what is Erdrich really trying to say here, when you dig beneath the clearly biased narrators and look at the actual facts of the story?
That was particularly important during Marn's chapter, for obvious reasons to anyone who has read the book. Taking that section literally will spin you in circles - but to pick out the parts that actually happened versus the parts that SHE believed happened versus the parts that OTHER people believed is a bit of work. Actually, I'm really not sure. I'm not even sure if you're supposed to be sure, though I'm leaning toward no.
I thought it was interesting that, in the judge's story about "C," he names her as C until the very end. Why? I thought it was going to turn out to be someone we already knew by name. (Shoot, now I'm questioning if we already knew her by name.) This is a genuine question I have about interpretation; I feel like in a book like this, it was done for a specific reason but different people can have different ideas about what that reason is.
THAT is why I liked this book.
It was exactly what I was in the mood for: an awesome complex story that keeps you on your toes not because of thrilling suspense but because of curiosity - because of the mystery of who is who and what is what, not what will happen.