Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.74 AVERAGE
3.74 AVERAGE
I saw this book on a list of best historical fiction and thought it would be a nice deviation from my usual reads. I know very little about the history of Australia, so I figured this would probably prompt me to go learn more. I did learn a fair amount, but even so, I can't say I was overly impressed by this novel. Though I respect what it was trying to do and the way in which it was written, I ultimately felt like the narrative progressed unevenly, so for that reason, this book gets 3 stars from me.
WRITING: Carey's prose is interesting but admittedly a little hard to read. It is meant to mimic the dialect and education level of a poor criminal, so there are a lot of run-on sentences and abbreviations, as well as a lack of punctuation (mostly commas and quotation marks). While I appreciate the intention, I do think the style made it harder for me to sink into the story, and at times, I was unsure of exactly what was going on.
There were also little things that bothered me but were probably stylistic choices rather than missteps. For one, Carey repeats the word "adjectival" a lot - no doubt as a stand in for a curse word. Still, the repetition was distracting. Carey also chooses to include the n-word without censorship, and while I know it's an imitation of 19th century racism and writing style, I couldn't help but be deeply uncomfortable.
PLOT: The plot of this book basically recounts the life of Ned Kelly from birth to age 25 (when he is executed). Ned Kelly is historically a famous bushranger who lived in 19th century Australia and is akin to a Robin Hood figure, and Carey's story seeks to recount his life and crimes from the perspective of Kelly writing to his daughter.
I really enjoyed the subject of this book and the way Carey showcased the desperation and poverty of 19th century Australian life. Characters would struggle over and over again to try to get to a place of stability, but because of the corrupt politics and so-called "Squattocracy," it was near impossible for people to make an honest living. I think Carey did a good job capturing that desperation and the unrelenting hardship, and by the end, I was fully sympathetic to Kelly's causes.
I also think Carey did a good job constructing a strong relationship between Kelly and his mother. Kelly is incredibly protective of his mother and the two remain devoted to one another, even when things get rocky. I liked that Kelly struggled with the fact that his mother kept allowing horrible men into her life but forbid her son from interfering. It made the relationship more interesting and the question of survival more complex, and it seemed to me that Kelly's love for his mother was the only unshakeable thing about this book.
I also saw a lot of value in avoiding a lot of courtroom or violent scenes. Carey is not interested in writing out a dramatic trial or detailing the day to day experience of a 3 years hard labor sentence; though Kelly is jailed a few times, he never describes what the experience of a trial or a long stint in prison is like. There is always a time skip so the focus remains on his life as a farmer or as a bushranger. Part of me thinks this is an interesting way for Carey to make Kelly feel more real (less mythical), and I'm glad we don't dwell on things that have a tendency to be dramatized for shock value. But another part of me has to admit that it made for some really tedious scenes, and some parts of the book felt a little slow.
But my main critique has to do with the racism, sexism, and anti-cross-dressing attitudes (which elicit some homophobia). Though I understand that 19th century attitudes towards non-white people, queer people, and women in general weren't the best, most of the -isms in this book felt random or inserted for some gritty sense of historical accuracy. Intellectually, I understand that these moments serve a purpose, but they did dampen my enjoyment of this book. They didn't feel like they were inserted as a strong critique of white settler colonialism, and besides, I can't quite figure out what Carey is trying to do with masculinity in this novel. Maybe I have to think about it a little more, but for the time being, let's just say that it all feels icky.
CHARACTERS: There are a lot of characters in this book so I'll only discuss our narrator (Ned Kelly).
Carey's Ned Kelly is made out to be a sympathetic do-gooder whose only goal is to live in peace and make enough money on his farm to live a quiet life. Despite all his criminal activity, Kelly has a fairly strong sense of honor and seems to be one of the only men who has a problem with women being treated poorly (particularly his mother). As a result, he did feel like he was an honest man who just got dragged into conflict against his will.
I'm not entirely sure if we're meant to read Kelly as 100% sympathetic or if the idealistic portrait is supposed to prompt us to view him as an unreliable narrator. Maybe this ambiguity is good because it makes us think a little more about the narrative, but if I'm honest, I wasn't very interested in figuring out if Kelly was lying. Personally, the idealism made Kelly feel a little dull, and I wanted him to either have a little more grey morality or for the unreliableness to be pushed a bit more.
TL;DR: True History of the Kelly Gang is admirable for the way it seeks to capture the voice of an iconic historical figure while also demystifying his struggle with law enforcement. However, the racism, sexism, and homophobia combined with some tedious pacing prevented this book from being wholly enjoyable.
WRITING: Carey's prose is interesting but admittedly a little hard to read. It is meant to mimic the dialect and education level of a poor criminal, so there are a lot of run-on sentences and abbreviations, as well as a lack of punctuation (mostly commas and quotation marks). While I appreciate the intention, I do think the style made it harder for me to sink into the story, and at times, I was unsure of exactly what was going on.
There were also little things that bothered me but were probably stylistic choices rather than missteps. For one, Carey repeats the word "adjectival" a lot - no doubt as a stand in for a curse word. Still, the repetition was distracting. Carey also chooses to include the n-word without censorship, and while I know it's an imitation of 19th century racism and writing style, I couldn't help but be deeply uncomfortable.
PLOT: The plot of this book basically recounts the life of Ned Kelly from birth to age 25 (when he is executed). Ned Kelly is historically a famous bushranger who lived in 19th century Australia and is akin to a Robin Hood figure, and Carey's story seeks to recount his life and crimes from the perspective of Kelly writing to his daughter.
I really enjoyed the subject of this book and the way Carey showcased the desperation and poverty of 19th century Australian life. Characters would struggle over and over again to try to get to a place of stability, but because of the corrupt politics and so-called "Squattocracy," it was near impossible for people to make an honest living. I think Carey did a good job capturing that desperation and the unrelenting hardship, and by the end, I was fully sympathetic to Kelly's causes.
I also think Carey did a good job constructing a strong relationship between Kelly and his mother. Kelly is incredibly protective of his mother and the two remain devoted to one another, even when things get rocky. I liked that Kelly struggled with the fact that his mother kept allowing horrible men into her life but forbid her son from interfering. It made the relationship more interesting and the question of survival more complex, and it seemed to me that Kelly's love for his mother was the only unshakeable thing about this book.
I also saw a lot of value in avoiding a lot of courtroom or violent scenes. Carey is not interested in writing out a dramatic trial or detailing the day to day experience of a 3 years hard labor sentence; though Kelly is jailed a few times, he never describes what the experience of a trial or a long stint in prison is like. There is always a time skip so the focus remains on his life as a farmer or as a bushranger. Part of me thinks this is an interesting way for Carey to make Kelly feel more real (less mythical), and I'm glad we don't dwell on things that have a tendency to be dramatized for shock value. But another part of me has to admit that it made for some really tedious scenes, and some parts of the book felt a little slow.
But my main critique has to do with the racism, sexism, and anti-cross-dressing attitudes (which elicit some homophobia). Though I understand that 19th century attitudes towards non-white people, queer people, and women in general weren't the best, most of the -isms in this book felt random or inserted for some gritty sense of historical accuracy. Intellectually, I understand that these moments serve a purpose, but they did dampen my enjoyment of this book. They didn't feel like they were inserted as a strong critique of white settler colonialism, and besides, I can't quite figure out what Carey is trying to do with masculinity in this novel. Maybe I have to think about it a little more, but for the time being, let's just say that it all feels icky.
CHARACTERS: There are a lot of characters in this book so I'll only discuss our narrator (Ned Kelly).
Carey's Ned Kelly is made out to be a sympathetic do-gooder whose only goal is to live in peace and make enough money on his farm to live a quiet life. Despite all his criminal activity, Kelly has a fairly strong sense of honor and seems to be one of the only men who has a problem with women being treated poorly (particularly his mother). As a result, he did feel like he was an honest man who just got dragged into conflict against his will.
I'm not entirely sure if we're meant to read Kelly as 100% sympathetic or if the idealistic portrait is supposed to prompt us to view him as an unreliable narrator. Maybe this ambiguity is good because it makes us think a little more about the narrative, but if I'm honest, I wasn't very interested in figuring out if Kelly was lying. Personally, the idealism made Kelly feel a little dull, and I wanted him to either have a little more grey morality or for the unreliableness to be pushed a bit more.
TL;DR: True History of the Kelly Gang is admirable for the way it seeks to capture the voice of an iconic historical figure while also demystifying his struggle with law enforcement. However, the racism, sexism, and homophobia combined with some tedious pacing prevented this book from being wholly enjoyable.
This is one of the sweetest songs of self respect I've ever encountered. I'm admittedly enamored with Ned Kelly as one of the truest badasses of all time so it was great to hear the story from his perspective. I loved the style of the book and even though it was written in old Irish vernacular it was easy for me to get right into the rhythm.
I almost gave this 4 stars because of a brief section that didn't really seem to fit in with the rest of the plot but the rest of the novel was so unique and special that I'm still giving it 5. There were many lines and even entire sections that I underlined which I rarely do with novels. It's also rare for me to read a book more than once but I will definitely be rereading this one.
One of the coolest notes about the book is that it was inspired by the Jerilderie Letter, which was a 56 page letter written by Ned Kelly in 1879 in the same vernacular as this book. In the letter Kelly attempts to explain not only his situation but the story of an entire class of people. He unapologetically stands by his convictions and is not persuaded by lies about his self worth just because he is Irish and lives in poverty. I've read the letter and I must say Carey nailed it in carrying out Kelly's voice throughout the entirety of this novel. This book is funny, honorable, straightforward and a great story.
I almost gave this 4 stars because of a brief section that didn't really seem to fit in with the rest of the plot but the rest of the novel was so unique and special that I'm still giving it 5. There were many lines and even entire sections that I underlined which I rarely do with novels. It's also rare for me to read a book more than once but I will definitely be rereading this one.
One of the coolest notes about the book is that it was inspired by the Jerilderie Letter, which was a 56 page letter written by Ned Kelly in 1879 in the same vernacular as this book. In the letter Kelly attempts to explain not only his situation but the story of an entire class of people. He unapologetically stands by his convictions and is not persuaded by lies about his self worth just because he is Irish and lives in poverty. I've read the letter and I must say Carey nailed it in carrying out Kelly's voice throughout the entirety of this novel. This book is funny, honorable, straightforward and a great story.
I read this to complete a reading prompt for Australia. I preferred the take on KG by Peter Fitzsimmons.
Carey's imaginative twist on dealing with an Australian legend (or icon or somethng) is interesting. Kelly ended up being killed by law folks and this is presented as his confession. Fragments of found writing coupled with news bits and so on. It's a relentless journey for this Irishman, poor, discriminated against and misunderstood. Good read.
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Loveable characters:
Yes
adventurous
informative
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
It was interesting to listen to the narrator's Australian accent, but with only 3 hours to go, I decided I didn't care what happened to the gang after all! A whole lotta hiding and escaping over and over...
3.5
2001 Booker Winner
My reading goal this year is to read all of the Booker Winners from 2000-2025. This is 2001’s winner and it tells the true story of a young Irish man in Australia whose poverty and life circumstances turn him into an ‘outlaw’. The author paints a vivid picture of ‘frontier Australia’ and I found the history fascinating. Took me a while to get used to the whole book being written in the style of how the author imagines Ned Kelly would have spoken.
2001 Booker Winner
My reading goal this year is to read all of the Booker Winners from 2000-2025. This is 2001’s winner and it tells the true story of a young Irish man in Australia whose poverty and life circumstances turn him into an ‘outlaw’. The author paints a vivid picture of ‘frontier Australia’ and I found the history fascinating. Took me a while to get used to the whole book being written in the style of how the author imagines Ned Kelly would have spoken.
The style is very Cormac McCarthy (interspersed by newspaper reports) and works quite well. Unfortunately I sort of lost interest as the story ramped up; Kelly's upbringing in poverty and early years caught my attention in a much greater way than he last years as a full time outlaw. I don't know a huge amount about Australian history, and the stuff about the Land Act, squatters and police corruption was new to me.
adventurous
informative
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
I enjoyed that prose, characterisation was great! Really interesting time period to reflect upon.