Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.62 AVERAGE
3.62 AVERAGE
I thought this was an excellent choice for a lively book club discussion. Very well written and insightful from the different sides of the controversy that the characters face. One of my favorite lines: "They say when you watch the movies, you root for the cowboys, but when you read the history, you root for the Indians."
The concept — a blind jury accidentally picking a Muslim to design a 9/11 memorial, and the shitshow that followed — was a good one.
Ultimately, though, the book needed stronger characters to stand on. Or, perhaps, fewer of them. It was an enjoyable enough read, but I found myself disappointed by the attempts to explain the motivations of the intolerant. They just felt really incomplete in comparison to the protagonists, which defeated a bit of what intrigued me about the book in the first place. It's not really fair to examine America's political soul if you're going to dismiss the FOXNews crowd's perspective as unworthy of serious reflection.
Ultimately, though, the book needed stronger characters to stand on. Or, perhaps, fewer of them. It was an enjoyable enough read, but I found myself disappointed by the attempts to explain the motivations of the intolerant. They just felt really incomplete in comparison to the protagonists, which defeated a bit of what intrigued me about the book in the first place. It's not really fair to examine America's political soul if you're going to dismiss the FOXNews crowd's perspective as unworthy of serious reflection.
What a wonderful, interesting and thought-provoking book. Ms. Waldman does a tremendous job in this work of showing us multiple sides and layers of this issue and the divisiveness that this all causes. While it was written in 2011 (ten years after the 9/11 attack), the emotions and the anger and fear that are boiling in the American public remind me of present day.
Well done. I will never look at memorials in the same way again.
Well done. I will never look at memorials in the same way again.
I would have given this a 3.5. It was really well written, but at times it felt like Waldman was stretching it a bit at being literary. It could have been shorter and better had she focused on fewer "main" characters, since she devoted a lot of time at the beginning to character development which was unnecessary for a number of characters. There also were times where it felt a bit like being beaten over the head with morality lessons, but I did like that she explored a variety of ideas about race, religion, etc., including some that I would never admit to feeling, but that are thoughts I have had nevertheless.
The premise is so intriguing: What would happen if a nation-wide contest to design the 9/11 Memorial was held and the blind judging panel picked a Muslim winner?
SPOILERS AHOY AHOY
Amy Waldman's story unravels realistically. The media churns out drivel and instigates more controversy. The panel collapse into themselves with over-thinking and uber-PC dialogue. The winner broods and employs lawyers to get a fair shake at the prestige of honoring those that were killed. The racists rally. The liberals worry. It's a very complicated affair.
So, you'd think the book would be more interesting to me, right? I wonder if I would have thought differently had I skipped the author's biography (she's a well seasoned reporter), but for me the writing was as flat as a newscast. The characters were mostly stereotypes. We maintained a comfortable surface level with them: her brow was furrowed like rain on glass; he stewed in his kitchen in a red robe. That sort of thing. And I just wanted to get into the brains of some of the key characters and talk about the complex feelings they experienced instead of what shoes they chose to wear.
I should disclose here that I was in the minority of our book group. Most of us liked it. Praised it. Got behind the characters and seriously connected to one side or other of the causes.
I did not. I felt like the POV should have focused on three characters (Claire, the winner and the (edit) Bangladeshi immigrant). That way the repercussions of the events would have hit home harder. I feel like whoever gave the author the advice 'writing is reporting with adjectives' (because that's very much how I felt it was written)should have expounded a little further.
Amy Waldman has talent for writing. Don't let what I wrote here make you think otherwise. I'm just going to give her a few books before I try her again.
SPOILERS AHOY AHOY
Amy Waldman's story unravels realistically. The media churns out drivel and instigates more controversy. The panel collapse into themselves with over-thinking and uber-PC dialogue. The winner broods and employs lawyers to get a fair shake at the prestige of honoring those that were killed. The racists rally. The liberals worry. It's a very complicated affair.
So, you'd think the book would be more interesting to me, right? I wonder if I would have thought differently had I skipped the author's biography (she's a well seasoned reporter), but for me the writing was as flat as a newscast. The characters were mostly stereotypes. We maintained a comfortable surface level with them: her brow was furrowed like rain on glass; he stewed in his kitchen in a red robe. That sort of thing. And I just wanted to get into the brains of some of the key characters and talk about the complex feelings they experienced instead of what shoes they chose to wear.
I should disclose here that I was in the minority of our book group. Most of us liked it. Praised it. Got behind the characters and seriously connected to one side or other of the causes.
I did not. I felt like the POV should have focused on three characters (Claire, the winner and the (edit) Bangladeshi immigrant). That way the repercussions of the events would have hit home harder. I feel like whoever gave the author the advice 'writing is reporting with adjectives' (because that's very much how I felt it was written)should have expounded a little further.
Amy Waldman has talent for writing. Don't let what I wrote here make you think otherwise. I'm just going to give her a few books before I try her again.
I like Waldman's style of writing and I think she's pretty spot-on about human nature; we often are compelled to embrace pettiness, selfishness and bitterness instead of favoring forgiveness, tolerance and compromise (yeah, if you're looking for an uplifting read, this ain't it) - even when we know we're choosing unwisely and want to be different.
I would have given this more stars if one of the main characters hadn't done a 180 in the middle of the novel. I never really understood her motivation, so her change of opinion rang very false to me.
I would have given this more stars if one of the main characters hadn't done a 180 in the middle of the novel. I never really understood her motivation, so her change of opinion rang very false to me.
Loved this book. Compelling story. Made my eye water at the end!
So well done! Each character's motivations are so well developed. Each of them is right - and wrong at the same time. The double meaning of the title is not lost.
Interesting premise, great ending, but what was between put me off this book. Mostly the author's writing style. It was meandering, characters morphing every other chapter, but the worst of all was the language. It was as if the author wrote her manuscript and then went back and used the thesaurus feature in Microsoft Word to find big words to replace ones easily understood. I found it off-putting by page 100. It was after that, I started keeping track of words that were unnecessarily difficult. There were over 30. There were MANY more big words that I knew the meanings of but maybe lots of people wouldn't.
Examples: doyenne, ablution, allees, expiated, juddering, talismanic enrobement, disputatious, seraphic reproach, brio, patois, specious, diaspora, dhimmitude, unctuous, contrapuntal.
Then, there were the ridiculous sentences.
Examples:
Jealousy clings to love's underside like bats to a bridge.
Their words sesemed to be layered like the complicated somewhat mystifying Middle Eastern dip the chef had put out on the buffet table.
Really a decent book, thought-provoking,sentimental ending...but hard to get beyond all the gobbly de gook. :-)
Examples: doyenne, ablution, allees, expiated, juddering, talismanic enrobement, disputatious, seraphic reproach, brio, patois, specious, diaspora, dhimmitude, unctuous, contrapuntal.
Then, there were the ridiculous sentences.
Examples:
Jealousy clings to love's underside like bats to a bridge.
Their words sesemed to be layered like the complicated somewhat mystifying Middle Eastern dip the chef had put out on the buffet table.
Really a decent book, thought-provoking,sentimental ending...but hard to get beyond all the gobbly de gook. :-)