Take a photo of a barcode or cover
livelynjl's review
2.0
DNF at chapter three, I love the idea, but the execution needs work. See below for full review:
I am torn on this one. It is an awkward piece to rate because it is written in the voice of a preteen, so the writing comes off as juvenile. But as it is from the PoV of a young girl, that does make sense. The downside is it makes the writing at time stilted, awkward, and an unpleasant read for adults. Which wouldn't be a downside except that adults are the target audience and, as an adult, I couldn't finish the book.
There is potential for this as a YA book for ages 10-14, which was the audience for the original Little Women as well, but the swearing and use of slurs (which were, in the author's defense, used with literary purpose) makes it currently unsuitable for that demographic. I found it an awkward but interesting read, and I am curious how accurate it is as a historical fiction piece for 1970s St. Louis.
I would love to see it rewritten, either as a YA book by removing the unsuitable-for-young-people parts, or for adults by improving on the writing. As an aside, Mom being called "Mooms" was a little awkward and I couldn't find anything online explaining that it was relevant to 1970s St. Louis. I think it might be the author's attempt at the equivalent of Little Women's "Marmee," which was relevant to the time period of the original book.
I am torn on this one. It is an awkward piece to rate because it is written in the voice of a preteen, so the writing comes off as juvenile. But as it is from the PoV of a young girl, that does make sense. The downside is it makes the writing at time stilted, awkward, and an unpleasant read for adults. Which wouldn't be a downside except that adults are the target audience and, as an adult, I couldn't finish the book.
There is potential for this as a YA book for ages 10-14, which was the audience for the original Little Women as well, but the swearing and use of slurs (which were, in the author's defense, used with literary purpose) makes it currently unsuitable for that demographic. I found it an awkward but interesting read, and I am curious how accurate it is as a historical fiction piece for 1970s St. Louis.
I would love to see it rewritten, either as a YA book by removing the unsuitable-for-young-people parts, or for adults by improving on the writing. As an aside, Mom being called "Mooms" was a little awkward and I couldn't find anything online explaining that it was relevant to 1970s St. Louis. I think it might be the author's attempt at the equivalent of Little Women's "Marmee," which was relevant to the time period of the original book.
dianehatz_author's review
4.0
St. Louis Sisters tells the story of the March family from the viewpoint of Jo, one of the teenage daughters and an aspiring writer. There are sibling rivalries, babies, come-of-age antics, prison time, and general craziness one can find in many families.
The novel is a slice-of-life kind of story. It's not an action-packed thriller but more like an intricate tapestry that you need time to look at and admire. Berg's writing is rich and full of depth while also being irreverent and real.
I haven't read the original book it's based on, so I'm not sure how closely or loosely this storyline follows it, but if you like finding yourself immersed in moments of time with other people's lives, this might be the book for you.
The novel is a slice-of-life kind of story. It's not an action-packed thriller but more like an intricate tapestry that you need time to look at and admire. Berg's writing is rich and full of depth while also being irreverent and real.
I haven't read the original book it's based on, so I'm not sure how closely or loosely this storyline follows it, but if you like finding yourself immersed in moments of time with other people's lives, this might be the book for you.