Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.15 AVERAGE
4.15 AVERAGE
emotional
sad
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
It's hard to know where to start with this epic Civil War era tale.
First of all, this book is problematic at times. It's very pro-antebellum south and can be extremely racist, which was very uncomfortable and rage-inducing to read. It's very apparent that these were the views the author had, even though the book was written 60 years after the Civil War ended. Unfortunately, even now, in 2025, there are people that still have these views. These views did make me question how I would rate this book and if I could truly enjoy it.
But there is much more to this book. There are a lot of very complex characters in this book. Probably none more so than the main character Scarlett O'Hara. Scarlett is a character easy to hate, she's selfish, conceited, greedy, manipulative, and that's just to start. But she's also determined, ambitious, and strong. I do love a book with a questionable FMC.
While there are a lot of characters in this book, most are fleshed out and have both good and bad characteristics.
The settings are well-descibed so you can easily imagine them. And it was interesting to read about Atlanta in its early days and through the wars.
Overall, I really enjoyed this book, spending time with the characters and the range of emotions it took me on. This one will stay with me for a long time.
Although I read this a very long time ago, I hav put it on my list to read again sometime this summer.
Let me start with a disclaimer: I know there are whole parts of Gone With the Wind, even the foundation of the plot itself, that are problematic. There are depictions of slavery as a harmless, even celebrated institution (especially by the slaves themselves); and there are characters that made my stomach turn with how generalized (and frankly, racist) they are (Mammy being first and foremost). So, I don't go into this review with the blinders on, pretending there's nothing wrong with this book.
However.
I have always been someone who values character development over plot. You give me a headstrong, determined, angry female main character who comes into her own and learns to grow from the consequences of her own misdoings? You've got me. Give me a morally grey love interest, playing cat and mouse? I'm there. Give me a character living life her own way until she realizes that her money and will isn't enough, that she craves more? I'm obsessed.
There is a reason this book is on the banned list, but there's also a very good reason it is considered a classic. I loved the writing, the story was so haunting, and the end--like many great books--has left be speechless and not a little bereft, nearly ready to open it back up and start from the beginning.
(Considering this is 1500 pages, that won't be happening for a while. But you catch my drift.)
However.
I have always been someone who values character development over plot. You give me a headstrong, determined, angry female main character who comes into her own and learns to grow from the consequences of her own misdoings? You've got me. Give me a morally grey love interest, playing cat and mouse? I'm there. Give me a character living life her own way until she realizes that her money and will isn't enough, that she craves more? I'm obsessed.
There is a reason this book is on the banned list, but there's also a very good reason it is considered a classic. I loved the writing, the story was so haunting, and the end--like many great books--has left be speechless and not a little bereft, nearly ready to open it back up and start from the beginning.
(Considering this is 1500 pages, that won't be happening for a while. But you catch my drift.)
I just reread this book for our Great Books book club (note that we don't read just Great Books, but like to include Pulitzer/National Book Award/etc. selections so that we can include a greater diversity of voices) and this is still one of my favorite books. I first read "Gone With the Wind" in Middle School, if I remember correctly. While there are new insights or, perhaps, different takes to be gleaned now that I'm almost 30 years older than when I first read the book, it still crackles with life. Margaret Mitchell had a real knack for capturing dialog and painting vivid scenes and characters.
One good friend reread "GWTW" recently and said that the racist attitudes made the entire work nearly unlikeable (to paraphrase), which is quite different from her earlier opinion of the book as a whole. It's true that depictions of both enslaved and free blacks in the novel smack of minstrelsy and are unquestionably racist. However, I think that the attitude depicted was a true representation of many white folks' attitudes during/after the Civil War and in the 1920s and 30s when the novel was written. That does not make it any easier to read those sections, but I do not think it lessens the work as a whole. With a few exceptions where we dip into Melanie's or Beau's (or a few others') heads for a few moments, the story is told from Scarlett's point of view, although in third person.
Instead of continuing my lengthy opinions on the work, I'll include the discussion questions that I cobbled together using various sources, including a visit to the Margaret Mitchell museum in Atlanta (small, but interesting).
1. In her youth, Margaret Mitchell played with gender roles; for much of her early life, she dressed in boys clothing and went by the name “Jimmy.” She also rebelled against her mother, who was an active suffragette and leading citizen of Atlanta, committing various outrageous acts as a flapper. How do these biographical elements manifest in the book?
2. Although “GWTW” is set between just before the Civil War through Reconstruction, how much do the novel and its characters actually represent the Jazz Age (following WW1 and the 1918 flu pandemic that killed her mother) during which the novel was written?
3. In Gone with the Wind, Mitchell depicts several Southern female stereotypes—especially that of the helpless, passive, and sometimes silly woman, such as Scarlett’s sisters, Aunt Pittypat, and Ashley’s sister, India Wilkes—and then undermines them by delimiting their roles. Some critics argue that Scarlett is a traditional heroine who escapes the limits of her role and is forced to expand her horizons. Do you agree with this viewpoint? Who is/are the heroines in “GWTW?” Do you find it interesting that men generally aren’t depicted as heroes in this book?
4. Gloria Steinem proposed that Scarlett O’Hara was a victim, not a feminist. Given historical context, each character’s innate traits, and their relationship with their husband(s), do you consider not only Scarlett O’Hara, but also Ellen O’Hara and Melanie Wilkes feminists?
5. Some critics believe that Scarlett represents the South, both “Old” and “New;” Scarlett changes throughout the novel, which parallel the changes that take place in the South. Do you agree with this proposition?
6. As a child, Margaret Mitchell “sat on the bony knees of veterans and the fat slippery laps of great aunts and heard them talk” about the Civil War. What do you think of how Mitchell, a Southerner from a family that fought and survived the Civil War, depicted the war?
7. Many readers and critics argue that “GWTW” depicts a racist and patriarchal attitude towards slaves. Margaret Mitchell’s attitude was actually different in real life. Why might she have decided to depict slavery in this manner?
8. Mammy, for example, looks down upon field slaves early in the novel and later upon “trashy free issue” blacks. What do you think of the class demarcations and how they change throughout the course of the novel?
9. As Scarlett is approaching Ashley for advice on how to raise money for the additional taxes on Tara, she describes him as follows: “God intended him to sit in a great house, talking with pleasant people, playing the piano and writing things which sounded beautiful and made no sense whatsoever.” However, it isn’t until the end of the novel that she sees her love for Ashley as a fantasy.
So was her love for him ever real? Does she transfer her love to Rhett, or did she actually love Rhett all along? Alternately, is Scarlett what Rhett describes as a typical Southerner: “But it’s in one’s blood. Southerners can never resist a losing cause.” Has Rhett taken on Ashley’s place as a typical Southern male?
10. Were you surprised at how closely the movie adaptation mirrors the book (some dialogue is word-for-word and costumes match Mitchell’s descriptions) and how the movie departed from the book in other cases?
One good friend reread "GWTW" recently and said that the racist attitudes made the entire work nearly unlikeable (to paraphrase), which is quite different from her earlier opinion of the book as a whole. It's true that depictions of both enslaved and free blacks in the novel smack of minstrelsy and are unquestionably racist. However, I think that the attitude depicted was a true representation of many white folks' attitudes during/after the Civil War and in the 1920s and 30s when the novel was written. That does not make it any easier to read those sections, but I do not think it lessens the work as a whole. With a few exceptions where we dip into Melanie's or Beau's (or a few others') heads for a few moments, the story is told from Scarlett's point of view, although in third person.
Instead of continuing my lengthy opinions on the work, I'll include the discussion questions that I cobbled together using various sources, including a visit to the Margaret Mitchell museum in Atlanta (small, but interesting).
1. In her youth, Margaret Mitchell played with gender roles; for much of her early life, she dressed in boys clothing and went by the name “Jimmy.” She also rebelled against her mother, who was an active suffragette and leading citizen of Atlanta, committing various outrageous acts as a flapper. How do these biographical elements manifest in the book?
2. Although “GWTW” is set between just before the Civil War through Reconstruction, how much do the novel and its characters actually represent the Jazz Age (following WW1 and the 1918 flu pandemic that killed her mother) during which the novel was written?
3. In Gone with the Wind, Mitchell depicts several Southern female stereotypes—especially that of the helpless, passive, and sometimes silly woman, such as Scarlett’s sisters, Aunt Pittypat, and Ashley’s sister, India Wilkes—and then undermines them by delimiting their roles. Some critics argue that Scarlett is a traditional heroine who escapes the limits of her role and is forced to expand her horizons. Do you agree with this viewpoint? Who is/are the heroines in “GWTW?” Do you find it interesting that men generally aren’t depicted as heroes in this book?
4. Gloria Steinem proposed that Scarlett O’Hara was a victim, not a feminist. Given historical context, each character’s innate traits, and their relationship with their husband(s), do you consider not only Scarlett O’Hara, but also Ellen O’Hara and Melanie Wilkes feminists?
5. Some critics believe that Scarlett represents the South, both “Old” and “New;” Scarlett changes throughout the novel, which parallel the changes that take place in the South. Do you agree with this proposition?
6. As a child, Margaret Mitchell “sat on the bony knees of veterans and the fat slippery laps of great aunts and heard them talk” about the Civil War. What do you think of how Mitchell, a Southerner from a family that fought and survived the Civil War, depicted the war?
7. Many readers and critics argue that “GWTW” depicts a racist and patriarchal attitude towards slaves. Margaret Mitchell’s attitude was actually different in real life. Why might she have decided to depict slavery in this manner?
8. Mammy, for example, looks down upon field slaves early in the novel and later upon “trashy free issue” blacks. What do you think of the class demarcations and how they change throughout the course of the novel?
9. As Scarlett is approaching Ashley for advice on how to raise money for the additional taxes on Tara, she describes him as follows: “God intended him to sit in a great house, talking with pleasant people, playing the piano and writing things which sounded beautiful and made no sense whatsoever.” However, it isn’t until the end of the novel that she sees her love for Ashley as a fantasy.
So was her love for him ever real? Does she transfer her love to Rhett, or did she actually love Rhett all along? Alternately, is Scarlett what Rhett describes as a typical Southerner: “But it’s in one’s blood. Southerners can never resist a losing cause.” Has Rhett taken on Ashley’s place as a typical Southern male?
10. Were you surprised at how closely the movie adaptation mirrors the book (some dialogue is word-for-word and costumes match Mitchell’s descriptions) and how the movie departed from the book in other cases?
Well, this was an old fashioned saga if ever there was one. However, I'm not sure if I'm cut out for old fashioned sagas. The span of the book was a little too broad for my liking; and the agenda about the injured South and loss of the old ways was too sweeping. I also think that my sensibilities are too modern to lose myself in a story where the woman has to be managed and put in her place. Taming of the Shrew, anyone?
But I'm glad I read it.
Except for Melly (the great lady) I kind of had a love / hate thing going on with the characters. At first I liked Scarlett - even though she was shallow and selfish, she still did the right thing (grumbling all the way), and there's a strength in her that I admire. But she became so grasping and mean. And Rhett was awesome - witty and sarcastic, and in his own way completely constant. But he could also be mean and spiteful. And the way that they tried to manipulate each other! It leaves a bitter aftertaste.
But I'm glad I read it.
Except for Melly (the great lady) I kind of had a love / hate thing going on with the characters. At first I liked Scarlett - even though she was shallow and selfish, she still did the right thing (grumbling all the way), and there's a strength in her that I admire. But she became so grasping and mean. And Rhett was awesome - witty and sarcastic, and in his own way completely constant. But he could also be mean and spiteful. And the way that they tried to manipulate each other! It leaves a bitter aftertaste.
i really tried but i just couldn't do keep listening to her drone on
It has been a loooooooooong 13 days. I decided this summer I was going to tackle three big ones...Gone with the Wind, Lonesome Dove and Roots. Reading Gone with the Wind by Margaret Mitchell changed that game plan. Now, I'm going to admit two things...1. I've never seen the movie (but I plan to now that I've read it) and 2. I really, really didn't like this book. Scarlett O'Hara is supposed to be a strong heroine who pulls herself up by the bootstraps following many setbacks as a result of the Civil War. I'm just going to say it...I found her fickle, ruthless and quite frankly heinous. I couldn't even feel sorry for her, I found her so despicable. I appreciated Rhett Butler because he called her out on all her crap, but he was no angel either. And, I think this story spanning eleven years could have been told in half the pages. I'll stop now.
I was really surprised that I loved this book as much as I did. I remember trying to read it back in high school and not getting very far, mainly because I couldn't stand Scarlett. I still can't stand Scarlett, but I'm older and more empathetic now, so I could at least understand where she was coming from.
What made the book for me were the characters. Mitchell did an outstanding job of creating characters that were believable and three-dimensional. There is no "hero;" everyone has their flaws, but you only love the characters more for them.
But the main reason this book got five stars rather than four was Rhett Butler. He's one of the most complex, enjoyable-to-read about characters I've ever encountered in fiction.
What made the book for me were the characters. Mitchell did an outstanding job of creating characters that were believable and three-dimensional. There is no "hero;" everyone has their flaws, but you only love the characters more for them.
But the main reason this book got five stars rather than four was Rhett Butler. He's one of the most complex, enjoyable-to-read about characters I've ever encountered in fiction.