You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.77 AVERAGE
3.77 AVERAGE
The story has kinda stuck with me. Found it a little frustrating the way he talked about 'the Murderer' without giving slightly more context. It would have been more enjoyable understanding that 'the Murderer' felt like a murderer, rather than......
I hung in there, and was rewarded.
I hung in there, and was rewarded.
I loved The Book Thief (a favourite read of mine) but found Bridge of Clay hard to get into this book.
I liked Penny Dunbar and I liked her story, and I liked Matthew telling that story. It felt it was his to tell: his mother’s story and, therefore, how he and his brothers came to be. But, when it came to Matthew telling Clay’s story (the whole point of the book), it just didn’t read right for me. It was all about Clay but not Clay’s voice. It was Matthew reporting what did and did not happened to Clay and Carey.
I thought mostly throughout the book that I didn’t really like Clay or Matthew. But the problem was that I didn’t feel like I got to know either of them very well. Clay was written about by Matthew; Matthew largely only wrote about Clay. It was only until the very last chapter, the epilogue, that we hear from Matthew about his (Clayless) life that I realised I do like him when he’s telling his own story for what it is. I was interested in hearing how things turned out for him and his other (not Clay) brothers.
I would have enjoyed this book more had it been Matthew telling the story from his point of view rather than writing Clay’s down for him, or even, hearing from Clay himself. Though, of course, that’s just me as one reader and I’m nowhere to be telling the author how to write his books!
I liked Penny Dunbar and I liked her story, and I liked Matthew telling that story. It felt it was his to tell: his mother’s story and, therefore, how he and his brothers came to be. But, when it came to Matthew telling Clay’s story (the whole point of the book), it just didn’t read right for me. It was all about Clay but not Clay’s voice. It was Matthew reporting what did and did not happened to Clay and Carey.
I thought mostly throughout the book that I didn’t really like Clay or Matthew. But the problem was that I didn’t feel like I got to know either of them very well. Clay was written about by Matthew; Matthew largely only wrote about Clay. It was only until the very last chapter, the epilogue, that we hear from Matthew about his (Clayless) life that I realised I do like him when he’s telling his own story for what it is. I was interested in hearing how things turned out for him and his other (not Clay) brothers.
I would have enjoyed this book more had it been Matthew telling the story from his point of view rather than writing Clay’s down for him, or even, hearing from Clay himself. Though, of course, that’s just me as one reader and I’m nowhere to be telling the author how to write his books!
“she’d treated knowing him like some kind of privilege — and she was right to, I’m glad that she did”
What can I even say about this book? At first, I really didn't like it. The writing style threw me off and made it hard to get into. But as it went along, I got it. I got what the author was going for -- a feeling. It's a beautiful story of life and brothers and strong women in weak men's worlds. The Dunbar boys have left their mark on me.
I have mixed feelings about Bridge of Clay. Much like Zusak's The Book Thief, the novel has a distinctive writing style and storytelling voice. It definitely took me awhile to get into the rhythm of that particular style so I admittedly found this book to be quite the slog at first. I eventually adjusted to the stylistic cadence of the novel and appreciated how the book inventively shifted back and forth in time as it relayed the story of the five Dunbar brothers and their parents, Penelope and Michael. Bridge of Clay is ultimately a portrait of the Dunbar family and especially of the titular brother Clay. While it's a lovely story, I didn't find it quite compelling or big enough to warrant the 400+ page length. I picked this book up because I loved The Book Thief, but I didn't find this as satisfying or meaty as that novel (though really that's a tall order).
Hmmmm. Maybe I will re-read this book at a later date and think, “Wow! I love this book for all the reasons stated in the reviews here, and more” but on my first read I did not love it and it certainly did not bring me to tears. I love the quirky Dunbar boys, BUT the execution of this novel made it somewhat a struggle for me to finish.
The order of the book caused the book to be confusing at points but I liked how the names of each part added onto to the previous ones. Due to this, I understand the Dunbar’s father being nicknamed the murderer but not the significance of the bridge. I honestly thought for someone to be nicknamed the murderer they would have had to kill someone and not just leave.
I loved the characters descriptions especially Clay’s.
I loved the characters descriptions especially Clay’s.
I absolutely loved this book. So much.
It is long, and admittedly a little confusing at the beginning because there are 5 brothers to keep track of, plus it skips around in time a little bit.
5 boys, growing up in Australia, telling the story of their lives and the lives of their parents. It is so good. So good. I loved it.
I cried.
Recommend!
It is long, and admittedly a little confusing at the beginning because there are 5 brothers to keep track of, plus it skips around in time a little bit.
5 boys, growing up in Australia, telling the story of their lives and the lives of their parents. It is so good. So good. I loved it.
I cried.
Recommend!
3.5
If you can get through the first third of the book, which was confusing and somewhat overwritten in terms of lyrical language and syntax, what unfolds is a beautiful story of love, loss and family. I found this book to be best read with little interruption because it still required a tremendous amount of focus on my part. While many sections were absolutely gorgeously written, others fell into the same confused, hard to follow prose from the beginning. Given the mixed reviews, I am glad I finished it, but what could have been a masterpiece just seemed too overworked at times.
If you can get through the first third of the book, which was confusing and somewhat overwritten in terms of lyrical language and syntax, what unfolds is a beautiful story of love, loss and family. I found this book to be best read with little interruption because it still required a tremendous amount of focus on my part. While many sections were absolutely gorgeously written, others fell into the same confused, hard to follow prose from the beginning. Given the mixed reviews, I am glad I finished it, but what could have been a masterpiece just seemed too overworked at times.