You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
How did this trashy fan fiction win the Pulitzer Prize?
Did the Pulitzer board read a different book than I did?
Can I trust the Pulitzer Prize ever again after reading this garbage?
Why did Australian born Geraldine Brooks feel the need to ride the coat tails of Louisa Alcott in order to tell a lame story about the United States Civil War?
Why does “progressive” Mr. March treat animals better than women? Why did Brooks think Mr. March having a romantic relationship with a slave and cheating on his wife was a good idea? Is Brooks trying to butcher a character that is not even hers?
How am I supposed to read with a straight face that “poverty requires aptitude” and “we lived without ostentation” on the same exact page as we learn that they had a “housekeeper…chef…valet…and…nursery maid.” Does Mr. March know what poverty is?
Does Brooks understand how patronizing it is when she writes, “I don’t believe I have ever been so tired as I was those evenings, not even in the aftermath of battle. Teaching the Negroes required a vast expenditure of physical energy, as I found that if I did not talk with a high degree of animation and an almost theatrical amount of expression, I could not hold their attention”? Is she aware of how racist this sounds? And is she seriously claiming that teaching these students was harder than a civil war battle? Has any combat veteran of any war ever claimed this?
Did anyone else want to chuck the book across the room when Grace said, “He loves, perhaps, an idea of me: Africa, liberated”?
Did anyone laugh out loud when they read, “According to this, your husband’s bowels have moved eighteen times in the last thirty hours. This is incompatible with any hope for recovery”? Is this real science, Brooks? If not (it’s not), did you consider other ways of just saying “he’s dying”? Is this really necessary?
Was anything in this book really necessary?
1 star.
Did the Pulitzer board read a different book than I did?
Can I trust the Pulitzer Prize ever again after reading this garbage?
Why did Australian born Geraldine Brooks feel the need to ride the coat tails of Louisa Alcott in order to tell a lame story about the United States Civil War?
Why does “progressive” Mr. March treat animals better than women? Why did Brooks think Mr. March having a romantic relationship with a slave and cheating on his wife was a good idea? Is Brooks trying to butcher a character that is not even hers?
How am I supposed to read with a straight face that “poverty requires aptitude” and “we lived without ostentation” on the same exact page as we learn that they had a “housekeeper…chef…valet…and…nursery maid.” Does Mr. March know what poverty is?
Does Brooks understand how patronizing it is when she writes, “I don’t believe I have ever been so tired as I was those evenings, not even in the aftermath of battle. Teaching the Negroes required a vast expenditure of physical energy, as I found that if I did not talk with a high degree of animation and an almost theatrical amount of expression, I could not hold their attention”? Is she aware of how racist this sounds? And is she seriously claiming that teaching these students was harder than a civil war battle? Has any combat veteran of any war ever claimed this?
Did anyone else want to chuck the book across the room when Grace said, “He loves, perhaps, an idea of me: Africa, liberated”?
Did anyone laugh out loud when they read, “According to this, your husband’s bowels have moved eighteen times in the last thirty hours. This is incompatible with any hope for recovery”? Is this real science, Brooks? If not (it’s not), did you consider other ways of just saying “he’s dying”? Is this really necessary?
Was anything in this book really necessary?
1 star.