Scan barcode
A review by xavia
Conversion by Katherine Howe
4.0
We read this book for book club.
I was interested to start reading this book, because every review I saw was either one star or five stars, and there didn't seem to be a lot of in-between. I always find books like that interesting. What is it about a book that makes it so polarizing?
In this case, I can see why people either love it or hate it. The book is trying to present itself as smarter than it is, and I can definitely see how that would instantly put some people off. But in my case, I found the books story interesting enough that I didn't care that it had delusions of grandeur. I genuinely liked the story, and for me, that's all that matters.
Now, this book has two storylines, that follow along similar paths. Drawing a comparison between The Salem Witch Trials and the Conversion Disorder that befell 16 girls in Le Roy, New York in 2012. That is where I think the book tries to be smarter than it is. While there are some parallels you can draw between the two situations, at their core, they are not the same. Not even as they are presented in the book.
For starters, it is made clear to us, early on, that Abigail Williams is lying. She isn't sick, she doesn't have distemper, she isn't bespelled. She just doesn't want to work, and resents the daughter of the house for her easier workload. In contrast, I don't think Clara was faking her initial attack. From the descriptions we received of the first three patients, none of them sound like the types who would fake that kind of illness.
As both stories progress, I do think hysteria plays a big part in both stories. Mob mentality, stress, a desire to be like the popular girls. Even in the Salem portion of the book, we see that Ann Putnam, who knows they're lying, started to believe she was afflicted by witch craft. So the parallels there I'm fine with. But outside of that, these situations feel extremely different.
I did find myself frustrated with this book at times. Particularly when they started throwing out random diagnoses with no proof and only the thinnest of lines connecting them, and while that appears to be how the actual case of the Le Roy girls progressed, that doesn't make me feel better. The people's desire to believe sensationalism over science also pricked me wrong, because let's face it, even in our world today, people would rather believe a celebrity has all the answers than that science might be right.
As for the ending, I have some ideas about what I think actually happened. I do think the book leaves it up for interpretation though, so I don't want to influence anyone's thoughts. Nothing angers me more than someone asking me what I think happened, and then dismissing me out of hand because that's not what they think happened, so I'll leave you to form your own opinions.
The long and the short of it it this. I think this book gets more hate than it deserves. Is it the greatest piece of literature ever? No. Was it an enjoyable compelling read? Yes. It was a dumb fun time, and it actually taught me a couple of really interesting things. Which is more than I can say for The Crucible, a play I had forgotten even existed before this book went out of its way to remind me.
I think it's worth a read.
I was interested to start reading this book, because every review I saw was either one star or five stars, and there didn't seem to be a lot of in-between. I always find books like that interesting. What is it about a book that makes it so polarizing?
In this case, I can see why people either love it or hate it. The book is trying to present itself as smarter than it is, and I can definitely see how that would instantly put some people off. But in my case, I found the books story interesting enough that I didn't care that it had delusions of grandeur. I genuinely liked the story, and for me, that's all that matters.
Now, this book has two storylines, that follow along similar paths. Drawing a comparison between The Salem Witch Trials and the Conversion Disorder that befell 16 girls in Le Roy, New York in 2012. That is where I think the book tries to be smarter than it is. While there are some parallels you can draw between the two situations, at their core, they are not the same. Not even as they are presented in the book.
For starters, it is made clear to us, early on, that Abigail Williams is lying. She isn't sick, she doesn't have distemper, she isn't bespelled. She just doesn't want to work, and resents the daughter of the house for her easier workload. In contrast, I don't think Clara was faking her initial attack. From the descriptions we received of the first three patients, none of them sound like the types who would fake that kind of illness.
As both stories progress, I do think hysteria plays a big part in both stories. Mob mentality, stress, a desire to be like the popular girls. Even in the Salem portion of the book, we see that Ann Putnam, who knows they're lying, started to believe she was afflicted by witch craft. So the parallels there I'm fine with. But outside of that, these situations feel extremely different.
I did find myself frustrated with this book at times. Particularly when they started throwing out random diagnoses with no proof and only the thinnest of lines connecting them, and while that appears to be how the actual case of the Le Roy girls progressed, that doesn't make me feel better. The people's desire to believe sensationalism over science also pricked me wrong, because let's face it, even in our world today, people would rather believe a celebrity has all the answers than that science might be right.
As for the ending, I have some ideas about what I think actually happened. I do think the book leaves it up for interpretation though, so I don't want to influence anyone's thoughts. Nothing angers me more than someone asking me what I think happened, and then dismissing me out of hand because that's not what they think happened, so I'll leave you to form your own opinions.
The long and the short of it it this. I think this book gets more hate than it deserves. Is it the greatest piece of literature ever? No. Was it an enjoyable compelling read? Yes. It was a dumb fun time, and it actually taught me a couple of really interesting things. Which is more than I can say for The Crucible, a play I had forgotten even existed before this book went out of its way to remind me.
I think it's worth a read.