I can really tell if a book is one I want to read by looking at the one-star reviews on Amazon. For example, I read the one-star reviews for 'Twilight,' which said the main character is a Mary Sue and the book was poorly written. I read 'Twilight' and the main character was a Mary Sue and the book was poorly written. I read the one-star reviews for Guernsey which said this was a little piece of feel-good fluff. "Sounds great!" I said and bought it.
Characters are made to suffer. That's what makes them interesting and that's what shows us what they're made of. Some people look at this philosophy and think I'm against happy endings, but that's not the case. The character just has to suffer for it - they have to earn it. The author's Mary Sue can't just stumble through the story, loved by everyone, worried she'll be made to suffer but be saved from it at every turn, and then be handed a happy ending for it. That is not satisfying.
But the people in this book suffered and suffered more than I would wish on anyone. They had their property taken away from them, were starved, and had to sit helplessly by and see the imported workers mistreated. I can't imagine the loss of control they had to endure, but they still managed to be proactive and keep their spirits high in the face of it. They found a way to sneak a good meal or two and occasionally have a luxury like real soap. They found some small avenue of escape through the book club and formed ties to each other that helped them get through the occupation. No one would step in to save them, so they had to do the best they could to save each other. Yes, they deserved a happy ending after everything they went through.
I was a fan of the book being entirely of letters and telegrams (and the one journal entry that was kind of cheating at the end, but it was so much fun to read that I'll forgive it). There were two big pluses to that; you can have the first person voice but not be restricted by it because everyone has their turn as the narrator, and the love story is secondary where it would otherwise have been the main plot. If the story had been told conventionally, we would have had to suffer through all the shy encounters and near kisses and analyzing them instead of getting them in summery. Through the letters the book could focus more on what Elizabeth was like and what will happen to Kit.
So Guernsey as a bit of feel good fluff? Well, I did feel pretty darn good by the end of it, but I wouldn't say it's fluff. The characters worked hard and took risks for their happy endings and I didn't find myself shutting my brain off to read it. So it's decidedly not fluff.
I'm half way through my re-read of Maurice and it's even better the second time! I adore that book.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Ok, I realize I am abyssmally late on writing on Guernsey and the Potato Peels but I just finished it on Beckee's coaxing and she wanted Feedback.
I love the characters in the book, they must be based on actual people because they are so consistently complex (at least until the last 30 pages or so). Second, I love that the story is based on the occupation of the Channel Islands, I don't think that a lot of people ever realize that the channel islands were occupied and were not liberated until after D-Day. Third I love that the concept of Juliet's story was forming around Elizabeth, just as the letters were around Elizabeth. So Elizabeth was the focus of both stories although she was an absent character, she was the glue in the story. Also, I am glad that the author did not miraculously bring Elizabeth back. I kept thinking, you know what would ruin this story, if Elizabeth miraculously survived. The character and therefore book would be ruined.
Overall, I felt that the love story between Dawsey and Juliet was superfluous at best, distracting at worst. I thing it was a very Micheal Crighton way to end things. I understand that the author was dying and needed to figure out a way to end the book, but it just seemed... fluffy, like she could figure out a better way to end it, or that she had another ending in mind, but didn't have the time or energy to write it. Isn't that what the co-author was brought in for? Robert Jordan would never do something like that.
Post a Comment