Review: not so much...
Rating: 1 out of 5
Date: 05 27, 2012
One star for great editing (very few errors) and the interesting use of tribal provenance.The rest:There are over 30 characters included in this tale.  Each is described in minute detail every time we encounter them in the book.  Many are cardboard cutouts of each other due to the lack of original adjectives author uses to describe.  Strong, muscular, almond or almond shaped, round, stocky, straight black hair, broad, are all adjectives used multiple times to describe women characters.  Only the main character (petite), Frances (mused) and Ruth (red haired beauty) are (seeming) unique women.  The men are weak character wise (Henry, Basil, Peter all snivel at some point) .  Each scene is described with such minutiae it is like walking in hip deep boring mud.  There is just a real lack of originality with regards to the descriptions (thus, making them just a bunch of gobbing goop to skim over after a while) .  How many times DOES a reader need to be told how much Emily loves her home (and all the details)?  Apparently, MORE than 4.  Problem with that? Nothing changed with each time we have to read it.  How many times can we hear about Langford's soft hairs?  More than 3.  How many times do we need to read that Frances is mused?  At least 3.  How many instances can an author use a running scene wherein the character has to strip off and put on layers of clothing?  4.  How many times can an author use snotty running from nose in a scene in a book.  At least 2 times.  May is described no less than 6 times (but nothing changed in her appearance) .  Freida at least 4 times.  Oona is described at least as many times and related to Freida, May, and Agnes.  It went on and on with the detailed descriptions of mud, frost, sky, each room in each residence (as well as the complete inventory of all the plant life in yard) .  The reason so much of this is not good is due to fact that, aside from the ONE shrub encounter, none of the minutiae drove the plot, the scene, or developed either of those to a furthering degree either.  It was a painful read.  I felt as if I was sitting in the first week of first semester writing course for freshmen.  Remedial at best.  It took me LESS time to read "Game of Thrones" which has over 800 pages.The plot was original idea to me.  But much was not presented while story was going through paces.  Likely pushed aside for all the gobbing detail that did not further plot.  Instead, we get a summary near the end about key stuff that happened that we never knew about (but would have been great plot devices IN the tale).  The blanket swatch was something that would have served better were it shown as it happened, not TOLD to us later.  There are a number of things hinted at in book that never lead anywhere (well, to another book...blech) .I do not recommend this book for reasons stated above.  I again got sucked in by rave reviews.  Further study of the reviews shows that ALL BUT ONE appear to be friends and /or family that did NOT disclose the nature of relationship in review.  Partiality is questionable in such instances.  Sorry - but it is.Cbristine