The only Geraldine Brooks book I’ve liked is Year of Wonders. I am supposed to read Horse for a book club though, but now I’m not looking forward to it. People of the Book was a disappointment…

Anonymous wrote:Anyone read this recently? I liked the part that took place in the 1800s, but really felt like the modern-day story line fell flat. I felt like most of the interactions were forced to make a point, as opposed to having any real feeling or depth.

Curious to hear what others thought.

I just finished this book and really loved it, but i completely agree about the Theo/Jess storyline. There was no depth to it. I liked the book so much nonetheless that I wished it were twice as long; I wanted more story between the modern characters. And I wanted her to not have skipped over so many years of Jarrett's story either.

Anonymous wrote:

jsmith123 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone read this recently? I liked the part that took place in the 1800s, but really felt like the modern-day story line fell flat. I felt like most of the interactions were forced to make a point, as opposed to having any real feeling or depth.

Curious to hear what others thought.

This is my overall impression of Brooks as a writer—one-dimensional characters who are just there to advance an agenda. The thing is, I often agree with her agenda. If Horse is anti-racism, I’m all in. But these points could be made so much better by working them around complex characters and plotlines. I found People of the Book almost unreadable, for example. Brooks began as a journalist and she hasn’t learned the novelist’s skill of showing not telling.

Interesting that she started as a journalist. I love the point you made about showing vs. telling. I've had similar issues with other books/authors but never had anyone frame it that way.

I’m a journalist and showing rather than telling is a large part of the job. At the same time, I’ve enjoyed most of her books and haven’t had an issue with her character development. I haven’t had a chance to read Horse yet.

Maybe I phrased it incorrectly. What I meant was, she had a clear agenda about who was "good" and who was "bad" and the "why's" were aggressively obvious, to the point where I felt she was beating me over the head with it. A little subtlety would have gone a long way.

Anonymous wrote:I got about 30% into the book and stopped. I wanted to love this, but I never looked forward to reading it.

That's how I felt about "March." She has great story ideas with flat execution. "Caleb's Crossing" was pretty good though.

I got about 30% into the book and stopped. I wanted to love this, but I never looked forward to reading it.

jsmith123 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone read this recently? I liked the part that took place in the 1800s, but really felt like the modern-day story line fell flat. I felt like most of the interactions were forced to make a point, as opposed to having any real feeling or depth.

Curious to hear what others thought.

This is my overall impression of Brooks as a writer—one-dimensional characters who are just there to advance an agenda. The thing is, I often agree with her agenda. If Horse is anti-racism, I’m all in. But these points could be made so much better by working them around complex characters and plotlines. I found People of the Book almost unreadable, for example. Brooks began as a journalist and she hasn’t learned the novelist’s skill of showing not telling.

Interesting that she started as a journalist. I love the point you made about showing vs. telling. I've had similar issues with other books/authors but never had anyone frame it that way.

I’m a journalist and showing rather than telling is a large part of the job. At the same time, I’ve enjoyed most of her books and haven’t had an issue with her character development. I haven’t had a chance to read Horse yet.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone read this recently? I liked the part that took place in the 1800s, but really felt like the modern-day story line fell flat. I felt like most of the interactions were forced to make a point, as opposed to having any real feeling or depth.

Curious to hear what others thought.

This is my overall impression of Brooks as a writer—one-dimensional characters who are just there to advance an agenda. The thing is, I often agree with her agenda. If Horse is anti-racism, I’m all in. But these points could be made so much better by working them around complex characters and plotlines. I found People of the Book almost unreadable, for example. Brooks began as a journalist and she hasn’t learned the novelist’s skill of showing not telling.

Which characters/plotlines were one dimensional in People of the Book?

The only thing I didn't like about POTB was the ending. That felt contrived.

It’s been a while since I read it and I gave my copy away immediately, but as far as I can remember…. Most of all, the Christian mom, who was totally and unrealistically infantile and histrionic. The Muslim pederast (or whatever sexual misconduct he was into). The priest who actually saved the book in question, who was so many bad things I lost count (alcoholic, smelly, dumb, a few more I can’t remember, but it just never ended in service of Brooks’ point that he was in denial). I just kept rolling my eyes. This isn’t character development, it’s cartoons. I was so disappointed because I wanted to be enchanted with a book about books.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone read this recently? I liked the part that took place in the 1800s, but really felt like the modern-day story line fell flat. I felt like most of the interactions were forced to make a point, as opposed to having any real feeling or depth.

Curious to hear what others thought.

This is my overall impression of Brooks as a writer—one-dimensional characters who are just there to advance an agenda. The thing is, I often agree with her agenda. If Horse is anti-racism, I’m all in. But these points could be made so much better by working them around complex characters and plotlines. I found People of the Book almost unreadable, for example. Brooks began as a journalist and she hasn’t learned the novelist’s skill of showing not telling.

Which characters/plotlines were one dimensional in People of the Book?

The only thing I didn't like about POTB was the ending. That felt contrived.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone read this recently? I liked the part that took place in the 1800s, but really felt like the modern-day story line fell flat. I felt like most of the interactions were forced to make a point, as opposed to having any real feeling or depth.

Curious to hear what others thought.

This is my overall impression of Brooks as a writer—one-dimensional characters who are just there to advance an agenda. The thing is, I often agree with her agenda. If Horse is anti-racism, I’m all in. But these points could be made so much better by working them around complex characters and plotlines. I found People of the Book almost unreadable, for example. Brooks began as a journalist and she hasn’t learned the novelist’s skill of showing not telling.

Interesting that she started as a journalist. I love the point you made about showing vs. telling. I've had similar issues with other books/authors but never had anyone frame it that way.

Anonymous wrote:Anyone read this recently? I liked the part that took place in the 1800s, but really felt like the modern-day story line fell flat. I felt like most of the interactions were forced to make a point, as opposed to having any real feeling or depth.

Curious to hear what others thought.

This is my overall impression of Brooks as a writer—one-dimensional characters who are just there to advance an agenda. The thing is, I often agree with her agenda. If Horse is anti-racism, I’m all in. But these points could be made so much better by working them around complex characters and plotlines. I found People of the Book almost unreadable, for example. Brooks began as a journalist and she hasn’t learned the novelist’s skill of showing not telling.

The modern day storyline was so cringeworthy. Ugh. The race stuff was weird.

Agree on the modern day storyline.

Loved the Jarrett story though.

I read this in early summer and the 1800's part was great. The modern story was okay, but forgettable and even an eye roll at times. I did enjoy the book and highly recommend.

Following. I didn’t realize Brooks had a new book out! I just read reviews and my interest has been piqued…

Anyone read this recently? I liked the part that took place in the 1800s, but really felt like the modern-day story line fell flat. I felt like most of the interactions were forced to make a point, as opposed to having any real feeling or depth.

Curious to hear what others thought.