Rising Stars Book Club

I've read through the three reviews Gab sent us. The second and third are pretty similar. They are straight forward book reviews. They give nothing away. They tell us how much they enjoyed the book, and discuss the main themes and characters. Both are incredibly favourable.

I love this line from Betsey Van Horn's review: "As the book description says, this novel is mainly about people trying to be good to one another." I hadn't looked at it like this. I'd looked at it as people doing their best to survive under the most difficult circumstances. But it is about goodness. It's about coming together. I guess it's about how war brings out the worst and the best in people.

One of my problems with the book was how slow moving it was, and I think Sarah Hopeon explains why this is. She says, "This is novel of people more than it is a novel of events." And it is. That's what I loved about the book, though. The characters, every single one of them, are rich and important within the novel. It's actually really clever how the novel, on the surface, is about the massive event that was World War II, and Nazism; but in reality, it's about the little lives, the ordinary people, living underneath it.

I notice both the last review, and the first one, compare the novel to Raiders of the Lost Ark. Now, I've never seen that film (sooo not my taste), so I don't know. I found it interesting they both mentioned it. However, in the third review, Hopeon says Doerr was clever to not turn it into Raiders of the Lost Ark, whereas the New York Times critique says it is, basically, Raiders of the Lost Ark.

I noticed the New York Times critique is much more detailed than the two reviews. I assume that's because it is a critique, which means it is more specific. I thought the critique was more balanced than the reviews. Whilst they both sang Doerr's praises, and loved everything about the book, the New York Times discusses negatives as well as positives. That said, I don't agree with everything in that critique. The characters are the problem for that reviewer. He doesn't find them believable. He criticises Werner for going along with triangulating enemy signals, but he had no choice. In reality, this child would have had no choice. So I felt the writer was unfair in that criticism. He also said Frederick was cardboard and unbelievable. This, I really to exception to. Frederick was one of my favourite characters. I completely believed in him. Similarly, the reviewer thought Von Rumpel was pointless, and that he had no human characteristics, which made him less believable. But, surely, the fact that he was desperate to own this stone that could make his illness go away made him utterly human. We all strive every day to survive.

So, those are my thoughts. The difference between the critique and the reviews is one of detail. Reviews are about how much you enjoy a novel; how it makes you feel. Critiques are unbiased, examining the minutiae of the novel. I guess they are more fact based, than feeling based.