Once I got past the pitfalls seeming inherent in a lot of turn of the century writing [the turn of the 20th century, that is] (writing Black dialogue Once I got past the pitfalls seeming inherent in a lot of turn of the century writing [the turn of the 20th century, that is] (writing Black dialogue in a phonetic dialect, and even doing the same for a few overtly Southern Whites; talking about ideas, concepts, and situations in a way that still seem heavily racist today, but might have come across as more progressive or enlightened 125 years ago), I found Churchill (no, he's not that Winston Churchill...) to be an exceptional writer. He has a way of making a story set in an era fraught with deeply studied historical facts and events into a novel that is really all about personal tales. Some of this may be due to the setting (Missouri, St. Luis) being the same place that Churchill came from. Even the historic characters (Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, etc., who are really side characters in The Crisis) come across as personal figures, not rigid textbook figures. They could have even been written as invented characters, if Churchill wanted to. In more than one chapter, Churchill ended things in a way that very much reminded me of how several of Ken Burns's film scripts are written. That is, he took a big-picture situation and then, in closing, turned to focus on the more personal, acute, and catalytic crux of the matter at hand, delivering a terse statement that summed up a singular moment, one that would eventually lead on to a future chapter.
Although the ending is too sentimental for my tastes, and the final romantic elements felt forced, for the large majority of The Crisis, it's great writing. One of the more interesting things, reading this book now, as opposed to 125 years ago, is that we get a picture of that time in America in which it was coming to terms with the Civil War and trying to move forward. This period of reconciliation is evident in many of the parts towards the very end of the book. There are paragraphs that seem very peculiar reading them today, but make a lot more sense in situ. Although Churchill was born post-War, the actual Civil War was still within personal memory to many of the readers in 1901 and Reconstruction and the Gilded Age were known to the rest. We're far enough removed from that turn of the century that some of those thoughts and ideas are lost on us today. We should remember them for our own sake. ...more
I really wanted to like this book. The premise drew me to it. But it just didn't work for me. Sure, there were parts that had things going for it, butI really wanted to like this book. The premise drew me to it. But it just didn't work for me. Sure, there were parts that had things going for it, but they were far too fleeting. The good parts never went anywhere or petered out too soon. It really seemed like Williams had the concept, but was trying to do too much with it and ended up doing so little. It just seemed to lack focus. I'm thinking each era that Captain Blackman "re-lived" would have been more impactful if they were separate short stories or novellas.
There were also a lot of times in which the action didn't feel like the Blackman was living through them. Instead, it felt like Williams was recapping a television show he was watching, letting you know he researched some history. I don't know, maybe Williams was trying too hard with this one.
I wasn't to give this three stars just for the premise, but that probably wouldn't be honest. Two stars is fair. ...more
I can see why The Witch of Blackbird Pond won the Newbery Award. Not only did the story pull me along, even during the passages that were intended to I can see why The Witch of Blackbird Pond won the Newbery Award. Not only did the story pull me along, even during the passages that were intended to portray drudgery, but I was surprised by the character development (especially of Kit, the main character) and sometimes nuanced interactions, I guess in part because of my limited knowledge of 1950s children's novels. The chapter dealing with teenage Kit's witch trail (which wasn't really a trial) may have been a little too tidy in its resolution, but I don't think that detracts too much overall.
Some interesting topics brought up in this book, ones that usually weren't addressed for children in the 1950s, were the sometimes volatile local and regional politics that weren't always firmly rooted during colonial America times, and the disharmony between religious groups (here the Puritans and Quakers) that I think we tend to assume had more similarities and commonality than they may have actually had.
There were a few other topics that Speare mentions, but she doesn't really address head-on. Rather, she seems to imply that they are things to contemplate on your own. There probably could have been a way for her to address them more directly, but who knows. One is slavery. This topic is briefly mentioned early on as part of Kit's former life in Barbados, but it's not really elaborated on in the rest of the story other than, in Connecticut, people have to do work for themselves and it's a minor culture shock for Kit. The other thing that Speare makes us (and young readers) aware of (that 1950s history lessons probably didn't dwell on much) is that British colonialism was not just a mainland North American practice. Before coming to Connecticut, Kit was raised in Barbados - British colonialism was expansive....more
Loading...
