Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

The main characters have a reason for being in a well-constructed plot. What they do and who they are all pull together to create reasons for the protagonist to do what he or she does in the end. in a well-constructed plot, the main characters may have foibles and gallantries that are displayed and resolved or celebrated in various subplots, and there is some attempt at resolution for these subplots by novel's end.

Not in this book. We don't know what happens to the new teacher who comes to town who seems so important at the start of the book. We don't know what happens to the preacher who seems enamored of her. We don't know what happens to Tattler, or Marris, or Gladys. They just sort of . . . drift away. Why were they there in the first place? Morris and Gladys seem to fill us in with the backstory, and that's about it.

And then there's character development. Kate had her character developed more than the others--God knows why, since we never find out whether she succeeds, stays, brings her lesbian lover to live with her. Sadie Blue definitely has character development and growth the story. Billy seems to grow a spine in the story. Why not just make it about them?

Some of the characters are cardboard cutouts. Prudence is a ridiculously one-dimensional Prude. Roy Tupkin is, basically, Bill Sykes. Same with Gladys and Marris. And the local witch, walking around with a crow on her head--that's just goofy. I live out in the country. Do you know how big a crow is? Every time this detail was mentioned, I found myself distracted by it. But moreso by the lack of meat on many of the characters in the novel They are not complex.

What I did like about it? Since this is all told in the first person, from the points of view of various characters, the language is North Carolina mountain people. All folksy. All misspellings intentional. And that's okay with me. And the ending. I really loved the ending. It's just that we didn't need half the characters in the book to get us there.