Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

October is here, so we are ready to begin our discussion of If Sons, Then Heirs by Lorene Cary. Rashida will be leading the discussion this month. Biographical and other information about Cary can be found on her website:



as well as here:



LFPC group member and author Carleen Brice posted a guest blog by Cary discussing this book on her blog. It can be found here:



The New York Times review of the book is here:



Happy reading!

Read this book and loved it. I liked the treatment of Black men in the novel, especially Rayne. The positive portrayal of the Black male is often missing in today's work, so for me that was refreshing. Also the story was very realistic dealing with the land and trying to get the younger generation to take interest
In land that they have no emotional attachment to. So the way it played out was well done, with good pacing, and lyrical prose. Looking forward to hear others' thoughts.

Hey everyone! Thanks for coming by to discuss our October selection. I read this back in the summer. It was sitting on my library's new shelf and the name rung a bell for me, even though I didn't know what. Turns out, I had read the title in our "coming attractions" topic. Without even reading the dustflap, I picked it up. And I loved it. I started to say I was blown away. But that's not quite true. I found this to be much too quiet of a book for that kind of description. I don't think that's a bad thing.

Therein lies my first question. In light of some of the issues raised in last month's discussion of
Silver Sparrow, did folks find this book to be "enough?" Heavy enough, descriptive enough, lyrical enough... whatever metrics you use to judge whether a novel has attained that much sought label: literary fiction?

Andre, it sounds like you give Cary a yes vote. If I recall correctly, you weren't so hot on Silver Sparrow. Did you see any similarities in these two works?

I'm planning to finish this tonight, but I am LOVING Sons. I love it for many reasons, but one of them is that I founded The Black/Land project (BlackLandProject.org), which collects stories about black people's relationship to land and place. Carey eloquently weaves together in fiction many of the same themes I hear in my work every day: the relationship between land and story, place and history, abandonment and reclamation. Thanks to all who nominated it!

I finished this book earlier this week.

There were things I loved about this book, particularly, I had a deep feeling (connection) for Rayne. It seemed his ability to portray the pain and hurt of family and how it plays out in a person that chooses to keep it internal was so well written.

One of my very, very favorite lines in the book is "You can't raise a boy to be afraid of what he'll become".

At the same time, I was disappointed that the story was not a bit more epic. That is the only word I can think of to describe what ultimately felt a like a small letdown. I can't place my finger on it yet, so I am hoping the discussion of this book will help me to work through my feelings and analysis.

Rashida wrote,"Andre, it sounds like you give Cary a yes vote." Yes, you are right I enthusiastically give it a yes vote for literary fiction. In fact, I liked the word you used to describe the novel, "quiet." That is an apt description and I think that adds to the literary quality. She handled character flaws without being melodramatic, which I think detracts from literary quality work. That is why, I thought Silver Sparrow fell short of that literary label.

Question, have authors ever participated in these discussions? Ms. Cary strikes me as one who would relish the opportunity to chime in.

Andre, we have read several books by members of the group, but they usually don't participate in the discussions although they are certainly welcome. Unfortunately Lorene Cary is not a member of GoodReads at all. If you know her, please feel free to invite her to join the group!

Mina, I don't know her personally, but I see she is active with social media, so I will reach out to her and see if we can make it happen.

Excellent!

"As a boy, Rayne had imagined himself married one day. He’d seen himself as a man, driving a truck, coming home from somewhere to a woman and children who would be delighted to see him." This is one of the great passages in this novel. How many black boys in contemporary novels imagine themselves married?

Andre, I agree. The writing of Rayne was one of the things that I loved about this novel. Rayne does not have an easy life. He's abandoned over and again, he gets ensnared by the effects of the criminal justice system as firsthand witness to the cycles of imprisonment, he bears more pain than any child should have to. Yet, he is "normal." Loaded word, I know. But I mean that he is not perfect but he is not some alien being either. I really think that any reader can relate to him, from various stations in life. His reactions and responses to the setbacks in his life are understandable and feel like the reactions a good man in real life would make.

In past discussions, there has been a lot of analysis of the way that women characters are written. But, I think that Cary has done a really good job of writing this man. Perhaps a better job of fully fleshing him than some of her women. What do others think? Did Selma and Jewell and Rayne's partner (blanking on name right now) feel as deep as he did?

Generally, how are people progressing in the book. Have folks finished and are uninspired to talk about it, or are we still working through the novel?

Mistinguettes, I found the theme of the relation to the land to be really resonant. I keep thinking of a song by Saul Williams, that essentially says that we can't enjoy music until we get out of the cities and back to our roots in nature. That "city slums have never been where our drums are from," and "You ain't never heard hip hop until you've heard it from a rocky mountaintop." I need to dig in my brain a bit more for the name.

But I wonder if the feeling that Renee had that there could have been a more epic scope to the work could be related to the fact that the land story takes a bit of a backseat to the family story. Renee, do you think an inversion of this, more focus on the landedness of black folks throughout reconstruction would have "fixed" this for you?

Rashida, maybe it's just us who really liked this novel, it's relatively quiet here. Or, maybe some haven't finished reading it as you suggested. In any event looking forward to hear what others have to say about this novel.

I'm still reading - hope to finish in the next 2 days.

And, as a reminder, we love to hear varying view points. So, if anyone is feeling hesitant about expressing non-praiseworthy opinions, please don't. I think things get really interesting when we get a good debate going.

I just finished this novel yesterday, for some reason this book did not grab me like i thought it would. I really wanted to like this book but if just fell flat for me. I really did'nt like the way the story kept bouncing from the present and the the past the transition just did not flow smoothly to me.

I think the reason maybe with too many characters i had a hard time trying to remember all the characters in the story. I'm glad there was a family tree at the beginning it really helped me tremendoulsy. The two main characters in the story i did enjoy were Rayne and Nana Selma.

Rashida, you asked about why I felt the book was not epic enough and if it was in relation to the landedness of black folks.

Possibly. I think I would have enjoyed a larger focus on the heir lands, and more time to learn about the family too. I just felt that we spent so much time on Rayne's direct past, that we missed some of the epic saga that could have been told about the land, King, Selma, and the original history of black families and acquiring land.

A book that comes to mind, although it is certainly not by a person of color, is The Thorn Birds. Yes, part of the book is a love story - but, a great deal of it is history about Australia, how families acquired lands, and a larger focus on three generations. I would have loved a little more flesh for some of the other characters. I did not like King, Bobo and Jewel as supporting characters. I wanted more of them! Or, if I think about Cane River, another fabulous book in my opinion, I liked the scope of that book. It really covered a few generations.

And, a family tree at the start would have been very nice!! :-)

For all that though, I did really love Rayne. He was a positive black male character, and he could have gone so wrong. But, he didn't.

I love Cary's style but I am one of those that feels it should have been "more epic". I had a sense of having the beginning and the end of a story thread and not enough of the meaty middle. It was good to see a character like Rayne who, in spite of everything that he experienced in his life, was "normal".

I didn't really approach this book with any real expectations. Although, I really didn't care for Cary's book Pride at all, I read mostly positive things about Heirs and thus was really looking forward to it. The premise seemed rather appetizing but after the first 1/4 of the book I was really bored. Yes, I really appreciated the positive character of Alonzo Rayne and I liked and appreciated the matriarch, Nana Selma, the book itself was rather dull and mundane after the first 60 or 70 pages and I rushed through it so I could start something else.

After reading the synopsis and an excerpt of the book, I was expecting a more revealing story of land ownership in the Afri-Amer community and less a story of Rayne, Lillie & Khalil and their lives and what would happen to them (although ultimately that story line became more entertaining). I was very disappointed in the reunion of Rayne and Jewell. Such a build-up for Rayne to reunite with his mother after she abandons him and then the final meeting was so anti-climatic, so "is that it?" So many moments like that left me wanting, if you will. 

On the question Rashida posed about whether this book is "enough" - heavy enough, lyrical enough...etc and the relation to Silver Sparrow. I think Sparrow is better written and will have longer legs.  If I'm allowed to be honest here, I don't really care for her writing - to be rather blunt. If it's a question of being literary as someone asked, I think this book falls  rather short. After reading Pride by Carey, which was on a par with Waiting to Exhale but maybe not as entertaining, I really wouldn't have picked up this book to read on my own - in spite of the decent reviews. But, as alway's, I'm looking forward to hearing opposing views and what others enjoyed.

Q: What did you think of the book title If Sons, Then Heirs and the relation to the story? I mean I understand it and all but that title seemed to forebode dark clouds for the rest of the book.

just started reading. hope to be with you all soon!

Does the lack of epicness(yes I made it a word)detract from your enjoyment of the novel? Do expectations often color how we rate a novel? I know that is something I fight against. I often avoid reviews of books that I know I'm going to read.

@Columbus, I don't think the title portends a sense of foreboding at all. My initial thought was as long as sons exist, there will be heirs, even if it's just the family surname. But, Ms Cary quotes from the bible, the exact line escapes me, but it's from Romans and from that quote, she could be saying something about not being a slave to circumstances.

Andre wrote: "Does the lack of epicness(yes I made it a word)detract from your enjoyment of the novel? Do expectations often color how we rate a novel? I know that is something I fight against. I often avoid rev..."

Hey Andre,  I like "epicness" it has a certain ring to it. Hey, if Webster's can add gaydar and mini-me then certainly epicness is a worthy candidate.

 I was also under the impression that this book would've been more epic in nature. The Family Tree she provided outlining this huge family lineage was one big reason,  but, also just some of the reviews and comments that were made prior to reading the book suggested a saga or a book more epic in nature. That being said, the fact that it was not epic didn't skew how I felt about the book one iota. I didn't take points off because of that. If the book was more interesting, kept my attention more, it really wouldn't matter what type of book it was. This book had other issues going on for me, for sure.

Columbus, other issues for me too. The writing just felt just like normal everyday writing nothing special or grand, maybe it was intentional.

Because I have read other great writing perhaps this why a it was a disappointment. I was used to being challenged by dialect and style and I guess there really wasn't any detective work to do.

I feel like the writer tell us everything and leaves us little to guess or wonder about. I
guess for me that takes away and leaves me with just another story.

I am also bother by the narrative transition. It is not smooth and at times I don't quite get it when it we are swinging from cancer to the stop on roadside for Khalil?

I am glad others picked up on the same thing that was bothering me. And, epicness is certainly a good word!

For all that, there were parts of the book that I appreciated. I was disappointed that I did not like it more, because it had promise for sure. Especially as Columbus said, the book synopsis sounded very powerful.

I think I must have been reading some other book than the one that you all were reading!

I thought "epic" is the perfect word to describe If Sons. Is not the story of the five generations descended from a King sufficient historical scope? Is King Needham not an heroic figure, and is not his death the ultimate African-American tragedy? And how can you conceptualize Rayne's struggle to come to fully understand the story in which he is situated, if not as classical anagnorisis?

I thought the writing style was unobtrustive, but deft. Her descriptions helped me to see places I had never been, like rural South Carolina, and feel things I have never felt, like being a physically powerful man who is determined to master his rage. I found great tension in the twinned plots about whether this land could be saved, and whether this family could be healed.

I am very interested in heir property, both as a source of black land loss, and as a West African cultural retention kept strongly alive in Gullah/Geechee culture in South Carolina. Does anyone here have an experience with heir property? Do you think Carey represents the meaning of heir property well in the book?

Columbus wrote: "Q: What did you think of the book title If Sons, Then Heirs and the relation to the story? "


This quote is adapted from Paul's fourth smack-down to the Galatians: it is from a passage about maturity and liberation (redemption) from servitude as necessary conditions for receiving one's literal as well as spiritual inheritance.

The heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be the lord of all; but is under tutors and governors until the time appointed by the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of this world; but when the fullness of time was come, God sent forth his son, made of a woman, made under the law,to redeem (free) them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons...
Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.-- Galatians 4:1-5 and 4:7, KJV

So, a more pointed question might be: Why did Carey immediately invoke themes about maturity, inheritance and liberation from the bondage of ignorance; and the idea of legitimacy by birth and by adoption, in her title?

Mistinguette (who is a big ol' unchurched heathen, and thus welcomes any correction to her on-the-fly exegesis.)

Hello All,

This is my first post, though I've been a member for a while. I am about three quarters of the way to end of the book, and I was initially a bit bored the novel has picked up steam for me and I'm excited to finish it.

I wanted to pick up on a theme that was discussed earlier, the land in the novel. For me, the land itself is underwritten. There is certainly a sense of family connection to the land, but there is a lacking in effort to connect the reader to the land. Sure the family tree at beginning is great, but why not a map of the property? The farm is the other main character, but whenever events are described that take place on it I am unable to properly orient myself.

There is just not enough description of the land. Is it a particularly beautiful landscape or just another farm plot albeit imbued with love and hardwork? Which crops grew where? What did they look like in summer? In fall? Farms have have sights, sounds, and smells that you can't find anywhere else, and in that exclusivity there is magic. In my humble opinion that is some of the magic that is missing from this novel (so far).

Interesting comments here. It's fun to read the different takes, I appreciate all those who take the time to submit their thoughts, it can be enlightening to see different angles. I never really thought of the epicness (^5 to Columbus for support of the word) or lack there of as a factor in this novel, until this discussion started. It just never crossed my mind.

I think Mistinguettes presents an interesting challenge to those who feel it doesn't reach the level of an epic. The questions she raises are certainly ones to ponder, if you fall on the non-epic side of things. She asked, "Is not the story of the five generations descended from a King sufficient historical scope?" I say yes! What say you?

Hello everyone Aeros here, I'm new to the group... but really looking forward to starting this title.

Mistinguettes asks "Is not the story of the five generations descended from King a sufficient historical scope?"

Yes, in premise it is - but, I did not feel it was executed. I was hoping for an epic family / land saga... but, I did not feel I got that. What I was looking for was more meat, a more epic tale. More time on King, Selma, Jewel, Bobo. All of them. I would have liked more story overall. I wanted to understand better why Bobo was in jail. I wanted to know more about King, how he grew into the man he became. Why did he "save" Selma and her brother? What happened to the first wife? Why did Bobo and Jewell have such a bad relationship?

just finished - and by finished mean really scanned through the last 30 pages, as the book was due back at the library today.
the whole thing of epic or not doesn't trouble me. the notions, the ideas, the whole context of what happens in the book is, in and of itself, epic enough. seeing how a relatively small number of people are affected by the heir laws, by the actions of the people in their family who came before them, seeing and considering all of that was powerful enough for me.

Rayne is well written; others' perspectives are delineated clearly enough for me to consider how they are in the world, how they are with one another.

while possibly not entirely gripping all the time, I was grateful for the learning there was to be had.

Nia and Aeros- Welcome to the group! Nia, interesting point about the land and a lack of development of it. (I feel like there's a pun in there somewhere). Speaking of the land, here's a question: what is the value of the land? Yes, King died for that land. But, will it serve a purpose in the future, or will it always be a symbol of his sacrifice? Is there an argument for preserving it for the sake of preservation, or should the family, now united, try to sell it to the highest bidder? Is development always bad, or could the high dollar value be part of King's gift to his family? Did Cary give enough intellectual space to the issue of why future preservation of the land is so important?

One of the questions Renee wanted more clarity on was why such a bad relationship with Bobo and Jewell. Did people feel that they understood Jewell? Could you get to a point where you empathized with her? Did people dislike Jewell or her actions?

Well, I just finished it yesterday on a return flight. there are lots of things I find I like quite a bit, but other things are underdeveloped for me, or just sort of hard to understand. Jewel's marriage for one seems almost fairytalish for me and out of sync with the rest of the story. There's a related theme of racial identity within the family that seems oddly unexplored as well. and we have two mixed black Asian characters which is not something I've seen much in literature and interesting to me in particular having only returned from Asia several months ago, but again not really explored.

Having said that many of the things in the book resonate with me, and I enjoyed it all in all. I'm the first generation in my father's family not born or raised on the farm but I visited on a number of occasions growing up, and inheritance and land were always big issues in the family and squabbles between my father and uncles over inheritance. so, lots of it feels familiar. I think we would have needed a much longer novel to reach the epic levels folks seem to be searching for though.

Welcome home, George. I agree with your observation that there is something out of sync about Jewell's marriage story. When she meets Jack, it read like a 1920s romantic Harlem story, which didn't jibe well with the rest of the book. Besides, no real woman would walk from Penn Station to 125th Street in high heels. (I have tried.)

Rashida, I thought your question was interesting. Yes, King died for that land. But, will it serve a purpose in the future, or will it always be a symbol of his sacrifice? I am studying about black people and historical trauma related to land. One manifestation of inter-generational historical trauma is loyalty to the suffering of ancestors. Not loyalty to the intent of those ancestors, but loyalty to the suffering. This seems to be a big part of African-American cultural identity broadly, and this family's identity specifically.

And I think the author chose the name King to echo Martin, to evoke that sense black folks have of loyalty to a leader who was martyred while working for black liberation, and whose shoes have remained unfilled - and, perhaps, unfillable - ever since.

The link below is to an article that explains the legal and cultural significance of heir's property in South Carolina, and speaks directly to some of the themes in If Sons, Then Heirs

nice article. thanks.

i haven't read the article yet, thanks for posting it.

i think that a lot of the value of the land is symbolic and a dual kind of symbolic (both the trauma and suffering and the freedom and connection it represents).

the way that i interpreted it, the land was a place that belongs to the family; their haven (ideally and this is part of why the wound is deeper, but i think that king would not see this as a reason to give up on fighting for the land as a haven; i think this is part of king's message [and i agree that king the name is both an echo of martin l. king and also it is a way to highlight the sons/heirs family theme as in a king's heirs inherit his kingdom/land] and that has an emotional value.

if king had not been a brave, hardworking, creative, independent thinker type of man, the family would not have that land. that land created possibilities for them, and it continued to give possibilities, as a place to take the children for example.

i am having trouble putting this into words. but i am someone who moved around a lot since i was a child, and i've always wished for that feeling of home and when they speak of the land in this book, i feel sense of home that is rooted in place.
it is a kind of anchor. it is tied to the trauma too, yes. and i think that this is part of why some of them try to run away from the land, mistaking the land itself for the trauma.

but it ends up taking them away from the people, too; and in the end, they realise that the land can be a source of strength and connection (as i think king always envisioned it). that i can be an emotional home, and that looking at the trauma and not hiding from it is part of what allows the land to be this. it felt to me like they came to embrace king and his legacy in this way.

i thought that it mirrored the theme of the title-the family adopts family members, takes care of them, emfolding them into their hearts and into the land, making them a part of it.
the land acted as the thing that brought the family back together, re-connected these people.

Mistinguettes said: "One manifestation of inter-generational historical trauma is loyalty to the suffering of ancestors. Not loyalty to the intent of those ancestors, but loyalty to the suffering. This seems to be a big part of African-American cultural identity broadly, and this family's identity specifically.

this is really interesting. would you say more about this, about what it means, loyalty to the suffering?

Emilie wrote: "would you say more about this, about what it means, loyalty to the suffering? "

I am just starting to puzzle through this, Emilie, so pardon me if I ramble. Scholarly work on healing land-based trauma among chronically displaced people mostly focuses on Jews and First Nations/Indigenous people. (There is a lot of cataloging the trauma among African-American blacks, but not as much about healing it.)

Land-based trauma is caused by being removed as a people from land by state violence, mob violence, legal exclusion, deception, etc. Enslavement, sharecropping, race riots (as in Marrow of Tradition), lynching, restrictive covenants, urban renewal, the race riots of the 1960s, and the mortgage crisis of the 00's are all sources of land based trauma for African-Americans.

The trauma of a group losing or being displaced from land over and over again creates historical trauma - it's like group PTSD that you pass down to your kids. So even folks who have not directly experienced the displacement for generations will still carry the traumatic impact.

It shows up in PTSD like symptoms, reacting as if you are in the situation again whenever a situation reminds you of the original trauma. Signs of historical trauma include abandoning care of self and family, often through substance use or homelessness; and being fixated on the trauma and suffering of your ancestors as a source of identity and bonding with others.

Healing historic trauma frees people to build shared identity around things other than trauma, and to live engaged lives in the present without fleeing or forgetting the past.

Without offering spoilers, I will point out that in If Sons, King's death is presented as the event of historical trauma that permeates the book. Bobo's violence toward Jewell is related to re-enacting his traumatic experience of helplessness. Jewell's passing is fleeing the historical trauma of being both black and female and tied to that land and place; her abandonment of Rayne is tied to fleeing the family's historical trauma on the land. Rayne's rage is healed by remembering and fully working through the original historical trauma that is fully revealed at the close of the novel.

All of that is to say, I am wondering if the struggle to keep heir's property an important West African cultural retention, or if it is mostly an historical trauma that keeps African-Americans loyal to the suffering of ancestors in ways that keep us from thriving in the present? I think this is a question at the center of the novel.

thank you, mistinguettes. i'm still thinking about this.

as far as if sons, then heirs specifically, though i really like the book, i think that reading what you just wrote here, i realise that the book really over simplifies these issues (for me). i have a much more complex response to reading your comment than i did to reading the issues in the book. for me, the book makes the trauma and its' resolution too neat and tidy and not as complicated as it really is.

there are other things i really liked about the book, though.

Emilie, we'd love to hear some of the things you really liked.

Hi, polly here, first time poster as well. I wondered if Cary purposefully left details vague to mirror the experience of Raine who in many ways was unaware of all the details of his family's history.  The legacies of slavery and jim crow and racism tangle and distort history- leaving a dream-like fogginess to push through- to make sense of. As a previous poster mentioned these could even be signs or symptoms of PTSD.  It is hard to get clarity when the family didn't have clarity. The trauma of loss and oppression left a mark. I wondered if Cary purposefully cultivated this foggy, confused vibe to give us a taste of the protagonist's experience. The more time I spend thinking about the novel, the more impressed I am with the suble crafting of ideas and weaving of history into a poignant story of family, loss, legacies of racism and resulting emotional responses through many generations. I also was struck by the power of King. Even in his tragic and unjust death he continued to serve as a leader for the family. This is a testament to his ongoing power and strength.

I just finished reading this book and, although I'm sure that I will post more later, I wanted to say that I really enjoyed it. I suppose that I was not looking for an "epic". I thought that this book achieved what it set out to accomplish - the healing, as well as the trauma, that was brought to this family through their land. While the name "King" may have been a reference to MLK, many African Americans of his generation were given names like "King", "Queenie", etc., because whites addressed African Americans of any age and status by first names only. Choosing a first name that implied status was a way of subverting that custom.

I agree that the ending may have been a little too neat, but that didn't bother me. I liked the way that the family was brought together to find a solution, utilizing all of the skills and experience that those who had left the land had acquired. And of course, I loved Rayne - how could you not? I loved his relationships, particularly with Khalil and with Selma. There were a few moments that felt a bit disjointed and I would have preferred another way of learning about King's death - too much mystical intervention for me! But in all, I felt that this was an interesting story with some great characters, as well as an important story to tell about African Americans and their land.

Mistinguette, the project that you are working on sounds great!

-i loved rayne, too. i loved his relationships, and i loved his values. i loved to see a male character who has so much heart and emotional awareness and i loved that he's a physical kind of character too (loves building and making things, he comforts himself through movement, sensual), his big and wild hair. he is a man who is comfortable being a man, comfortable in his body, and not trying to prove something.

-i really like the way the book has a theme of storytelling, the way that we have a narrative sometimes that we tell over and over and it's layered with a particular meaning, a particular way of interpreting things and then sometimes pieces are missing. many characters in the book are haunted by the versions of the stories that they keep telling themselves. and there are times in the book where the characters share their narratives, combine stories and perceive the ways they have experienced things differently, with different information (for example, when lonnie/rayne and jewell talk, they see how bobo has a different identity to both of them; to rayne he was a man who tried to take care of him and to jewell he was an abuser) and it helps both of them to see this and it shifts the narrative, which is part of what heals them.

another aspect is the way that we can tell ourselves stories that help us heal, soothe and create ourselves and we can tell ourselves stories that hurt and destroy us (and stories that do both). (like when lonnie/rayne as a boy tells himself stories of how jewell is crying for missing him so much). the role that the story and the meaning we give to the story plays in how we see ourselves and our world, i love that.

A number of folks have commented that they felt disconnected from the characters' inner struggles, and disconnected from the land. While it's not the case for every novel, I think the question of audience comes to bear here. For whom do you think Carey wrote If Sons, Then Heirs? Does this novel work better for readers who already bring a lot of historical context to the reading? Is enough context provided through the novel itself? If not, what's missing?

I'd also like to know what you all thought of Bobo. I found the many layers of his story to be delicately rendered and difficult to wrestle with. He is the one character who haunts me.

Mistinguettes wrote: "A number of folks have commented that they felt disconnected from the characters' inner struggles, and disconnected from the land. While it's not the case for every novel, I think the question of ..."
I like your question about audience. My initial thought was that folks without a lot of background on the subject would be best for the book, but on reflection, I think they are the ones who might find themselves wanting more from Cary explicitly. Whereas folks like yourself will fill in the blanks with your own personal knowledge, and be more sated by the novel's offerings.

Piggy backing off of your question, I notice that we have a relatively high percentage of first time posters for this book. Can you ask you all what led you to post in this discussion as opposed to an earlier one? Is just circumstance of timing, or was there something about this book in particular that you felt the need to comment on?

for me, it was just an issue of timing. this is the second book the group has read since i joined. the first (the marrow of tradition), was the first book i've ever tried to read on my computer as an e-book, and that didn't work out for me. i need to hold a book in my hand.

i realise that i don't think i articulated very well what i felt about the portrayal of the land. i really liked reading a story about this subject and agree that it is an important story to tell of african americans and land. when i read what mistinguettes wrote, though, i felt that, for me, the book made it an unambiguous subject, and i felt that i missed an aspect of it that she illuminated for me. and though i kind of wish the book had done that for me, i also agree with wilhelmina that even if it is too neat, it still really works.

another thing i loved about the story was the theme and value of extended and adopted family connections.

Maybe it's just me,but for me there were some odd scenes. I really didn't understand the scarification piece relating to the tattoos, Lillie, Rayne. Was there some infidelity going on or was Lillie toying with the idea like Rayne was with having kids?

3 more chapters to go. I like the book more than before mainly due to the land subject.

Rebecca wrote: "Maybe it's just me,but for me there were some odd scenes. I really didn't understand the scarification piece relating to the tattoos, Lillie, Rayne. Was there some infidelity going on or was Lilli..."

Rebecca, I just came here to ask about the scarification! I didn't get that either.

Mina, I just picked up GLilead for another of my groups reads. I see you liked it. I have wanted to read Butler but our rural library does not have Wild Seed. :( I do have Kindred. Would you recommend this one or another very well written one for me to read.