Rating: 
Summary: A Thousand Acres-prize worthy?
Review: A Thousand Acres is full of surprises. Jane Smiley shows us how a family, like any other crop, can be corrupted by sins committed on the land. This is the story of a patriarch who sows bad seeds, affecting not only his daughters, but his grandchildren as well. Family secrets, family rivalries, family tragedies are the results. The author skillfully introduces unforseen twists in this plot of land-in-contention. Smiley well deserves the awards it harvested
Rating:
Summary: I preferred King Lear
Review: I had to read this book for school after reading King Lear. There are many similarities between the two stories, but they are also very different. I thought A Thousand Acres was a terrible book, and I wonder why my teacher assigned it to my AP English class. For one, all of the characters in this novel desperately need therapy. The plot itself is very convoluted and shows no hope for mankind.
I'm not saying that incest should not be addressed in literature and in our society, but to me this book seems akin to something like Flowers in the Attic, which I see as being on the level of trashy novels that people read simply for the twisted plotlines. None of the characters in A Thousand Acres improve in any way or learn from their mistakes, which is the main reason why I find it such an awful story. The dad goes insane and never fesses up to what an abusive and incestual father he is, Caroline takes his side because she was the favorite, Ty sees his life as routine and ignores all the insanity around him, Rose and Ginny have some sort of sick and twisted relationship, Jess sleeps around, Harold hates women, and the people in town get a kick out of talking about their screwed up lives. I suppose my favorite character had to be Pete, because at least he had the sense to kill himself before things got really terrible.
I would have thought that when Ginny left Ty she would have at least tried to make something of her life the second time around. Instead she becomes a waitress who gets hit on by truckers; a poor end to a poor novel. I know I gave away the ending, but it doesn't matter because you shouldn't waste your time with this book anyway.
Rating: 
Summary: 'King Lear'/'A Thousans Acres'. Read it before you comment!
Review: I have read many reviews of 'A Thousand Acres', and I have one point to make about many of the other reviews - please stop believing that this book is the story of 'King Lear'. It is not. That is the whole point of Smiley's book. She used the fundamental story-line of 'King Lear' to base her novel on. Entirely separately from whether you like the novel or not, it is not the same as 'King Lear'. All of the characters are different; Jess, Ginny, Rose, Caroline, Larry, Harold and Pete are all much more complex and different characters than they are in 'King Lear'. Moreover, if you read interviews with Jane Smiley, she says that she based virtually the entire novel on one speech in 'King Lear' which is approximately four lines long - this gave her the idea for the abuse of Ginny and Rose by Larry.
Secondly, having established that they are not the same, personally I feel that this is one of the most tragic novels I have ever read. All of the characters are poisoned and seem beyond repair. Caroline escapes, but also loses her family - not just her mother at an early age, but also her father (and her memories of him are tainted by the abuse allegations) and her sisters. Rose dies, bitter and alone, her husband having killed himself and her lover having left her. Pete, of course, kills himself (it is not explicit, but seems fairly certain) because life on the farm with this motely collection of people is too much for him. Pammy and Linda are left, at best, self-sufficient. Larry dies alone and unloved (this may be fair, of course). Ty's wife leaves him and his dreams for the farm collapse - he moves away to try and start again. Ginny herself, abused and damaged, has had an affair, tried to kill her sister, remembered some terrible abuse - and winds up alone, unable to let people get close to her, regretful of her life and unconnected to Pammy and Linda.
FINALLY: You are free to have your own opinion on this book, whether you think it absolutely terrible or a work of genius. But please, PLEASE know your facts before you start commenting! One reviewer paid so much attention to the novel that she didn't even know where it was set (she said 'somewhere in Midwest America, I think' - my dear, it says on the back of the book that the story is set in IOWA. The second person, 'a reader' (the title of the review was 'Lear comparison very misleading. don't bother with this book' and gave the novel 2 stars, also seems to think that Ginny never 'actually explicitly remembers anything herself.' May I draw your attention to pages 225-229 and page 258? Ginny certainly remembers the abuse there.
And finally, all those who mistakenly believe Jess' name is 'Jessie'. It is not.
Read the book before you criticise it - at least try and know what you're talking about.
Rating: 
Summary: myopic & malicious, but it probably won a raft of awards
Review: I read this book ten years ago, and I'm ashamed to say I read it twice. I suppose I did that for the same reason people cause traffic jams on the interstate while looking at burning car wrecks; they creep along and gaze despite their best intentions not to impede their fellow drivers.
As I was born and raised in Iowa, I was excited by the prospect of literature about my home state. What I got instead was a humorless, vindictive, short-sighted narrating character--clearly beloved by the author--who ends up poisoning one sister, condemning the successful other sister who took care of the father (an incestuous wretch), cheating on her husband and deserting the same man (who is portrayed as unimaginative but somehow hard working and sympathetic) and basically no generous or realistic characters, unless you think everyone is worse than you. Much has been made of the King Lear analogy, but if you reread--or better yet, read something else instead--you'll see how superficial and wrong it is.
The author probably thinks she's writing an expose, but this is a cruel novel with no love or wit in it, and it sees only what it wants to see.
Rating:
Summary: A Thousand Acres-prize worthy?
Review: I, too, found the book to be something akin to a Harlequin romance. I also resent the fact that one reviewer mocked another as a "silly young girl" because he/she didn't agree with her review. I thought her review was incredibly articulate and insightful. She sounded a lot more level-headed and intelligent that many adults whose comments I've read. So the book won a prize--that doesn't necessarily mean it's a good book that people will enjoy reading. The people that give out those awards are usually looking at more esoteric criteria than the average person when choosing what they consider "good" literature. The same is true of any medium (think of how many "critically-acclaimed" movies, for example, are bombs at the box office). Many books that have won awards with such accolades as "masterful imagery" or "searing portait of..." turn out to have little to offer in terms of just pure enjoyment.
Thank you, Poor Parallels, for your great review.
Rating: 
Summary: We are what we do--or are we?
Review: Of course this isn't King Lear. Just because a book involves three daughters and a crazy patriarch, doesn't make it a re-write.
What A Thousand Acres is, is a great book. Smiley uses the setting or a successful, large (for Iowa) farm, middle aged ennui, and the passing of an older generation, to peel away layer after layer of personal history and explore the motives, feelings, and dare I say soul of her narrator, Ginny.
Her father, on the surface, is a highly respected, expert farmer, who has built a small plot into the largest, most successful farm around. All of the neighbors seek and value his advice. Two of his daughters are "successfully married, and they and their husbands live on the farm, and help with the harvest, etc.
The fulcrum of the plot is the father's decision to retire, and pass along control of his farm to his three daughters. While they all resist, he insists, and the deed is done in the first few chapters.
What he does not realize is that once his definition of himself as "successful farmer" is stripped away, there is nothing left--or, rather, nothing good.
As the story develops, the fault lines of the family, and of each character are gradually pried apart, until each is fully exposed to the reader--and to him or herself.
the fecundity of the farm is contrasted with the barrenness (in Genny's case literal) of the relationships. None of the marriages are successful. No character is ultimately satisfied with the life they are living. No character manages a positive transformation. And the farm falls apart, and will clearly be sold by the end of the book.
In addition to Smiley's superb character development, the characters mirror society as a whole--we put on the values we want the world to see, and those values are often less than skin deep. Similarly, land which appears to be productive, and the basis for a family's wealth, is ultimately ephemeral, and can disappear the instant we reach self-awareness.
Rating: 
Summary: Details
Review: One reviewer mentioned the large amount of detail that is in the novel. I thought the detail an interesting way to have the reader's experience mirror the characters'. Ginny's life was made up of what was in the garden, her memories of her mother, what she cooked for dinner... This is what filled her day to day and this is what she lived. In allowing yourself (as a reader) to be contentedly absorbed in the details without looking for deeper meaning was exactly what Ginny had been doing her whole life. By the time the novel began to shift from this complacent routine (which the reader begins to assume as well), you find yourself wondering how the characters can solve this in order to bring everyone (including the reader) "back" to that previous place of predictable actions and relative emotional comfort that we all want, all the while knowing that it will not happen due to the gravity of the situations that become exposed and are evolving. As for characters acting "out of character", the novel is about secrets, rage, and discovery of what is really motivating people who are supposed to be family and friends. The whole theme of the book was that people in our lives are not always who they seem or we choose not to see them for who they are. The fact that Smiley mirrors that as well in the readers' experiences' with the characters in that some of their actions and revelations are surprising or unanticipated, I thought, was very clever. Just as Ginny had trouble understanding who she could trust (including herself), we as readers had to decide which characters, if any, to trust, pity, or hate - and did we trust our own opinions and judgments of them? If we flipped through our memories of the characters, were their actions and reactions explainable or were our previous impressions wrong? These were the same questions Ginny was asking- we follow Ginny's emotional journey in the style of the writing in the novel.
Rating:
Summary: Enjoyable but Flawed
Review: The Beautiful way Jane Smiley describes a midwestern farm was excellent and in my opinion the best part of the book. There are a few flaws with the plot and characters, but if you can overlook them this is an enjoyable read.The main plot involving Larry Cook giving the land to his daughters and later fighting them in court to get it back was intriguing, however I felt the sexual abuse turned this into a bad TV movie of the week. It would have been more interesting if Ms. Smiley would have the more with the issue of the well water causing Rose's cancer and Ginny's miscarriages, which would have tied right in with the main plot of the land tearing this family apart and explained why Jess was always there. The problem with the characters is that you can never figure any of them out. Ginny didn't seem like the type to commit adultry or attempt murder, yet she did both. I never understood how Rose could help with her father's care and still carry such hatred for him. And why Ty became so cold to Ginny after the problems with her father started is still baffling me. I recommend this book to anyone who can forgive some flaws because it is enjoyable especially if you love to read descrptions written well.
Rating:
Summary: well-crafted, but also accurate.
Review: This is not a book for those who need high-paced, action-packed stories. While there are strong plot elements, most of the time Smiley uses these and other ordinary, every-day events to show the changes in the various characters. Those of you who enjoy detailed stories of realistic characters facing and reacting to life (ie: Anna Karenina and Rebecca) will find this an excellent addition to your reading lists.
A Thousand Acres is a beautifully crafted, though often darkly disturbing, portrait of small-town life. It is a story of personal development detailing what happens when the "best of all possible worlds" comes crashing down around you, leaving you to finally face the demons of your life -- ever-present, but always denied or ignored. Furthermore, her depiction of life in a farming community is amazingly accurate. (As a teacher, I've known many students from farming families who have experienced much that Smiley details, ranging from the "duty" of children to a father who "gave them everything" -- even the things they didn't want -- to the importance of "keeping up appearances.") Smiley is also very realistic in the course of events. One reviewer commented that he/she felt that change usually was an improvement, but in life I find that is not always so. Quite often we change not to improve, but to keep from becoming worse. Even then we often face the daunting task of finding the lesser of the evils rather than the best option.
A Thousand Acres is not a feel-good novel, but it is one of the best, most poignant books I've had the good fortune to read.
Rating:
Summary: Not Great Liturature, but excellent character & scene dev.
Review: This was no great book by any stylistic, aesthetic, or meaningful way (i.e. it won't "touch" or "move" you as great liturature tends to do). And after eading this I was quite shocked that it recieved the Pulitzer Prize. I deem Jane Smiley hardly worthy enough to recieve this noble prize, the same prize literary greats such as Faulkner, Hemingway, Toni Morrison, Steinbeck, etc. had recieved. Although her portrayal of the characters and the setting are excellent, in that she (for the most part) makes the characters human (i.e., one can relate to and "know" them) and does Iowa justice in her depictions, there is quite a bit laking. One example is some of the awkward and unorganic dialogue in the book. Another point: Her style of writing doesn't bring anything unique or unusal - not to say that it is bad writing, on the contrary it is a textbook example of how to write fiction... but that is what makes it bad as a piece of great/Pulitzer-Prize-level liturature. Great liturature pushes the envolope of style occasionally, or uses language in a unique way, etc. And thus great liturature cannot be the textbook style, because the textbook style is meant to be broken, and liturature is supposed to evolve as art always does.
And then you ask, how did this win the Pulitzer Prize? Perhaps it was a slow year for great liturature? Perhaps all the good books that year were by authors who had already recieved the Pulitzer (and the Pulitzer has never bestowed it Prize on an author more than once)? Perhaps the great liturature written that year was produced by young, untested authors (since the Pulitzer Prize is usually given to author who have written a few books first and have gained a reputation)? I don't know. And although Jane Smiley has talent (and I believe her work does merit respect since anyone who creates decent fiction demonstrates extrodinary skill, creativity, and hard work), her work is not at the top of the literary tier.
|
