Patricia Sprinkle

I really enjoyed this book. It takes place in 1950 and is told from the point of view of 12 year old Carley. I actually picked this up at a used book fair and didn't even realize it was the second in a series, but I was able to follow along with no problem and don't feel like I missed anything by not reading the first one.
I really enjoyed the setting of a small town in 1950. It's just over 400 pages and there is quite a bit that happens during the course of the book but it was a slower paced book and I really enjoyed that. Carley often pretends that she has a radio show and talks to her listeners and I thought that was a really interesting way of filling the reader in on what was happening.
There was some heavy content but for the most part it was softened because it's told through Carley's point of view. For example someone is raped but Carley overhears a conversation and doesn't understand why someone would tape the girl. As a reader you're able to put all the puzzle pieces together and figure out what happened but it was easier to read because it wasn't told in a graphic way. There is also domestic violence and an unsolved murder and one scene that I didn't like where she inadvertently sees a husband and wife at an intimate moment in their bedroom.
One quote I liked was "So I decided to heed the Bible's wisdom that God helps those who help themselves." "Actually, that's Ben Franklin," Uncle Stephen interrupted apologetically. "God's far more likely to help those who can't help themselves."
Overall though I quite enjoyed this book.
This book was reviewed on the Literary Club Podcast episode 59
https://www.buzzsprout.com/1984185… (plus d'informations)

I liked the idea of bringing a genealogical slant to things, but not enough to compensate for the things I didn't like, so I won't be finishing this series.

I don't see much benefit to spelling out all my objections, since most of them stem from my personal experience as a southerner, a liberal and a genealogist. The writing is perfectly fine for light reading, and most of her facts are correct so far as I know, i just didn't particularly like the reliance on stereotypes and misleading generalizatons.… (plus d'informations)