Finished reading it last night. My copy has in the back an interview with the author and questions for a reading group to share.
I found the book very informative about the Amish. Especially interesting because it took place in this area. In fact a relative works at the Muncy Prison mentioned in the book.
Husband Paul enjoyed my description of the story and we discussed things it said about the Amish culture. Would not surprise me if he decided to read it.
I just wanted to let you know that I haven't received my book yet and I will be leaving for a vacation until the end of July tomorrow. So, I won't even be able to start Plain Truth until July 31st. I know, I know, holding the club up yet again!
I too, am waiting for the book to be returned to the library. Joy has a copy, and she's going to send it to me if she finishes before someone returns their overdue book!
I’m so-so on this book. I guess I would have liked it better if it was not Amish, maybe written as a historical novel. The Amish part seemed forced and rather gimmicky (think of everything Amish and put it in a book). Some details were incorrect, especially the quilt descriptions. Picoult used “stick” for the barn-raising when “board” would have been a better choice. These things made me doubt the rest of the book.
An “EEEEwwwwwww” came from me in Chapter 3 – the judge clips his fingernails and pushed them on the floor. Disgusting.
I figured out the “who-dunit” early on. I wasn’t quite sure why Hannah the ghost sister was really included, as a way for Katie and Adam to meet?
I think you really could have just read Part 2 and known the whole story. The courtroom drama reiterated the plot pretty much.
I DID like how Sarah found loopholes in the shunning. She was a clever woman I thought.
A question I had from the very beginning was “Why wasn’t the baby hidden better?” . Surely there is a place for disposal of dead animals (chicken parts, stillborn calves, etc.). Or wasn’t there time to do that? I do recall that being answered somewhere in Part 2 but now can’t remember.
Also have some lingering questions. What if you don’t get baptized? Can you wait 5, 10, 20 years? What happens in the meantime? What if you don’t get married (seems that most were at least expected to)? Are there Amish spinsters? Amish cougars?
Another thing, also from chapter 3, why would a detective (Lizzie) go the hospital at 4 a.m.? And can you do that? Just show up to see a patient any time? And I wish there was more about Lizzie.
I found this book interesting. I did not grow up in an area where I had contact with Amish people so I found the info in this book very informative. In the interview with the author at the end of the book she tells about living with an Amish family to get background info for the book.
I found this book to be an interesting psychological study on how someone purposely blocks memories that are painful. This is often done by abuse victims.
I particularly liked the Amish elder who was sympathetic and understanding and "bent" the rules to be helpful. He did his best to help them get through tough emotional situations.
It was interesting reading how the teenagers "tested the waters" and the parents "looked the other way" counting on the fact that they would eventually settle into the community lifestyle.
I really enjoyed this book, even with the inaccuracies that Joy pointed out. I do agree that the portrayal of the Amish lifestyle and belief system seemed forced, on the other hand I liked that she really worked to show it fairly to a broad audience of readers. What I like about Picoult is that she takes really difficult relationship and societal issues and really works to make them understandable to a mass audience.
So, I really liked the book. BUT, I also have some problems with the plot that are bugging me. Like Joy, I wonder why the baby wasn't hidden in a better spot. The person (I won't name names until I know A has finished) was smart enough to do what they did so why not smart enough to put it somewhere it would not be found?
Secondly, if the Amish community typically takes care of itself without the police and the baby was already dead when they found it, why did they even call the police? Why not deal with it quietly within the community instead?
Also, like Joy, what was the point with Hannah's ghost? I think the love affair between Katie and Adam could have happened without it. What job did it do for the plot, other than being a red herring?
Finally, Katie's parents. How could they both do what they did, but especially Sarah. Was she so afraid of her husband that she would rather do what she did to Katie than go against him if he disowned her like Jacob? And Aaron- why was he so undemonstrative and seemingly uncaring for his children? It isn't just the "Amish" way, as we saw how lenient the religious leaders were.
I gave this book 2 stars - it was easy to read and Picoult's writing style (though a bit flowery and verbose for my taste) does paint good pictures and keep my mind's eye focused on the story. On the other hand, I just don't think there was enough plot to fill 400 pages and the constant switches from first to third person drove me crazy! I didn't have much sympathy for Katie, Adam or Ellie, but I really liked Samuel and Lizzie (the detective). And what is it about that spot by the pond, everyone who has sex there gets pregnant the first time?? As others have mentioned, I didn't see the need for the ghosts either.
One thing that really struck me as not quite right was Katie's shunning. It was just a couple of days after that Mary showed up on rollerblades with a frisbee and they played all afternoon. Seems like Mary would have been a little more reserved so soon after the confession. Later when Katie was helping with chores she said to her father "it's been 5 days since the kneeling confession, aren't you ever going to talk to me again?" This she says to a man who has disowned his own son, knowing full well her punishment was to last 6 weeks?
In response to why the corpse was poorly hidden, Sarah mentioned that she didn't have enough time to put it anywhere else before Aaron missed her. She had planned to go back later in the day to dispose of it, but the body was discovered before she was able to do so.
Even though I'm almost as a loss for words about these two, let's talk about Sarah and Aaron. My feeling is that Sarah did not kill the baby - being so premature and with the infection mentioned in the defense - I think she just discovered the situation and then hid the body. I can not imagine that having such an attachment to her children that she could kill her grandchild. That being said, I think Aaron's behavior is fairly accurate. I know several people who have put their religion ahead of their families (my Aunt Teresa springs to mind immediately) even though the religion doesn't necessarily command or condone it. Aaron seems to take the hard love approach (I liked how he was slowly opening up to Jacob at the end of the book) and I believe he would have disowned Katie had the child lived.
Allllllllll this being said, what really surprises me is that Sarah did not just say "I found the baby dead and made a bad choice to hide it." Picoult made clear several times that the Amish will not rise to their own defense, and that even Samuel's acting as a character witness was in a murky area. However, if Sarah was SO AFRAID of losing Katie, why didn't she just say something? ugh!
Last but not least, I agree with B that Picoult did a very, very good job of showing and explaining how memories can be lost and come back/dissociation, etc.. I enjoyed Katie's interviews with and the testimony of all of the psychiatrists; in my opinion they were the best written parts of the book.
I don't remember if Mary had been baptized yet, if not then the terms of the shunning would not have applied to her and that might be how she could get away with hanging out with Katie.
The switching from first to third person narrative also irked me.
And finally, I do think that Sarah killed the baby and I think she was trying to tell Ellie from the start without actually TELLING her. But, we can't be sure one way or the other, can we?
I don't think Sarah killed the baby either. That would just so unnatural for a "family" person like her to do. She was caught up in a situation she had not experienced before and made bad choices how to handle it, but I don't think one of her choices was to kill the baby.... and if she had admitted it in the beginning well now there wouldn't have been a story would there.
13 comments:
I am not normally a mystery/detective fan - but this is an exception. One of those books I find hard to put down.
Finished reading it last night. My copy has in the back an interview with the author and questions for a reading group to share.
I found the book very informative about the Amish. Especially interesting because it took place in this area. In fact a relative works at the Muncy Prison mentioned in the book.
Husband Paul enjoyed my description of the story and we discussed things it said about the Amish culture. Would not surprise me if he decided to read it.
Wow. I haven't even received my book from ILL yet! Hold your (amish) horses!
A- we're losing our place as first-bloggers!
I just wanted to let you know that I haven't received my book yet and I will be leaving for a vacation until the end of July tomorrow. So, I won't even be able to start Plain Truth until July 31st. I know, I know, holding the club up yet again!
I too, am waiting for the book to be returned to the library. Joy has a copy, and she's going to send it to me if she finishes before someone returns their overdue book!
I’m so-so on this book. I guess I would have liked it better if it was not Amish, maybe written as a historical novel. The Amish part seemed forced and rather gimmicky (think of everything Amish and put it in a book). Some details were incorrect, especially the quilt descriptions. Picoult used “stick” for the barn-raising when “board” would have been a better choice. These things made me doubt the rest of the book.
An “EEEEwwwwwww” came from me in Chapter 3 – the judge clips his fingernails and pushed them on the floor. Disgusting.
I figured out the “who-dunit” early on. I wasn’t quite sure why Hannah the ghost sister was really included, as a way for Katie and Adam to meet?
I think you really could have just read Part 2 and known the whole story. The courtroom drama reiterated the plot pretty much.
I DID like how Sarah found loopholes in the shunning. She was a clever woman I thought.
A question I had from the very beginning was “Why wasn’t the baby hidden better?” . Surely there is a place for disposal of dead animals (chicken parts, stillborn calves, etc.). Or wasn’t there time to do that? I do recall that being answered somewhere in Part 2 but now can’t remember.
Also have some lingering questions. What if you don’t get baptized? Can you wait 5, 10, 20 years? What happens in the meantime? What if you don’t get married (seems that most were at least expected to)? Are there Amish spinsters? Amish cougars?
Another thing, also from chapter 3, why would a detective (Lizzie) go the hospital at 4 a.m.? And can you do that? Just show up to see a patient any time? And I wish there was more about Lizzie.
I found this book interesting. I did not grow up in an area where I had contact with Amish people so I found the info in this book very informative. In the interview with the author at the end of the book she tells about living with an Amish family to get background info for the book.
I found this book to be an interesting psychological study on how someone purposely blocks memories that are painful. This is often done by abuse victims.
I particularly liked the Amish elder who was sympathetic and understanding and "bent" the rules to be helpful. He did his best to help them get through tough emotional situations.
It was interesting reading how the teenagers "tested the waters" and the parents "looked the other way" counting on the fact that they would eventually settle into the community lifestyle.
I really enjoyed this book, even with the inaccuracies that Joy pointed out. I do agree that the portrayal of the Amish lifestyle and belief system seemed forced, on the other hand I liked that she really worked to show it fairly to a broad audience of readers. What I like about Picoult is that she takes really difficult relationship and societal issues and really works to make them understandable to a mass audience.
So, I really liked the book. BUT, I also have some problems with the plot that are bugging me. Like Joy, I wonder why the baby wasn't hidden in a better spot. The person (I won't name names until I know A has finished) was smart enough to do what they did so why not smart enough to put it somewhere it would not be found?
Secondly, if the Amish community typically takes care of itself without the police and the baby was already dead when they found it, why did they even call the police? Why not deal with it quietly within the community instead?
Also, like Joy, what was the point with Hannah's ghost? I think the love affair between Katie and Adam could have happened without it. What job did it do for the plot, other than being a red herring?
Finally, Katie's parents. How could they both do what they did, but especially Sarah. Was she so afraid of her husband that she would rather do what she did to Katie than go against him if he disowned her like Jacob? And Aaron- why was he so undemonstrative and seemingly uncaring for his children? It isn't just the "Amish" way, as we saw how lenient the religious leaders were.
I gave this book 2 stars - it was easy to read and Picoult's writing style (though a bit flowery and verbose for my taste) does paint good pictures and keep my mind's eye focused on the story. On the other hand, I just don't think there was enough plot to fill 400 pages and the constant switches from first to third person drove me crazy! I didn't have much sympathy for Katie, Adam or Ellie, but I really liked Samuel and Lizzie (the detective). And what is it about that spot by the pond, everyone who has sex there gets pregnant the first time?? As others have mentioned, I didn't see the need for the ghosts either.
One thing that really struck me as not quite right was Katie's shunning. It was just a couple of days after that Mary showed up on rollerblades with a frisbee and they played all afternoon. Seems like Mary would have been a little more reserved so soon after the confession. Later when Katie was helping with chores she said to her father "it's been 5 days since the kneeling confession, aren't you ever going to talk to me again?" This she says to a man who has disowned his own son, knowing full well her punishment was to last 6 weeks?
In response to why the corpse was poorly hidden, Sarah mentioned that she didn't have enough time to put it anywhere else before Aaron missed her. She had planned to go back later in the day to dispose of it, but the body was discovered before she was able to do so.
Even though I'm almost as a loss for words about these two, let's talk about Sarah and Aaron. My feeling is that Sarah did not kill the baby - being so premature and with the infection mentioned in the defense - I think she just discovered the situation and then hid the body. I can not imagine that having such an attachment to her children that she could kill her grandchild. That being said, I think Aaron's behavior is fairly accurate. I know several people who have put their religion ahead of their families (my Aunt Teresa springs to mind immediately) even though the religion doesn't necessarily command or condone it. Aaron seems to take the hard love approach (I liked how he was slowly opening up to Jacob at the end of the book) and I believe he would have disowned Katie had the child lived.
Allllllllll this being said, what really surprises me is that Sarah did not just say "I found the baby dead and made a bad choice to hide it." Picoult made clear several times that the Amish will not rise to their own defense, and that even Samuel's acting as a character witness was in a murky area. However, if Sarah was SO AFRAID of losing Katie, why didn't she just say something? ugh!
Last but not least, I agree with B that Picoult did a very, very good job of showing and explaining how memories can be lost and come back/dissociation, etc.. I enjoyed Katie's interviews with and the testimony of all of the psychiatrists; in my opinion they were the best written parts of the book.
I don't remember if Mary had been baptized yet, if not then the terms of the shunning would not have applied to her and that might be how she could get away with hanging out with Katie.
The switching from first to third person narrative also irked me.
And finally, I do think that Sarah killed the baby and I think she was trying to tell Ellie from the start without actually TELLING her. But, we can't be sure one way or the other, can we?
I don't think Sarah killed the baby either. That would just so unnatural for a "family" person like her to do. She was caught up in a situation she had not experienced before and made bad choices how to handle it, but I don't think one of her choices was to kill the baby.... and if she had admitted it in the beginning well now there wouldn't have been a story would there.
A new show on TLC.... Link here: Breaking Amish
Post a Comment