The Ozark Trilogy

I feel right bad for of givin it only two stars, but three for sure would seem an outright benastied lie. (Sorry -- with reading page after page of talk like that, it may take me a while to recover and begin to speak normally again.) If I were to rate them as separate books instead of as a whole, I would favor the first book and frown on the last.

Not being that big on the fantasy genre anyway, and not necessarily having an affection for (or much knowledge of) the Ozark culture, I had a difficult time initially getting hooked into this story. I stopped and started it a few times over the past year, but eventually forced myself to sit down and get through it. Why did I put so much effort into reading a book I wasn't thrilled about reading? Because a friend of mine liked it and wanted to discuss it. At this point I think she owes me a favor.

I recently learned that there is an official name for a disorder that causes some people who are sensitive to particular noises to feel rage upon hearing them, called misophonia (nytimes.com). I'm not sure if there's also an official name for those of us who have similar rage as a result of spelling and grammar errors (my own included) -- but if so, I have it. Granted, these were not errors inasmuch as purposes, but I found them immensely distracting just the same. Elgin PAINSTAKINGLY DELIBERATELY uses "might of/could of/had to of/she'd of" throughout the book instead of might've/could've/had to've/she would've. This is bad enough as it is, but then there are a couple of times (two, to be exact, that I caught) where she does not:

On p. 328 (The Grand Jubilee), "Anne didn't mind having a rare creature about, precisely, but she'd rather HAVE had grandchildren...", and then on p. 427 (Then There'll Be Fireworks), "Well, it might HAVE been that you could." Oversight? Purpose? If on purpose, then what's the rule? I live by rules and this seems like pure anarchy and I can't survive without solid leadership, foresight, and RULES. Instead of being able to get easily into the story, I was completely distracted by the speaking style and by trying to figure out the rules of its use.

Now there *were* some things I really liked. Once I was far enough in, I fell in love with the first book from Responsible's POV, but I was lulled into thinking that all three would also be from her POV and was disgruntled when I found this not to be the case. But still, the first book was great. I also like the fact that it's not your run-of-the-mill love story, and to avoid spoilers, I'll leave it at that. It was also fun to see these characters living up to their names -- or at least trying to, which runs parallel to Puritan naming rituals where children were given religious/pious virtue names to encourage them to also live up to their name and to serve as an example to the community for that virtue ("Charity," "Constance," "Patience," etc.). In Elgin's case, the roles the characters serve seemed to be more about balancing the universe than fulfilling a religious or spiritual duty. Either way, the characters were highly entertaining.

Although I didn't go into this book thinking it was a comedy, one exchange actually caused me to laugh out loud and is now one of my favorite quotes of all time:

"DAUGHTER OF BRIGHTWATER, I APOLOGIZE... THEY ONLY REPEAT THEMSELVES. THEY SAY THEY WILL BE WATCHING. AND THAT IS ALL THEY SAY. THEY HAVE NOTHING TO ADD.

...

ALTHOUGH THEY HAVE SAID THEY HAVE NOTHING TO ADD, Sterling said disgustedly, THEY HAVE ADDED SOMETHING."

I have a quirky sense of humor, I guess.

All-in-all, I'm not sure it's best served in trilogy form; piece by piece might make it more of a palatable meal. And, what one person might label as "imaginative," another may label as "weird." I'm afraid I fall on the side of the latter -- though I still enjoyed the ride.