Entry #570643, added on 02-28-08 @ 11:37 pm EST
Entry Access Restriction: None.
| Cold Mountain | Entry #570643 |
A review for the book Cold Mountain that I wrote for English and thought was actually well-written:
Romance, tragedy, war, comedy, magic, action. Cold Mountain has a little bit of everything. Upon picking up this novel and reading the first paragraph, I knew I would enjoy it. The ebb and flow of Charles Fraizer's style of writing gives the novel an ambiance of sorts. I believe that he could write anything, whether it be horrible or not, and still win an award simply because the tone and style of his work make the whole thing seem epic. In Cold Mountain, he writes about the tragedy that touches every person of the war, and the way he speaks to the reader makes them pay attention.
At first, it's hard to pinpoint the subject of Cold Mountain. Is it the love story? Or the war? Or just the battle of good vs. evil? In the end, if the reader digs a little bit deeper, they will find that the book is about all of it, coming together. Charles Frazier uses the war, an event that everyone, no matter their age, knows something about, and gives us a whole different view on it. Through Inman, he shows the tragedy of it, the death; through Ada he shows the loss of someone left behind; and through Ruby he shows one person's chance at new life. But he throws it all into the war, almost trying to blind the reader from seeing what lies beneath, what the moral of the story is.
It's easy for me to say that I've never read a book like this. Very long ago, after reading a series of memoirs, I was turned off of books that revolved around any war. I can honestly say that, no matter how interesting this book looked or how good I heard it was, I would never have picked it up and read it unless forced to. My belief was that all war memoirs were all the same. Just like sports movies, they all started to blend together until I couldn't tell one from another. But this book is nothing like the others. In the beginning, I had doubts, thinking that there was no way that this book would be good unless it was a memoir- written by someone who took place in the war and experienced it for themselves- because those were always the best, but I have found that the outside point of view makes it that much better.
Would a person who took place in the war really know what it was like to sit at home and wait for their loved one to return? Or would a person waiting for their loved one really be able to focus on the tragedy of war?
They would both have their point of view. And since they are so strong in what they experienced, they would get tunnel vision and not be able to see it from the other side.
But a person who simply went and researched the war from both sides would get so much out of it that they could write a little of both and throw in a whole new standpoint to go with them.
My respect and idolization toward Charles Frazier is never-ending. I may never read another Charles Frazier novel for the rest of my life, and I can honestly say that I probably won't, but I will still be amazed at the depth of this book. Finishing it, and looking back on everthing that I read, really had an effect on me. It was like I was hit by a ton of bricks and saw the war in a whole new way. I will never be able to think about the Civil War without seeing the faces of Ada and Inman and thinking about all the things, all the people, who were lost along the road to our country's freedom. |
© Copyright 2008 GryffindorGurl (UN: magicfreak11 at Writing.Com). All rights reserved.
GryffindorGurl has granted Writing.Com, its affiliates and its syndicates non-exclusive rights to display this work.
|
Log In To Leave Feedback
Static Items
Books
Forums
Groups
Interactive Stories
Audio
Campfire Creatives
Community Notes
Crossword Puzzles
Documents
Folders
Images
In & Outs
Madlibs
Photo Albums
Polls
Product Reviews
Quizzes
Survey Forms
Web Pages
Word Searches
