Yes, fair comment. I was really enjoying reading the book and I’m three quarters of the way through. I don’t know whether it’s my bias towards Dickens, or the fact that it won the Pulitzer Prize whilst being so closely aligned with a classic novel that has me so out of kilter. The writing is brilliant, and I’m in awe of Kingsolver’s skill in the craft.
I’m open to discussion on this and am genuinely looking for opinions from others. When I saw that ALL of the characters were lifted from the original, with only nominal changes made to the names it felt, to me, like a brilliant and clever cut and paste, as opposed to a unique creative work. Have you read David Copperfield? Is it even necessary to do so? I wish I didn’t know the book’s provenance. I want the book to stand on its own, without reference to Dickens. And I may be missing the point. Hence the post.
I guess that’s what I’m trying to work out. It could just be my own bias against Dickens.