Rating: 
Summary: Scarlett
Review: I recently jst read Scarlett and I think it is pretty good even if it is obviously not as good as Gone With the Wind. The begining is good and the middle is also good sometimes but the end is great. If you want to find out what happens I highly recommened this book.
Rating: 
Summary: Makes Me Sick!
Review: When I read Gone With The Wind, I just couldn't put it down. It was so beautifully written, and I love books like that. I used the page number to my advantage, for I loved every single page that I read... But this! This makes me SICK! I could write better than this. It's written in what I call *1ST GRADE WRITING* yuck! I don't think this is even worth reading. It's such immature writing. Scarlett isn't the selfish complicated woman that Gone With The Wind described, in Ripley's book, she's a heartsick wuss who needs Rhett's love and can't live without it. She suddenly turned kind (am I missing something here? Spoiled Scarlett O'Hara? Kind! Ha!) And early in the book, Rhett takes her dressed as the queen of hearts into his arms and laughs, when his mind is supposed to be set. A. Ripley is mistreating the characters in this, writing simple words, not writing with the passionate love that Mitchell wrote with...
Rating:
Summary: I couldn't put it down, but I missed the original
Review: I've read Gone With the Wind, and it will go down into history as one of my favorite books. I have read "Scarlett" 3 or 4 times (I lost count) and it is a quick easy read. One of my favorite elements of "Scarlett" was Charlestown. I love how in all of Ripley's books with Charlestown there are the same charactors. It keeps me on my toes, and turning pages. The chapters melt away and I usually cry when I finish the book. Because I know that era is over and won't return again. The beauty and culture are irreplicable, but nice to dream about. I would reccomend this to anyone, but read "Gone With the Wind" first. Then read some more Ripley novels, they're great. Thanks-
Rating: 
Summary: A good book, if you get past the fact that it's a sequel
Review: Unlike many of the other people who reviewed this book, I thought it was imaginitive and very easy to read. I first read this book during an 8-hour car trip and finished it with time to spare. I think putting Scarlett in her native land of Ireland was a great idea, and the description of her life there is so glamorous and magical. I would recommend this book.
Rating: 
Summary: Awful as a Sequel - Fine as a Novel on its Own
Review: I pre-ordered this novel when is was published in hardcover. I raced to the bookstore to pick it up as soon as the store opened. I spent the next two days reading constantly, with decreasing interest and passion. This is not Scarlett and this is not Rhett. She wouldn't leave Tara, not in a million years. This is some other woman's story, and it's not a bad one. Ms. Ripley writes well and plots even better. I have to give it a low score since it's supposed to be a sequel.
Rating:
Summary: If you're aching to know the outcome with Scarlett and Rhett
Review: ...the only especially attractive aspect of this book is that you'll find out in the end.Obviously, Margaret Mitchell's work would be a "tough act to follow" in any case, but the depth of characterisation, historical flavous, and relationships in the first book is sadly absent from the second. One who has loved Gone with the Wind will find that the few characters who have not died are shelved, and, since we came to know them so intensely and at such length in the Mitchell work, old friends seem to be total strangers. All in all, it is very disappointing. Rent it at your library.
Rating: 
Summary: Scarlett
Review: Although entertaining, Alexandra Ripley's Scarlett is too idealistic and would not at all portray the views and style of Margaret Mitchell. Ripley changes the traits of the characters, making them much more tolerable but so unreal and it feels as if you are starting on a new novel with new characters, not a continuation of Mitchell's classic. Ripley deserves credit for trying to top a masterpiece, but Scarlett cannot be compared to the utterly amazing Gone With the Wind.
Rating:
Summary: .....why?
Review: The only good thing about this book was the ending. It was a little cheesey & kind of boring. The writter just wasn't very good. The first is my favorite book & this just doesn't compare.
Rating:
Summary: Believe it or not Ripley's effort not as bad as we thought
Review: Everyone agrees that "Scarlett" is not "Gone With the Wind." Nobody even had to read the book to come to that conclusion. But on the other hand this is not the worst sequel ever written. As far as I am concerned that honor goes to the Greek poet who created a sequel to Homer's Odyssey in which the hero, after finally having returned home to his wife and child after twenty years, goes off wandering again only to be slain by an illegitimate son. "Scarlett" is a lot better than that to be sure. Again, to be fair, the book was written only so the heirs to Margaret Mitchell (Peggy Marsh) could preserve the copyright to the characters. Alexandra Ripley was given the thankless task of writing the sequel and I think enough time has passed now to reconsider her effort. Given the circumstances, I think Ripley made several smart moves. First, she did not try to emulate the style of Margaret Mitchell's original prose. The narration is much crisper than in the original book. Second, the decision to send Scarlett to Ireland, so that she can have Rhett Butler's illegitimate child, is actually an inspired decision. The genius of the book was always the character of Katie Scarlett O'Hara, a strong-willed woman who did whatever it took to get whatever she wanted, friends and society be damned. For a literary world used to such weak sisters as Emma Bovary and Camille, this was a monumental breakthrough. A woman of means and substance would thrive much more in Ireland than she would in the South of the Reconstruction era. The British aristocracy would also recall for Scarlett the old South before the Civil War. By her selection of a new setting for most of the novel, Ripley at least gave the sequel a solid foundation. The problem of course is that the reconciliation of Rhett and Scarlett is a foregone conclusion. "Gone With the Wind" might begin with Scarlett at Tara longing for a man she can not have and end with Scarlett at Tara longing for a man she can not have, with the difference being the man in question changes from Ashley to Rhett, but the sequel can not do the same thing. Consequently, every man who has designs towards Scarlett is just a momentary diversion. The spontaneous moment of passion after defying death that results in Scarlett's pregnancy is too contrived, not to mention pretty much a total rehash of the same scene in the original book. Ripley needed to come up with a motivation for their reunion that is as inspired as the move to Ireland. The other significant failing I would note in the book is that if anything Scarlett and Rhett regress as characters. I have to think that at this point in here life, when Scarlett no longer needs a man to help her attain her means, she would be more selective in her choice of lovers. Of course, if Rhett's character does not forget all that happened at the end of the original book to kill his love for Scarlett, this sequel is not going to work, and the plot demands that he be kept off stage as much as possible until the happy ending. No wonder most readers come to the conclusion these are not the same characters that captivated them in the original story. Furthermore, the supporting characters are not as outstanding as Mitchell's original cast, with Collum O'Hara being the only one that really comes close. Those that are not dead are easily disposed of, and Scarlett's other children are cut out as neatly from her life as they were from the film version. My final complaint would be that the final fadeout of the novel could have been a lot more memorable. So while I am strongly in the camp of those who wished a sequel had never been necessary, I do not think "Scarlett" is a total disaster. It has some serious flaws but I also think Ripley's effort has to be considered to be at least as valiant as it was in vain (stupid copyright laws).
Rating:
Summary: Margaret Mitchell's relative's side of the story
Review: Yeah, I'm Margaret Mitchell's Great-Great niece at 13 years old, and I tell you, I knew after reading Auntie's book, nothing could compare, but Alexandra Ripley tried her best. She kind of lost the character of Scarlett. Her stubborn, selfish nature we all have cherished for so long was lost. Wade and Ella were given about as much part of the book as they were in the movie, none. Although I can see Scarlett going to Ireland and creating Ballyhara,I also don't believe that Scarlett would sleep with Ragland like that. Hey, we have to give her some gratification, she gave it a shot, and considering the time difference between 1936 and 2000, she did fairly well.
|
