MAJOR INEXCUSABLE INCONSISTENCIES! When the book doesn’t know how many children the main character had that died, or where they are buried; it destroys the illusion that any of this really happened. It makes you feel like the author doesn’t really care about Sarah.(See pg383 These is my words, then pg 14, 109 and 369 in Sarah’s Quilt) The fact is that when they remind you of the blunder at the beginning middle and end of the book it is very difficult to get past it. Also, there were other problems with the Sarah not seeming to be the same heroine we loved from the 1st book; particularly with how long she let some things with a neighbor go on.
Do you think Lazarus is what became of Blue Horse or General Lockwood from the 1st book) hiding behind the filth and hair? (I’d say more but don’t want spoilers).
Question: What about Chess and his ranch or cattle/money from it? Seems strange that was never mentioned since he was living with Sara throughout and we know from the previous book he had left a very successful ranch that didn’t need him there anymore to take care of itself.
Interesting to contrast from pg.370 of 1st book people asking Jack to run vs. Rudolpho in this book.
DIDN’T CARE FOR THE TITLE / TOO AWARE OF AUTHOR THROUGHOUT
I like the description of the quilts hung above the parlor ready to be dropped (pg 51) but really was too aware of the author trying to impose the quilt theme throughout. It seemed difficult to picture Sara as a quilter. The final commentary about the quilt of her life seemed particularly heavy handed. I know you want a grabber of an opening sentence, but it was weird jolt to start in the middle of a story after the privious book. I found the chapter divisions (like the page breaks in the 1st book) arbitrary and felt she should have stuck more with the original format or should have dropped the dates within each chapter.