Unpopular opinion time: I hated this book. I don't think it has a single redeeming quality and I only finished it because I wanted to be able to say that with complete certainty.
The writing: I don't think this is even close to well-written. Richardson writes the whole thing in the vernacular, which I understand is a style choice, but it's one I hated (also hate that Cussy's father calls her Daughter all the time, but that's neither here nor there). The dialogue was so stilted and inauthentic I could hardly stand it. Instead of explaining things in the narration, it would be explained in the dialogue and it never felt natural. But the biggest issue with the writing is the pacing. It's so bad! Nothing would happen for chapters and then all of a sudden, a bunch of action for about 10 pages, then nothing happens for another 50! And the parts in between the action were often so boring! Great authors can pull you in and show without telling, and Richardson doesn't do that. There was way too much telling and not enough showing in this book. Which brings me to the story itself.
The story: I see a lot of people saying it's too much of a romance, and to those people I say, "you've clearly never read a romance." Romance does not equal melodrama, which is actually what this book is. It was somehow simultaneously sappy and depressing and I rolled my eyes so often throughout reading that at one point I thought I would lose them to the back of my head. The love story (if you can call it that, and I don't) was also ridiculous. Jackson and Cussy are on page together a total of what, four times, and the reader is supposed to believe they're in love? They barely ever talked! There was no chemistry and there certainly wasn't any romance. And why does Richardson choose to completely gloss over the aspects of the story that could make for more interesting and well developed characters like marital rape and abortion (which, by the way is not a spoiler because it happens within the first few chapters and then is completely ignored for the rest of the book)!
The characters: for a book this long, I would expect well developed characters and story lines, but again, that was not the case. All of the characters are two dimensional and surface level with not a single nuance between any of them. Everyone in this book is either a sinner (evil) or a saint (good) and there is no in-between. The only character who may have had a semblance of depth was the doctor, but that really read more as a split personality. I didn't care about any of them at all, because I didn't know any of them, even Cussy, whose head you're inside for the whole book!
Beating a dead horse: this heading is for the fact that Richardson spent 300 pages beating the same three ideas to death. Number 1: The people in this story are poor and starving. That was probably true, but honestly, I didn't need to be reminded every third page. Some subtlety would have been nice. Number 2: Books are the best thing ever and everyone loved the librarians and that program was the only thing these people lived for. I love books and I believe that for some people in that place and era, that is what they lived for, but everyone? The way Richardson would wax poetic about everyone's love of the written word eventually just got on my nerves. I get it! Number 3: and this is the biggie for me, is the blue thing. I am quite sure that the blue people of Kentucky did face severe discrimination and life was harder for them than some others. And I understand how Cussy as a character would be constantly dealing with that (although again, a little subtlety wouldn't have hurt, I was sick of hearing how she was blue by about chapter 5), but Richardson takes it a step further and appears to try to conflate being blue with being Black. Going so far as to capitalizing Blue like a race, but not Black. She goes so far as to say, "It was difficult being colored, much less my odd, ugly color and the last color of my kind." Is Richardson seriously trying to imply that the blue people were worse off than Black people? In rural Kentucky? During the Depression? I don't buy it. And, if it is true, where is the research to back it up? Richardson writes an author's note at the end, trying to make clear how much she's researched, but there's no mention of where she gets the idea that they were treated worse than Blacks. And while I'll admit, she never comes right out and says it in the book, she definitely comes right up to the line on that and I didn't like it. The blue skin is a medical condition, but they are not another race.
I know this is a super popular book and people love it, but I cannot in good conscience recommend it to anyone. If you're really interested in learning more about the blue people of Kentucky, find a nonfiction book.