I think every long series has a dud; I had to force myself to finish this one even though it wasn't that long. I just didn't like it that much, and there are a lot of reasons. While it's clear that research did go into this book, there were a lot of historical inaccuracies when it came to the social and cultural attitudes of the time. There were so many fundamental misunderstandings of how people thought and behaved, especially when it came to the portions about the Diaz family, that it became hard to suspend disbelief. There was also a heavy use of foreshadowing, and I mean so heavy that it started to make characters look stupid for not picking up on things that were happening right in front of their eyes. AND! There were so many story threads that didn't go anywhere and didn't get rounded off. (What the hell happened with Mae? Why was there no resolution to the tension between Hannah and Isabel?)
I also just wasn't emotionally attached to Elizabeth or Henry as characters. They played a really minor role in the Christmas Quilt, and I don't think they needed their own book. Elizabeth is a self-centered, spoiled girl who is trying to prove herself, and Henry's main character trait is that he's bitter about getting scammed and is taking it out on Elizabeth. The other half of the story is about the Mexican family who lost their land because their white neighbors took advantage of them, and the legacy of suffering that sent through the female line of the family.
Elizabeth is the character we're following, and she just sucks, dude. She's naive, annoying, and extremely immature. She's also full of double-standards and is constantly making little misogynistic pick-me comments in her head. Even though the first thing we learn about her is that she's a huge flirt who goes on dates with a ton of guys just to tease Henry, she calls girls who do the same thing as her, the "Dumb Doras" 'who cling to guy's arms and who don't mind if he pulls the car to the side of the road to make out,' i.e., she's calling other women sluts, but she's not like that, she's better than them. Girl, shut up. I wouldn't have a problem with this kind of attitude, as it's true to the historical period, but the author will also try to inject progressive modern values at weird times as well as if to go, "Look, my characters aren't bigots! They're good people, see?!"
For example, at one point Elizabeth is talking to this guy from the circus who said he had to marry his wife to get her to stop complaining, and Elizabeth is affronted, thinking to herself, "The last moral I want to hear is that marriage means the end of a woman's right to speak her mind! I can't imagine the Bergstrom women standing for that! If she can deal with a horse, she can discipline her husband." I find it hard to believe that Elizabeth was this naive about sexist attitudes and spousal abuse, and is later in shock when she finds out that John, a guy she already saw shove Rosa and shout at her in in front of guests twice, was also beating her in private. Like, are you stupid? Marital rape was legal, beating your wife 'for discipline' was legal. Divorce was socially impossible for women in the 20s. People were well aware of domestic abuse at the time, it just wasn't prosecuted and the woman couldn't leave. "I can't imagine a Bergstrom woman putting up with that!" she says, but... you can though. You yourself witnessed your mother staying in an abusive alcoholic marriage because leaving him is out of the question. You yourself have gotten yourself into a situation where you are now isolated with this man on the other side of the country, cut off from your support network, incredibly vulnerable and alone with this man who is now angry and bitter about your situation. You yourself have been self-policing your emotions and thoughts ever since you got here because you don't want to further wound your husband's ego. Henry has been nothing but rude and mean to her for months and Elizabeth just keeps telling herself that it's her fault for being 'selfish' enough to be sad about his behavior. She also starts lying to strangers, friends, and family to conceal what is going on in her marriage, because Henry is too prideful to 'go hat in hand to his father, proving myself a failure',(classic warning sign of abuse, by the way, when you're embarrassed for other people to know how he acts in private!), and she maintains his lie, just to protect Henry from 'the shame.' She spends so much time in this book doing damage control for Henry, maintaining a façade that everything is normal within the marriage, when she knows it isn't. But "I can't imagine a Bergstrom woman would put up with that." ...
My characters are good people, so I must come up with excuses for why the men in Rosa's life didn't stop the abuse! I'll just claim that they 'didn't know!' Isn't that every bystanders excuse? "I didn't know." Bullshit. The book claims that if Lars and Carlos and Henry only knew Rosa was being beaten, they'd do everything they could to help. No? Men of the day saw it as another man's right to discipline his own wife. This was a time period in which products were advertized in newspapers with images of women being 'put over their husband's knee'. Men didn't jump to the rescue; it was a conspiracy of silence. Even the men who didn't beat their wives benefitted from the ones who did, because now they can look better by comparison. Pretending Carlos didn't know, even though John has been raping and beating Rosa's ass for years, it's the story's way of absolving the men who did nothing. He even says aloud "She made her bed, she has to lie in it." Which is a fine thing to say to a woman who wanted to marry the other guy, but wasn't allowed to because her parents wouldn't allow it; ended up choosing the man they approved of, and then was disowned anyway. "She made her bed." FUCK you. You guys made the bed for her and pulled back the covers. Elizabeth then tells him, "MY brother would never allow anyone to hit me." Are you sure about that? You brother might come back to you and say, "Well, you married him!" and you'll be SOL!
There's also this little self-righteous speech from Mrs. Jorgenson about how "if one man gets away with beating his wife, other men will think it's tolerable, if one woman accepts a beating, other women will think they should too!" Which is all well and good, but what year do you think this is? What do you think the history of the world is? This is the modern readers perspective trying to absolve the sins of historical people, trying to justify and sanitize the past somehow. If you wanted to be authentic, you would've had these women slipping Rosa some rat poison to put in his food. Telling the other men and telling the authorities would do nothing except get her beaten even worse. Also, for all the self-righteous speeches she gave, when it comes down to it and they're saying Rosa should leave, Mrs. Jorgenson said, "Well, she married him, and that's that." The same attitude as Carlos, that she ultimately DOES have to put up with the beatings and rape and bear it, because they're married. Chiaverinni just doesn't want her characters to look like monsters who condone domestic abuse, but this is the time period you're writing about and you chose to bring spousal abuse into the story. You can't run away from it like this!
Another example of this weird insertion of modern views to make historical people more palatable to modern readers is in the sections with the Diaz family. Like, she shows a scene in 1890 where a Mexican father taking over the family cooking with no complaint, and two mexican parents in 1910 who are concerned that their 14 year old daughter is dating an 18 year old man, and that four year age gap is too much for them. Do you know anything about Mexican culture? Especially in the early 1900s? Not a progressive place! In fact, it was an extremely patriarchal culture based on strict social hierarchy. Girls getting married and pregnant young was extremely commonplace. What the hell do you think Quinces came from? It's a ritual signaling that a young girl is now of marriageable age. Also, there's a reason that Isabel had to take over as 'little mom' after her mother died, and become a surrogate wife to her father, cook and clean everything: Patriarchy and traditional gender roles! This book portraying a mexican man from 1880 happily taking over cooking for the family when Isabel refuses is pure fantasy. "Your father can look after himself, you can leave and get married." Uhhh no? A young woman in this situation wouldn't have been permitted the social freedom to leave and get married. She would have been deemed responsible for her father's care by the community. In this story, her dad asks her if she's going to cook dinner, and she goes, "No", and then he goes... "Okay, I guess I'll cook my own food." This was not how it'd go down. The real story is Isabel is little mom for her dad and siblings, takes on adult burdens and loses her own childhood, and finally gets married and knocked up young just to escape her parents house, and immediately becomes saddled with her own kids-- and her responsibilities are passed on to her sister. There was also this stuff about Isabel's little 16 year old sister saying she wants to go to college to be a teacher, and... no ordinary poor family in the 1880s in Mexico was sending a girl to college; they weren't sending kids to college period. Only 28 percent of Mexican adults have any college education in the 2020s, let alone in the 1880s. In the 1910 census, they found only 33% of men and 27% of women were literate. Very few students went on to secondary education, let alone college. Like, are you kidding me with this? Women did start to become teachers and participate in the revolution in the 1910s (The author didn't have the stones to mention the socialist revolution in Mexico in the 1910s by the way. Interesting slip of the tongue to have your mexican family be named Diaz, which was the name of the dictator that was overthrown in the revolution, by the way.) when this book is set, but this wouldn't have been an opportunity that Isabel's family had; they were simply too poor. The majority of the population couldn't even read. But, let's say for some reason this was possible in 1910, and their daughter does have the opportunity to go to school-- Rosa then goes on to say, "I don't actually want to go to college." .... and her parents... allow it. They allow her to turn down that unbelievable opportunity that only the elites had access to. This was one of the big giveaways that she doesn't understand the culture she's writing about. First of all, as a Mexican daughter in this time period, you don't tell your parents no, especially your father, without major repurcussions.
What boggles belief is the suggestion that mexican parents in the 1910s allowed their daughters, even their adult daughters, to 'date', leave the house in secret to meet lovers, etc. Ridiculous. This is an extremely catholic society with a patriarchal attitude. Parents were authoritarian and strict with the girls in order to keep them 'pure', and lenient and coddling with the boys. The idea that her parents caught Rosa sneaking out of her room at night even ONE time and weren't like, 'You're marrying him tomorrow morning' is ridiculous. I DO NOT buy the fact that Miguel just shrugs his shoulders and goes, "she's twenty, we can't do anything" and 'can't believe that his beautiful daughter could do any wrong', and doesn't feel any type of way that 'this young man doesn't want to meet us.' You've never met a Mexican father, have you. Dating at this time and for decades after, is the young man hanging around in front of the parent's house so he can talk to the girl on the porch, then going home. The way these sections are written reveals a complete ignorance to how differently girls are treated by parents in Mexican society, especially back then.
There were a lot of silly mistakes like that, and some of them were so easy to verify too, and are just based on widespread historical misconception. A big one is her repeating several times that 1920's flapper dresses were 'up to the knee'. Flapper dresses did not expose the knee when you were standing up. They were considered daring because when you sat down, the knee was almost exposed. There's also this goofy passage near the beginning where Henry and Elizabeth are stargazing, and the hay is described as warm and sweet from the sun.... in the middle of the night?
The way Prohibition is handled in this book is also weird. Unless you were a teetotaler or a sobriety warrior, you wouldn't be talking about prohibition like it was some moral necessity. People of the day remembered what it was like having the right to drink and the societal problems that popped up because of the ban were immediate, violent, and self-evident. People knew how ridiculous and counter-productive prohibition was; that's the reason it was reversed. This makes it extremely strange to hear random characters make comments about how "Prohibition was the best thing in the world for some people", suggesting that prohibition stopped alcoholics from accessing alcohol. Don't make me laugh!
It also doesn't escape my notice that the author subverts the real history of Mexicans having their land stolen by Norwegians, Swedes, Germans, and other whites who moved into the area, by having her fictional latino family 'sell' the land to the Norwegians in a 'fair trade' during a drought, and then being unable to buy it back. Then Mrs. Jorgenson have the nerve to talk shit about the new housing developments, she doesn't want new people moving in, when her own family is the one who moved in and stole land from a desperate neighbor who's family had lived there for a century and wouldn't give it back. "You shouldn't put your own interests before that of future generations-" KIND OF LIKE HOW YOU STOLE THE LAND AND FUTURE FROM YOUR NEIGHBOR'S DESCENDANTS. "We don't have enough water to support other neighbors, not in drought years." Kind of like how you used that drought to exploit your desperate neighbors and take their land. Like, this isn't your valley; your family moved in here from Norway and displaced the people who already lived here.
Also, fuck Henry! I hate him, the fucking liar! He feels so inadequate and emasculated by his own failures to provide for his new wife, that he takes out those feelings on her and punishes her by withdrawing his affection. The only thing that matters is his stupid wounded male ego, meanwhile she's going out of her way to prove her loyalty and love to him, and he repays her by pretending she doesn't exist and refusing to return her hugs. Also, notice how he's working in the field all day, come home and goes to bed to rest, but she also works all day, then has to clean, cook, run her husband's bath, and basically work a second shift during their 'off' time as well? She sacrifices everything to stay with him, she leaves her home and family and moves across the country, and it turns out he has none of the things he promised her, none of the money or security he promised, but she stays, she sells the quilts and china she was given by her family members as wedding gifts, and he repays her with anger. He's the one who got scammed and ruined your lives because he was too foolish to go look at a piece of land before buying it, but now SHE feels like she has to pay the price to prove herself to him. He's too wrapped up in his own ego and can't ask for help or admit that he was scammed, and is willing to plunge his new wife into poverty and degradation because his humiliation is more important to him than his wife's comfort and safety. They end up getting into a shoot-out at this stupid farm!
We find out near the end that he lied to her about the most crucial aspect of their relationship because he was trying to test her to see if she actually loved him-- and now he's punishing her for passing the test. He withdrew all affection because now he feels undeserving and his ego is shattered. And in this time period she can't even seek a divorce even though he totally lied about everything to get her to married him. He thinks it's okay to lie to his wife about major life decisions, and was also okay with conspiring with his father to lie to his mom about him leaving. Imagine being that woman, betrayed by your husband and your son, because they think she 'can't handle' the truth, so they just bypass her opinion by lying to her together. Men like this are the fucking worst, dude. Elizabeth gets angry and betrayed, and then we get to see her gaslight herself into staying in real-time, "He wouldn't lie to me, he's not like my father, he would never do that to me." HE JUST DID. She just forgives him and then gives him sex! Don't do for men what they would never do for you.
Worst part is that the quilting felt like an afterthought of this book, not the focus. Elizabeth working on the quilts feels shoe-horned, the real quilt drama is Mrs. Deigel lying to her and selling her quilt after promising to keep it so she could get it back .
And finally, the way the movie-star plot was rounded off was that Elizabeth accepts motherhood and being a farmer's wife; I don't want to be a star anymore, I have an even BETTER role here, barefoot and pregnant on the farm! Ugh.
Rosa's story was sad, and was the only thing that kept me reading to the end. Very tragic and drawn out.