5 comments about Cold Mountain.

1. i will confess that i tried reading this book a couple times unsuccessfully, getting mired in the first 40 pages where frazier establishes his characters and plot. but i am glad that this time i read past this: once inman (main character) begins his journey home, the story becomes one of the most captivating i have ever read.
   
   in writing this novel, frazier does something old fashioned and daring -- he tells a real story, built around two well defined characters without resorting to the post-modern self-consciousness or tricks popular with so many of his peers.
   
   cold mountain is a "modern" version of homer's odyssey, modern in that it is set during the civil war as a soldier journeys home thru a devastated south to reach his loved one. there are a million great things i could say about this book. but you should simply go read it -- and be patient as the story unfolds. there are elements of twain and cormac mccarthy here and yet frazier's style is ultimately his own.
   
   the final pages literally took my breath away and i can say that about only a handful of books i have ever read.



2. It's hard to describe Charles Frazier's debut novel, as it's like nothing else I've ever read. The only other book that I've ever had trouble reviewing has been the The Complete Conversations with God (Boxed Set), a series that makes for a rather awkward comparison considering it belongs in another genre altogether. The similarities between the two lie in the uniqueness of how the tales are told.
   
   I'll start by saying that I watched the movie Cold Mountain (Two-Disc Collector's Edition) starring Nicole Kidman and Jude Law before reading the novel, which in hindsight, actually turned out in my favour. On reading the book I found myself captivated by the beautiful language and mellow pace of the story, something that was obviously lost in the film adaptation. Despite the film giving away the most important details of the plot, the change in the method of which the story was told meant that there were still several pleasant surprises to experience on the way. In particular, the romance between Inman and Ada is much more poignant and has a lot more weight when compared to the (rather flimsy) treatment of their love story in the film.
   
   Inman is a soldier who should be dead from his neck-wound, but who survives and decides to desert in order to return to his beloved home on Cold Mountain, North Carolina, where his love Ada is waiting for him. On the journey home, Inman struggles against the dangers of a war zone and the weakness of his own healing body, meeting several intriguing characters along the way who either help or hinder him. Meanwhile, Ada (a socialite who finds herself stranded in the middle of nowhere after her father's death) struggles to maintain the derelict farmhouse she inherits. Thankfully, the help of a drifter named Ruby means that Ada gradually sheds her upper-class ways and learns how to live on the natural rhythms of the land (though she does manage to introduce Ruby to some English literature in return!)
   
   With two such different stories, it's inevitable that some will enjoy one character's progress over the other. Much has already been said on Inman's Odyssey-like journey from the war to his home, but I found myself intrigued by the precarious situation that Ada finds herself in. Coming from such a wealthy and stable background, Ada has too much pride to return to her relations, and instead finds herself forced to become a laborer on her own land. Finding that her education, culture and social etiquette is completely useless in her new surroundings, Ada learns to live off the land - and Ruby considers it an achievement when Ada stops taking a book out into the fields with her (although Ada does manage to introduce Ruby to literature in the evening, including - you guessed it - The Odyssey (Penguin Classics)).
   
   It is tempting to describe the book as a "Civil War book", given the historical background of the story itself, or as a "love story" considering the relationship between the two protagonists. Yet the novel is neither of these things, despite the fact that "Cold Mountain" centers around the themes of both love and war. As others have already mentioned, reading this book with the expectation of a Gone with the Wind type-story will lead to disappointment. Furthermore, the fact that the Inman and Ada spend most of the novel apart means that their initial courtship is told in mainly in the reveries of the two characters.
   
   The Civil War is just the necessary catalyst to put our protagonists on their paths toward personal growth, understanding of their place in the world and a sense of peace. Technically, the Civil War could be any war. (Well not really, considering the care and detail that Frazier puts into describing the geographical beauty and culture of America's south, but that's beside the point). Likewise, the love between Inman and Ada is the goal that each are moving toward, but it is the symbol of home and stability that each personify to the other rather than a sense of "epic love" that make up the real basis of their relationship.
   
   My point is, that this isn't a book about the historical impact of the Civil War or even a star-crossed lovers' tale. It's about the impact a war has on a select number of human beings, and how they deal with all the terrible consequences it has on the daily routines of life. Set against the chaos and destruction of war is the steady rhythm of nature and the turn of the seasons: inexorable and unchanging. And yet, that is simply *my* reading of the text - in a novel this rich and dense, there are endless possibilities for interpretation and understanding.
   
   The language is what really draws you into the novel; it is poetic and dreamy without becoming pretentious or getting in the way of the plot itself. Even when Frazier draws out the story out into flashbacks or characters' reveries, there's always something interesting to be learnt. There are a few odd stylistic choices, the most obvious being that there are no speech marks. Instead, dialogue throughout the text is punctuated by a dash. However, since this technique is neither necessary nor distracting, there is little need to dwell on it save to point out that it's there!
   
   One thing I will say though, in the inevitable comparison with Gone with the Wind. When reading Margaret Mitchell's novel, I felt that I was reading a part of history, something that happened a long time ago in a world that had long since disappeared. Frazier's novel however - whether by intent or accident - makes the Civil War feel like something that happened in my own lifetime. The characters and their lives are so immediate that I had to keep reminding myself that had Ada, Ruby and Inman been real people, they would have died hundreds of years ago. That thought surprised me.



3. The juxtaposition of the two tales of Ada's development of her farm and Inman's journey back to her, bring out the cruelty of humanity. Ada can sit on her porch reading literature and eating warm meals while Inman walks miles through cold mountains, days without food and being subjected to unspeakable cruelties. Eventually, the cruelty of man will reach Ada and this is an important point. I found myself thinking how trivial my life is as a civilian, complaining about the stupid war in Iraq and completely ignorant of the suffering of our service men and women serving there. The message for me is how futile war in general is and how hard it is for civilians to appreciate the sacrifices made. A telling point of the story is when Inman walks by the large plantation houses and thinks how he has suffered so the slave owners can keep their way of life. The story is powerful and dark. At times I thought I could not continue reading the book, but I'm glad I fought through it.



4. By the time he published his first novel, Charles Frazier was already forty-seven years old and heading toward his golden years. However, his debut "Cold Mountain" struck a chord when it began populating bookshelves in 1997, so much so that it sold a whopping three million copies worldwide and won the National Book Award. It just goes to show that in the literary world, it's never too late for a star to rise. Frazier has since penned his second novel "Thirteen Moons", another Civil War-centered story, but it is his first novel that set the bar for his superb writing style.
   
   "Cold Mountain" begins with wounded Confederate soldier W.P. Inman (a character loosely based on Frazier's own great-great-uncle William Pinkey Inman) lying in a hospital in Raleigh, NC with a bullet hole in his neck. Never having understood or agreed with the reason for the war or his duty to fight in it, Inman finds himself well enough to leave and climbs through a window in the quiet of the night, knowing full well he will be punished for his desertion. His ultimate quest is to return to his home of Cold Mountain and to the farm at Black Cove to proclaim his love to Ada Monroe, a woman for whom he has pined the last four years.
   
   Meanwhile Ada is struggling to preserve the homestead at Black Cove on her own after her father, the Reverend Monroe, dies suddenly from heart failure. Seemingly out of the mist of the Blue Ridge mountaintops appears Ruby, a young but tough-as-nails frontierswoman who whips the farm back into shape, dictating and divvying out labor as good as she gives it. All the while Ada nods in reply, hastily taking notes in her journal amongst her innermost ramblings and delicate sketches. There is little time allotted for Ada to grieve for her father, as the work of the farm is constant and time-consuming, distracting her from the misery her memories can create.
   
   Frazier's descriptions of the Cold Mountain region are vivid and well detailed, his personal knowledge of the topography of the area working to great effect (Frazier was born in Asheville, only 35 miles north of Cold Mountain). Frazier mentions in the novel's acknowledgments page that he was given a writer's retreat by friends in the North Carolina Mountains and that "the long view from the porch is the book's presiding spirit". Frazier not only referred to his father for all the family stories but researched several different texts to recreate the gritty feel of a Civil War battlefield, in particular the Siege of Petersburg (which he was told his great-great-uncle participated in).
   
   The dialogue is simplistic and appropriately pastoral; nary an anachronism is present in the form of a catch phrase, inside joke or out-of-place mannerism (as a man blows his own horn about his skill in courting women, another man tells him, "You think you bore with a mighty big auger"). Because the lot of these folk live in back country, you have the inevitable slang that suggests a Deep South ignorance and/or lack of proper education ("And they still done him like they did? Spiked him up and knifed him and all?"). You also have the well-educated Ada, whose big-city articulation seems displaced in a wild countryside. As you can see, you get great examples of both sides of the tracks. Most of what is spoken is a far cry from how we communicate today. Some of it (particularly on Ada's side) is, I dare say, disappointingly absent from people today who desperately need better manners and/or a more delicate approach.
   
   In 2003, the novel was adapted to film by the late director Anthony Minghella and starred Nicole Kidman, Jude Law and Renee Zellweger. In the movie, Kidman's portrayal of Ada is one of overt naivete, almost complete uselessness. Ruby has to teach her everything and it's a struggle to get her out of bed to assist in the duties of the farm; she even displays some resistance to learning the tricks and trades of farm work. In the novel, this is hardly mentioned - Ada goes straight to work, knowing full well her obligation and displaying a talent for quick learning. She also abandons her vanity promptly, using one of her best dresses and hats to create a scarecrow for the vegetable crop. There is little change in Ruby's character from book to film; in fact, Zellweger makes her a bit more colorful without losing that fierce independence that Ruby is so known for. Inman remains intact nearly 100%, Jude Law giving a reserved and dignified performance that brings great justice to Frazier's main character.
   
   The love story, however, becomes over-dramatized and cliché. In the book, Ada is a lot more silent and reserved about her feelings for Inman, a bit aloof I would say. It's not until they meet up again in the woods beyond Black Cove that her heart's desires truly start spilling forth. In the movie, Ada is weepy and perpetually emotional, awaiting Inman's return with a heavy heart, wistful letters and watery eyes. In the end we have an epic love scene that serves to sate a viewer's desire to watch two beautiful people in the semi-nude simulate mind-blowing lovemaking (I'll admit I was one of those people - Jude Law is so dreamy, even though he is a scoundrel).
   
   Even after having seen the film before reading the book, I'd have to say that I have no preference for one or the other - I like them both equally. I can appreciate the differences between the two and what was changed for dramatic effect to fit the medium in which it was presented (and I'm referring to the film). I also appreciate what the film managed to preserve about the book - after all, the central point of the story is the most important and it indisputably remained.
   
   Whether you see the film or read the book first, there is one singular certainty - the story will captivate you. There is a reason that this novel has its accolades - it is one of the better novels of our waning generation that seeks to revive another generation long since passed. Experience these unique generations simultaneously by picking up a copy today.



5. I have written a review about this book when I first read it and I must say it really is a wonderful fiction piece. I read this novel during the junior year of highschool, and now as a Graduate Student who has a more in-depth understanding on literary works, this books still continues to hold up and remains in my top-3 books of all time. Although some casual readers may be turned off by the length of it, I suggest stick with it and you will not be disappointed.

5 comments about Thirteen Moons: A Novel.

1. The early reviews knocking Thirteen Moons were off the mark. I think the reviewers did not understand the culture of the times and simply missed many of the subtle points Frazier makes. Sort of like a non-golfer reviewing a golf book and missing the point of "chunking a shot".



2. Having once lived in those inpenetrable laurel and rhododendron forests, Frazier's writing always makes me wax nostalgic. He perfectly captures the sounds, smells and smoky vistas I remember. His prose is of the highest order. The book slowed a bit in the middle and the protagonist got a bit too self-absorbed. Still, I think that was the point of the narrative. While the protagonist, Cooper, was a highly intelligent man, he was also a womanizing bum. In our twilight years, missed opportunity seems to loom large in our ruminations. I can't speak for the author, but I think that was one of his main points. Books like this should be sipped like fine wine, or as Cooper would surely prefer, like an Islay single-malt. Peaty scotches aren't everyone's cup of tea and neither is Frazier's style. I find them equally intoxicating.



3. The author provides a brief note at the end of the book stating that the main character, Will, is not William Holland Thomas, "but that they share the same DNA". I'm not sure what that means exactly; I did a little homework and many of the exact same events of Thomas' life are portrayed in "Thirteen Moons" through Will. This fact is a solid response for those who claim the story is preposterous and beyond the scope of their personal imagination.
   
   At any rate, I have not read Cold Mountain, so it did not effect how I read or thought about this book. Although I did not find the characters "unlikable" like so many other reviewers here, I did find them to be a bit hollow or undeveloped. It was hard for me to understand why Will had such intense passion and love for Claire or his love/hate relationship with Featherstone, but I used my imagination to fill in the gaps and simply read on.
   
   Unlike some of the other reviewers, I did find the prose to be more lyrical than pretentious. Although too few, there were certain passages that I read over and over because I found them beautifully written and insightful. For instance, once Will has become the defacto chief of what is left of the Eastern Cherokee, he finds himself playing arbiter to petty squabbles between tribe members. In one case involving two "old grey-headed men fighting about something they could hardly remember", Will tells the old friends, "When people get to the age you are, anybody that shares even a few of your memories is a treasure beyond price. Love them and forgive their foolishness and hope they'll forgive yours."
   
   The last fourth of the book felt rushed and incomplete. For a book that tells such an "epic" tale, 420 pages seemed not enough to get the job done. Is that the book publishing industry's fault for thinking readers can't handle anything over 500 pages any more? Perhaps, but what would "Lonesome Dove" have been like if cut in half?
   
   Perhaps my biggest issue with this book might come across as trite or inconsequential, but it almost made me stop reading the book when Will's recollection of his duel with Featherstone is cloudy at best. Here is someone who makes clear at the outset of the book that he has kept detailed journals most of his entire life and is able to describe in great detail the weather and smell of air on a given summer day 70 years ago, yet cannot recount with any clarity one of the seminal events of his life. Huh?
   
   All that said, there was enough to like for me to keep reading. The main reason why I would recommend this book to anyone is because it can teach us a thing or two about the Cherokee people and their removal. I have lived in the southern Appalachian region my whole life and have hiked and camped in many of the same woods and forests Frazier's Will describes, yet I have never been told the story of the Cherokee people. Of course, we can't rely on our failing public schools' so-called American History classes to tell us about the realities of America's own version of "ethnic cleansing" and genocide, so where else might we learn about it if not for people like Frazier and his book?



4. As in Cold Mountain, when Frazier lets you into the room of the past, he quietly closes the door behind you. You are there, you are immersed. And he lets you think you understand what is important about that which is unfolding before you - in Thirteen Moons, for example - it is the life story of the frontiersman Will Cooper, told in first person, from age 12 to 90, living through the entire 1800's within the Eastern Cherokee Indian Nation in North Carolina and making something of a success of it. This is a romance too of, yes again, passionate unrequited love, with the man being, again, left largely in the dark, but only a bit moreso than the woman. The quietly played-out background drama, the uprooting of the entire Cherokee Nation, leading to their Removal and the Trail of Tears, only slowly dawns on the reader. It is truly gentle way to experience history - through anecdotal daily life, experiencing the waves of change and the clear effects of the villains, e.g., Head of State Jackson and heroes, e.g., the philosophical Bear.
   
   To me the weak point here is that we never really get to understand at all two of the main characters - Claire and Featherstone. The novel starts and ends with Claire, and yet her story is left as a mysterious as it began. OK, I can take it and work with this - but Frazier does such a good job with Will I wish he would have given us the full circle of the three lives.



5. I really enjoyed this novel for both the story and for the rich prose. In Thirteen Moons, as well as in Cold Mountain, the stories of the characters are interesting and take place in front of a unique historical backdrop. However, what intrigued me in both books was the rich language. It does sound stilted at times to the modern ear (some reviewers have mentioned that), but what I believe those critics fail to recognize is that Frazier has expertly captured an authentic tone of the language of the southern mountains in both his books.
   
   The Appalachians were this country's first frontier, and there is a unique rhythm and syntax that evolved in the melting pot of the mixing cultures and isolation of that frontier in the 1700s and 1800s, which is rapidly being lost in our modern tongue, along with all other regional linguistic idiosyncrasies. The poetry of the mountains is most recognized in the songs, but the language of those ballads and stories is also present in the telling of Frazier's stories, and he has captured the beauty of that unique linguistic tradition in his prose amazingly well.