Scan barcode
melishi211's review against another edition
4.0
delightful story about standing up for those you care about!
carolinenic's review
funny
hopeful
inspiring
lighthearted
relaxing
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
5.0
mariahistryingtoread's review against another edition
2.0
I can see why this is so loved. I am not one of those people. I found this to be dull at best, tedious at worst. There is nothing here to make The Penderwicks stand out on its own.
Young girls maintain their intrepid spirits against less than stellar circumstances in a country-ish setting is not new territory. That doesn't mean Birdsall couldn't have made it work obviously. It was popular (is popular?) for a reason. I myself happen to really like Anne of Green Gables which felt very similar to this book. Heck I'm five books into the Anne series right now despite how wobbly the quality has been since book one. So I'm familiar as well as willing to keep an open-mind regardless of the shortcomings inherent to the genre.
This is one of the worst attempts of this kind of book I've read so far because it is little more than a rote, generic emulation.
The thing about these kinds of books is that because of the time period some of its flaws are built in. As such while I still complain I understand why it’s written in a certain way so my expectations are tempered. Anne of Green Gables, for instance, has a lot of misogyny despite its feminist leanings. I hate it, but it was written in 1908 so, to a point, what more can I really hope for? This book was written in 2005. So why is it written exactly as if it’s the early 20th century? Obviously anybody can write what they want. Also there is a market for these kinds of books for the modern era. And people are free to like this book as well as books like it. My personal hang-up is what is the actual point if you’re not going to take advantage of the modern setting in some way? To be fair a majority of this book does exist within a nebulous timeline. Little hints did give me the idea that this was indeed in the new millennium. It’s just that without these elements it felt so lifeless; an abnormality for me. I don’t care for pop culture references because they either date the book immensely or feel inauthentic to the characters. In this case, I actually would have killed for Skye to disparage Britney Spears or Christina Aguilera (note this isn’t a reflection of my opinions on either singer, this is about Skye being the type of girl to do this) Just something, anything to differentiate it in some way.
To be clear, originality is not the end all be all for me. I’ve read tons of derivative works that I love or at the very least entertained me. Being unoriginal does not automatically equal poorly written or bad or totally uninspired. Execution is key. There was just something about this book in particular that felt so utterly unimaginative that I could barely stand it.
Enough ranting, onto the actual details.
I found almost every character insufferable. Each of the girls was given a few traits to distinguish them. Surprisingly, I didn’t have much of a problem with characterization. None of the girls was flat or reduced to one single trait. I felt each was more than adequately developed. The problem was that the characteristics displayed made them unlikeable.
Batty isn’t all that bad. Too precocious for me, however, this is not limited to her. Jane the writer is prone to annoying flights of fancy. Skye is stubborn, but never learns to not be stubborn. I found her bullheadedness frustrating. Rosalind is the perfect older sister who is being parentified as all get out. Seriously, this girl is only 12 yet she’s totally slid into the mother role with their Dad barely interacting at all with his children in a meaningful way. Maybe the next book is different since the girls are home, but I doubt it.
All of my irritations were magnified by the detached 3rd person perspective coupled with all of the girls being written in such a way that they seem older than they were. Rosalind, in particular, was a victim of this. She even has an almost relationship with an 18 or 19 year old gardener. Again, she’s TWELVE. This is a perfect microcosm of what I was ranting about before. I’d side eye this aspect in an old-timey book, but I’d chalk it up to period-typical behavior. In this book it’s a very out of place addition that skeeves me out.
It’d be one thing if the point for Rosalind to have a dumb crush on an older boy that won’t go anywhere. That’s super common. Instead, it does an about face from that at the end to tease a valid chance for her.
Mr. Penderwick might as well have not been in the book at all considering how useless he was. . He was an ineffectual, fun dad that’s super popular in kids’ fiction. Kids probably like it because kids paradoxically thrive on structure, but resent the boundaries since they lack the ability to see it will be helpful in the long run. I am no longer a kid so that does play a factor in this; either way I don’t care I hate this type of parent in kids’ books. His girls are spoiled rotten, receive no consequences ever, and constantly flout directives.
Jeffrey’s mother, Mrs. Tifton, is an awful woman. She’s rude, classist, and domineering. Her blatant refusal to listen to Jeffrey’s express wishes at every turn genuinely made me heartsick. That being said she had every right to dislike the Penderwicks given the fact that they had no respect for her property or her rules. They brought a dog without her permission. A dog that ended up getting free several times. They ran wild all over her gardens despite her explicitly communicating that Mr. Penderwick only paid for the back cottage, not the whole of her estate. They ruined her opportunity to win a special garden competition. Like these girls from her point of view truly were menaces. Mr. Penderwick is always off reading or messing with plants or whatever. He never is checking in to make sure the girls are safe. He never punishes the girls or restricts their movements after an incident. He acted like a fun uncle instead of a father. But, Mrs. Tifton is terrible so who cares if we disrespect her.
Not to mention how he overly relies on Rosalind. It’s supposed to be a charming little facet of Rosalind’s character that she’s so independent. To me it came off as parentification. I started making a list after it became clear that Rosalind’s arc was not going to be about her overcoming her need to be in control due to her mother passing.
- Rosalind cleaned up Hound's vomit on Skye's shoes before Jeffrey's Bday party. Why didn’t Dad do this?
- Rosalind gave the other girls instructions on how to behave for the Bday party like say please and thank you, etc. instead of Mr. Penderwick.
- Skye and Rosalind both technically almost burned down the kitchen. Yet only Rosalind stayed to clean it up with him.. Skye got to go out to have fun with Jane, Jeffrey, and Batty.
- Rosalind is in charge of Batty's bedtime routine. Batty needs a bath and Rosalind suggests that their Dad can do it. But the kicker is that Rosalind STILL says she'll be up to help with rinsing and drying. Why didn't Dad come get Batty himself because it's bedtime? Why is it Rosalind's job to keep track? Rosalind ends up capitulating to Batty's whims. She ALWAYS is helping Batty instead of Mr. Penderwick.
- Rosalind gave up a good bedroom for Skye. At first I thought it was just her being a nice big sister, but now it's another example of Rosalind sublimating her own desires for the sake of her sisters.
- Jane is sick and Rosalind is the one to go check on her and then relay that to her Dad instead of him going to check himself.
I could go on, but those are some of the standouts. It was so off-putting. I kept hoping for Rosalind to finally tell her father to go kick rocks. Unfortunately, I get the impression that Birdsall intended for this to be a quirky, interesting family dynamic rather than the dysfunction it was.
This book was just not in any way my cup of tea. I can see why other people like it and feel free to enjoy it yourself. It’s competently written, for all the criticism I had there is a certain charm buried underneath the things I disliked, and Jeffrey is a peach. I just would rather read an actual classic instead of this lukewarm endeavor to recapture that magic.
Young girls maintain their intrepid spirits against less than stellar circumstances in a country-ish setting is not new territory. That doesn't mean Birdsall couldn't have made it work obviously. It was popular (is popular?) for a reason. I myself happen to really like Anne of Green Gables which felt very similar to this book. Heck I'm five books into the Anne series right now despite how wobbly the quality has been since book one. So I'm familiar as well as willing to keep an open-mind regardless of the shortcomings inherent to the genre.
This is one of the worst attempts of this kind of book I've read so far because it is little more than a rote, generic emulation.
The thing about these kinds of books is that because of the time period some of its flaws are built in. As such while I still complain I understand why it’s written in a certain way so my expectations are tempered. Anne of Green Gables, for instance, has a lot of misogyny despite its feminist leanings. I hate it, but it was written in 1908 so, to a point, what more can I really hope for? This book was written in 2005. So why is it written exactly as if it’s the early 20th century? Obviously anybody can write what they want. Also there is a market for these kinds of books for the modern era. And people are free to like this book as well as books like it. My personal hang-up is what is the actual point if you’re not going to take advantage of the modern setting in some way? To be fair a majority of this book does exist within a nebulous timeline. Little hints did give me the idea that this was indeed in the new millennium. It’s just that without these elements it felt so lifeless; an abnormality for me. I don’t care for pop culture references because they either date the book immensely or feel inauthentic to the characters. In this case, I actually would have killed for Skye to disparage Britney Spears or Christina Aguilera (note this isn’t a reflection of my opinions on either singer, this is about Skye being the type of girl to do this) Just something, anything to differentiate it in some way.
To be clear, originality is not the end all be all for me. I’ve read tons of derivative works that I love or at the very least entertained me. Being unoriginal does not automatically equal poorly written or bad or totally uninspired. Execution is key. There was just something about this book in particular that felt so utterly unimaginative that I could barely stand it.
Enough ranting, onto the actual details.
I found almost every character insufferable. Each of the girls was given a few traits to distinguish them. Surprisingly, I didn’t have much of a problem with characterization. None of the girls was flat or reduced to one single trait. I felt each was more than adequately developed. The problem was that the characteristics displayed made them unlikeable.
Batty isn’t all that bad. Too precocious for me, however, this is not limited to her. Jane the writer is prone to annoying flights of fancy. Skye is stubborn, but never learns to not be stubborn. I found her bullheadedness frustrating. Rosalind is the perfect older sister who is being parentified as all get out. Seriously, this girl is only 12 yet she’s totally slid into the mother role with their Dad barely interacting at all with his children in a meaningful way. Maybe the next book is different since the girls are home, but I doubt it.
All of my irritations were magnified by the detached 3rd person perspective coupled with all of the girls being written in such a way that they seem older than they were. Rosalind, in particular, was a victim of this. She even has an almost relationship with an 18 or 19 year old gardener. Again, she’s TWELVE. This is a perfect microcosm of what I was ranting about before. I’d side eye this aspect in an old-timey book, but I’d chalk it up to period-typical behavior. In this book it’s a very out of place addition that skeeves me out.
It’d be one thing if the point for Rosalind to have a dumb crush on an older boy that won’t go anywhere. That’s super common. Instead, it does an about face from that at the end to tease a valid chance for her.
Mr. Penderwick might as well have not been in the book at all considering how useless he was. . He was an ineffectual, fun dad that’s super popular in kids’ fiction. Kids probably like it because kids paradoxically thrive on structure, but resent the boundaries since they lack the ability to see it will be helpful in the long run. I am no longer a kid so that does play a factor in this; either way I don’t care I hate this type of parent in kids’ books. His girls are spoiled rotten, receive no consequences ever, and constantly flout directives.
Jeffrey’s mother, Mrs. Tifton, is an awful woman. She’s rude, classist, and domineering. Her blatant refusal to listen to Jeffrey’s express wishes at every turn genuinely made me heartsick. That being said she had every right to dislike the Penderwicks given the fact that they had no respect for her property or her rules. They brought a dog without her permission. A dog that ended up getting free several times. They ran wild all over her gardens despite her explicitly communicating that Mr. Penderwick only paid for the back cottage, not the whole of her estate. They ruined her opportunity to win a special garden competition. Like these girls from her point of view truly were menaces. Mr. Penderwick is always off reading or messing with plants or whatever. He never is checking in to make sure the girls are safe. He never punishes the girls or restricts their movements after an incident. He acted like a fun uncle instead of a father. But, Mrs. Tifton is terrible so who cares if we disrespect her.
Not to mention how he overly relies on Rosalind. It’s supposed to be a charming little facet of Rosalind’s character that she’s so independent. To me it came off as parentification. I started making a list after it became clear that Rosalind’s arc was not going to be about her overcoming her need to be in control due to her mother passing.
- Rosalind cleaned up Hound's vomit on Skye's shoes before Jeffrey's Bday party. Why didn’t Dad do this?
- Rosalind gave the other girls instructions on how to behave for the Bday party like say please and thank you, etc. instead of Mr. Penderwick.
- Skye and Rosalind both technically almost burned down the kitchen. Yet only Rosalind stayed to clean it up with him.. Skye got to go out to have fun with Jane, Jeffrey, and Batty.
- Rosalind is in charge of Batty's bedtime routine. Batty needs a bath and Rosalind suggests that their Dad can do it. But the kicker is that Rosalind STILL says she'll be up to help with rinsing and drying. Why didn't Dad come get Batty himself because it's bedtime? Why is it Rosalind's job to keep track? Rosalind ends up capitulating to Batty's whims. She ALWAYS is helping Batty instead of Mr. Penderwick.
- Rosalind gave up a good bedroom for Skye. At first I thought it was just her being a nice big sister, but now it's another example of Rosalind sublimating her own desires for the sake of her sisters.
- Jane is sick and Rosalind is the one to go check on her and then relay that to her Dad instead of him going to check himself.
I could go on, but those are some of the standouts. It was so off-putting. I kept hoping for Rosalind to finally tell her father to go kick rocks. Unfortunately, I get the impression that Birdsall intended for this to be a quirky, interesting family dynamic rather than the dysfunction it was.
This book was just not in any way my cup of tea. I can see why other people like it and feel free to enjoy it yourself. It’s competently written, for all the criticism I had there is a certain charm buried underneath the things I disliked, and Jeffrey is a peach. I just would rather read an actual classic instead of this lukewarm endeavor to recapture that magic.
schofield24's review against another edition
4.0
A darling, delightful, gently old-fashioned sort of book. Just my thing. :) Thanks for suggesting, Holly!
thesimplereader's review against another edition
4.0
So so so cute. One of my favorite books as a preteen.
amsi_maria's review against another edition
5.0
damn, this book. i read this first in like 2014 i think and i still love it so so much.
reading this book feels like a warm, sunny summer breeze sweeping over you while you‘re laying on a picnic blanket on the green grass, the head blissfully empty, just pure happiness. the kind of true happiness you only realize how precious was after thinking about it a few days, months or even years later.
i hold the penderwick family very close to my heart, i love the dynamic between the sisters, their dad, oh, the love between the father and his children, and of course hound.
jeffrey fits perfectly into the dynamics and adds more warmth to the family.
the book itself (and the other two after this one, the last two books not so much) is a big hug, a reminder of how joyful youth was, though the problems one had back then were equally important as the problems you have right now.
i can’t describe it differently than a ray of sunshine, a fuzzy feeling in my chest, a happy smile on my lips.
reading this book feels like a warm, sunny summer breeze sweeping over you while you‘re laying on a picnic blanket on the green grass, the head blissfully empty, just pure happiness. the kind of true happiness you only realize how precious was after thinking about it a few days, months or even years later.
i hold the penderwick family very close to my heart, i love the dynamic between the sisters, their dad, oh, the love between the father and his children, and of course hound.
jeffrey fits perfectly into the dynamics and adds more warmth to the family.
the book itself (and the other two after this one, the last two books not so much) is a big hug, a reminder of how joyful youth was, though the problems one had back then were equally important as the problems you have right now.
i can’t describe it differently than a ray of sunshine, a fuzzy feeling in my chest, a happy smile on my lips.
ec_newman's review against another edition
4.0
This was so lovely. It felt old school in the best way. I loved all the characters, even the ones I loved to hate. I might just read more. :)
leticiasmugala's review
adventurous
funny
hopeful
inspiring
lighthearted
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
5.0
lisakerd's review against another edition
3.0
Cute, unique characters; but the shenanigans they get into are not as memorable as Anne of Green Gables or Little Women.
saratinker's review against another edition
adventurous
lighthearted
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0