I much preferred Hicks's first book. A Separate Country was long: 400+ pp that I felt could easily have been condensed to 3/4's of that. Specifically, for about 50-75 pp in the "300's", it was as though the editor or proofreader had either skipped them entirely or delegated the job to a summer intern. That section was very loose. In particular, there were repeated comma splices: "Susie was thirsty, she bought milk at the store." The first couple of times I came across them, I thought they were oversights but it happened over and over and I really didn't notice them except in that segment of the book. I plodded through to the end hoping for the best, but overall I was disappointed. Will I read his next book? Probably, but I will check it out of the library or buy it as a paperback or from the discount bin. Widow of the South was so very good; A Separate Country really just seemed like a "strike while the iron's hot" book where quality was sacrificed for rush to publish. This book envoked a rather rare emotion in me, i was saddened by events, the what could have beens but will never be from view point of the mother to daughter chapters. Also, i was wondering how close to realty the general was portraited, then i remembered, i did read non fiction book recently with the father of the biography sharing similar traits, ie war hero and of imporatence and such. So i think this author did a good job in describing how this story read in regard to the general.
What do You think about A Separate Country (2009)?
I couldn't finish it. Liked a lot of it, but it went on and on and on...
—minifish
