Had to put this one down. Going to get some hate mail for this, but it's OK. Which is too bad, as I loved the voice of the author, and love the concept. However, this book was either too clearly pandering to a specific audience, or just needed an editor, or was written for an audience who wanted something different than I did.

Most of the books I read whose author's name doesn't end in "sky/ski", "stoy", "ich", etc, will probably tell you to keep it lean (damn you, Russians, I still just can't quit you). I actually put this one down about 20 pages after this sentence "I went to the kitchen and had a glass of antibiotic-free milk." [slight paraphrasing from memory]

There is nothing wrong with that sentence in the right context. Making note of what type of milk it was alone could be very telling about the character having it (and I think that was the author's intent here). However, it could also be something that a high-school story writer includes because the teacher told them they needed more depth to their characters (which is how it read to me). This is one example of what I saw more of in the book, and what I see sometimes in books who may be trying to get "female readers," as if that is some sort of monolithic group. This has nothing to do with the gender of the author or readership, it is a complaint about a style of writing that I don't care for. You see it all the time in sci-fi or "adventure lit" geared towards men, where the hero is described in great detail, usually wearing some magic suit, or loincloth, etc.

Describing the dress and minor habits of your character are great for a) setting the scene, and b) indicating larger plot points. To go back to the sentence that was the beginning of the end for me above, if we knew little or nothing about the character, the fact that the character (who is writing in her diary) makes note of what sort of milk she is drinking could be a great way to say something about the character without having to spell it out. However, at this point we are a quarter or so of the way into the book, we have established who she is, and the getting of a glass of milk was not significant to the plot, it was just a transition point. "I went and got a glass of milk" would have indicated a moment of solitude to reflect (and it does show that).

If you want to establish the fact that your character is, say, extremely physically attractive, you could do so in exposition and then maybe, if you want to remind the reader, throw a few more notices in the story later on. You would not keep hitting the reader over the head with the character's, say, bicep circumference every few paragraphs. That is what I feel is done here. The author describes what a single character is wearing every time we see them (in one case). So we are basically tracking wardrobe changes as well as the story.

There are clearly a lot of folks with whom this resonated. And, as a parent, this diary to someone who is in vitro is both a great literary idea and well-done (minus my beefs above). So I get the appeal. There is just too much (for me) of the "high school"-type detail that does nothing to explain a character (where he/she has been explained before) or to move the story along. If the protagonist had had that glass of antibiotic milk on page 3, it would have helped a lot to understand the character, and would have done so briefly and cleverly. On page 100-whatever, it is just filler and the sign of a poor editor.

I am going to have friends on here who disagree with me, I am sure.

I have a feeling I’m missing something with this book. It’s about an earth where evolution has reversed, so everything is returning to previous versions, including humans. Infertility has risen, and not many standard humans being born. In the wake of this a theocracy takes over, incarcerating fertile women and impregnating them until they die in child birth. The story follows a woman who is 4 months pregnant as she tries to remain free in this new society. Kind of interesting, a bit like Children of Men. But it was so rambling and slow, so I’m not really sure what the author was trying to say. It is written as a form of diary entries from the mother to the future child. There is not a lot of focus given on the society and what is going on. Instead you are very focussed on this woman who wasn’t very interesting. She kept having long interludes about religion and immaculate conception. Wasn’t very captivating.

Adopted young adult Cedar Hawk Songmaker is pregnant and wants to connect with her Ojibwe birth family to know more about hereditary issues that may affect her unborn baby. However, this “future” world of now is struggling to survive as most fetuses are not born alive. Pregnant women are being hunted or asked to “voluntarily turn themselves in” for research and Cedar knows that her baby will survive so she has to keep it a secret. The story is told in diary form by Cedar to her unborn baby. Reproductive freedom is a major theme and this will appeal to fans of “The Handmaid’s Tale.”

My favorite quote from this book that I kept referring to was, "I don't know why it is given to us to be so mortal and to feel so much. It is a cruel trick, and glorious." The quote resonated deeply with me throughout the novel and in my own life.

My dislike of dystopia themes was stronger than my love for Louise Erdich's books.

Interesting premise, but very confusing and not well explained. Still don't know what the ending meant.

Not a good time to be reading this unless you want to be depressed. It's too imaginable.