Customer Reviews

Waking the Dead tie-in

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I picked this book up randomly at the book store. What made me buy it was the New York Times Book Review's statement, "Occationally a scene comes across as so elegantly rounded and complete I admit to gasping from sheer pleasure." This kind of reaction from a person who reads books for a living pursuaded me to give it a try. I was not disappointed. Spencer's writing style is so smooth that I found myself aching inside for Fielding Pierce. I'm not going to tell you what happens because that is part of the beauty of the book. You are better off not knowing the details. Just buy the book, sit back, and prepare to be engrossed by woderfully developed characters that transcend the novel. You actually end up seeing them as real people, who you accept with all their faults and gifts. Scott Spencer earned himself a new fan with this novel.

This has all the earmarks of a prize-winning Great American Novel, right up there with Richard Ford's 'Independence Day,' Russell Banks's "Affliction" and Mary McGarry Morris's "Vanished."

I loved this book. I, too, relish certain scenes. A lovemaking scene in particular stands out. His descriptions are among the best in this area that I have ever read: muscular, nearly sculptural. The scene in the restaurant when Fielding announces that he believes he is having a nervous breakdown: I found myself very moved - to tears. In fact, I cried several times during the reading of this book, which incorporates so many elements of life: the poitical and the personal, on so many levels!

The reason I mentioned that it should win a Pulitzer is because it tackles a particularly important moment in American history: the dividing line between social conscience at its compassionate best and crazy worst and materialism at its heady best and greedy worst. I loved that it ended with Fielding reading the word "help" in one of the letters from a member of his constituency. You know that there is plenty of good work for him to do, just as his true love, Sarah, was doing hers.

Great style, great heart. Congratulations to the author on creating a classic I'm certain will live on as literature. As for the movie - did it ever come out? I'll have to check my video store.

Never the less, this is still a good book, and it is Scott Spencer doing what he does best, writing about matters of the human heart. His characterizations are good,and as always his books are hard to put down. He is one of this country's best writers, and I am glad to see this book in print again. If you have never read Spencer before,"Endless Love" is one of the great love stories of all time. If you've read one of his books, you will want to read them all. Let's hope the movie does justice to this book, (unlike the "Endless Love" disaster,) and that we can look forward to many more books from Mr. Spencer.

This story is about the tension between a life of carefully orchestrated public accomplishments and a concurrent and unexpected emotional breakdown. The hero, Fielding Pierce, is collapsing internally but is propelled forward by a political career that seems indestructible, even when his conduct careens wildly between pursuing his ambitions and succumbing to his personal demons. Anyone familiar with Chicago politics will love the supporting characters involved in the campaign at the center of the story; the love story has a hard time competing for the reader's attention. The hero's family is also wonderful, and Scott Spencer achieves perfect pitch with family dialog. Sarah, the lost lover, is the only character who is at all one-dimensional, which makes it all the easier for the hero to recreate her as he wishes. The movie is a disappointment, but I think that is because it could not quite capture the subtleties of the counterpoint between the hero's public life and private life. Maybe this is a problem when a book is written too well -- without Scott Spencer's lovely prose, thorough characterizations, and perfect descriptions, the movie script just bogs down and doesn't quite know what to do with itself.

In this interesting and unconvential novel, Scott Spencer takes us through the experince of Feilding Pierce, a budding politican whose life and career propel toward the fast track, while he is simotaniously haunted by the memory of his deceased lover. As his focus on the past deepens, he begins to speculate on the possibility that her politically-motivated death in a car-bombing was staged, and confront the possibility that she may still be alive. In many ways, Sarah, his activist lost love, is an embodiement of the idealism and radicalism of her times, and a symbol for the path Feilding could have taken. Spencer's narrative, shifting back and forth between events in Feilding's past and present, makes for an effective story telling method, and accurately illustrates how the past is never really very far away from our pysches. The politcal elements of the book are very well-depicted. The love story, at times, borders on being too one-dimensial, however, Spencer manages to create a very real heart at the center of the relationship. This novel is good, very good, but not quite exceptional. WHile Fiedling is very relatable, other primary characters are somewhat difficult to get a handle on, and certain plot elements are a little unclear. However, the novel breathes a certain fresh and unique quality that makes it effective and compelling. Readers with a political bent will be appealed by Feilding's career developments and the conflicting idealogies of Feilding and Sarah's world views and career aspirations. Those looking for a more gripping love story should check out Spencer's earlier novel, "Endless Love".

I so badly wanted to give this novel five stars. As someone who's heavily into political issues (worked on a Congressional campaign, ten year+ issue activist, etc.) and a sucker for a good romance I was hoping that this book would be both realistic and passionate. Frankly, while the story certainly is interesting, it's really not that realistic.

The author apparently felt like he needed to create a dichotomy to have conflict between his two characters. So Sarah is the ultra radical and Fielding is the more pragmatic politician type. The problem is, neither character is given realistic scenarios to play out these roles.

What ultimately happens to Sarah is, historically, more in line with what happened to radicals in the sixties who set off bombs - not someone who is the target of a bomb. Sarah might have been rescuing Chilean exiles and breaking US law, but that hardly puts her at the top of the FBI's most wanted list. Certainly not in comparison to folks like the Weather Underground which existed at the time.

I also wasn't comfortable with the author's presentation of what drove Sarah to do what she did. There's a lot of religious talk that just either made me uncomfortable or just didn't ring true. Having spent quite a bit of time with passionate activists, many of whom do break the law, I just didn't believe that someone would go around saying that any poor downtrodden person could be Jesus. I suspect that the author did this because maybe he just wasn't sure as to what would drive someone to behave like Sarah.

Then there's Fielding the politician. Since the book is set in the 70s maybe the author should be given some latitude. Maybe things were different then. But I doubt it. In this day and age of money and politics his vision of running for office seems naive at best. Today it takes no less than a million dollars to win a House seat. Sometimes it takes a lot more. With that money comes obligations to special interests.

Much is made at the end of the book when Fielding reads letters from some of his constituents who need help. It almost appears as if the author is trying to compare Fielding with Sarah, as if he is just as much a hero, if not more so, as Sarah.

Having lobbied over 50 members of the House and Senate in DC I found this underlying motivation to be naive. Constituent letters are read by staff members and those staff members do the vast majority of the work in doing the helping. A member of Congress wouldn't have time for these letters. The letters a Congressperson would deal with would be those that would further his or her political ambitions. In other words, those that would make good press and PR.

In a realistic story Sarah would have continued her work. And yes, she possibly would have been killed. But this would have likely only happened after she was better known publicly for her actions - and a far greater threat to those she was protesting. Maybe then the novel would have focused more on the possible harm Sarah's actions might cause to Fielding's career.

In a more realistic story Fielding, if he is as honorable as the author wants us to believe, would have lost his election. Why? Because in order for Fielding to stay true to his idealism he would have had to stand up to the special interests who would demand his support. That's the political reality we live in. You don't get into Congress by being a good boy. You do it by bending yourself to the powers that be.

Then there's the background story behind Sarah's death. The US did indeed participate and support the military coup that destroyed the Allende government in Chile. This was an atrocious act and, unfortunately, not the only one committed by the US government in the region. In "Operation Condor," for example, six South American nations had organized assassination programs to kill political dissidents. The US government knew about these killings and there's even some evidence to suggest that we supported them.

I mention these points because there's a central truth behind Sarah's actions. What the US did was morally reprehensible. So while Sarah's actions are extreme, one has to ask, when confronted by the facts, why is Sarah is so "radical" for her beliefs? Why aren't those who ignore these things seen as lazy Americans who have utterly failed in their civic responsibility in questioning the actions of their government? Ah, but then there would be no book. Who wants to read something like that?

For those interested in finding out more about this background story I recommend the movie "Missing" with Sissy Spacek and Jack Lemmon or the book "Missing: The Execution of Charles Horman" by Thomas Hauser. Both are far more realistic in their depiction of the US government's actions toward Chile in the 1970s.

Excellent novel about the love affair of a politically-destined Harvard grad Fielding, his girlfriend Sarah that is pulled towards the service of the Catholic Church, and the heartache that is created when the two are pulled in opposite directions. The two are separated only to be brought back together too late in life when they have gone in completely different directions. Its also a great movie.

Scott Spencer has created a haunting story about love, beliefs and rendenption with Waking the Dead. Fielding Pearce and Sarah Willians have one of the strongest love affairs from recently literature. They are meant for each other, despite their antagonistic political beliefs. They live togheter, and Pearce can't come to terms with Sarah's political activities --she helps refugees , for one. They have a common life, against all odds.

But everything Pearce believes is about to fall down in the moment when Sarah is murderer in the explosion of a car. His life chages drastically, he becomes more cynical and less sensitive. Years later, he is married again, and running for a position as a Senator, but he has never got over Sarah. While caimpaing he starts seeing her and he wonders if she is really dead.

Rather than telling everything by the numbers, Spencer chooses to go back and forth with the chapters, showing how past interferes in the present. His style is very heartfelt and accurate. His particularly choice of word works really good through the novel. I cannot forget to mention the characters: they are quite well developed. Both Sarah and Pearce sound like regular human beings, the kind of people we know, that's what make them believable. Sarah has the rebeliouness of the 60s, and Pearce is the poor man who makes something huge.

It is a very interesting book that deserve to be discovered, nevertheless, I don't recommend it to everybody. Many people may not enjoy its particular pace and Sarah's ideas, which can be a bit disturbing at these times we live.

I have ordered from the co. before and forgot they were the only ones that took a month to get the book to me. I ordered 5 or 6 books from different companies the same day and received them all within days, except for this co. They blame it all the the P.O. but all the other companies are getting their used books to the buyer.

I am a Spencer fan, but only picked up this beautiful novel recently. Every Spencerian thing I like is in here -great writing, blurred line between madness and inspiration, blurred line between true love and just plain obsession, an ear for talk, an eye for politics, a grown-up sense of ethics, and a way of making you put everything you an On Hold while you tear through the pages. If you know Chicago this one will really hit home. If you don't --then why the heck don't you?? Chicago is a great town! And this is a great great novel.