Entertainment Weekly

Stay Connected

Subscribe

Advertise With Us

Learn More

Skip to content

Article

A sampling of reviews of ''Scarlett''

A sampling of reviews of ”Scarlett” — See what the ”Columbus Dispatch,” ”Detroit Free Press,” and ”The Los Angeles Times” had to say about the book

Posted on

Gone With the Wind received overwhelming critical acclaim upon its arrival in 1936. Time and The Atlantic raved: ”Remarkable.” The Boston Transcript found it ”exceedingly rare to discover a first novel so rich as this.” Even historian Henry Steele Commager hailed the book as ”endlessly interesting.” And Stephen Vincent Benét, preeminent critic and author of John Brown’s Body, called it ”as readable, full-bodied, and consistent a historical novel as we have had in some time.” The 1991 sequel drove critics to similar heights of passion, though most of it was not the sort Ripley would want. A critical sampler:

”The most unnecessary commercial product since the automatic card shuffler.” — Columbus Dispatch

”There is much thinking aloud in Scarlett, but little actual dialogue, maybe because most of this stuff is too embarrassing to say out loud.” — Detroit Free Press

”Ranks several miles below serious fiction and only a few inches above the cookie-cutter offerings from Harlequin.” — Los Angeles Times

”Although Mammy is dying, she is the luckiest person here. In her delirium, she imagines she is back with the real Scarlett at the real Tara — back in the real book.” — The New York Times

”Oh fiddle-dee-dee. It’s just ghastly.” — The Sunday Oklahoman

”Alexandra Ripley don’t know nothin’ ’bout writin’ no sequels. So what’s wrong with Scarlett? Just plot, and characters, and prose ” — The Richmond News Leader

”The problem is prose like the following, illegal in most states since the North won the Civil War. ‘Something ancient and pagan stirred deep within her, and the barely tamed wildness that was her hidden being surged hotly through her blood.”’ — The San Francisco Examiner