Gone With the Wind Reviews

• Surprisingly Brilliant - A Work of Art

  
  By A2KN89AD9G1NNX on 2001-11-03
  I'm a literary snob, I'll admit it. I've read all the classics, and I even know some Literary Theory. Gone With the Wind? Pul-lease, racist, sexist, revanchist trash, made popular by all the young woman dreaming of being Scarlett and having both their Rhett and Ashley. Cheerleader fare. Escapist. WRONG!

  Gone with the Wind is an American War & Peace. This is serious literature, which won the Pulitzer prize, no less. Most people don't see past the epic plot (which isn't as cut and dried as you may think) or the love story, but this is no less than a successfull attempt to reclaim a discarded culture. It is not about crinoline and lace, it it about the Apocalypse and how losers of the counter-revolution must learn to live in a place where all their politics, personal or civil, are demolished. Scarlett O'Hara is popular because she is an American, driven, materialistic, sentimental and utterly ruthless. Rhett Bulter is the tragic character of this book; the way of life and ideals he disdained are killing him, and he suffers like no one else in this post-apocalyptic landscape. His departure at the end is an act of contrition as much as a romantic failure; he had tried to recreate the materialism of the ante-bellum world, but negeclected the spirituality (such as it is) of men like Ashley Wilkes. Both men, the dreamer and the realist end up alone in a very sterile place. This book is proto-feminist as well. Scarlett survives, even as everything around her dies, but in the end, she too is alone.

  Don't dumb this masterpiece down. The movie fails to capture even a tenth of the depth here. And that awful sequel! Caused by the mistake that this book is some kind of romance novel. This is Art, and you can't stick a new ending on it, any more than you can a great painting or musical composition.
  
  

• Still the most readable long novel ever written!

  
  By ABCE4OXCDHEQL on 2004-03-18
  It took this reviewer half a century to get around to reading this great novel for the first time! Appreciating it then, with 'fresh eyes' I share the view that "Gone With The Wind" is quite simply the most readable long novel of all time. With world-wide sales nudging 25 million, it's probably fair to say that most first-time readers (apart from the odd reviewer here at the world's biggest web site) have shared that opinion in the almost 70 years since Margaret Mitchell wrote her one-and-only book. At least one other, highly readable novelist of the past century, the late James A. Michener certainly felt that way.
  
  I'm recalling an interview of thirty years ago in which Michener - a master storyteller in his own right - expressed awe at Mitchell's achievement. I remember Michener quoted a long-forgotten critic who greeted the book's release in 1936 with the perfect, one-sentence summing up: "It's the shortest long novel I have ever read!" Michener predicted at that time (1975) that "critics will forever have to grapple with the problem of why Margaret Mitchell's novel has remained so readable, and so important to so many people."
  
  Michener singled out a few of the "super-dramatic confrontations" so perfectly conjured up in Mitchell's lucid, timeless writing style: Mammy lacing Scarlett into her corset; the wounded at the railway station; Scarlett shooting the Union straggler; the girls making Scarlett a dress from the moss-green velvet draperies; Rhett carrying his wife upstairs to the long-unused bedroom.
  
  Yet for all of its amazing drama, the novel does not ultimately depend upon major confrontations for its page-turning momentum: Michener I remember, zeroed in on two 'central' paragraphs which provide the reader with perfect glimpses into the way the two major characters have 'grown' before our eyes within these pages. One of these paragraphs captivates our imagination in about the middle of the book (chapter 29):
  
  "Somewhere, on the long road that wound through those four years, the girl with her sachet and dancing slippers, had slipped away, and there was left a woman with sharp green eyes, who counted pennies and turned her hands to many menial tasks, a woman to whom nothing was left from the wreckage, except the indestructible red earth on which she stood."
  
  And, in the final pages, that indelible portrait of Rhett, age forty-five:
  
  "He was sunken in his chair, his suit wrinkling untidily against his thickening waist, every line of him proclaiming the ruin of a fine body and the coarsening of a strong face. Drink and dissipation had done their work on the coin-clean profile, and now it was no longer the head of a young pagan prince on newly minted gold, but a decadent, tired Caesar on copper debased by long usage."
  
  It's true to say (again as Michener noted thirty years ago) that the weakness of "Gone With The Wind" is the almost exclusive focus on Atlanta, ignoring the rest of the South: When in fact, it was really the ENTIRE South that changed, "altered by war, and defeat, and social upheaval - and stark determination to re-establish itself." Michener astutely observed that GWTW "depicts with remarkable felicity, the spiritual history of a region."
  
  Most everyone these days would concede that Margaret Mitchell's personal views on the "liberation of the former slaves" (as expressed in subsequent interviews) were less than compassionate. Nevertheless, it was NOT Mitchell who composed those words which make some of us wince when they're scrolling up the screen in the movie version - words quaintly poetic perhaps, but manifestly insulting to those Americans whose ancestors never mistook the days of slavery as part of some "pretty world" poignantly longed-for, or in some way better than America today. (This reviewer has a pretty good memory for well-cadenced English prose, and this is his memory of those opening words from some anonymous male screenwriter.)
  
  "There was a land of cavaliers and cotton fields called the 'Old South.' Here, in this pretty world, gallantry took its last bow. Here was the last ever to be seen of knights and their ladies fair, of master and slave. Look for it only in books, for it is no more than a dream remembered, a civilization gone with the wind."
  
  So much better are the novelist's own words, distilled into so many sentences and paragraphs that positively 'sing' in our memory. Like this one:
  
  "He swung her off her feet into his arms and started up the stairs. Her head was crushed against his chest and she heard the hard hammering of his heart beneath her ears. He hurt her and she cried out, muffled, frightened. Up the stairs, he went in the utter darkness, up, up, and she was wild with fear."
  
  Or this:
  
  "Hunger gnawed at her empty stomach again, and she said aloud: "As God is my witness, as God is my witness, the Yankees aren't going to lick me. I'm going to live through this, and when it's over, I'm never going to be hungry again. No, nor any of my folks. If I have to steal or kill - as God is my witness, I'm never going to be hungry again."
  
  -----
  
  I have often thought that "age twenty-six" is the single most important year of any long and healthy lifetime (for too many subjective reasons to list here; but think of the athletes or musicians we've admired when they were at the very summit of their game -- in their twenty-sixth year). So it comes as no surprise to learn that Margaret Mitchell was at that same magic age when she began work on this --- the book another great novelist of the last century would term "this long and powerful recollection of her home town - destined to become a titanic tale of human passions, loved around the world" . . . (its astonishing impact) "a mystery then, and remains one now."
  
  

• Lust... melodrama... passion... and crinoline.

  
  By A3XGIQ3U908JT on 2000-02-17
  Margaret Mitchell wrote, for her first book (an earlier work, called "Lost Laysen" has since been published), an exhaustingly researched, wide-ranging, exciting and thrilling book set in the Civil War. This book - Gone With The Wind - was a runaway success; and ultimately made into the biggest movie of its day. Alright, let's admit it, by modern standards it's sexist, racist, overblown, and melodramatic. And it's pretty darned brilliant. I have read this book no less than ten times! In theory, one ought to detest that spoiled little brazen, Scarlett O'Hara, but Margaret Mitchell makes her into a vivid, strong human being, a woman with spirit and the will to survive, but who was essentially immature and spoilt. But she was fiercely protective, loyal, and someone who you were forced to admire, even as you disliked what she was doing. She also had a alarming propensity to fall in love with the wrong men - this was a woman doomed to claw her way anywhere to succeed, but at the same time, estranging herself in the eyes of her Society. But does she give up, does she make it a tragedy? No. She gets up and keeps going, she just doesn't let people see that she minds it very much. She is an inspiration, but she doesn't really deserve to be. Scarlett is flawed, hideously so, but none the less, we are forced to admire her. She IS the book. A weaker or less flawed heroine would be irritating or just TOO unsympathetic. Her unrequitted love is very believable, it's happened to most of us at one time in our youth, and we never really quite shake that first infatuation off without a rude or painful awakening.

  The attitudes which feature in this book, although sexist and racist to us now, were perfectly normal for Civil War Southerners - Margaret Mitchell really understood the way people behaved at this time, and did not make them behave out of period or in anachronistic ways. Like Georgette Heyer and Regency England, she has a true understanding and insight into the period she is writing about - she LIVES it, and her people could have been alive then without unduly standing out as unusual or unremarkable.

  Scarlett is a rebel, but she does not go as far as a modern author might make her heroine go. She loves her family and her land, though she may deny it, and she is very proud. She is an inspirational woman, a true forerunner of the power woman of the 1980s - a sensational concept, even for the 1930s! The clever thing is how, in such a huge and spreading book, everything comes together. It may seem trivial and unnecessary to discuss Aunt Pittypat's drawing room, or go into the minutae of Scarlett's wardrobe, or to discuss events that happened a long time ago, but believe me, it is all very important in building up a coherent and very accurate (scarily accurate, for 1930s historical fiction - Heyer and Mitchell, as far as I know, were the only authors at this time who really bothered to research in depth for their "lightweight" historical fiction writing.) Gone With The Wind is a masterpiece. It must not be read with modern eyes, but as an amazing study of how people behaved, lived, and survived throughout the Civil War in America on the losing side.
  
  

• The BEST

  
  By on 2000-07-13
  I've read GWTW many times -once you get going you can't stop! I once gave a copy to a friend to read -she said it was 'too old fashioned' oh well her loss. I'm glad I'm in the company of true 'Windies' so I thought I'd share with you some interesting facts about the book: -Scarlett was originally named Pansy

  -Scarlett was partly based on Mitchell herself and her grandmother

  -Rhett was based on Mitchell's first husband Red Upshaw

  -the initials JRM in her dedication refer to her second husband John Reginald Marsh

  -Margaret Mitchell maintained the only character taken from real life was Prissy the maid

  -When asked who she'd like to be in the movie version, Mitchell said 'Prissy'

  -Like a detective novelist, Mitchell wrote the last chapter first and the first chapter last

  -GWTW is the only book to sell more copies than the bible

  -Mitchell nearly went blind just proofreading the manuscript!

  -Mitchell scrupously researched every detail for GWTW, even going to the town register to ensure there was no Rhett Butler or Scarlett O'Hara alive during the Civil War

  -The novel took ten years to complete, most of it was written in three

  -For style, she endeavoured to make her prose so that a five-year old could read it

  -If she were ever to write a sequel, it would be called 'Back With the Breeze' On that note,please avoid the Ripley penned sequel 'Scarlett', it is atrocious.

  -Gone with the Wind is my favourite book of all time, and yours too, I hope. Enjoy!
  
  

• I was surprised at how much I disliked this book.

  
  By A2MAYIGV146M0B on 2003-04-14
  I only knew the story from the movie, so I bought this book ... The first half of the book was ok, I liked the descriptions of the suffocating constraints of upper class society at the time and Scarlett's rejection of them. The devastation of war and the struggle that Scarlett and her family went through were powerful. However, that second half of the book completely turned me off the the story. Margret Mitchell's descriptions of the reconstruction were so vile I almost put the book down. Blacks were only happy being slaves, they were too stupid for anything else. The only good blacks in the book are the ones who can serve the whites. Big Sam says he had enough of freedom and wants to go back to Tara. He even states incredulously that while in the north whites wanted him to sit at the table like he was their equal, but he couldn't do it because he is not the equal to whites. Mitchell actually says that he smiles and feels better when Scarlett starts to tell him what to do because someone is telling him what to do again. At one point Mitchell is describing how the southern whites hate the Yankees so much because the Yankees have money and food and power and they do not, yet she doesn't have any sense of irony to see that the whites are in the position that they put the slaves in for centuries.

  And another thing that I did not like about the book is that most of the characters are serious sociopaths. They kill anyone who breaks their rules of racial propriety. Rhett kills a black man for being "upity" to a white woman, another character, one of the Fontaine boys, kills a black man for for saying something to a white woman. We are not told what but it is pretty obvious it was sexual, so we have the sterotype of the black male sexual prowler. Then the same Fontaine boy kills Jonas Wilkinson for telling blacks men that they are equal to whites and that they are alowed to have white women!! He doesn't just kill him, he cuts him to ribbons with a knife. There are many more examples of this psychotic behaviour. And Mitchell treats them as if they are to be admired. While reading I kept thinking these people are all nuts. I was glad they suffered ... I lost any sense of caring about what happened to any of them, including Scarlett.
  Also, this is a very anti-American book. Mitchell keeps going on about how awful the Yankees and the Union and the federal government are and how great Georgia and states rights are. Of course, states rights here means being able to murder anyone who annoys you. The reconstruction section of the book should be read by everyone just to show why the flying of the Confederate flag is so offensive. It is completely un-American.
  And one last thing. This isn't a great love story. Rhett is really only a supporting character in the book until the last 200 pages when they get married, and for a book over 1000 pages, that's not alot. I think people remember the movie more than the actual book.
  I was really dissapointed with this book. I was looking forward to enjoying a nice read and discovered that it was horrible propaganda. It is really hard to believe that this book won the Pulitzer prize over Absalom,Absalom! by Faulkner.
  
  

• Enthralling and Brilliant Literary Masterpice
  By A2VYSDQ4Q7B2TC on 2006-11-27
  I saw the movie before I read the book, and I thought it would be too much to read a book that was so long. But I was enthralled by the 2nd page, by the descriptions and the dialogue. The rest of the novel kept me enthralled because of the unconventionality of Scarlett and Rhett, and the messages about war, the finished past and the unavoidable future of the South in the mid-1800's. I loved the richness of the descriptions of the Old South, which made me feel so nostalgic even though I'm not even from the South! Also, I found the many characters to be well-developed and each major character had a distinct and sympathizable personality.
  
  My favorite parts are the ones with Scarlett and Rhett at each others' throats, before and during their "courtship" and even after they were married. Their dialogue is hilarious and clever, though admittedly the wit is all from Rhett and the amusement comes from seeing Scarlett brought down a few notches. Though it hurts to know that even though Scarlett FINALLY matures enough to dump Ashley and realize she needed to change, Rhett is no longer willing to give her another chance. It seems whenever Scarlett is actually sincere about something nobody believes her or is willing to give her the benefit of the doubt (except Melanie of course). What's great about the novel is that if one was one of the characters, he would just see Scarlett on the surface: selfish, conniving and coy, but with the narration, one can see where Scarlett is coming from, and actually sympathize with her actions. She was definitely a woman born in the wrong era. She would do just fine in the 21st Century.
  
  Scarlett is very much my favorite character, because even with her insensitivity, selfishness, and materialism, she is oftentimes the strongest person in the passel of main characters. She worked to the bone when she returned to Tara, knowing that her hands would have to be ruined in order to eat and live and provide for the family that looked to her for leadership. Sometimes it seemed she was the only practical, level-headed person in the whole book (excepting Rhett), especially since people like Suellen were just refusing to work because it was "beneath" them, refusing to admit things have changed and work had to be done. Scarlett knows what she wants and has the sense to go ahead and try to get it.
  
  Although, many times Scarlett's selfishness comes up so unexpectedly I burst out laughing at the outrageousness of her personality. For example there would be a long conversation or narrative about how the past was so beautiful and peaceful or about a nice thing a person has done, and the book has Scarlett completely overturn the comments with her contemptous thoughts on the contrary of what was just described. Her problem is that though she sees what's in front of her, she doesn't get the POINT of what she's seeing. Hence the character of Rhett. He is so much like her, but he is able to see what she misses. He points them out to her plainly, and in Rhett Scarlett meets her match. He has what she's missing. As a result, another piece of the novel comes together: through Rhett, Scarlett is able to mature and bridge, to an extent, the gap between the ideals of people living in the past and those living in the present. Unfortunately, this maturation is not without consequences.
  
  Because of Scarlett's headstrong personality, I found GWTW endlessy amusing, and I think it was meant to be - in showing the huge gap between the over-the-top, in-the-moment practicality of Scarlett and the immaterial dreams of yesterday held so tightly by Old Southerners like Ashley, Melanie, and the rest, Mitchell tells us that both ways of thinking have their benefits and faults. It's not good to hold on to the past without moving forward, but only worrying about current physical security without holding tight to family and identity will cause pain and loneliness in the future. The messages are many in GWTW, and none of the 1000+ pages are superfluous. It was a pleasure to read, to laugh at the witty dialogue, sigh with sadness or nostalgia, scoff with annoyance at characters' actions, and feel the pain of the bitter ironies that define the lives of characters like Scarlett and Rhett.
  
  GWTW is not just a love story to me; it's so much more than that. It makes you think about what's past, but warns you not to dwell on the memories. Also, issues about war, race, and gender are definitely touched upon, oftentimes subtly, and it makes for great analysis. I can see why this novel won the Pulitzer Prize. Many issues are laid out all at once in front of you, forcing you to acknowledge their presence, whether it's painful to do so or not. "Gone With the Wind" made it to my "favorite books" list by page 150. It's an amazing literary work; a real masterpiece.
  
  
• Rascist
  By A2Z25FJR5AVOHX on 2001-09-03
  There is so much lip service paid to how good this book is, and how everyone should read it, and yadda yadda yadda.

  The prose is boring, way too purple and prosaic. It makes Soap Operas look realistic.

  None of this speaks to the fact that the whole book is RASCIST. The south was built on the backs of African-Americans, and they died to build the South up. They are still fighting for equality, and now we have some romantic idealization of the South, and Margaret Mitchell makes the Klan look like some good group of good ol' boys.

  I am disgusted that a book this blatently racist and snotty is still held up as a classic.
  
  

• One star for a brilliant, literary masterpiece of racism.
  By on 2002-12-23
  I have just re-read GWTW for the fourth time and each time
  I do I start out thinking it a magnificently written and researched book, with a glorious story - and the patronizing racist attitude of the author - yes, the author herself - makes me sick to my stomach.

  I devoured this novel when I was thirteen, again in my twenties, then my thirties, and here I am again, keen to know what will happen next to that sociopath Scarlett O'Hara the ultimate sexy, manly man, Rhett Butler and the dreamy dreamer and weakling, Ashley Wilkes.

  And yet - I believe this book should be banned. There are almost no books I feel that way about. I'm a writer and I abhor censorship. But this book is so outright racist it gags.
  Why should such stereotypes be allowed to continue for generation after generation to absorb?

  What would the world think of a romantic novel about dashing German SS officers and a beautiful blonde "maidchen" cavorting charmingly before concentration camp slaves? All the while talking about those slaves as if they were simply "children" who didn't know any better than to be wearing striped pajamas, carrying out humiliating tasks for their "masters" and existing pleasantly and contentedly in their cute little "barracks"? Critics would be up in arms. Such a novel would fall into disrepute and no one would claim it to be a great work of literature, even if it was well-written. So why do we stand for GWTW - this travesty of lies, lies, lies?

  I notice that one of the reviewers below mentioned that slaves weren't, in fact, badly treated. Hello! To begin with, slavery is slavery: an abomination upon the Earth. Any person who is enslaved is being treated badly. Period. Second, that reviewer should read Toni Morrison's "Beloved"
  to find out what it was REALLY like to live as a slave on a southern plantation. That depiction rings true. GWTW, on the subject of slavery, is complete clap-trap.

  Over and over again, it is mentioned that Scarlett's mother, "Miss Ellen," would be "turning over in her grave" to see how
  Scarlett betrayed her southern belle roots. Well, I contend that Margaret Mitchell is turning over in her grave because she knows what a monstrous mistake she made with GWTW. Hopefully, she's evolved, and, knowing her feminist views and her basic fairness as a person, I think she would agree with me - BAN THIS BOOK!
  
  

• I was surprised at how much I disliked this book.
  By A2MAYIGV146M0B on 2003-04-14
  I only knew the story from the movie, so I bought this book the week before we invaded Iraq, I'm sure at some subconscious level to read a viewpoint about war. The first half of the book was ok, I liked the descriptions of the suffocating constraints of upper class society at the time and Scarlett's rejection of them. The devastation of war and the struggle that Scarlett and her family went through were powerful. However, the second half of the book completely turned me off to the story. Margret Mitchell's descriptions of the reconstruction were so vile I almost put the book down. Blacks were only happy being slaves, they were too stupid for anything else. The only good blacks in the book are the ones who can serve the whites. Big Sam says he had enough of freedom and wants to go back to Tara. He's even incredulous that while in the north whites wanted him to sit at the dinner table with them like he was their equal, but he couldn't do it because he is not the equal to whites. Mitchell actually says that he smiles and feels better when Scarlett starts to tell him what to do because someone is telling him what to do again. Mitchell also uses animal metaphors when describing the black characters.
  At one point Mitchell is describing how the southern whites hate the Yankees so much because the Yankees have money and food and power and they do not, yet she doesn't have any sense of irony to see that the whites are in the position that they put the slaves in for centuries.

  And another thing that I did not like about the book is that most of the characters are serious sociopaths. They kill anyone who breaks their rules of racial propriety. Rhett kills a black man for being "upity" to a white woman, another character, one of the Fontaine boys, kills a black man for for saying something to a white woman. We are not told what but it is pretty obvious it was sexual, so we have the sterotype of the black male sexual prowler. Then the same Fontaine boy kills Jonas Wilkinson for telling black men that they are equal to whites and that they are alowed to have white women!! He doesn't just kill him, he cuts him to ribbons with a knife. There are many more examples of this psychotic behaviour. And Mitchell treats these behaviors as if they are to be admired. While reading I kept thinking these people are all nuts. I was glad they suffered and I'm glad they lost the war. I lost any sense of caring about what happened to any of them, including Scarlett.
  Also, this is a very anti-American book. Mitchell keeps going on about how awful the Yankees and the Union and the federal government are and how great Georgia and states rights are. Of course, states rights here means being able to murder anyone who annoys you. The reconstruction section of the book should be read by everyone just to show why the flying of the Confederate flag is so offensive. It is completely un-American.
  And one last thing. This isn't a great love story. Rhett is really only a supporting character in the book until the last 200 pages when they get married, and for a book over 1000 pages, that's not alot. I think people remember the movie more than the actual book.
  I was really dissapointed with this book. I was looking forward to enjoying a nice read and discovered that it was horrible propaganda. It is really hard to believe that this book won the Pulitzer prize over Absalom,Absalom! by Faulkner.
  
  

• In Spite of Flaws and Changing Attitudes, It Remains The Great American Epic Novel
  By ACIBQ6BQ6AWEV on 2006-06-14
  Margaret Mitchell was born in 1900 in Atlanta, Georgia. Throughout her childhood she heard stories of life before, during, and after the Civil War. In the 1920s she suffered a broken ankle. In order to pass the time, and inspired by the stories of her childhood, Mitchell began to write a book. She did not consider herself a novelist and did not think about publication--until 1935, when she impulsively gave the ragged manuscript to a visiting publisher's representative. The rest, as they say, is history: GONE WITH THE WIND was a phenomena. The reading public loved it; even the critics hailed it; and a celebrated film version merely added fuel to the fire. It has been translated into a host of languages, it has never been out of print, and to this day it remains among the most widely-read novels ever written.
  
  In hindsight, it is obvious that Mitchell was somewhat overpraised as an artist. She is not a writer who can complete with the likes of Jane Austen or Mark Twain, and she has a distinct tendency to write "on the surface" rather than in depth. But she has two great strengths, and the first of these is narrative power. If nothing else, Mitchell was a born story teller with an instinctive grasp of what it took to make you turn the next page; at one thousand pages, GONE WITH THE WIND is a long book--but it never seems long when you are actually reading it. Mitchell's second great strength is ability to create archetypical characters that seem to embody everything you know as well as everything you feel you should have known, and Scarlett O'Hara joins the ranks of Austen's Elizabeth Bennett, Thackery's Becky Sharp, and Tolstoi's Anna Karenina as one of the most memorable female characters in the history of literature. As art, the novel does have faults, but it is vividly, sharply alive. You believe in the world and the events and people that Mitchell presents.
  
  Social critics presently accuse Mitchell and GONE WITH THE WIND of racism. I find it difficult to criticize a writer and a work from the past for failing to adopt the attitudes of the present; all writers bring their own day and age to the table, and Mitchell's attitudes and ideas about black people and slavery were in the American mainstream of her day. In this sense, the book is perhaps best considered as a marker of where we once were and how far we have come since its original publication. It is also worth noting that while GONE WITH THE WIND is set before, during, and after the Civil War, and while many of its characters are slaves or freed slaves, it is not a novel about the Civil War or about slavery. It is about a self-centered woman of that era who is clever without being intellectual, who is remarkably hypocritical, and who can in many ways be described as morally bankrupt. We see this world through her eyes, and since she is utterly uninterested in the causes of the war, and even less so in the myriad of moral and ethical issues that swirl around slavery, we learn very little about either in any real sense--and to further complicate matter Mitchell never implies that Scarlett, those who swirl around her, and their attitudes and actions are to admired or accepted; they simply are.
  
  This said, social critics do have a significant point when they note that the popularity of GONE WITH THE WIND had the effect of perpetuating the idea that slavery was "not all that bad" long after such ideas should have been no longer tolerated. I do indeed recommend the book--it is extremely memorable, so much so that it virtually created the genre of romantic historical fiction without every being bested by the host of novels that followed it--but I do not recommend that any one come to it without a fairly good idea of what the Old South was like in actual fact. It is all very well to see that world through the eyes of Scarlett O'Hara for a time, but we need the ability to pull away from her point of view, and to compare it to reality, once the novel is set aside.
  
  GFT, Amazon Reviewer
  
  
• purely for fiction
  By A1TPYTASEI17YA on 2001-11-19
  "Gone With the Wind", taken as pure fiction, stands as an interesting and well-written tale of life in the Old South. Characters are well developed and constant in their portrayal of the complexities of love and life under the strain of a collapsing civilization. Survival amidst tremendous hardships and the source of strength in the human soul are topics that the novel/movie address nicely. However, taken in a context of reality, "Gone With the Wind" is insulting to the reader's/viewer's intelligence and to the ancestors of Southerners, both black and white, free and slave, through its completely one-sided depiction of life in the plantation south. Many other reviewers on this site have commented that "Gone With the Wind" is a nice change from other books and movies in that it portrays the master/slave relationship as being affable. The truth, however, is not so pleasant. It is evident from the reading of historical documents that even the kindest of slaveholders did not keep their slaves as well-clothed, well-fed, and lightly worked as the O'Haras kept theirs. Only once did the movie portray slaves doing field labor. It never showed the slaves' living quarters, which were often less than comfortable. The only brutality and punishment it showed was when Scarlet hit Prissy for not moving fast enough when Melanie was giving birth. The representation of Mammy is partly accurate in that she was a jack-of-all-trades woman who cared especially for the master's children. The other side of the "Mammy" role however, was that on most plantations, the mammy was overworked, on-call 24 hours a day, and abused sexually and physically by the master. Also, a mammy would have never had the authority to boss around a master's daughter like Mammy bossed around Scarlet. For those who desire a well-written piece of fiction that takes place in a beautiful and gentile fantasy world called the Old South, I would surely recommend "Gone With the Wind". For those who know better than to believe in illusions of peace and warmth in the plantation south and who enjoy books that have at least one foot in the doorway of reality, "Gone With the Wind" will not be on your list of favorites.
  
  
• I was left feeling quite indifferent....
  By AUYLT4UT6EK1F on 2004-07-25
  I haven't really heard anything about this book nor have I seen the movie, so I didn't know what to expect when I started reading. I suppose I could use my desire to to broaden my reading scope as a reason for picking up this novel. I haven't read enough of the classics, the heavy stuff, the stuff that should have a good reason for staying around this long.
  
  Anyway, this book was teeming with racist undertones, and it annoyed me, to say the least. I could never really get comfortable with the writing, however beautiful and applause-worthy it was, because in would come the worthless diatribes about the slaves and how dumb and shiftless and worthless they were. It's not that the book was written about times of slavery and the aftermath of the American Civil War; I understand that people in those times had their reasons and their own beliefs. (I read Queen by Alex Haley with no problem, although I will concede that Queen was written by descendant of slaves and the view would be slightly different.) But I wonder if the woman who wrote Gone With the Wind was racist--or at the very least more than mildly prejudiced--because she wrote unnecessary addendums when describing the 'darkies,' superfluous ramblings that seemed to be more her own thoughts than the thoughts of the book's characters. She wrote things like, [the slave girl] couldn't comprehend...in her little black skull, and the use of the 'n' word when something else would have sufficed. The way she described Big Sam's excitement in seeing his mistress again after the war almost made my blood run cold. I ran into a lot about how the 'good' slaves all hated the idea of being free and the 'no good free issue' slaves were the ones who, apparently, realized that they were getting a raw deal when it came to that 'peculiar institution.' Really, wanting to be equal to whites [in every way that counted] was such a preposterous idea! I get the feeling I'm overreacting, but that's what happens when you read material like that in times such as these.
  
  Another thing that bothered me about it is that this is supposed to be the greatest love story of all time and almost eight hundred pages into the thing, Rhett and Scarlett still weren't together. He loved her--he admitted this to her at least thrice--and she didn't realize that she even really liked him, let alone loved him, until she halfway got over her Ashley Wilkes obsession.
  
  My third problem with the book came in the form of one young Miss O'Hara. As much as I tried to remain sympathetic and understanding to Scarlett's plight and her reasonings, her behavior made it easy for me to remain unmoved while reading. While I applauded her moments of unselfishness (very few and far between), Katie Scarlett O'Hara Hamilton Kennedy Butler was a nuisance and she was one of the main reasons I walked away from this book without too much feeling. However, I did love the way Rhett was written, for reasons I cannot properly articulate because even I do not know why I liked him so much. I guess I believe he and Melanie Hamilton Wilkes were the only truly likeable people in this book.
  
  The language was beautiful, the scenes vivid, breathtaking and all of that which is desirable when talking books. Ms. Mitchell wrote a really good book but sadly, it's not for everyone to enjoy.
  
  
• Would be perfect if it weren't for the racism
  By A62G4QX6XQVLP on 2004-08-02
  (4.5 stars, actually)
  
  I've never seen the movie all of the way through; every time it's been on I've either tuned in after it started or had to eat dinner, go to bed, or something that necessitated my having to interrupt my viewing of it. Reading the book finally got across the story in one piece. I normally dislike what Hollywood does to books adapted for the screen, but after reading the book, I agree that this is one of the few exceptions. And if you liked the movie, the book will be even better because of all of the characters and events left out (such as Scarlett's older two children Wade and Ella). One thing the movie was right to leave out, however, was the stomach-churning racism.
  
  I have no problem with an author having characters spout viewpoints that are racist (sexist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, etc.), but here those viewpoints aren't just limited to their dialogues and inner thoughts. There are a LOT of editorial commentaries on, for example, how wonderful slavery was, how the only good slave is one that was happy to be a slave, and all of the old stereotypes about African-Americans (sexual predators, lazy, childlike, superstitious, easily frightened, snoops, liars, thieves, you name it). The word "Negro" is never even capitalised, and many times the other n word is used to refer to them, as in "a niggery smell" and "trashy free-issue niggers." I know that in 1936 no one was saying African-American or even Black, but at least you could capitalise the word Negro or not use the word "darky" so often! Many of the African-American characters even call themselves and members of their own race the n word. These slaves support their white masters, hating the slaves who dare feel themselves equal to whites and who wanted to be free. There are also two anti-Semitic slights; on page 734 it says of Hugh Elsing (who is incompetent and not very smart in business) "Anyone could Jew him down on prices." On page 759 Rhett asks Scarlett if she might have some Jewish "blood" in her as well as Irish blood because of her love of money. The real reason Scarlett hires convicts to work in her mill is because they're cheaper, easier to exploit, and less "uppity" than the "trashy free-issue" former slaves. What other book with such racism on nearly every page is still in print today?
  
  Most Southerners were Crackers and white trash, not rich aristocrats like Scarlett and her friends, yet there's not one good word to be found about the Crackers. You'd think the aristocrats were in the majority and that barely any slaves were ever mistreated or had just cause to run away. They didn't even see how ironic it was that they were in the destitute position that the Crackers and slaves had been in for generations. The racism gets even more frequent and ugly in Part Two, the Reconstruction era. You'd never know that the KKK were a terrorist organisation; we're supposed to applaud these racist murderers and feel bad that the Yankees have taken over control? The only Southern state to avoid martial law was Tennessee, because they ratified the 14th Amendment. But of course, the other Southern states were too proud and angry to do that. And they got what they wanted before long; Reconstruction ended, African-Americans were effectively barred from exercising their Constitutional rights to vote for almost a hundred years, the Republicans (who were the progressive party way back when) were hounded out of town and threatened away from the polls, and the rich white men regained monopoly over the polls. The way it's written, you'd think the newly freed slaves, the Republicans, and the "Scallawags" were the ones going around terrorising people instead of the Democrats and the KKK! Still, the racism isn't the main point of the story, so I can overlook it to a point since the rest of the story is so great.
  
  The characters in the book are even better than in the movie; here Rhett isn't some charming rake, he's downright nasty, sleazy, seedy, suspicious, like an interesting-evil villain on a soap opera, the bad guy whose motivations are interesting and not mean for the sake of meanness. He's an incredible match for Scarlett, a strong empowered woman in her day and age, not afraid to flount social conventions by going out in public pregnant or shortening the period of mourning after her husbands die, a woman who has the smarts and the guts to run her own businessess because her second husband is too soft-hearted and incompetent to run them properly himself. Ashley is also a lot better in the book; he's such a doofus in the movie, but here we can understand why Scarlett is in love with him all of these years, why he inspires such passion and devotion in this fiery woman, a woman who wouldn't have spent so much time and emotion on the wimp he's portrayed as in the movie!
  
  The book does a great job at showing a Southern pov in the Civil War and Reconstruction; it would have been perfect if there hadn't been so much repugnant racist editorialising and just presented the viewpoints of these people from a vanished way of life in an unbiased way. It just looks unprofessional, besides racist, for an author to constantly inject personal opinions into the text.
  
  
• Old South life depicted with unflinching realism
  By A3DYIGOLWS5CNS on 2005-01-03
  Unlike the movie, this book is NOT a "romance novel"; it's a hard-hitting account of Southern life during the Civil War, told from a Southern point of view, told as if from the period. The racist attitudes of the time, though naturally, entirely unsavory from today's point of view, existed, and denying it won't erase the facts. Mitchell WASN'T trying to make a statement of ANY kind, pro or con; she merely wrote on how things were, as opposed to how one wished they might be, or wished them to be different. The dichotomies between black and white life are entirely realistic, and to portray them as anything otherwise would be foolhardy. The only way to know how ghastly our history was in terms of its treatment of humanity is to preserve the facts as they were, and this book, without even trying, does exactly that.
  
  Too, it would be a serious mistake to paint this book as an idyllic, romantic love story. Mitchell, to her credit, does not fall back on dime-store novel clichés, and unfortunately, she is rarely accorded respect for this. Because of the movie, an entirely different, not altogether flattering, slant permeates the whole "Gone With The Wind" phenomenon - and which debased Mitchell's intentions in the appalling Alexandra Ripley sequel.
  If everyone who saw the film had read the book, realization might be more widespread as to how they differ, and how much more complex and sharply drawn are the characters.
  
  Scarlett and Rhett are two unapologetic opportunists who are startlingly lacking in typical "storybook" appeal. Instead, their "appeal" is in how earthy and shrewd they both are, survivors by discarding public approval and approbation. In the end, both are humbled ("redeemed" is too strong a word) by life and their chronic misunderstanding of each other - and wind up, naturally, alone. Mitchell, shrewdly enough, in a rare move of unsentimentality, does not go the "happily ever after" route - Rhett leaves Scarlett, ruthlessly, abruptly. How could Butler, after being so shabbily treated, retain his self-respect by staying with Scarlett? All the other characters are drawn with wonderful strokes of originality and vividness - human, flawed and far more appealing than the pastel versions portrayed in the film.
  
  Mitchell was an incredible vernacular writer, and her skills in doing so emphasized the differences between all the cultures, classes and races. Astonishing is Mitchell's ability to combine history, social commentary and fiction with unbelievable ease; after several hours of reading, the reader may feel as though he had been in a virtual time machine, so indelibly detailed are the locales, weather, sounds and even smells. Even more absorbing are the marvelous dialogues between the characters, especially those of Rhett and Scarlett. Mitchell had a grasp as to how humans interact through words, and unlike, say, Ayn Rand, the conversations sound as if they are spoken by real people.
  
  Finally, though, for those who thought that Mitchell was Olde-Tyme in her attitudes and conventions because she was able to depict them so vividly, I suggest the reader pay close attention to the character of Rhett Butler, and his disdain for Old South values. Mitchell pulled a fast one by revealing, through Butler's character, just how modern a thinker she was. Butler repeatedly upbraids Scarlett for her early adherence to an antiquated "value system" and mockingly scorns the society around him. He sees what a sham and fakery of all the conventions that exist, and of having to accede to a mass-mentality. Through Rhett Butler, Mitchell slyly tucks in her own incredibly multi-faceted, intellectually-based mindset.
  
  Mitchell's book is one of the true greats in American novels.
  
  
• Division and reunion, and the child and adult, in "Gone With the Wind"
  By A1XU4HF9KSU7WI on 2007-09-06
  "Gone With the Wind," as a novel, has been mistakenly dismissed by literary critics as pulp fiction for the masses. This view is premature and biased, in my opinion. If one digs deeply into the fabric of this very complex novel, one is likely to find that this novel works on two very different levels: the external level, in which themes such as survival and romantic love figure prominently; and the internal level, in which themes such as division v. reunion and the child v. the adult figure prominently.
  
  An external analysis of the novel yields much that has been obvious to the reading and movie-going public for years. "Gone With the Wind" is, most obviously, a very powerful novel about a young woman's survival of two unique crises: the American Civil War and Reconstruction of the South that followed. The personal qualities of those who survive and prosper in this novel -- characters such as Scarlett O'Hara, Rhett Butler, Mammy, Will Benteen, old Mrs. Fontaine, even Mrs. Merriwether -- are contrasted sharply with those who do not survive and prosper: Ashley Wilkes, Ellen O'Hara, Gerald O'Hara, and Scarlett's first two husbands, Charles Hamilton and Frank Kennedy.
  
  Melanie Hamilton presents an interesting study in the story of survival. Margaret Mitchell uses her to represent the dignified stateliness of the Old South matron. Rather than becoming a victim of the Old South's disintegration, she survives in a way that equals or even surpasses Scarlett's survival. Melanie, whom Mitchell originally intended as the novel's heroine, is the woman who saves Tara from burning to the ground; the woman who drags her father's Mexican War sword to the landing at Tara, helping Scarlett defend it from the Yankee invader; and the woman who stands against polite society in order to defend Scarlett, her beloved sister-in-law, from the town's gossip. Yes, she dies at the end of the novel, and Mitchell uses this to represent the passing of the Old South. However, even here, Melanie dies in her own bed, in her own home, with her own family about her, and she dies on her own terms: after conceiving a child she knew placed her own life at risk.
  
  It is also about three interconnected love stories: the traditional, dignified courtship and marriage of Melanie Hamilton and Ashley Wilkes; the thwarted, unconsummated relationship between Ashley Wilkes and Scarlett O'Hara; and the temptuous, passionate courtship and marriage of Scarlett O'Hara and Rhett Butler. The central theme of these love stories is summarized early in the novel by Scarlett's father, Gerald O'Hara: "Only when like marries like can there be any happiness."
  
  These themes, while universal and very powerful, are only external to the novel, and I don't believe the novel's power or universality are derived from the themes of survival and love. I believe its power is much more subtle. Indeed, for years, it has been a mystery to literary critics why this novel was received equally well by 10-year olds as well as 95-year olds. Therein lies its secret: it is a novel with which both the 10-year old child and the 95-year old adult can identify strongly. It is a novel about children and it is a novel about adults.
  
  Every one of the major characters has qualities of both children and adults in them. These are handled subtly, not obviously, and the language of the novel, which I believe Margaret Mitchell crafted deliberately along these lines, takes the reader in this direction. For example, listen to what Scarlett says about men: "All the men in Scarlett's life, the Tarleton twins, the Calvert boys, Charles, and Frank, she could dismiss with the phrase, 'What a child!' Not Rhett. He was an adult in everything he did. Only Rhett and Ashley ..."
  
  Scarlett is portrayed as both child and adult. "I'm always your little girl," she says to her mother in the middle of the Civil War, when in fact she is a widow with a 2-year old son. The woman whose heroism saves Tara from oblivion is evaluated by Rhett at the end: "My pet, you're such a child." By the end of the novel, when Scarlett is only 28 years old, she has been married three times, widowed twice, given birth to three children, and buried one of them. Yet, in her dreams, she is still "a lost child." When asked if she thought Scarlett ever got Rhett back, Margaret Mitchell said: "I don't think so, but I do think she finally grew up."
  
  Melanie is the adult who masquerades in child's clothing -- and has a child's figure. Mitchell takes pain to describe Melanie's physical appearance "as that of a 10-year old boy, with narrow hips and height barely coming up to Ashley's shoulders." Yet it is Melanie who has the wisdom to see Scarlett's finer qualities, her strength of character, her commitment to her promises, and her ability to survive -- wisdom that is ironically viewed by Scarlett (and others) as foolishness. She is portrayed as foolish to be so loyal and loving to Scarlett; yet it turns out, in the end, that Scarlett's attachment to Ashley was imaginary, and it turns out in the end that Scarlett loves Melanie deeply. She is portrayed as foolish for defending Rhett Butler so staunchly, yet her wisdom about his good qualities is thoroughly vindicated by the novel's end. Of all the principles, it is Melanie who is the most wise -- and the most adult. Yet her external appearance is very childlike.
  
  Rhett is usually depicted as an adult, the black sheep of a prominent Charleston family who makes his own fortune as a blockade runner from just a $1,000 investment. He admits, at novel's end, that he wanted to care for Scarlett, as an adult would care for a child; yet he is relentlessly mothered by Melanie, especially toward the end: she straightens him up so that he can be presentable to Scarlett after her miscarriage; and only she can convince him to consent to Bonnie's funeral. Further, he enables Melanie's mothering throughout the novel. She is the only person that he truly respects because, I suspect, she is a reminder to him of his own mother, a character who is rather prominent in the novel, though largely absent. Interestingly, it is only Melanie who comes into contact with her, as she greets mourners for Bonnie in the parlor of Scarlett and Rhett's mansion.
  
  Ashley Wilkes is the real child of the four principles, but it takes Scarlett the entire duration of the novel, more than 12 years, to realize this. Ashley is the weakest character, the one who has failed to give up the "life that [he] loved," the one who depicts the charm and grace of the Old South to Scarlett -- the only time that she succumbs to the mistake of looking back. Mitchell is very deft with this scene. It is portrayed as a scene that exposes Ashley and Scarlett's illicit love for each other. However, what's really being exposed here is their common dependence on the past, Ashley's being overt and Scarlett's much more deeply repressed. By implication, it's also exposing the true nature of their attraction for each other, because they shared a common upbringing, growing up on neighboring plantations.
  
  This scene is expertly crafted. While Ashley and Scarlett are reminiscing about the charm and grace of their common past -- an event which culminates in their hugging in a truly platonic manner, one in which they begin to understand each other -- they are exposed to the gossip and criticism of Atlanta society. What's being exposed here is not their unconsummated romance; it's their common reliance on living in the past. It's fitting that they should be exposed when they're reminiscing about their common past, because that is the real force of their attraction, the real reason for their love (an ultimately childish love, by the way). Mitchell uses this scene to expose them not to Atlanta society, but to the reader. They're not in love with each other; they're in love with a life that is (forgive the cliche) gone with the wind. At the end of the novel, when Scarlett realizes she truly loves Rhett, she sums up her relationship with Ashley: "I've lost my lover and I've gained another child."
  
  Virtually every relationship in this novel can be evaluated as child v. adult; think, for example, of Mammy, the real mother figure of the novel. Look at Ellen and Gerald O'Hara; he was 43 when they married and she was 15; yet she mothers him, right up until her death. Consider one of their final episodes, recounted to Scarlett in Atlanta by John Wilkes, in which Gerald wanted to fight in the war. Ellen puts him to the test insofar as riding his horse is concerned, a test that "little Gerald, who barely came up to her shoulders" failed miserably. After Ellen dies, Gerald's life collapses and he is a broken man, right until his death.
  
  Finally, there is the theme of division and reunion that appears on numerous occasions throughout the novel. Consider how the novel starts: Scarlett is seated on the front steps of Tara between the Tarleton twins -- a divisive force for two brothers who are otherwise as "alike as two bolls of cotton." The novel begins with internal and external symbols of division. The Civil War starts. We are introduced to Scarlett and Melanie, the two heroines who are complete opposites and, at least for Scarlett, adamantly opposed to one another. We are introduced to Ashley and Rhett, the two heroes who are also complete opposites, at least externally, and rather opposed to one another; Ashley dislikes Rhett's blackguardism, and Rhett has contempt for Ashley's weaknesses.
  
  Mitchell deliberately tries to convince the reader, by cleverly contrasting their external characteristics, that these characters are hopelessly divided. Scarlett "hates" Melanie because she is a foolish simpleton and Ashley's wife; Rhett is a symbol of the New South, and Ashley is a symbol of the Old South; Rhett is a survivor, Ashley is a victim. Scarlett is a divisive figure in Melanie and Ashley's marriage. Scarlett is a divisive figure in the Hamilton-Wilkes families: toward the end, she is the indirect cause of a family feud that splits the family into two separate camps. Scarlett, herself, is a divided character - the result of an alliance between an Irish immigrant and an established aristocrat from the Savannah coast. "In her face were too sharply blended the sharp features of her father, an Irish immigrant, and the more delicate features of her mother, a French aristocrat from Savannah." Mitchell has even put division on Scarlett's face -- one reason that Vivien Leigh, who as an actress utilized divided eyebrows (one up, one down) for Scarlett, was such a perfect choice for the part. "She is my Scarlett," admitted Margaret Mitchell.
  
  Division is the premise of the novel. Reunion is its conclusion. Everything that was divided is ultimately united by novel's end. Melanie and Scarlett reach an understanding with each other; Scarlett comes to realize how much she loves and relies on Melanie, and comes to appreciate her strength, the "steel courage" that has sustained her through many crises. Indeed, the evolution of their relationship is one of the most touching and endearing aspects of the novel. Whereas we begin the novel with Ashley depicted as the war hero whose life is lived for "dignity and honor" and with Rhett depicted as the blackguard who is motivated only by crass selfishness, we end the novel with Ashley reduced to a helpless, purposeless victim and Rhett enhanced as a loving husband and father. Along the way, the stark contrasts that Mitchell draws early between Rhett and Ashley yield to sympathetic comparisons. "Did it ever occur to you, Scarlett, that Rhett and I are fundamentally alike?" Ashley inquires toward the end. Yet their similarities are evident -- though repressed -- from the beginning. In a surprising confrontation with Mrs. Merriwether, Melanie defends Rhett's criticisms of the war because they mirror things her husband has written to her. Ashley and Rhett begin the novel as divided and opposed to one another; they end united and unified as characters. Melanie and Scarlett, likewise, begin the novel as opposed opposites and end the novel united and unified. Division begets reunion.
  
  This theme, division and reunion, is especially powerful when you consider the historical context of the novel. In my view, it is no accident, but rather a careful decision on Margaret Mitchell's part, to time the action of the novel from April 1861, the start of the Civil War, the ultimate symbol of division, to September 1873, the end of Reconstruction, the ultimate symbol of reunion. It is a breathtaking historical backdrop for a novel whose dramatic power is derived from characters experiencing division and reunion in their lives.
  
  It is curious that Mitchell's novel has born the brunt of belittling and contemptuous literary criticism over the years. When it debuted, it sold millions and won the Pulitzer Prize; no film, before or since, has ever been so widely anticipated as the 1939 film was. Its massive popularity, I suspect, and Mitchell's melodramatic writing style have contributed to this contempt. However, when one considers the thematic breadth of the novel, its impeccable structure, and the awesome scope of its narrative force, "Gone With the Wind" is a singular and astonishing achievement. I believe its universality, its appeal from the 10-year old to the 95-year old, is best explained by the themes of child v. adult and division v. reunion. I also believe that it is these themes that explain why it captivates us after 71 years and will continue to captive generations to come.
  
  
  
• THE WORST BOOK EVER WRITTEN!
  By on 2000-02-15
  THIS IS THE WORST BOOK EVER WRITTEN! IT WAS PAINFUL FOR ME TO READ THIS GARBAGE! MARGARET MITCHELL WAS OBVIOUSLY RACIST! C'MON, JUST READ THE PART ABOUT RECONSTRUCTION! AND HOW SCARLETT CAN TREAT THE SLAVES LIKE DIRT AFTER THEY HAD MADE TARA A PLANTATION, AND KEPT FOOD ON THE TABLE! REALLY, IF RHETT LOVED HER "SO" MUCH, HOW COULD HE JUST LEAVE HER LIKE THAT! THIS BOOK COULD HAVE ABOUT 200 PAGES AND STILL BE TOO LONG! TALK ABOUT TRIVIAL DETAIL! (The hat was emerald green, with a large bouncy ostrich plume, and wide emerald ribbons as big as Scarlett's hands. The dress was 12 yards of green sprigged muslin with only tiny puffed sleeves, it was low enough to be a dancing dress, and certainly not suitable for a morning barbecue. The dress was a green plaid tarlatan, so wide it reduced her wasit to nothingless. Oh, she'd lead that waltz with an apple-green watered-silk dress, and dark green ribbons on her bosom and white tuberroses in her hair.) REALLY, WHO GIVES A DAMN!
  
  
• Superb historical romance
  By A1QGDMR4XJOA6N on 2000-04-19
  What can I add that has not already been said about this novel? It truly is one of the best novels ever written. I read over 75 books every year, many of them historical novels. I don't know why I waited so long to read this one, but I'm glad I finally did. And no, I haven't seen the movie. The characters were multi-dimensional and despite their often-displayed negative qualities, we keep hoping for them. They are more real and probably like ourselves than most of us would care to admit. Perhaps that is the real beauty of the story. We can see how selfish actions can lead to consequences without having to live through the pain ourselves. The style is easy to read and enjoyable to follow. And the backdrop of the Civil War and the early reconstruction period (from the South's point of view) is among the best I've ever run across. Despite its length, the book keeps you enthralled, every step of the way. This is one of those classics that you simply must read, not because you should, but because you will be so glad you did.
  
  
• A wannabe "War & Peace."
  By on 1998-06-28
  Written during the Great Depression when Americans needed escapism, GWTW and the resulting movie it spawned are primarily responsible for distorting many Americans impressions of slavery, as well as trivializing the horror of the Civil War. If you like your history covered with moonlight and magnolias and sugar-coated beyond all reality GWTW is just what you are looking for. After all, its only fiction. Problem is, too many people over the years have come to regard it as almost gospel. In the end, GWTW is little more than a cheap attempt to create an American version of Tolstoy's "War & Peace."
  
  
• The best of its kind
  By AQYM7Q42F4C87 on 2001-02-03
  While I admit to not being a fan of the romance genre, Mitchell's "Gone with the Wind" towers above its imitators in style and substance. Set in the Atlanta area during the Civil War era, Mitchell's story exemplifies the proper writing of historical fiction, with painstaking accuracy of language, mannerisms, and morals. The war itself is also presented as it should be presented - in full color and with all its moral ambiguity, rather than the black-and-white presentation that so often is the norm in modern discourse.

  Mitchell's painting of southern culture and the all-encompassing war, however, serve only as the background for one of the most poignant love stories ever written. Following the life and loves of the willful Scarlett O'Hara, the work delves straight into the meaning and nature of love. Torn between her now-married childhood love, Ashley, and the outcast Rhett Butler, and in dogged pursuit of financial success after the devastating war, Scarlett lives a life of emotion and passion that few fictional characters have rivalled.

  Though this work is quite long, it is a very easy read. The style is light and brisk, the language uncomplicated except in the heavy dialect of the blacks, and the story compelling. "Gone with the Wind" is a great book, a great movie, and perhaps the greatest love story ever told. Highly recommended.
  
  

• A Wonderful Book!
  By AN0XWUHSHRUG6 on 2002-05-28
  This book was wonderful. I love reading about the south and the Civil War era is a wonderful back drop for the story of the spoiled southern belle Scarlett, and the dashing Rhett. I personally feel that this book is the mother of historical romance and will last the test of time. I read this book the first time when I was 12 or 13 and re-read it again as an adult. My memory of this story was not altered by the length of time between these reads.

  Better then the movie and wonderfully descriptive with real characters that grow as a result of their experiences you will not be disappointed with this book.
  
  

• The best book ever
  By AESNCKZT8VB6O on 2003-01-03
  A fourteen year old who loves to read almost anything under the sun:

  I loved this book. When I was in seventh grade I checked it out of our little school library because it had a lot of points--we'd read books, take a test, and receive a certain number of points for that book. If we got everything correct, we got full points, and we needed many points to pass English every trimester.
  I didn't realize I was going to fall in love with the characters. Each person is beautifully made, intricate, and unique. You grow to know everyone in the story. Margaret Mitchell doesn't let any detail slide. She describes Scarlett beautifully.
  Scarlett is perhaps the most interesting character I've ever read. I hate her completely, and yet love her just the same. She was the most spoiled brat, and yet I felt like I was part of her, or she was part of me.
  Also, Margaret Mitchell does a good job of justifying the Confederate's reasons for breaking off from the United States. Although I don't agree with slavery at all, I could see where the southerners came off, believing as they did, and even felt a little angry at the northerners for being so hotheaded themselves.
  For those of you who have seen the movie and liked it, buy this book, its ten times better. And for those of you who disliked the movie, still get the book. It is very much different from the movie, you get in the whole world, and they left out so much in the movie. For instance, Scarlett ... well, just read it, it's good.
  
  

• Overrated Book
  By A31Y9DLKVASJQY on 2004-09-24
  I have to admit one thing about this book. She got her Civil War facts right, which is more than we can say for some authors who have tried writing novels about the war. Other than that, I have nothing good to say about this book.
  
  Scarlett is one of the most annoying characters you'll ever read about. I realize she's supposed to be that way, but frankly I didn't care what happened to her or anybody else in this book. She got on my nerves right from the start.
  
  My biggest problem with the book was how racist it was. Critics of Mark Twain call his books racist, but Tom and Huck are probably accurate portrayals of kids growing up in that time and place (at least regarding their thoughts on slaves). To have Tom Sawyer make a comment that sounds racist to us is one thing, but in this case the author shows her own racism. A slave who came back south after visiting Boston with a Union officer complains about being expected to sit at the dinner table with the white people, who obviously didn't know that the black people were inferior and should eat in the kitchen. This was probably her view when she wrote it, but if you could go back in time I doubt if you'd have found any slaves who didn't want their freedom, or who didn't want to be treated as equals by the white people of the time.
  
  I've never understood the popularity of this book or the movie. If you want to read a good Civil War novel try something by Howard Bahr or "The Killer Angels," or "A Soldier's Book," or "Enemy Women," or "The Red Badge of Courage," or "Shiloh."
  
  
• Speechless
  By A396409DYDO1F3 on 2007-02-01
  When I was in middle school I shared my locker with my best friend. Her favorite movie and book were Gone With the Wind, we had posters in the locker and she talked about it non-stop. I looked at it, saw how long it was and laughed at her for her obccession.
  Now as a senior in college I decided to pick it up and see what all the fuss was about. I don't have a lot of time to read during the semester, but I had this book finished in less then 3 weeks. I didn't want to put it down, and it ate at me during classes to not know what was going on in Atlanta in my absence.
  This is quite possibly the most amazing book I have ever read. Mitchell's writting style is amazingly easy to read dispite the era she was writing during, and her descriptions make the state of Georgia come alive for a girl who has never left New England.
  The character of Scarlett both infuriated me and drew commanalities to myself. While sometimes you want to scream at the book and make her realize her love for Rhett hundreds of pages before she does, I think theres a little of every women in her. Her hopes and fears are still very real so many years later.
  I am so happy to have read this book, and now its one I'll reread in a few years. I highly reccamend it and am completely in love with it.
  
  
• Review of Gone with the Wind
  By A1ITVW3CRL8VOE on 2007-05-10
  Being a guy this is kind of hard for me to admit, but this is the best book that I have ever read to date. I know that this is a "chick book" but I found it completely fascinating. I learned much more about the civil war from this book than I ever did from a history book or a classroom. I also learned about the origination of the KKK, all about slavery and all about real southern hospitality. There is so much more to this book than just a great story. You actually get to feel what it would have been like to grow up and live on a plantation before, during and after the civil war. I believe that this book should be read by everyone because of its historical value even though the story itself is fiction. I have read very few books where you really know and feel for the characters like you do in GONE WITH THE WIND.
  
  
• A timeless, sweeping, epic masterpiece
  By AC7J2CCGFQXY9 on 2008-06-16
  Gone with the Wind is a timeless, sweeping, epic masterpiece of American literature. It is the story of the South right before the Civil War, during the war, and the aftermath when Reconstruction began in the South. It is filled with drama, romance, tragedy, real characters with flaws, and I can see why this book won a Pulitzer Prize and why it continues to be a very popular book decades after it was first published in 1936.
  
  I don't need to go into a synopsis of the book, if anyone hasn't heard of Scarlett O'Hara and Rhett Butler, I'd be very surprised. If you have only seen the wonderful movie adaptation of the book, but have never read the book, I highly recommend you read the book. The movie doesn't capture the essence of the characters, the entirety of their personalities and motives behind certain actions and behaviors.
  
  I was captivated from the very first page. I can't describe exactly how or why, but Mitchell wrote in such a way that pulls you into the story. Her writing is simple and straightforward, and it touches you in a way that helps you relate to the characters and the world she wrote about. Her writing resonates with you, and keeps you reading. Her writing of the scenery and backdrop of the South, her depictions of the various characters, their motives, their thoughts, their innermost secrets that make them who they are. Mitchell brought this time period to life and causes you, the reader, to empathize with the characters and the struggles and upheaval they go through.
  
  Even though I know this story, how it unfolds and how it concludes, I couldn't turn the pages fast enough until I reached the very end. Scarlett O'Hara isn't the most sympathetic character you'll encounter, but as I gradually read her story, I found myself liking this character and rooting for her happily ever after, although you know she doesn't get that HEA in the end. I actually found the ending appropriate, it fits in with Scarlett's personality of a person who won't quit no matter what. She has seen the worst in life, and she remains stubborn in defeat that she can win back Rhett's love.
  
  Scarlett was a very selfish, manipulative, and cruel young woman, the only person she cared about was herself (with the exception of her mother, Ellen O'Hara, who she revered and respected and was the only woman she trusted). She was a simple person, not easily able to understand more serious and complex issues, which she usually shrugged off in a careless fashion as insignificant and unworthy of her time. She presented a facade of a lady of gentility to the world, all the while seething secretly inside at what she perceived as injustices against her or the unfairness of life if she didn't get her way. She was also willfully stubborn in her unrequited love for childhood friend, Ashley Wilkes, and it was quite sad to see her pine for a man who rejected her even though he did love her but was too cowardly to do anything about it.
  
  Despite her numerous character flaws, Scarlett had some admirable traits, such as her perseverance and flinty determination to survive. There were so many times where she was numb with weariness and feeling desolate at the heavy burden on her shoulders, but she would always put off her morose thoughts and say, "I will think about it later", and mentally force herself to take it one step at a time in order to stay sane and calm in a chaotic world. This was in contrast to her weak sisters who couldn't seem to comprehend that their old lifestyle had vanished forever and that a change was needed within themselves in order to survive. Scarlett, with her unladylike blunt honesty and very practical nature realizes this almost immediately. She was so unlike her tender and kind mother, Ellen, in almost every way except in one. Like her mother before her, she became the mistress of Tara, and in her newfound role she fills her mother's shoes in becoming what her family needed. Someone to look up to and lean upon for aid when needed.
  
  I found Scarlett a contradiction of sorts. She would look upon in contempt or disgust at those who depended on her, yet she would cast such thoughts aside in order to fulfill her duty to them as she couldn't abandon them. For her family because they *were* family and an O'Hara always helped family, and for Melanie, Ashley's wife, because of a promise. On the one hand she was a strong woman, strong in that she was able to survive the devastation of the South and show a courage of spirit in facing adversity and impossibility, but on the other hand, she was weak too. Weak in continuing in her girlhood, idealistic, puppy love for Ashley that blinded her to real, true lasting love with Rhett Butler who was her true soul mate. In some ways she was finally a woman, having the burden of responsibility of her family forcing her to mature, but in other ways, in her relationship with men, she was still a child. Of course, in the latter category she realizes too late what she knew instinctively all along, that Rhett Butler was the man for her and she had just been too immature, stubborn, and childish to see it clearly.
  
  Rhett Butler was the perfect match for fiery Scarlett. He was exactly like her, unscrupulous and looking to number one first (although, he did have his gentlemanly and kind moments beneath the veneer of mockery and sardonic amusement). Unlike Scarlett, he didn't pretend to be what he was not. He was no refined Southern gentleman and he took perverse pleasure in flaunting this in subtle ways. He is basically Scarlett in masculine form, only more intelligent.
  
  Some of my favorite moments of the book were the scenes with Rhett and Scarlett sparring with the other. It was amusing to see Rhett get the upper-hand over Scarlett every time. His witty quips most times went completely over her head, as she wasn't as clever as he, but that made it all the more amusing to see Scarlett finally meet her match in Rhett. I laughed aloud several times as I read Scarlett getting frustrated and upset stating he was no gentleman, only to see him laugh at her and agree with her he wasn't. Other scenes I enjoyed reading was the scenes back at Tara after she fled Atlanta, where you are witness to the transformation of Scarlett the Southern belle to Scarlett the survivor as she toiled in the cotton fields in Tara and tried to put food on the table for her family.
  
  I thought it was quite saddening to read about the delusions people in the South had regarding the war. The characters in Atlanta, such as Mrs. Merriweather or Dr. Meade, with their desperate, futile hope, and optimism that the South would prevail was sad to read about. Defiant to the end, in their naive and stubborn pride they thought the South and "the Cause" they fought for would triumph no matter the cost. It was this hope they clung to even as Atlanta was under siege by the Union army. None would know (or wanted to admit to knowing), except those perceptive enough to see the truth, such as Rhett Butler or Ashley Wilkes, that the way of life the South enjoyed up to the war was dead and gone. An old world that wouldn't come back, even if they had won, as it was forever changed, and like the title of the book gone with the wind. This book was poignantly sorrowful in that regard, you get a brief glimpse into the South portrayed pre-war and then post-war, and you realize it was never to be the same again.
  
  Although this story is told from the perspective of a Southern woman and her story of surviving the war, I think one could say her personal story reflects on a larger scale the entire South's struggles to survive in a new and changed world. The scenes of the ruined and abandoned plantations, with their eerie tomb stillness, was described in very convincing detail, and I found myself with Scarlett mourning the lost world she loved and grew up in.
  
  I could keep on writing about the various aspects of this story that were enjoyable and what I thought, but this review would get very lengthy if I did! Let me say this: the book was wonderful. Just read it! You won't regret it, yes, it is quite a hefty book but this story is so engrossing, compelling, and captivating you won't even notice how long the book is.
  
  
• By far my favorite book!
  By A2AZ9XMZ2M1NQL on 2000-03-14
  When my mom brought this home, at first I thought I wouldn't understand it. I started the book because I had seen the motion picture and fell in love with all of the characters. Once I started I could NOT stop! I read in the shower, I read while I was brushing my teeth, I read late into the night when I was supposed to be sleeping. I am only eleven years old but I still hold Gone With the Wind a treasure to my heart. My favorite character was Melanie. I became Melanie for the couple of weeks that I read this book. I adored Ashley and admired Rhett Butler. I read with intent interest at Scarlett's luxurious life,I struggled through the Civil War. I felt the O'hara family's hunger too. Even though I am young,I say this book is up there with the best literature there is!
  
  
• Frankly, I don't give a damn.
  By A1PS66N855AO4D on 1997-12-17
  My father browbeat me into reading Gone With The Wind when I was a teenager. To this day I can't understand what all the fuss was about. Scarlet is such a spoilt snit that I couldn't care what happened to her. I guess this is one book you either love or hate, so I recommend that you check a volume out of the library and read a chapter or two. If you hate it, you've lost nothing but a little of your time. If you love it, well, there's no accounting for taste.
  
  
• Great Story; Disgusting Philosophy
  By AQ0M43PVQZREI on 2004-09-04
  This is a great love story with more than a smidgen of insight into the human psyche, but it is also an offensive apologia for the American Original Sin--slavery. This is our Wagner. If you read it in public, don't forget the brown paper bag.
  
  
• A life-altering read
  By A15YFGHT3YK1PS on 2006-05-03
  Thirty plus years ago, I lived and breathed "Gone With the Wind" in one huge, invigorating, life-changing gulp. I am writing this review because there is a whole new generation out there that should be exposed to this ground-breaking book.
  Epic in scope at over 1,000 pages, "Gone With the Wind" is a story of the Civil War, set in the deep South. The central charater is the infamous Scarlett O'Hara, a tempestuous, beautiful southern belle who secretly loves Ashley Wilkes, a childhood friend who marries his saintly cousin Melanie. At their engagement barbeque, Scarlett meets the dashing, mysterious Rhett Butler, the black sheep of a distinguished Charleston family. This event marks the last day of their antebellum lives, and sets the stage for the ravages of war that follow. Covering a time frame of roughly twelve years, "GWTW" is also a story of the new South that rises from the ashes of the old.
  Scarlett, one of the most indelible characters of modern fiction, is ruthless and selfish, a survivor and a fighter. A feminist long before her time, Scarlett pays dearly for the choices she makes. Rhett is a more complex individual with one weakness. He hides his love for Scarlett, prefering to pop in and out of her life until he "catches her between husbands". It is Rhett who is the more sympathetic character, deeply intelligent, self-mocking and sometimes heartbreakingly sad. Rhett, in spite of his worldly ways, is more representative of the old south, while Scarlett depicts the new.
  "Gone With the Wind" is fabulously well-written, plotted and researched. It has been criticized as racist, and it is so. No author today could get away with these portrayals of African Americans. But you have to remember that this book was written in the 1930s. Keep that in mind if you become angry. Personally, I feel that Mammy is one of the strongest, noblest women to appear in a work of fiction.
  This work is a must read for everyone. Savor it, reread it and be moved as many before you have been.
  
  
• Beautiful piece of art!
  By on 1999-07-07
  When I look back on my sophomore year of high school, I will remember it as the year I read Gone With the Wind, and became hooked. I have thought about it everyday since I started it. I adore this story. The descriptions in this book will take your breath away. Once when she was back at Tara, in the dead of winter, I looked up and was shocked that the sun was shining, and there was food downstairs in the refrigerator. It will literally sweep you in. I read it in September, in a little less than a week. I didn't read it as a challenge or anything. It was actually a "rebelling" act. My mom hates the story line because she doesn't like how Southerners "won't let the war die." Her saying how much she hated it totally backfired because it only made me want to read it more so I could see what was so bad about it. Then I fell in love with it. When I re-read some of the dialogue, especially that at the end of the book, between Scarlett and Rhett, my heart positively aches. The language is so beautiful. I cried for an hour after I finished it. The ending is absolutely tragic, but there's no other way it could've ended and been as good. I don't understand how anyone can not like it. The Southern backdrop during the Civil War was a necessity to the essence of the story. I know slavery was one of America's greatest atrocities, but that's not what this book is about. It is the story of a woman trying to save herself and her home, and in the process, ruining the love of one of the most dashing, white knights of all fiction because of her only-human downfalls-greed, fear and lust.

  I loved Scarlett's character. She was exactly as Rhett described-a brave, frightened, insensitive, bull-headed child. She did try to be good, and then something would happen to scare her, so she'd get mean again. I loved Melanie, too. I want to be a friend like she was. She was good, but not goody-goody. She loved people fiercely, as Scarlett wanted things fiercely. She stood by her beloved friend to the bitter end, even though she knew Scarlett had betrayed her. Rhett was such an absolutely wonderful person. He only couldn't show it to the everyday Scarlett-hardened and greedy-because she would think him weak. He was only tender and loving when she was in fear. I want to meet someone like him-I just hope I don't act like Scarlett! The characters were so human, I loved them all. Everyone should read this book. It is such a beautifully-written masterpiece. It's my favorite.
  
  

• Gone with the Wind (Four-Disc Collector's Edition) 1939
• Scarlett: The Sequel to Margaret Mitchell's "Gone With the Wind"
• Rhett Butler's People
• To Kill a Mockingbird
• Scarlett (Special Collector's Editon)