This month’s discussion of Frozen River by Ariel Lawhon stands out as one of the best we’ve had in a long time. However, a great discussion doesn’t necessarily mean everyone agreed on the book. What made this conversation so engaging was the complexity of our reactions to it. From a historical perspective, the book offers significant merit—though I later came across a post that questions some of its accuracy. (It’s a lengthy read but worth skimming for those interested in this book.)

Frozen River is historical fiction inspired by the real-life Martha Ballard, a midwife in late 1700s Maine. The story begins when a local man is found dead in the river, and Ballard is called on to help determine the cause of death. The deceased is one of two men accused of raping the minister’s wife, which complicates any conclusions made about the condition of his body.
Drawing from decades of Ballard’s journals documenting her service to the community, Lawhon’s narrative highlights the challenges women faced in their homes, communities, and professions during this period.
Our scores ranged from a low of 3 to high of 4 with the average landing at 3.3.
- The book is strong as historical fiction, providing an insightful “spot in time” view of barriers faced by professional women of the period. However, we felt it lacked depth from a literary fiction perspective.
- Readers appreciated learning about Martha Ballard and her life. However, the claim that she never lost a mother during childbirth felt suspect (the article linked above provides contradictory evidence to this). The connection to Clara Barton was interesting and added historical depth.
- We questioned the prevalence of out-of-wedlock births. Martha’s experience as a midwife might have skewed her perspective, as births attended by trained physicians may present a more balanced ratio.
- We liked the overarching mystery of who killed Joshua Burgess.
- Symbolism in the book, such as the silver fox, lace, “Revenge,” and characters like Brutus, Cicero, and Percy, felt excessive and overdone.
- The reliance on Shakespearean references seemed overdone; did Martha and Ephriam not read anything else?
- The emphasis on the rope was puzzling. Is it meant to draw attention to a historical necessity of such physical evidence, which isn’t the same with modern standards.
- Discussions frequently revolved around what elements of the book were real versus fictional.
- The character known as “Doctor” was a favorite among our group, but we felt she should have been introduced earlier. Including her from the beginning felt like a missed opportunity, particularly due to her connection to Martha’s work as a midwife.
- The author’s (supposed) strict adherence to historical truth hindered the storytelling. Taking more creative license could have enhanced the book’s literary quality.
- The justice served at the end was satisfying, demonstrating where the author’s creative license worked well. Similarly, we liked the “fight” between Percy and Cicero.
- Col. North was a confusing character. His early-life portrayal as a trustworthy if not nobel person conflicted with his later depiction as evil, and the explanation for his transformation (“losing his soul”) felt insufficient.
- Martha’s sons, particularly Jonathan and Cyrus, were better developed than her daughters. We wondered if the fact that Lawhon has son’s influenced their more rounded portrayal.
- More robust character development was desired overall. Martha and Ephraim were seen as “flat” characters who did not grow or change significantly, which impacted reader sympathy.
- Telling the story chronologically might have helped build sympathy for Martha, especially regarding her experiences of rape, losing three daughters, and leaving the graves behind.
- Ephraim’s perfection made him unrealistic, though his role in teaching Martha to read was appreciated.
- A lingering question: Did Col. North truly tear out pages of Martha’s journal? If so, did she recreate them from memory?
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments