In Sarah plain and Tall, I think the open prarie is the most important part of the setting. Reason being, where Sarah comes from, there's buildings, air pollution, roads, and it's crowded. All though, in a prarie, there is trees instead of buildings, fresh air instead of pollution, grass instead of roads, and all the space instead of it being crowded. I didn't really like the book because it's only 58 pages long. I'd recommend this to ages 6 through 10.

Lo que pienso es que estaba mas o menos y que se los recomendamos a los adultos y a los ninos. Tambien ensena muchas cosas de amistad y amigos.

I think that the book was pretty good and I recommend it to adults and children. Also, it teaches many things about friendship and friends.

I was actually given this book as proof I lost a bet. I didn't believe that something so racially and ethnically ignorant could be still published and respected. There is one small hole in the authors line of reasoning though, during the 15th-19th centuries the social and political literature written by Europeans were used only to justify to brutality and savage behavior of their own (during the Trans-Atlantic African Slave Trade). While the Europeans were on their brutal conquests of a land not their own, their only motivation was to suck Africa dry of all her resources. Very similarly Hitler used the same tactics in justifying the extermination and the forced slave labor of the Jewish populatin in Germany. If anyone of respectful academia wrote this book, then to he or she it would be obvious that prior to European colonization and domination of Africa many writers referred to the vast civilizations with great respect and amazement. Starting with the Greeks and ending with the first European spies and travelers to the continent. Civilizations as Kemet, Nubia, Kush, Zimbabwe, Ghana, Benin, Timbuktu and many others (that existed before the Europeans knew whether the world was round). Very disappointing.

First of all, this book is pretty classist. In the beginning George Sand says that poor people are unable to understand beauty and the higher things in life--then she says that writers should stop whining about the plight of the poor people, that they are happy just the way they are. Well, it seems to me that if learning is an important part in life and there are people who have never had the opportunity to be enriched by that, it isn't "whiny" to want to mitigate their situation---but there's George Sand for you. She never thinks things through.

Then, of course, since this is Sand, it is more mawkish and sentimental than even Chateaubriand. The story is simple enough, yet Sand would have us fall to our knees and weep with joy over it. And furthermore, it is incredibly dull and cliched. The plot is about two people in love who reciprocate each other's affection and get marrried. The characters are a handsome, sensitive widower and a delicate milkmaid. Somewhere along the line there's a magical pool that keeps them stuck in the woods long enough for the man to declare his love for the woman. There are no complex, philosophical meditations. There's not much more to it than that.

Oh, if you like elitist dilettante musings wrapped in the most tired commonplaces imaginable and disguised as beauty, then you'll like this book. But otherwise, stay far, far away from this book.