I've finished the novel and I think that my comments in this paragraph are general enough so as not to need spoiler protection. I'll use them for those following--espcially the contentious final paragraph. I really enjoyed about 90% of the book. For many of the experiences described in Eyam, Geraldine Brooks drew heavily on anecdotal oral history to describe events in the village. She also did considerable research on the effects of the Plague and its physical and psychological effects on people from 17th century sources. the result is a remarkably vivid picture of the town and its population. The rector Michael Mompellion is partially based on the actual rector of the time, William Mompesson. But the central interest of the novel lies with the narrator who is generally effectively delineated by Brooks.
Did anyone else feel this way?