Paul Merkoski wrote in
The Press of Atlantic City that the novel is "written with elegant simplicity", and that Knowles is still a "master of tight writing, and his characters are still drawn with light brush strokes that permeate a carefully structured plot". But, Merkoski goes on to say that this novel is "less riveting and generally less effective", than the prequel
A Separate Peace. His final thoughts are the book will "delight and entertain young readers", but that it "does not speak to adult readers". In his review for the
Greensboro News and Record, William Moore writes that the novel "has a good quick-paced plot, leading to a shocking ending", and that it has "adequate if unbrilliant characterization and a rather obvious, simplistic philosophy of human nature". He says that readers who are interested in "schooling", will find this sequel "good reading". Robert Merritt's review in the
Richmond Times-Dispatch was critical of the book, saying; it has "absolutely no subtlety", and that the "characterizations are set up with signposts: each character clearly labeled as good, bad or misunderstood". He complained that the "plot is so much an obvious attempt to follow the outline of the earlier success as to be embarrassing, and the resulting predictability is simply too much". He opines that Knowles "speaks with a big voice, but he seems to have forgotten the basics of a good story". Diane Cole said in
The Baltimore Sun that she thought while the novel "does not achieve its predecessor's heights, it is pleasing, disturbing and very good indeed". In her view, she says Knowles has still "built a sturdy structure", and she ranks it "just below"
The Catcher in the Rye and
A Good School.
Pittsburgh Post-Gazettes Marilyn Uricchio didn't like the book at all, she stated that it is a "sparsely-written novel" and it "lacks the freshness of
A Separate Peace, so much so that at times it becomes repetitive, almost stale". She argues that Knowles uses descriptors "of the day, the sky, the air with maddening regularity as transitional devices, and their detailed abundance turns them into lyrical weather reports". She also complained that the "dialogue appears too tame for young men of any generation; his characters don't even know to use obscenities". She finishes her review by saying the "result is often hollow and contrived". ==See also==