Top critical review
Reviewed in the United States on July 9, 2015
"Gone with the Wind," to which "Scarlett" purports to be a sequel, was not a conventional mass market romance novel. It was a fairly ambitious historical novel written by a woman grounded in the classics about the end of a way of life and different people's reactions to it. "Scarlett," on the other hand, is a conventional, albeit extremely long, romance novel. You won't get spoilers from me. Suffice it to say:
The supporting characters from "Gone with the Wind" are unceremoniously and quickly pushed offstage.
"Scarlett" has characters called Rhett and Scarlett, but you won't recognize their way of speaking or behaving other than stock phrases like "fiddle-dee-dee" and "my pet." I could go on all day about this, but here's a quick example: Scarlett "makes up her mind to be happy" but frequently plays the daisy game in her head, you know, where you pull off petals and chant "He loves me, he loves me not."
Much of the book takes place in Ireland. I happen to really like reading about Ireland, even if it's just repetitive descriptions of weather and crops. If you don't like reading about Ireland, you will find large swaths of this book hopelessly boring.
Historical context is simply window dressing without any consistent viewpoint, rather than the disruption that causes everything else in the novel to happen. I may not agree with Margaret Mitchell's point of view, but she knew whose side she was on and stayed there.
Scarlett runs from there to here and here to there, sometimes on a boat, sometimes on a train, sometimes on the back of a fast horse. She does not eat green eggs or ham but she does spend a lot of time at the dressmaker getting green outfits made.
If I had cared enough, the ending would have made me physically ill. Instead I thought, how stupid.