Born and raised in Chicago, I ordered this book for a friend and I, looking forward to a novel of our hometown.

The opening, featuring Jean Baptiste Pointe de Sable, was enlightening and will engage a search for truth vs fiction.

After that, notably with "The Doctor in St. Charles," things turned contrived and unwelcome.

The rest of the book was mostly boring and repetitive. Sure wish it had been different. ( )

I had a galley of this 2019 release, and I got overwhelmed and bogged down, and then had a little reading slump. I finally got to it, and I'm so glad I did.

In this novel Carr tells the story of the first hundred years of Chicago, framed around the supposed 1902 "Alternative History of Chicago" by one Milton Winshop and a variety of "primary sources". He starts with the mulatto first settler of Echicagou, Jean Baptiste Point du Sable--who, we know, really was the first settler of Chicago, but the idea being in 1902 this was "alternative".

Carr goes on to tell his story through a mix of people--Potowatomies, original settlers, immigrants, boosters, transplants from the East, laborers, engineers, aldermen, builders, men, women, children. We see some children grow up, immigrants find their calling, residents suffer and succeed. Some of the characters are real people, others are fictional representations. They occasionally interact--and honestly this can be a little confusing as vastly different characters come and go and you jump forward in time. But I love this kind of structure. It is sweeping, it is disjointed and choppy and you get a picture of so many different kinds of people. I kept reminding myself "THIS IS FICTION"--I also tend to be annoyed by books that use real people to tell fictional stories. I thought he did this well, but where were fictional words put into real peoples' mouths? I'm not sure, and as a historian it bugs me. But I could not stop myself from enjoying this book.

I did wish there was more on the Potowatomies, and I found some of the writing in dialect (of Point du Sable, and one of the Irish brothers) to be a bit much--but I don't often like writing that is made to seem in dialect, it always feels false to me. I also would have liked a character list.

I am amazed that this is a first novel. The complex structure is so well done, it doesn't seem like it. The author is also English--though well traveled and not young. ( )

Nearly unreadable. Told in many voices, but all of them boring and not worth tracking. The story never materializes from the fragments. There is only a vague sense of place, even though Chicago's history is supposed to be a backbone. ( )

The city in question is Chicago, a city I love. So, an opportunity to read a fictionalized history sounds intriguing. Given the length, I am picturing something in the style of James Michener or Edward Rutherford. That, to me, is not what Make Me a City by Jonathan Carr delivers. Because of its multitude of characters, its episodic structure, and at times its language, the book proves too great a challenge to follow.

Read my complete review at http://www.memoriesfrombooks.com/2020/03/make-me-city.html

Reviewed for NetGalley. ( )

Rather on the order of Edward Rutherford's books, this novel tells the history of Chicago, not through the eyes of the major players, but those on the side lines. Told in a variety of means, each chapter is different: newspaper reports, interviews, straight narrative. Characters that are introduced show up again or their descendants appear sometimes knowing of their heritage and often not.

The story begins in the early 1800's with a French man who has built an impressive house on the location of what becomes Chicago. He loses the house in a chess match to a man who is later credited with founding of Chicago. Throughout the book, various chapters are told from the viewpoint of a historian who is telling an alternate version of the accepted history and strongly condemned for it.

Overall, a good historical book of fiction woven together with historical facts (or what is assumed to be facts). ( )