I was moved by the reflective voice of the narrative. There were many elements that make this a five star book for me. First, the writing is poetic and delicately stated.
Second, the history of the setting places the story in a very nostalgic period of American homesteading. I love the setting. For some reason I feel particularly connected to the late 1800's and early 1900's. The wild Montana frontier life during this period fascinates me and completely captured my imagination in this novel.
Next, the story of friendship and family connections was compelling and sober. While many may disagree that this is Doig's weakest part of the writing, I think that the relationships remind me faintly of the classical Don Quixote and Sancho Panza duo. I realize that I see Quixote and Sancho in literature like a Guadelupan sees the Virgin in fabric. However, Angus the romantic seem as impractical as Quixote. Further, I found beauty in the consequences of fanciful sentimentalism in a Montana homesteader. You simply can't afford wasting anything in Montana, most of all your heart. Its a truly frontier response to the Quixote question of whether its noble to be delusional.
Additionally, Rob's pragmatism parallels Sancho. Rob's pragmatism like Angus's romantacism, leads to disaster. His pragmatism leads him to believe too much in manifest destiny. He believed too strongly that the world was his to bend to his will. Montana proved too powerful for even someone as stubborn as a Barclay. Thus, Doig rewrites the pragmatist as every bit as delusional as a romantic. He made the classic Quixote model his own and interpreted it beautifully and convincingly through the lens of a frontiersman. The novel is a masterpiece.
There are some obvious issues other reviewers address. Many complain that Angus couldn't have been so manly and mature in so many ways but remained emotionally immature with his lifelong infatuation of his first love. I agree that this is almost unbelievable. However, realistic characters can't be average and like everyone in every category, otherwise, they are simply characters compiled of statistics. A character written to statistical probabilities can be no more believable than one possessing abnormalities of the heart.
I find an additional concern more persuasive. Angus and Rob's eventual falling out led to a life ending in years of enmity towards one another. The book concluded beautifully as a result of this enmity. However, the premise that the enmity was naturally related to Angus's misplaced love might be too much for even me (a man always seeing Quixote in every novel). Thus, perhaps the enmity should have been more developed so not to strain the imagination as much as was required. Yet, I find myself inspired by the story driven by the enmity and resist dwelling upon the underdeveloped justification for it because in the end the enmity climaxed with beautiful symbolism. I was utterly moved when at the conclusion a Sancho (Rob) rides Quixote's heart (Angus's horse) into ice cold water, drowning both Sancho and the heart of Quixote. I can only feel grateful the enmity existed so I could witness the beautifully rendered conclusion to a thoroughly enjoyable novel.