I should have reread my review of the first one before buying the second. Geesh.
Once I started reading, I remembered a vague sense of not loving the series, but couldn't remember why. So, I kept reading. After about 300 pages, the "why" became clear.
In Middle Earth, Frodo undertakes an overwhelming odyssey, to save Middle Earth from a great evil: total domination and destruction by Sauron.
In Narnia, the four children, never before trained in battle, arm and prepare to fight a great evil: the White Witch, the curse of eternal winter, and her tyranny over all Narnians.
In Harry Potter, Harry is challenged again and again to over come the most evil wizard of all time, in order to save not just his friends and family, but all Muggles and Muggle-born wizards, everywhere.
In Wildwood, Prue and Curtis (and apparently his sisters) must use their wits, wiles, and resources to fight a great evil: Industry and Capitalism. Because the Five Titans of Industry want to use the trees in the Impassable Wilderness to make money.
I get that some people do see that as a great evil; I, too, love and support the National Parks, conservation, and wisdom with our resources. But is that a compelling basis for a 1500-page trilogy? No.
Furthermore, and RELIGIOUS PARENTS OF CHILDREN WHO LOVE FANTASY FICTION, TAKE NOTE: This book is written from an animistic perspective, but takes the religious debate a step further: I would argue that it is anti-organized-religion. The above-mentioned critically-acclaimed and historically-beloved fantasy series all feature magic and sorcery, and conveniently ignore any question of religion, or attempt to reconcile religion with the content of the story. They also all rely heavily on animistic elements and some religious typing, with a savior-figure who either has deity and sovereignty (Aslan), or on whom the salvation of the known world relies (Harry and Aragorn). That's all ok with me, because it allows a religious person to read and enjoy the story without having to reconcile "magic" and "religion." But Wildwood takes a different tack: It's clear that Meloy has no use for a monotheistic god ('"Gods rest her soul," he said'), or for religion in general ("I know she wouldn't go in fer that claptrap, the gods and all, but I says it anyways." [p.255]). It takes a special disdain for religion and the religious to so infuse that tone into one's work that it's actually insulting to the reader, and he manages to convey that disdain.
Overall, I just found the book disappointing (especially because his prose is still lovely and readable - Meloy IS actually a good writer). I don't expect a book to cater to me, and I enjoy reading different perspectives. If he'd simply wanted to write a book glorifying nature and vilifying industry, and encapsulate that philosophy in a fiction work, it would probably have been enjoyable. But that isn't this book, and this book left me completely dissatisfied.