You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.29 AVERAGE
3.29 AVERAGE
inspiring
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
As a satire, The Bostonians lacks the scope of Trollope's The Way We Live Now and the wit of Thackeray's Vanity Fair. As a social commentary, it lacks the insight of George Eliot's Middlemarch. But despite the dense, occasionally clunky prose, and a story that doesn't seem complex enough to justify the length devoted to it, The Bostonians does show impressive empathy toward the women who make up two-thirds of its love triangle. And it is in that, in its sensitive capture of strong emotion, that The Bostonians shines.
The book is a war between two odious, domineering people for the devotion of a sensitive, people-pleasing girl. Olive Chancellor is a very difficult woman, and the way she loves Verena falls somewhere between steamrolling and outright manipulation. But Basil Ransom wants no less to impose his will on the girl. Each of them wants to claim her, to mold her, to possess her to the particular exclusion of the other. They are both overbearing. Yet still, James increases in sympathy for Olive as she perceives the impending loss of Verena. And he has sympathy for Verena, too, though he robs her of agency.
A thought that has stuck with me has been this: How many Olive Chancellors were there in the Gilded Age / Victorian world? How many women had to watch their lovers slip away to the inevitability of marriage? Sarah Waters peeks into this space a bit in Affinity, whose Victorian protagonist had to suffer her lover becoming her sister-in-law. But Waters's art is to project her modern understanding of such relationships into stories set in the past. James wrote what was for him a contemporary story about contemporary people, and showed, I think, a remarkable sensitivity toward them.
The book is a war between two odious, domineering people for the devotion of a sensitive, people-pleasing girl. Olive Chancellor is a very difficult woman, and the way she loves Verena falls somewhere between steamrolling and outright manipulation. But Basil Ransom wants no less to impose his will on the girl. Each of them wants to claim her, to mold her, to possess her to the particular exclusion of the other. They are both overbearing. Yet still, James increases in sympathy for Olive as she perceives the impending loss of Verena. And he has sympathy for Verena, too, though he robs her of agency.
A thought that has stuck with me has been this: How many Olive Chancellors were there in the Gilded Age / Victorian world? How many women had to watch their lovers slip away to the inevitability of marriage? Sarah Waters peeks into this space a bit in Affinity, whose Victorian protagonist had to suffer her lover becoming her sister-in-law. But Waters's art is to project her modern understanding of such relationships into stories set in the past. James wrote what was for him a contemporary story about contemporary people, and showed, I think, a remarkable sensitivity toward them.
The Bostonians is a tricky book to review because so much of its relative worth depends on how one navigates the ambiguity of the text.
I adored the first 50-or-so pages of introduction, replete with James’s singularly coy, ironic prose. The following 100 pages contained, in my opinion, a rather narrow and dismissive depiction of progressive activism and the motives underlying activist work. Basil’s return and the ensuing romance of the second half offer an engaging read but lay Basil bare as a detestable reactionary, motivated solely by a selfish desire possess Verena for himself, to subsume woman into the life of man. I didn’t believe Verena’s seduction because it only makes sense if her ethical beliefs weren’t genuine, and it seems odd that she’d be such a powerful speaker if her ideas were but skin-deep. But I did like the ambiguous final line, because it makes me want to love the book more than I did.
Not the masterwork that is Portrait of a Lady, but very interesting in parts.
I adored the first 50-or-so pages of introduction, replete with James’s singularly coy, ironic prose. The following 100 pages contained, in my opinion, a rather narrow and dismissive depiction of progressive activism and the motives underlying activist work. Basil’s return and the ensuing romance of the second half offer an engaging read but lay Basil bare as a detestable reactionary, motivated solely by a selfish desire possess Verena for himself, to subsume woman into the life of man. I didn’t believe Verena’s seduction because it only makes sense if her ethical beliefs weren’t genuine, and it seems odd that she’d be such a powerful speaker if her ideas were but skin-deep. But I did like the ambiguous final line, because it makes me want to love the book more than I did.
Not the masterwork that is Portrait of a Lady, but very interesting in parts.
I personally found the book remarkable, much to the contrary of the lieu of negative reviews one can find online. To me, James constructs a brilliant, full, and real cast of characters that are able to successfully represent sections of American society of the time, of south and north, and graciously proposes a more nuanced portrayal of the different sides. I can even recognise his characters in people I know! The book is half about a love corner (like the V shaped ‘love triangle’) and about societal issues of feminism, with odes to the civil war and queer issues. Whilst many reviewers seem to see the romance as the more emphasised, I propose that in fact taken on the whole, the two are rather balanced in the readers mind. This is very much pronounced when one considers the narrative surrounding the romance, in which one cannot simply consider the romance on its own without considering the issue of women's emancipation. And the fact that the very ideas raised and proposed in the book can be viewed as relatable in todays age speaks to the underscored genius of the book.
Here are my further thoughts which include spoilers:In viewing Olive and Basil’s battle over Verena, which may be viewed pseudo-romantically, as many including I tend to believe, it places them all in brutal light: the uncompromising, harsh, sometimes even cruel looking reactionary, paired with the ruthless, cold revolutionary, with Verena placed in between as the battle ground. In considering the contexts of each person, I view everyone as entirely justified in arriving at their stances. And beyond these characters, even James’ side characters are deeply interesting and endearing to me, whether that be the ‘moderate’ cynical doctor, the old guard abolitionist/feminist, and the upper class women of the novel. In a way, such attitudes of each character are extremely applicable in todays social political battlefield, where one can find the centrist middle class, the wavering upper classes, opportunists, proggresives, and conservatives, blinded or forced by ideaology each onto their own paths. In such a way, I feel this is James’ brilliance, misunderstood by many of his contemporaries: in the way we, or society, seem to face the same issues, the way he is able to forsee them, and the way he portrays them in intimately understandable terms. Another point to note his the narrator, and how he frames the battling factions, of feminism and reactionaries. The reasoning of Basil rings familiar, especially in our day and age, with the new wave of alpha male macho gym culture blended with a conservative edge, and that of the woke, the radical liberal queer feminists. In this way, it serves as a reflection, and a warning to those wrapped up in their own ideologies. It is not that one shouldn’t be ideological and push their perspectives, but one should engage, and consider critically of others whilst maintaining such stances. It is this message, though muddled, conveyed through the narrators slight preference for Basil and the universal adoration of Birdseye, compared with Olives harsher portrayal. Societal centrism, which is particularly strong in this day and age, is reflected in Dr Prances’ stance, who i see in many, many people I know today, and Verona. At the core of this ‘centrism’ is really, I view, the vying for independence, the ability to think ones own mind. In this way Basil is right about Olives’ use and manipulation of Verona (not that she’d be treated better with Basil, sorta highlighting reactionary irony, which is still present today). Reactionary conservative ideology is aptly portrayed as multidirectional and muddled, with Basil on the one hand saying to leave women issues for women, whilst wanting to subjugate them all into the house and childrearing. How similar it is to today, in which claims of upholding general freedom are contradicted by deeply conservative and reactrionary counteractions. For revolutionaries and ideaological proponents, a key lesson is to listen to the people. Feminists should give women the right to choose. But in considering this message, one cannot demonise Olive: In a intensely patriarchal world, Olives’ rage and mistrust is justified, and within the context of the novel, and today, Verona’s choice isn’t very clearcut, given both paths lead down to a lack of independence. It is within this lens that I view Olive slightly favourably despite her depiction and unlikability. Perhaps this unlikability is another ode to feminism, and how sex changes our perceptions of persons. Then again, as a man, who am I to say: I humbly offer my opinion and leave the issue of women, as Basil ironically says, to the women. As an extra note, Dr Prance particularly endeared to me given how many people i Know who are like her.
All in all, i say ignore the criticism. From my interpretation and analysis, the book is far more well rounded than the critics suggest. Perhaps this is my ‘unpopular take’ lolz.
Here are my further thoughts which include spoilers:
All in all, i say ignore the criticism. From my interpretation and analysis, the book is far more well rounded than the critics suggest. Perhaps this is my ‘unpopular take’ lolz.
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Λαμπρό δείγμα γραφής του Χένρι Τζέιμς, καταπιάνεται με το... προανάκρουσμα του φεμινισμού (πριν ακόμα αρχίσει αυτός να μετριέται σε κύματα) με αρκετά ρεαλιστικό (ιδίως αν κριθεί με βάση την εποχή του) τρόπο. Ο εμφύλιος πόλεμος των ΗΠΑ έχει τελειώσει και νέες προκλήσεις αναδύονται στη νεόκοπη αμερικανική κοινωνία.
Μακιαβελικά έξυπνος ο τρόπος παρουσίασης της αμφιταλάντευσης μεταξύ ιδεών σαν διελκυστίνδα μεταξύ της φεμινίστριας φίλης της ηρωίδας και του ερωτευμένου (λίγο φαλλοκράτη νότιου, αλλά πάντα τζέντλεμαν) που τη διεκδικεί.
Μπορεί να αργεί λίγο να πάρει μπρος, άλλωστε δεν είναι και μικρό έργο, οπότε μια μακρά (σε σελίδες) περίοδος ωρίμανσης είναι αναμενόμενη, ενώ δεν έχει τα ενοχλητικά κρεσέντα ή τις πλαδαρές κοιλάδες άλλων έργων της εποχής. Σταθερή γραφή σε "ταχύτητα" και ποιότητα, ρηξικέλευθες ιδέες που παρουσιάζονται χωρίς ειρωνεία ή αρνητικά διακείμενο κριτικό πνεύμα, μας θυμίζουν γιατί ο συγγραφέας έγινε κλασικός.
Μακιαβελικά έξυπνος ο τρόπος παρουσίασης της αμφιταλάντευσης μεταξύ ιδεών σαν διελκυστίνδα μεταξύ της φεμινίστριας φίλης της ηρωίδας και του ερωτευμένου (λίγο φαλλοκράτη νότιου, αλλά πάντα τζέντλεμαν) που τη διεκδικεί.
Μπορεί να αργεί λίγο να πάρει μπρος, άλλωστε δεν είναι και μικρό έργο, οπότε μια μακρά (σε σελίδες) περίοδος ωρίμανσης είναι αναμενόμενη, ενώ δεν έχει τα ενοχλητικά κρεσέντα ή τις πλαδαρές κοιλάδες άλλων έργων της εποχής. Σταθερή γραφή σε "ταχύτητα" και ποιότητα, ρηξικέλευθες ιδέες που παρουσιάζονται χωρίς ειρωνεία ή αρνητικά διακείμενο κριτικό πνεύμα, μας θυμίζουν γιατί ο συγγραφέας έγινε κλασικός.
funny
reflective
sad
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
This one took me quite a while to get into, but by the end I found it very compelling. The prose is dense, but the central triangle is gripping, with a sense of tragic inevitability. The issues the plot raises still feel very relevant.
It's boring and exhausting as fuck and I am not willing to read more 18th century periodical drama about love triangles that aren't triangles