Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.29 AVERAGE
3.29 AVERAGE
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
category (?): published before 1900
finally finished this book!!! i can’t believe it took me almost a month. it was a very nonlinear progression. the beginning of the book, honestly almost the entire first Book (the bostonians was originally published as a serial and in my copy at least was organized into three books) slogged on for so long. i honestly can’t imagine reading it as a serial. i feel like almost every week i would’ve been disappointed at how little happened. but ! there were definitely some shenanigans and funny descriptions even in this first bit.
the book finallyyyy picks up around halfway through. i also by this point got more used to the writing style so that probably helped some. i will say i did genuinely laugh out loud at certain parts! and you really get invested towards the end!
the ending (no spoilers) annoyed me, but in a way where i could accept that that was where the book was leading anyway. i understand that it’s a satire, and that realism was big at the time, but reading this at the time probably would’ve made me so sad. it’s just kinda cynical and demoralizing? (((i don’t want to go into too much detail because spoilers but yeah))) HOWEVER as a lens into the time period? so interesting ! to see the discussion of the post civil war era, especially with one of the main characters being from mississippi and the main settings of boston (duh) and new york. i liked seeing the discussions of feminism, and the different kinds of femininity we see, and i gotta give credit where credit is due—this book basically invented the term “boston marriage” so… happy pride month!
speaking of boston: i loved seeing the areas and community of boston and massachusetts depicted here! it was really fun to hear about the back bay, the cape, and even central mass!
overall: 3.5⭐️! do i recommend? if you want to read it and feel comfortable reading an older style of writing, go ahead! but if you don’t want to, you’re not missing out on too much!
finally finished this book!!! i can’t believe it took me almost a month. it was a very nonlinear progression. the beginning of the book, honestly almost the entire first Book (the bostonians was originally published as a serial and in my copy at least was organized into three books) slogged on for so long. i honestly can’t imagine reading it as a serial. i feel like almost every week i would’ve been disappointed at how little happened. but ! there were definitely some shenanigans and funny descriptions even in this first bit.
the book finallyyyy picks up around halfway through. i also by this point got more used to the writing style so that probably helped some. i will say i did genuinely laugh out loud at certain parts! and you really get invested towards the end!
the ending (no spoilers) annoyed me, but in a way where i could accept that that was where the book was leading anyway. i understand that it’s a satire, and that realism was big at the time, but reading this at the time probably would’ve made me so sad. it’s just kinda cynical and demoralizing? (((i don’t want to go into too much detail because spoilers but yeah))) HOWEVER as a lens into the time period? so interesting ! to see the discussion of the post civil war era, especially with one of the main characters being from mississippi and the main settings of boston (duh) and new york. i liked seeing the discussions of feminism, and the different kinds of femininity we see, and i gotta give credit where credit is due—this book basically invented the term “boston marriage” so… happy pride month!
speaking of boston: i loved seeing the areas and community of boston and massachusetts depicted here! it was really fun to hear about the back bay, the cape, and even central mass!
overall: 3.5⭐️! do i recommend? if you want to read it and feel comfortable reading an older style of writing, go ahead! but if you don’t want to, you’re not missing out on too much!
A pesar de mi poca experiencia con Henry James, me atrevo a decir que no es un autor precisamente fácil: sus descripciones son exhaustivas hasta el paroxismo, el ritmo de la narración es concientemente lento, es pulcro y detallista hasta la exasperación… A veces se pasa de la raya, como en ‘La copa dorada’ (libro que confieso que no tuve fuerzas para terminar), pero a veces se queda justo al límite como por un milagro de equilibrista consumado, como es el caso de ‘Retrato de una dama’ y también ‘Las bostonianas’. Ésta última es una novela que te pide cierto esfuerzo y cierta paciencia, pero al final, una vez has superado los primeros escollos y te has acostumbrado a su forma, la recompensa es muy grande.
Si me preguntan de qué va ‘Las bostonianas’ diría que va de una lesbiana feminista de la segunda mitad del siglo XIX que se enamora de una chica y que en la primera cita ya le pide que se vayan a vivir juntas. Esta descripción del argumento reconozco que es la más llamativa, la que pretende pillar a los lectores por el supuesto morbo, pero no deja de ser cierta. Más exactamente se podría decir que va de una prima y un primo, que se conocen y no se soportan, y luego se enamoran de la misma mujer. La prima es una solterona que ha consagrado su vida a la lucha para la emancipación y la igualdad de la mujer; es una persona seria, apasionada, sufridora y determinada. El primo es un hombre del sur que pasa por dificultades económicas; es el típico caballero del sur, galante con las mujeres pero con un ideario conservador.
¿Y cómo es el objeto de deseo de estos dos primos? Para unos es una furcia que sólo busca atención y elogios, para otros es un ser puro consagrado a la causa feminista. Probablemente ninguno de los dos tenga razón, probablemente sea un poco de las dos cosas; es una oradora comprometida con un talento extraordinario pero también una persona social y alegre. Tiene su punto frívolo y superficial, pero también su punto de luchadora por la igualdad. Y creo que en parte su tragedia es ésta, que está entre dos mundos opuestos y que nadie puede entenderla tal como es. Los dos primos se enamoran de ella pero para cambiarla; parecen ser incapaces de aceptarla tal como es. Aunque también se podría argumentar que la tragedia de esta chica es que es débil de carácter, excesivamente dócil, que se deja llevar demasiado fácilmente por los que la presionan.
No pasa mucho en la novela. Henry James se puede tirar casi 100 páginas para describir una velada, es decir, para narrar no más de unas tres horas. Aunque más que narrar lo que hace James es describir. No narra una historia sino más bien describe la psicología de unos personajes. Describe la oposición de caracteres entre Boston, Nueva York y el Sur. También describe la manipulación, egoísmo, celos y sentimiento de culpa que puede haber en cualquier relación amorosa. En lo que se refiere a la trama, uno pronto adivina qué va a pasar y cómo va a terminar todo, pero esto poco importa, lo que importa es cómo va a pasar lo que sabemos que va a pasar. James es un maestro a la hora de describir la psicología de sus personajes y, encima, es capaz de ser despiadado con ellos al presentarlos como unos seres vanidosos y egoístas, pero tan humanos y reconocibles, y además lo hace todo con una pizca de sutil sentido del humor. De verdad que hacía tiempo que un libro no me maravillaba tanto.
Si me preguntan de qué va ‘Las bostonianas’ diría que va de una lesbiana feminista de la segunda mitad del siglo XIX que se enamora de una chica y que en la primera cita ya le pide que se vayan a vivir juntas. Esta descripción del argumento reconozco que es la más llamativa, la que pretende pillar a los lectores por el supuesto morbo, pero no deja de ser cierta. Más exactamente se podría decir que va de una prima y un primo, que se conocen y no se soportan, y luego se enamoran de la misma mujer. La prima es una solterona que ha consagrado su vida a la lucha para la emancipación y la igualdad de la mujer; es una persona seria, apasionada, sufridora y determinada. El primo es un hombre del sur que pasa por dificultades económicas; es el típico caballero del sur, galante con las mujeres pero con un ideario conservador.
¿Y cómo es el objeto de deseo de estos dos primos? Para unos es una furcia que sólo busca atención y elogios, para otros es un ser puro consagrado a la causa feminista. Probablemente ninguno de los dos tenga razón, probablemente sea un poco de las dos cosas; es una oradora comprometida con un talento extraordinario pero también una persona social y alegre. Tiene su punto frívolo y superficial, pero también su punto de luchadora por la igualdad. Y creo que en parte su tragedia es ésta, que está entre dos mundos opuestos y que nadie puede entenderla tal como es. Los dos primos se enamoran de ella pero para cambiarla; parecen ser incapaces de aceptarla tal como es. Aunque también se podría argumentar que la tragedia de esta chica es que es débil de carácter, excesivamente dócil, que se deja llevar demasiado fácilmente por los que la presionan.
No pasa mucho en la novela. Henry James se puede tirar casi 100 páginas para describir una velada, es decir, para narrar no más de unas tres horas. Aunque más que narrar lo que hace James es describir. No narra una historia sino más bien describe la psicología de unos personajes. Describe la oposición de caracteres entre Boston, Nueva York y el Sur. También describe la manipulación, egoísmo, celos y sentimiento de culpa que puede haber en cualquier relación amorosa. En lo que se refiere a la trama, uno pronto adivina qué va a pasar y cómo va a terminar todo, pero esto poco importa, lo que importa es cómo va a pasar lo que sabemos que va a pasar. James es un maestro a la hora de describir la psicología de sus personajes y, encima, es capaz de ser despiadado con ellos al presentarlos como unos seres vanidosos y egoístas, pero tan humanos y reconocibles, y además lo hace todo con una pizca de sutil sentido del humor. De verdad que hacía tiempo que un libro no me maravillaba tanto.
Lovely themes and language but far too long and politically strained. It’s disappointing that I am thoroughly indifferent to all the characters in this book. Vaguely Annoyed at randsom was the strongest emotion this book roused in me. That’s not good.
challenging
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Boston at the turn of the century is quite an odd place when looking back 130 years. The social norms have changed so much yet the social movement at the center of the book, women’s rights, is quite familiar. One thing that will never change is that there’s always progress to be made. That isn’t to say that James is promoting feminism in this book, it’s actually a satire that I appreciate despite the author’s apparent satisfaction with the status quo.
I appreciated it not for the political sentiment of Basil Ransom but because the picture of America and Americans in the 1880s was painted exceedingly well. It’s a period piece that draws you in despite the lack of action. Long sentences, paragraphs, and obscure words may frustrate the unprepared reader, but for me at this moment that’s part of the appeal.
This is my first read of Henry James and it won’t be the last. I’ve read that he does characters quite well, in this one the cast of characters is small but distinct. There’s much to not like about the main characters but that’s never been an issue for me. It’s the relationship they have that I found quite interesting. I hate it when everyone gets along.
I appreciated it not for the political sentiment of Basil Ransom but because the picture of America and Americans in the 1880s was painted exceedingly well. It’s a period piece that draws you in despite the lack of action. Long sentences, paragraphs, and obscure words may frustrate the unprepared reader, but for me at this moment that’s part of the appeal.
This is my first read of Henry James and it won’t be the last. I’ve read that he does characters quite well, in this one the cast of characters is small but distinct. There’s much to not like about the main characters but that’s never been an issue for me. It’s the relationship they have that I found quite interesting. I hate it when everyone gets along.
challenging
sad
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:
Complicated
While the writing is good the views in the book have not aged well. Interesting in that Basil Ransom reminds me of Jordan Peterson and thinking how Olive Chancellor would be written in a modern novel.
Basil Ransom moves to New York some time in the 1870s because, following the civil war, he can no longer own slaves on his family's cotton plantation. Unhappy and deeply dissatisfied with the world, he visits a cousin, Olive Chancellor, in Boston, who is a Suffragist. While with Olive, he meets Verena Tarrant, a beautiful and charming young woman, who is a public speaker, advocating for women's right to vote. Basil Ransom is deeply conservative and reactionary, but becomes obsessed with Verena, and starts to follow her and demand her attentions.
To a modern reader, it seems that Basil is a terrible and jaded man, who cannot stand seeing a woman who is self-possessed and does not need him, and therefore becomes obsessed with owning her. He is clearly in the wrong at all times, and reading his thoughts and conversation is infuriating. However, I'm not sure this is James' intention: James is also highly satirical in his descriptions of the suffragists, and he seems to believe that their position is wrong-headed. However, it's hard to believe he's in sympathy with Ransom, either. Verena's impression of Ransom, for example, is not complimentary: She knew he was an intense conservative, but she didn't know that being a conservative could make a person so aggressive and unmerciful. She thought conservatives were only smug and stubborn and self-complacent, satisfied with what actually existed; but Mr Ransom didn't seem any more satisfied with what existed than what she wanted to exist.
There's also an element in the novel that suggests that Olive Chancellor is a lesbian, and her attachment to Verena Tarrant is a romantic one. An early description of Olive made me smile, because while it comes across as satirical, it's also an excellent 19th century code for "this is a lesbian": There are women who are unmarried by accident, and other who are unmarried by option; but Olive Chancellor was unmarried by every implication of her being. She was a spinster as Shelley was a lyric poet, or as the month of August is sultry. It's interesting to read this book as a love triangle, and it increases the sense of tension, but also makes the conclusion even more tragic.
This is, overall, a difficult book. The first 200 pages are often dull or full of irrelevance, and, while the rest of it is more engaging, it's also depressing and enraging much of the time. I struggle to know what to make of this: its ultimate meaning is illusive, and probably more conservative than it initially seems. It's also very sad, but it is a James novel so that's no surprise.
To a modern reader, it seems that Basil is a terrible and jaded man, who cannot stand seeing a woman who is self-possessed and does not need him, and therefore becomes obsessed with owning her. He is clearly in the wrong at all times, and reading his thoughts and conversation is infuriating. However, I'm not sure this is James' intention: James is also highly satirical in his descriptions of the suffragists, and he seems to believe that their position is wrong-headed. However, it's hard to believe he's in sympathy with Ransom, either. Verena's impression of Ransom, for example, is not complimentary: She knew he was an intense conservative, but she didn't know that being a conservative could make a person so aggressive and unmerciful. She thought conservatives were only smug and stubborn and self-complacent, satisfied with what actually existed; but Mr Ransom didn't seem any more satisfied with what existed than what she wanted to exist.
There's also an element in the novel that suggests that Olive Chancellor is a lesbian, and her attachment to Verena Tarrant is a romantic one. An early description of Olive made me smile, because while it comes across as satirical, it's also an excellent 19th century code for "this is a lesbian": There are women who are unmarried by accident, and other who are unmarried by option; but Olive Chancellor was unmarried by every implication of her being. She was a spinster as Shelley was a lyric poet, or as the month of August is sultry. It's interesting to read this book as a love triangle, and it increases the sense of tension, but also makes the conclusion even more tragic.
This is, overall, a difficult book. The first 200 pages are often dull or full of irrelevance, and, while the rest of it is more engaging, it's also depressing and enraging much of the time. I struggle to know what to make of this: its ultimate meaning is illusive, and probably more conservative than it initially seems. It's also very sad, but it is a James novel so that's no surprise.
The Bostonians is remarkable in its psychology, shrewd in its bleakness, and downright silly in its politics. The charge of James's writing as landscape painting or vista isn't even particularly short of the mark; its insistence on portraits is in fact what sinks it. The women remain unfinished sketches; while the most compelling character, the most ludicrous, and the most inescapably, suffocatingly uninteresting character are united in Basil Ransom. And yet, the story isn't without craft or the small pleasures of good art. The characters just aren't big enough for the crafted environments.