Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.75 AVERAGE
3.75 AVERAGE
Not a 4 star per se, but more like a 3.5.
Dare I say I enjoyed the themes in the book more than the book itself? Also, the last 50 pages or so lost me a bit.
Dare I say I enjoyed the themes in the book more than the book itself? Also, the last 50 pages or so lost me a bit.
challenging
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
N/A
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Content Warnings
Moderate: Death, Suicide attempt
Minor: Toxic relationship, Grief, Abandonment
I'm super fascinated by the world this book is situated in ... it feels very current to its Victorian times ... maybe not quite ripped from the headlines, but more in terms of the type of political and social debates that gripped people of that era. I felt out of my element though ... so many references to philosophies and strains of thought that I don't have a grounding in. Eliot is brilliant and cerebral -- maybe not as natural of a storyteller, perhaps, but still able to tell her stories in a charming way.
Unlike many people, I didn't really prefer Gwendolyn Harleth to the other characters. I equally loved reading about Daniel Deronda's psychological progression, as I did Mirah Lapidoth's. I really loved that this book, unlike Jane Austen, was NOT primarily about romance. There was romance, but it recognizes different sorts of ties and bonds that people have with each other, the kinds that are more intellectual, or even existential.
Unlike many people, I didn't really prefer Gwendolyn Harleth to the other characters. I equally loved reading about Daniel Deronda's psychological progression, as I did Mirah Lapidoth's. I really loved that this book, unlike Jane Austen, was NOT primarily about romance. There was romance, but it recognizes different sorts of ties and bonds that people have with each other, the kinds that are more intellectual, or even existential.
dark
emotional
hopeful
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Content Warnings
Moderate: Sexism, Gaslighting
It's a cross between thriller Victorian prose and a moralizing fable. Reminds me of Louisa May Alcott. Will definitely read more of George Eliot!!
It's a shame that all the action happens in the last 150 pages. That means 650 pages of the book are waffle. But the last 150 pages are great.
In some ways this book might have been written for me -- a half-Jewish feminist Victorian Anglophile -- so it's very hard for me to imagine its impact on anyone coming to it with a different set of ideas and expectations. That said, I think there's a great deal to like here for anyone. In some ways I feel as I did after reading Villette -- it's not a perfect book, and a modern editor might have cut down the number of Zionist speeches without hurting anything, the same way an editor of Villette could have cut out quite a lot of anti-Catholic ranting -- but both books show an acute understanding of what it means to live in the world and to try to live a good life -- any life -- in relation to other people, within the constraints of the religious, economic, and social constructions we've been born into or raised within.
It's my understanding that many readers resent the bifurcated nature of Daniel Deronda -- that English readers want it to have less Jewish bits, and Jewish readers want it to have less English bits -- but even aside from my own biased view of the subject (as a half-breed, delighted to get two in one), I think the two stories speak to and enhance the reader's understanding of each milieu, and I was impressed by George Eliot's understanding of certain bits of Jewish psychology and family relations (particularly the pressure on Jewish daughters to produce grandsons, so true and so maddening).
My one real criticism with the book, besides how hard it is to read about Zionist fantasies knowing everything that happened later, is that Mirah, one of the central Jewish characters, is the only character in the whole 800 pages who feels like a idealization and not a real person. I can see why people might have trouble with the love triangle aspect of the story, because two of the three characters are so interesting, and one is so boringly good (you could make an argument that Daniel is also boringly good but I think there's plenty of fair criticism to be made of him and his actions, even if the narrator doesn't make it outright). I could also make an argument, I think, that George Eliot's imaginative sympathy with the Jewish race really only extends to men, and specifically to the religious/intellectual/political side of Judaism, and that's why her female Jewish characters are flatter than her male Jewish characters or her female English characters. But I loved Daniel's mother and thought she brought a bracing, shocking, perfect jolt of reality to the proceedings, and I think her perspective and story were incredibly important lenses through which to view both Daniel and Mirah -- the former as a good-deal less empathetic and more selfish than I'd been prepared to think of him, and the latter as a traitor to her own artistic potential -- which made both of them, and the end of the book, a lot more interesting than it would have been otherwise. So I'm willing to believe that George Eliot did that on purpose, and also felt sympathy with a woman who chose to be an artist rather than a mother, and rejected the confines of religion and a religious and social structure that oppressed her -- and also take that as understanding and critique of the way Jewish culture is flawed as well as of its strengths, highlighted in other places throughout the book.
It's my understanding that many readers resent the bifurcated nature of Daniel Deronda -- that English readers want it to have less Jewish bits, and Jewish readers want it to have less English bits -- but even aside from my own biased view of the subject (as a half-breed, delighted to get two in one), I think the two stories speak to and enhance the reader's understanding of each milieu, and I was impressed by George Eliot's understanding of certain bits of Jewish psychology and family relations (particularly the pressure on Jewish daughters to produce grandsons, so true and so maddening).
My one real criticism with the book, besides how hard it is to read about Zionist fantasies knowing everything that happened later, is that Mirah, one of the central Jewish characters, is the only character in the whole 800 pages who feels like a idealization and not a real person. I can see why people might have trouble with the love triangle aspect of the story, because two of the three characters are so interesting, and one is so boringly good (you could make an argument that Daniel is also boringly good but I think there's plenty of fair criticism to be made of him and his actions, even if the narrator doesn't make it outright). I could also make an argument, I think, that George Eliot's imaginative sympathy with the Jewish race really only extends to men, and specifically to the religious/intellectual/political side of Judaism, and that's why her female Jewish characters are flatter than her male Jewish characters or her female English characters. But I loved Daniel's mother and thought she brought a bracing, shocking, perfect jolt of reality to the proceedings, and I think her perspective and story were incredibly important lenses through which to view both Daniel and Mirah -- the former as a good-deal less empathetic and more selfish than I'd been prepared to think of him, and the latter as a traitor to her own artistic potential -- which made both of them, and the end of the book, a lot more interesting than it would have been otherwise. So I'm willing to believe that George Eliot did that on purpose, and also felt sympathy with a woman who chose to be an artist rather than a mother, and rejected the confines of religion and a religious and social structure that oppressed her -- and also take that as understanding and critique of the way Jewish culture is flawed as well as of its strengths, highlighted in other places throughout the book.
Two books for the price of one.
In the first, the vain, beautiful and selfish Gwendolen Harleth accidentally gets hitched to the vile and manipulative Henleigh Mallinger Grandcourt. Shes suffers and learns and works to become a better person, under the tutelage of...
Daniel Deronda, a young English gentleman of uncertain parentage, who, whilst trying to figure out his course in life, wanders about literally rescuing damsels in distress. An utter romantic, who, upon learning that his biological parents were Jewish, falls in love with Jewishness (despite knowing next to nothing about the religion or the culture) and becomes a Zionist.
The bulk of English society is portrayed as mildly bigoted. Grandcourt is the only true villain though. Deronda is so good that he comes across as boring.
In the first, the vain, beautiful and selfish Gwendolen Harleth accidentally gets hitched to the vile and manipulative Henleigh Mallinger Grandcourt. Shes suffers and learns and works to become a better person, under the tutelage of...
Daniel Deronda, a young English gentleman of uncertain parentage, who, whilst trying to figure out his course in life, wanders about literally rescuing damsels in distress. An utter romantic, who, upon learning that his biological parents were Jewish, falls in love with Jewishness (despite knowing next to nothing about the religion or the culture) and becomes a Zionist.
The bulk of English society is portrayed as mildly bigoted. Grandcourt is the only true villain though. Deronda is so good that he comes across as boring.
I thought it would be a fun challenge to read a 700-page book about Victorian England's relationship with Judaism. It was a challenge but not fun.
I read this book after watching the bbc adaption.
I really enjoyed the book. I like the person that Daniel Deronda is, I think there are few authors who have created such an epitome of a person. Every character in this book has their complexities and their reasons for being. I particularly liked Daniel’s mother and feel like her character really resonates with me. I love the description, that she has a man’s mind, but was born in a woman’s body, and her effort to continue to live the life that she wished to live despite the pressure on her to live a certain life because of her gender. I’m particularly happy that the author never described her actions as right or wrong, they just were as they were.
The one thing I did skip through, and that I have heard other critics’ negative comments about are Mordecai’s speeches. Even though I am very interested in the Jewish culture (my family being half Jewish), his speeches about his passion for restoring the faith and a home for the Jewish people were very heavy and the effect could have been achieved with far fewer passionate speeches.
It’s interesting to note the relevance of this story for the time it was published in. Jewish people in England were treated very poorly and looked down upon. This book’s release was one of the first time when a mainstream English audience would have been exposed to the Jewish culture. It was a very clever way to educate English people. They were drawn in by a romance between a quiet,thoughtful man and a hot headed, duchess-like creature, and were given a lesson in ethics and Judaism.
I really enjoyed the book. I like the person that Daniel Deronda is, I think there are few authors who have created such an epitome of a person. Every character in this book has their complexities and their reasons for being. I particularly liked Daniel’s mother and feel like her character really resonates with me. I love the description, that she has a man’s mind, but was born in a woman’s body, and her effort to continue to live the life that she wished to live despite the pressure on her to live a certain life because of her gender. I’m particularly happy that the author never described her actions as right or wrong, they just were as they were.
The one thing I did skip through, and that I have heard other critics’ negative comments about are Mordecai’s speeches. Even though I am very interested in the Jewish culture (my family being half Jewish), his speeches about his passion for restoring the faith and a home for the Jewish people were very heavy and the effect could have been achieved with far fewer passionate speeches.
It’s interesting to note the relevance of this story for the time it was published in. Jewish people in England were treated very poorly and looked down upon. This book’s release was one of the first time when a mainstream English audience would have been exposed to the Jewish culture. It was a very clever way to educate English people. They were drawn in by a romance between a quiet,thoughtful man and a hot headed, duchess-like creature, and were given a lesson in ethics and Judaism.