Scan barcode
mommaraff's review against another edition
funny
lighthearted
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.25
phileasfogg's review
4.0
This is definitely the odd one out in the Jeeves series. It's narrated in the third person, and Jeeves isn't working for Bertie Wooster. This is because it's a novelisation of a stage play, and Wodehouse had decided not to include Bertie in the play.
It takes a little getting used to. Jeeves seems quite a different character: word-pictures about him shimmie-ing about, and about how intense emotion is revealed when one corner of his mouth lifts barely perceptibly, won't create a character on stage. So this Jeeves yaks yaks yaks. He must speak more in this book than in the entire rest of the series.
Also, he's a butler. No doubt this was a concession to the theatre-going public, many of whom probably thought Jeeves was always a butler. It saves a tedious explanation. And as I'm sure someone said somewhere: though Jeeves is a valet, or gentleman's personal gentleman, when required he can buttle with the best of them.
The humour is pretty broad, more so than in Wodehouse's other novels. There's even a character who is actually trying to be funny. It was probably all in the delivery... But the requirements of the stage are of course very different than the requirements of a novel, especially a Wodehouse novel, where the funniest lines are always the narrator's.
One of the odder lapses is that Jeeves is aged. I've always been fascinated by the way cover artists often picture Jeeves as a much older man. Bertie often refers to himself as 'the young master', but surely with a twinkle in his eye as he types. I've always imagined Jeeves was only a few years older than Bertie; perhaps about thirty. This may be because of that early story where Jeeves has several girlfriends. Or the other early story where Jeeves comes up with a cunning plan in which someone pays him to visit night clubs every night. But in this book, which is clearly set in the early 1950s, Jeeves is asked if he was in World War One, and he replies that he 'dabbled' in it. Suddenly he's at least 50! I choose to ignore.
Despite all this, I was won over and found myself enjoying the book, though not as much as Wodehouse's best.
It takes a little getting used to. Jeeves seems quite a different character: word-pictures about him shimmie-ing about, and about how intense emotion is revealed when one corner of his mouth lifts barely perceptibly, won't create a character on stage. So this Jeeves yaks yaks yaks. He must speak more in this book than in the entire rest of the series.
Also, he's a butler. No doubt this was a concession to the theatre-going public, many of whom probably thought Jeeves was always a butler. It saves a tedious explanation. And as I'm sure someone said somewhere: though Jeeves is a valet, or gentleman's personal gentleman, when required he can buttle with the best of them.
The humour is pretty broad, more so than in Wodehouse's other novels. There's even a character who is actually trying to be funny. It was probably all in the delivery... But the requirements of the stage are of course very different than the requirements of a novel, especially a Wodehouse novel, where the funniest lines are always the narrator's.
One of the odder lapses is that Jeeves is aged. I've always been fascinated by the way cover artists often picture Jeeves as a much older man. Bertie often refers to himself as 'the young master', but surely with a twinkle in his eye as he types. I've always imagined Jeeves was only a few years older than Bertie; perhaps about thirty. This may be because of that early story where Jeeves has several girlfriends. Or the other early story where Jeeves comes up with a cunning plan in which someone pays him to visit night clubs every night. But in this book, which is clearly set in the early 1950s, Jeeves is asked if he was in World War One, and he replies that he 'dabbled' in it. Suddenly he's at least 50! I choose to ignore.
Despite all this, I was won over and found myself enjoying the book, though not as much as Wodehouse's best.
malvord27's review against another edition
funny
lighthearted
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
5.0
This is my second or third Jeeves books, after 8ish years of reading the previous books which I didn't quite enjoy. I thought they were good, but not amazing. I think my sense of humor must've changed since then, cause I loved this book. The wit, humor, sarcasm, and storyline really entertained me. I'll continue reading the Jeeves books.
shoelessmama's review against another edition
2.0
My least favorite of the Jeeves canon so far and here's why...
1. No Bertie Wooster. I figured I would like this slightly less than the others since I knew going into it that Bertie wouldn't be there. However, some of the short stories have gone without Wooster and still been enjoyable due to the inclusion of his friends of his who are his equal.
2. The characters. I can't think of a single character in this novel aside from Jeeves who I liked. Bill is akin to Wooster in intelligence but lacks his charm, his fiancee Jill is jealous with very little cause, Rosalinda is into parapsychology (ugh) and is a simpering ninny, Captain Biggar is full of blustering machismo, Bill's sister Monica is fine but her husband Rory is several rungs dumber than Bertie Wooster which is hard to do.
3. Gambling troubles. Gambling stresses me out even when part of books/movies I love so in a novel I'm not enjoying it's another strike against.
4 The narration. No fault of P.G.'s and honestly I enjoyed that each voice was so recognizable- no mixing up characters here. However, the way that Rosalinda Spottsworth was voiced was extremely cringey to this American. I have heard other British actors attempt an American accent and have it come out in a similar way to this that in no way resembles ANY American. I get it, we have a tendency to pronounce our R's more than other English speakers but I have never heard an American put R's at the end of words in the way it is done here. It's completely ridiculous and made the portions with her unbearable to listen to. If anything it's similar to a "cowboy" accent. Imagine the part of a wealthy British woman voiced in a badly done Cockney and it would be on par with this.
5. The plot was similar to other Wooster/Jeeves romps but lacking. This was in part due to the fact that I didn't care if any of the romances worked out in the end and have my fingers crossed that the one marriage (Monica & Rory) ends. I was firmly rooting against everyone here except Jeeves- so tangentially Bill, but if not for Jeeves I wouldn't have cared what happened to him.
Harsh. I know.
1. No Bertie Wooster. I figured I would like this slightly less than the others since I knew going into it that Bertie wouldn't be there. However, some of the short stories have gone without Wooster and still been enjoyable due to the inclusion of his friends of his who are his equal.
2. The characters. I can't think of a single character in this novel aside from Jeeves who I liked. Bill is akin to Wooster in intelligence but lacks his charm, his fiancee Jill is jealous with very little cause, Rosalinda is into parapsychology (ugh) and is a simpering ninny, Captain Biggar is full of blustering machismo, Bill's sister Monica is fine but her husband Rory is several rungs dumber than Bertie Wooster which is hard to do.
3. Gambling troubles. Gambling stresses me out even when part of books/movies I love so in a novel I'm not enjoying it's another strike against.
4 The narration. No fault of P.G.'s and honestly I enjoyed that each voice was so recognizable- no mixing up characters here. However, the way that Rosalinda Spottsworth was voiced was extremely cringey to this American. I have heard other British actors attempt an American accent and have it come out in a similar way to this that in no way resembles ANY American. I get it, we have a tendency to pronounce our R's more than other English speakers but I have never heard an American put R's at the end of words in the way it is done here. It's completely ridiculous and made the portions with her unbearable to listen to. If anything it's similar to a "cowboy" accent. Imagine the part of a wealthy British woman voiced in a badly done Cockney and it would be on par with this.
5. The plot was similar to other Wooster/Jeeves romps but lacking. This was in part due to the fact that I didn't care if any of the romances worked out in the end and have my fingers crossed that the one marriage (Monica & Rory) ends. I was firmly rooting against everyone here except Jeeves- so tangentially Bill, but if not for Jeeves I wouldn't have cared what happened to him.
Harsh. I know.
cgbart's review against another edition
3.0
3.5 for general Wodehouse-ian hijinks; fun, but I prefer when Jeeves is paired with our blathering Bertie, I think.
shalinee's review against another edition
4.0
I liked the Wodehouse's writing style. The characters were very funny. All around a good book.
quietjenn's review against another edition
4.0
jeeves without wooster? could it possibly work? well, yes. it's not the same, of course, but it still made me laugh and put me in a good mood as i fell asleep.
santorini's review
4.0
I snaffled the last Wodehouse on the last day my library was open. It was me and I'm not sorry.
I didn't realise until I started reading that this one was Jeeves without Wooster but it really didn't matter that much. Wodehouse is light as a feather silly loveliness and just what I needed in these strange times.
I didn't realise until I started reading that this one was Jeeves without Wooster but it really didn't matter that much. Wodehouse is light as a feather silly loveliness and just what I needed in these strange times.
friar_tropico's review
funny
lighthearted
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
2.0