You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.83 AVERAGE
3.83 AVERAGE
Be prepared to be slapped in the face with a lot of sexism in this story. It doesn't try to hide it, but it was published in 1868 so I guess it fits the time period. I enjoyed the intrigue in the story and the idea of the cursed gem. It was really a 3 star read for me, but it's getting bumped up to 4 stars because of its historical significance for detective novels.
mysterious
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
La pietra di luna è il più celebre romanzo di Wilkie Collins insieme a La donna in bianco.
In entrambi abbiamo misteri da svelare, equivoci ed amori tormentati, ma mentre ne La donna in bianco questi elementi assumono le forme tradizionali del feuilleton qui sono strumentali allo svolgimento dell'indagine, che ricopre un ruolo preponderante: non a caso è considerato il primo poliziesco inglese.
Non dobbiamo però immaginare un giallo per come lo concepiamo oggi, infatti è pieno di ingenuità tipicamente vittoriane che ai giorni nostri non possono che farci sorridere, ad esempio l'idea che i gentiluomini e le gentildonne di un certo rango siano superiori alla polizia, tanto che possono impunemente ostacolare le indagini o addirittura chiudere l'inchiesta a loro discrezione; tuttavia per la prima volta compare sulla scena un detective professionista, dotato di acume e spirito deduttivo, che richiama alla mente i successivi e più celebri Sherlock Holmes ed Hecule Poirot, piccole manie incluse (in questo caso la coltivazione delle rose).
La struttura narrativa è quella tipica dell'autore, ossia una relazione particolareggiata degli avvenimenti in rigoroso ordine cronologico, talmente minuziosa che rischierebbe di annoiare se non sfruttasse l'espediente del cambio di punti di vista, tecnica di cui Collins si conferma maestro, per vivacizzare il ritmo. Ogni narratore ha una personalità ben distinta, che traspare dalle pagine e contribuisce a renderle uniche: come dimenticare lo zelo religioso di miss Clack o la personalissima visione del mondo del maggiordomo Betteredge, i personaggi più riusciti del romanzo.
I protagonisti invece risentono della morale vittoriana e sono scialbi, dei campioni di virtù la cui ossessione per l'onore li rende irritantemente ottusi; in particolare l'eroina, la tipica ereditiera bella buona ed intelligente che ispira devozione in chiunque la incontri.
Nonostante certi difetti tipici del suo tempo e nonostante la soluzione del mistero sia immediatamente intuibile per un lettore smaliziato, è un libro godibile e scorrevole, che si legge con facilità e che riesce a coinvolgere il lettore grazie a dei riuscitissimi ritratti d'ambiente.
In entrambi abbiamo misteri da svelare, equivoci ed amori tormentati, ma mentre ne La donna in bianco questi elementi assumono le forme tradizionali del feuilleton qui sono strumentali allo svolgimento dell'indagine, che ricopre un ruolo preponderante: non a caso è considerato il primo poliziesco inglese.
Non dobbiamo però immaginare un giallo per come lo concepiamo oggi, infatti è pieno di ingenuità tipicamente vittoriane che ai giorni nostri non possono che farci sorridere, ad esempio l'idea che i gentiluomini e le gentildonne di un certo rango siano superiori alla polizia, tanto che possono impunemente ostacolare le indagini o addirittura chiudere l'inchiesta a loro discrezione; tuttavia per la prima volta compare sulla scena un detective professionista, dotato di acume e spirito deduttivo, che richiama alla mente i successivi e più celebri Sherlock Holmes ed Hecule Poirot, piccole manie incluse (in questo caso la coltivazione delle rose).
La struttura narrativa è quella tipica dell'autore, ossia una relazione particolareggiata degli avvenimenti in rigoroso ordine cronologico, talmente minuziosa che rischierebbe di annoiare se non sfruttasse l'espediente del cambio di punti di vista, tecnica di cui Collins si conferma maestro, per vivacizzare il ritmo. Ogni narratore ha una personalità ben distinta, che traspare dalle pagine e contribuisce a renderle uniche: come dimenticare lo zelo religioso di miss Clack o la personalissima visione del mondo del maggiordomo Betteredge, i personaggi più riusciti del romanzo.
I protagonisti invece risentono della morale vittoriana e sono scialbi, dei campioni di virtù la cui ossessione per l'onore li rende irritantemente ottusi; in particolare l'eroina, la tipica ereditiera bella buona ed intelligente che ispira devozione in chiunque la incontri.
Nonostante certi difetti tipici del suo tempo e nonostante la soluzione del mistero sia immediatamente intuibile per un lettore smaliziato, è un libro godibile e scorrevole, che si legge con facilità e che riesce a coinvolgere il lettore grazie a dei riuscitissimi ritratti d'ambiente.
Now, take into consideration that I'm not one for drawn-out mysteries; I'm very much one of those people who wants the facts and the resolution in good time. 520 pages later, and I can most definitely say that everything could have been accomplished in perhaps 200. I also can't relate to certain 19th century English sensibilities. Everyone is more often than not overcome with chest-heaving emotion, glittering eyes, all while trying to hold themselves in a dignified manner. Not to mention the sexism and racism so casually related every few pages... yeesh. I know times were different, but I couldn't overlook it.
Alright, so, what should the reader know going into this: you have the first section, which related the theft of the Diamond. Then follows eight narratives, each giving their own perspective and information to the theft and all events that followed within the year. Some sections are longer than others, and you might find yourself wondering when you can move on.
Now, what really bothered me: Miss Rachel is, to me, lovely yet incredibly annoying. But, here's what is completely absurd about her character: her mind is so independent, so discerning, so honest and forthright, that her virtues simply separate her from other members of her sex. She is also full of life and well-meant mischief! Blessed as she is with such estimable qualities so unlike other women, she's doomed to loneliness, poor dear! (It's asinine. Naturally she's a great lady like her mother, but also naturally, it isn't natural, therefore she is alone. Where other women are involved, they're silly, emotional dears with their own virtues, and must be guided by men so they don't go astray. Come on, Collins.)
Miss Clack's section was funny and absurd, and is very obviously a commentary on religious fanaticism. I considered it more comic relief than anything. Otherwise, the narrative is dominated by men, so expect most of the story to be through their eyes and with their opinions.
In regards to the Indians, they're apparently naturally inclined to thievery and disrespect for human life. Never mind the fact that all of this started because some white dude had to murder his way to the diamond in the beginning via conquest, and spirit it away to England. This whole thing screams of Orientalism; either Indians are cutthroat murderers, or catlike exotic beings with impeccable manners that quite bewitch their English counterparts. And their attraction to mysticism! Civilized men don't believe in it, but being the people they are, surely you understand why they would find comfort in that mumbojumbo. (Can you hear my contempt? Again. I know this is 19th century British literature, but I can't overlook how wrong it all is.)
Then Ezra Jennings, with his "gypsy complexion" and mixed heritage is also looked upon with distrust, only to be revealed as an incredible man through his suffering. Can we not? Can we just not.
All that aside, with regards to the novel's organization... when you take into consideration that The Moonstone was originally serialized, you can see how things had to be drawn out and suspenseful for the sake of keeping readership. Sometimes, though, there isn't any suspense-- just me going, "Alright, so, who actually did it?" Again, purely my own tolerance for mysteries.
I could also point out that we twice experience characters who reveal that they're afflicted with a fatal condition and die. And that the mystery is caused by a guy going cold turkey and then unknowingly taking opium. Don't go cold turkey, kids! Use the patches.
My final verdict? Definitely entertaining, if you have the patience for it, and if you can tolerate the outdated and offensive notions of women and Indians, you just might enjoy yourself.
Spoiler
Alright, so, what should the reader know going into this: you have the first section, which related the theft of the Diamond. Then follows eight narratives, each giving their own perspective and information to the theft and all events that followed within the year. Some sections are longer than others, and you might find yourself wondering when you can move on.
Now, what really bothered me: Miss Rachel is, to me, lovely yet incredibly annoying. But, here's what is completely absurd about her character: her mind is so independent, so discerning, so honest and forthright, that her virtues simply separate her from other members of her sex. She is also full of life and well-meant mischief! Blessed as she is with such estimable qualities so unlike other women, she's doomed to loneliness, poor dear! (It's asinine. Naturally she's a great lady like her mother, but also naturally, it isn't natural, therefore she is alone. Where other women are involved, they're silly, emotional dears with their own virtues, and must be guided by men so they don't go astray. Come on, Collins.)
Miss Clack's section was funny and absurd, and is very obviously a commentary on religious fanaticism. I considered it more comic relief than anything. Otherwise, the narrative is dominated by men, so expect most of the story to be through their eyes and with their opinions.
In regards to the Indians, they're apparently naturally inclined to thievery and disrespect for human life. Never mind the fact that all of this started because some white dude had to murder his way to the diamond in the beginning via conquest, and spirit it away to England. This whole thing screams of Orientalism; either Indians are cutthroat murderers, or catlike exotic beings with impeccable manners that quite bewitch their English counterparts. And their attraction to mysticism! Civilized men don't believe in it, but being the people they are, surely you understand why they would find comfort in that mumbojumbo. (Can you hear my contempt? Again. I know this is 19th century British literature, but I can't overlook how wrong it all is.)
Then Ezra Jennings, with his "gypsy complexion" and mixed heritage is also looked upon with distrust, only to be revealed as an incredible man through his suffering. Can we not? Can we just not.
All that aside, with regards to the novel's organization... when you take into consideration that The Moonstone was originally serialized, you can see how things had to be drawn out and suspenseful for the sake of keeping readership. Sometimes, though, there isn't any suspense-- just me going, "Alright, so, who actually did it?" Again, purely my own tolerance for mysteries.
I could also point out that we twice experience characters who reveal that they're afflicted with a fatal condition and die. And that the mystery is caused by a guy going cold turkey and then unknowingly taking opium. Don't go cold turkey, kids! Use the patches.
My final verdict? Definitely entertaining, if you have the patience for it, and if you can tolerate the outdated and offensive notions of women and Indians, you just might enjoy yourself.
funny
mysterious
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
mysterious
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
Totally wonderful. What great fun, adventure and humour from the 19th century. It’s been made into quite a few films and mini series but I don’t want to watch any as it would be such a disappointment. You couldn’t translate the humour and narrative. Very entertaining.
mysterious
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
mysterious
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No