Scan barcode
duffypratt's review
1.0
This is probably the longest really bad book that I've ever read. I gave up several times, and really can't say why I came back and ultimately persevered through it. I first gave up after this wonderful interior monologue passage:
"Gee, life was tough. What a rough world it was anyhow. How queer things went!"
Really? Gee! I might have come back to see if the writing could get any worse. And on that score, Dreiser did not disappoint. There's a literary atrocity on just about every page of this book. By the last third, Dreiser has basically done away with niceties, like subjects and verbs. The reductionism continues until we get passages like:
"But, oh, no! Oh, no! Not himself -- not that -- not his day. Oh, no. A whole year must elapse before that could possibly happen -- or so Jephson had said. Maybe two. But, at that -- ! . . . in two years!!!"
I wish I were exaggerating. Now, just imagine 900 pages of this. Much of it repetitious, and it getting worse and worse, sort of like Chinese water torture, but with exclamation points instead of drops of water.
But what of the characters? They are mostly notable for their shallowness and general unlike-ability. In over 900 pages, you would think that Dreiser might take the time to let us get to know some of them. Rather, he presents us with the broadest of cut-outs. Being generous, I'd say that he was doing something akin to kabuki theatre, and leaving his characters as archetypes to make the story more general. But I'm not feeling generous. So, instead, I think Dreiser basically hated everyone he was writing about, and couldn't bother to really get inside them or to humanize them, because then we (and more importantly, he) might come to like them.
As for the story: there's probably an OK short story here. Here it is. A guy leaves his evangelist family and goes off to make his fortune. He starts to work for his uncle, the owner of a factory. One rule of the factory is no relationships between supervisors and the female staff. He breaks the rule in secret. At the same time, he breaks into the local society and falls for a spoiled rich girl. He would like to abandon his factory worker girlfriend, but he knocked her up, and she could expose and ruin him. So he plots to kill her instead, and does kill her, though not exactly the way he intended. He is tried and executed.
Is it a tragedy? I was taught that tragedies had a tragic hero who suffered from some fatal flaw. Hamlet and indecision, Macbeth and ambition, Othello and jealousy. Without their flaws, these were all great men. Clyde Griffith is a bundle of flaws, but without any heroic characteristics that I could discern, except perhaps that people thought he was good looking. But as for flaws: he's stupid, vain, ambitious, self-centered. deceitful, lacking in empathy, a bit greedy, and so forth. So, despite the title, I don't see this story as a tragedy at all. Except perhaps for this: if the uncle's factory had allowed for dating of the workers, Clyde would never have broken into society, and might have settled for a humdrum, boring life with Roberta.
I've seen some people praise this for the candid look it takes at sex. But here's what I see. Two people have pre-marital sex, and they both die as a result of it. That's really forward thinking and candid. And even as far as that goes, Thomas Hardy covered this same territory much better. And then there's Anna Karinina.
I've also seen praise for the expose of society and ambition. But this book was published the same year as The Great Gatsby, and Gatsby, and again there is no comparison. Clyde's problem is not that he is ambitious. He is a little ambitious, but he seems more passive that anything else when it comes to his ambition, and it's definitely not presented as the cause of his downfall.
And yet, there must have been something compelling about this book. How else could I have willingly suffered through all 900 pages of it. I ask myself that, and if I were in a more generous mood, I might be able to come up with some reasons. But I'm not in a generous mood, and after so many pages of the writing getting worse and worse, I don't see any point in being charitable. Bad writing, bad story, bad characterization, bad social commentary. Bad, bad, bad! -- Bad!!!
"Gee, life was tough. What a rough world it was anyhow. How queer things went!"
Really? Gee! I might have come back to see if the writing could get any worse. And on that score, Dreiser did not disappoint. There's a literary atrocity on just about every page of this book. By the last third, Dreiser has basically done away with niceties, like subjects and verbs. The reductionism continues until we get passages like:
"But, oh, no! Oh, no! Not himself -- not that -- not his day. Oh, no. A whole year must elapse before that could possibly happen -- or so Jephson had said. Maybe two. But, at that -- ! . . . in two years!!!"
I wish I were exaggerating. Now, just imagine 900 pages of this. Much of it repetitious, and it getting worse and worse, sort of like Chinese water torture, but with exclamation points instead of drops of water.
But what of the characters? They are mostly notable for their shallowness and general unlike-ability. In over 900 pages, you would think that Dreiser might take the time to let us get to know some of them. Rather, he presents us with the broadest of cut-outs. Being generous, I'd say that he was doing something akin to kabuki theatre, and leaving his characters as archetypes to make the story more general. But I'm not feeling generous. So, instead, I think Dreiser basically hated everyone he was writing about, and couldn't bother to really get inside them or to humanize them, because then we (and more importantly, he) might come to like them.
As for the story: there's probably an OK short story here. Here it is. A guy leaves his evangelist family and goes off to make his fortune. He starts to work for his uncle, the owner of a factory. One rule of the factory is no relationships between supervisors and the female staff. He breaks the rule in secret. At the same time, he breaks into the local society and falls for a spoiled rich girl. He would like to abandon his factory worker girlfriend, but he knocked her up, and she could expose and ruin him. So he plots to kill her instead, and does kill her, though not exactly the way he intended. He is tried and executed.
Is it a tragedy? I was taught that tragedies had a tragic hero who suffered from some fatal flaw. Hamlet and indecision, Macbeth and ambition, Othello and jealousy. Without their flaws, these were all great men. Clyde Griffith is a bundle of flaws, but without any heroic characteristics that I could discern, except perhaps that people thought he was good looking. But as for flaws: he's stupid, vain, ambitious, self-centered. deceitful, lacking in empathy, a bit greedy, and so forth. So, despite the title, I don't see this story as a tragedy at all. Except perhaps for this: if the uncle's factory had allowed for dating of the workers, Clyde would never have broken into society, and might have settled for a humdrum, boring life with Roberta.
I've seen some people praise this for the candid look it takes at sex. But here's what I see. Two people have pre-marital sex, and they both die as a result of it. That's really forward thinking and candid. And even as far as that goes, Thomas Hardy covered this same territory much better. And then there's Anna Karinina.
I've also seen praise for the expose of society and ambition. But this book was published the same year as The Great Gatsby, and Gatsby, and again there is no comparison. Clyde's problem is not that he is ambitious. He is a little ambitious, but he seems more passive that anything else when it comes to his ambition, and it's definitely not presented as the cause of his downfall.
And yet, there must have been something compelling about this book. How else could I have willingly suffered through all 900 pages of it. I ask myself that, and if I were in a more generous mood, I might be able to come up with some reasons. But I'm not in a generous mood, and after so many pages of the writing getting worse and worse, I don't see any point in being charitable. Bad writing, bad story, bad characterization, bad social commentary. Bad, bad, bad! -- Bad!!!
oceanlistener's review
3.0
I think this book must have been pretty well written, because I hated Clyde through the entire book- such a whiny, selfish little twit. Even so, by the end of the book I was feeling some serious sympathy for him, despite all that he did.
It's an indictment against the classicism of America, but it would have been more striking to me if Clyde hadn't been such an overall unlikeable character- I didn't really see that he deserved more than what he had.
It's an indictment against the classicism of America, but it would have been more striking to me if Clyde hadn't been such an overall unlikeable character- I didn't really see that he deserved more than what he had.
eurydice1221's review
challenging
dark
sad
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
I really liked the story and enjoyed reading it.
But oh my god do I hate Clyde.
But oh my god do I hate Clyde.
derbit's review
3.0
Clyde Griffiths reminds me a lot of a roommate I used to have--just kind of ignorantly self-absorbed. I was very torn about how I felt about Clyde. On the one hand, he's just a victim of society and you can't help but feel a little sorry for him. He's not actually a malicious human being. He's just ignorant. And self-absorbed. On the other hand, you're going to hate him.
I struggled a lot with this book. It's definitely an intricately woven masterpiece in its own right, but oh my god, it is looooong, and I don't just mean in the sense that it packs in a lot of pages. It tends to get a little wordy and tedious at times. The unraveling of Clyde Griffiths is a seriously drawn out process. It took me about 6 weeks to finish this guy, partly because life, but also because I frequently had to make a conscious effort to pick the book up and read it, especially as I got closer to the end. That being said, I do think it's a book everyone should take the time to tackle in their life. The story is a timeless portrayal of American society (timeless, that is, with the exception of the distinctly 1920s dialogue) and is definitely worth the commitment.
I struggled a lot with this book. It's definitely an intricately woven masterpiece in its own right, but oh my god, it is looooong, and I don't just mean in the sense that it packs in a lot of pages. It tends to get a little wordy and tedious at times. The unraveling of Clyde Griffiths is a seriously drawn out process. It took me about 6 weeks to finish this guy, partly because life, but also because I frequently had to make a conscious effort to pick the book up and read it, especially as I got closer to the end. That being said, I do think it's a book everyone should take the time to tackle in their life. The story is a timeless portrayal of American society (timeless, that is, with the exception of the distinctly 1920s dialogue) and is definitely worth the commitment.
athenlyrain's review
4.0
This book is 856 pages long and divided up into three different sections/books. The first book (in my opinion) is the most interesting, the second one is less interesting, and the third one is a little dull and boring. This book is about a boy who grows up with a very religious family, and he never gets the schooling he needs. He ends up committing murder and then goes to jail with the death penalty.
read_garden_hound's review
4.0
“Oh Clyde”
Two words, interpreted differently at various points in the book. As it is a classic it is probably redundant to say it is well written. The story line does move slow, however the sentiments and points the author is making are not only met, but understood. I would also recommend researching the history behind the book as it is inspired by a real case.
Two words, interpreted differently at various points in the book. As it is a classic it is probably redundant to say it is well written. The story line does move slow, however the sentiments and points the author is making are not only met, but understood. I would also recommend researching the history behind the book as it is inspired by a real case.
ciska's review against another edition
3.0
This book has high ratings on here. I checked them when I walked into this title on audible while looking for a next read and I was intrigued.
I liked the adventurous style. The way Clyde tries to make the most of his life, creating chances and going for them. It becomes clear quickly that he is not always subtle in dealing with the consequences though which eventually breaks him up.
The story is very detailed and the speed is slow. This does create a certain atmosphere though which I could appreciate. I think this type of story is normal for the time it was written.
The book is set in the early 1920's and written in that period too. There are some situations that made me cringe with the way I feel things should be and I really had to tell myself that I was not to forget that it was written in another era.
I liked the adventurous style. The way Clyde tries to make the most of his life, creating chances and going for them. It becomes clear quickly that he is not always subtle in dealing with the consequences though which eventually breaks him up.
The story is very detailed and the speed is slow. This does create a certain atmosphere though which I could appreciate. I think this type of story is normal for the time it was written.
The book is set in the early 1920's and written in that period too. There are some situations that made me cringe with the way I feel things should be and I really had to tell myself that I was not to forget that it was written in another era.
shoelessmama's review
3.0
I can see why this novel is considered a classic of American literature. This is a mammoth sized book and yet my interest never flagged- not even once. I had strong feelings about every single character and the writing was brilliant. It gets less than perfect stars from me through no fault of the author. I just wasn't feeling the subject matter at this point in my life. I found it depressing. Especially knowing from page one what the outcome was going to be. It was like Pinocchio with adult themes and an unhappy ending. That being said I think this will make an excellent discussion for book club which I'm really looking forward to.
**Okay, I have to qualify one thing about the writing... I really hated a lot of the dialogue- Golly gee it really dated this novel. I also got a little annoyed at the overuse of the word (in all forms) "compel" by the end. Why was every character constantly "compelled"? I kept hearing the priest in "Just Like Heaven" (you know, the one where Reese Witherspoon is in a coma and haunting Mark Ruffalo) saying "The power of Christ compels you!!!" while shaking holy water around the apartment trying to get the less than amused Reese to leave off.
**Okay, I have to qualify one thing about the writing... I really hated a lot of the dialogue- Golly gee it really dated this novel. I also got a little annoyed at the overuse of the word (in all forms) "compel" by the end. Why was every character constantly "compelled"? I kept hearing the priest in "Just Like Heaven" (you know, the one where Reese Witherspoon is in a coma and haunting Mark Ruffalo) saying "The power of Christ compels you!!!" while shaking holy water around the apartment trying to get the less than amused Reese to leave off.