Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.03 AVERAGE
4.03 AVERAGE
dark
emotional
sad
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
N/A
It's 90% painfully boring and confusing, and 10% reeeeeeally sad. I found the plot to be confusing at times, and I found the flouncy ponderings of George to be extremely pretentious and actively made me dislike him. I guess when people are going through it, they aren't the most exciting or fun to be around but being trapped in George's mind for a day was really hell. I guess that was the point of the whole novel. Anyway, steer clear if you're easily upset, because it's crushing. That ending? Guhhhhh. Shaking.
*SPOILERS* I guess I didn't realize Doris was with Jim when he died? I thought she was George's age and was dying of like- liver failure or something? The way she was described was very jaundice-y, and I was kind of shocked to find she was with him? Was Jim like, younger than George? Was Doris younger than both of them? Then why were they roller-skating if George is like 58 years old? That, along with a myriad of things that were left unexplained, made things really hard to fall into place mentally. At least for me.
*SPOILERS* I guess I didn't realize Doris was with Jim when he died? I thought she was George's age and was dying of like- liver failure or something? The way she was described was very jaundice-y, and I was kind of shocked to find she was with him? Was Jim like, younger than George? Was Doris younger than both of them? Then why were they roller-skating if George is like 58 years old? That, along with a myriad of things that were left unexplained, made things really hard to fall into place mentally. At least for me.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Death, Grief
Moderate: Alcoholism
Minor: Homophobia
emotional
hopeful
inspiring
mysterious
reflective
sad
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
To those who rated this 3 stars or above... did we read the same book?
It was weird and off-putting, alongside being poorly written. I'm surprised this was even given enough attention for a film adaptation, but I suppose I can't speak on something I haven't watched. As for what I did just read...
I was teased by the blurb. "With devastating clarity and humour", "the soul's ability to triumph over loss and alienation". Yet I saw none of this in the book. George's character is flat, Isherwood gives little both to his grief and to the characters who surround him. 'A Single Man' is a non-story. I'm struggling even to write a review because there is not much to discuss. I can see where the story would have headed had it been written with appropriate attention to detail and emotion, but unfortunately I simply did not care.
I did not care for the students... (specifically Kenny), I did not care for Charlotte, whose relationship with George is oddly undefined- why are they both British, are they siblings? How do they know each other? Often I found Isherwood placing irrelevant sentences into the novel which had no relevance toward the wider story. When George decides he does not need Charlotte in America, he states he does not need a sister. So are they siblings after all?
When George goes to the canyon, we get a strange line, "now he zips up his pants and gets into the car and drives on..." There was no mention of him taking them off initially.
On the whole the novel felt poorly edited, and perverse in a way which does little to intensify the novel's development. George's death felt underwhelming, I simply did not care. His attempt seduction of Kenny was weird and I found that the novel tried to make up for a 12 year old reading comprehension level with out of place philosophising. I benefitted nothing from George's rumination on experience in his house, or the Socratic dialogue when in exchange with Kenny at the bar. It all felt manufactured to fit a poorly written introspective character. In the end the oddly masturbatory scenes of the novel overpowered any attempt to produce a depth of message.
Best encapsulating the feel of this novel is the very beginning, where George's reading of Ruskin is interrupted by a "bowel movement", prompting him to sit on the "john".
It was weird and off-putting, alongside being poorly written. I'm surprised this was even given enough attention for a film adaptation, but I suppose I can't speak on something I haven't watched. As for what I did just read...
I was teased by the blurb. "With devastating clarity and humour", "the soul's ability to triumph over loss and alienation". Yet I saw none of this in the book. George's character is flat, Isherwood gives little both to his grief and to the characters who surround him. 'A Single Man' is a non-story. I'm struggling even to write a review because there is not much to discuss. I can see where the story would have headed had it been written with appropriate attention to detail and emotion, but unfortunately I simply did not care.
I did not care for the students... (specifically Kenny), I did not care for Charlotte, whose relationship with George is oddly undefined- why are they both British, are they siblings? How do they know each other? Often I found Isherwood placing irrelevant sentences into the novel which had no relevance toward the wider story. When George decides he does not need Charlotte in America, he states he does not need a sister. So are they siblings after all?
When George goes to the canyon, we get a strange line, "now he zips up his pants and gets into the car and drives on..." There was no mention of him taking them off initially.
On the whole the novel felt poorly edited, and perverse in a way which does little to intensify the novel's development. George's death felt underwhelming, I simply did not care. His attempt seduction of Kenny was weird and I found that the novel tried to make up for a 12 year old reading comprehension level with out of place philosophising. I benefitted nothing from George's rumination on experience in his house, or the Socratic dialogue when in exchange with Kenny at the bar. It all felt manufactured to fit a poorly written introspective character. In the end the oddly masturbatory scenes of the novel overpowered any attempt to produce a depth of message.
Best encapsulating the feel of this novel is the very beginning, where George's reading of Ruskin is interrupted by a "bowel movement", prompting him to sit on the "john".
this book is so sad. its a short book about grief but personally it was tough to get through because the writing style was just not for me. this was written a ages ago and the language and prose really dates it. no other thoughts than it was sad (but a bit boring but once again, not my style)
emotional
hopeful
inspiring
reflective
sad
medium-paced
Perhaps, I am too caught up in the Future to appreciate the Past Isherwood speaks of. Perhaps, the South of France does not allow this, somewhat dreary, prose to penetrate its stubborn and all-too-forgiving idyllic sceneries. Perhaps.
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Yes
Beautiful, intelligent prose. Isherwood is a keen observer and he manages superbly in letting the reader experience how his protagonist perceives the world and how in turn he imagines he is perceived himself by others. A single man since he lost his partner in a traffic accident, you feel how much he wants to connect with other people, but he senses too acutely that their motives rarely, if ever, align. Which at the end of the day leaves him, with all his cravings, indeed very much a single man. Though plenty humourful, a touchingly sad novel.
One of the greatest mysteries in my life will be how in the world this book has so many 5 star reviews. It was bad. And by bad I mean downright awful. It was written in the 1960s so some of the writing did not age well, but it’s extremely pretentious and self-absorbed in any time period. Just what was the point of the book? Literally nothing happens except an old British professor whose prime years have passed him by, is being judgmental and creepy. I would like my money back
emotional