Scan barcode
novellenovels's review
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
2.0
lonelyasfranz's review
1.0
(also spoilers for Life of Pi in the last paragraph)
This is barely a story: it mainly consists of long, philosophical tirades mixed in with short anecdotes that sort-of connect to each other. The relationships and characters were woefully flawed and underdeveloped, with almost laughably bad writing throughout.
As the main-main character is in her death throes, reflecting on her life and each important person in it, it seemed so over-the-top and exaggerated that I was unsure if wasn’t just a joke on the author’s part, mocking Renée’s excessive drama. I barely cared for Paloma’s mourning in the last chapter, after she did die; if anything, it puzzled me.
Their relationship was not fleshed out at all. It went from Renée thinking “oh, a nice, smart girl, yes, I would like her company” to her sobbing out the story of her dead sister and considering Paloma to be some sort of pink-clad angel. No clues were given as to how they came to care so much for each other, and it really annoyed me, because the person who forms a real, fleshed-out relationship with the lord of half the book was treated with much less esteem by the author. There is absolutely no connection between Paloma and Renée. They go straight from barely knowing each other to apparently being each other’s guardian angel. Meanwhile Kakuro, a character who is actually meaningful to Renée (and vice versa), is left to rot like a dead fish.
I couldn’t care less about Paloma. Her only personality trait is that she thinks she’s better than everyone around her and wants to punish them for being inferior to her. And yet she gets half the book, with a few pages being devoted to her actual relationship with the other half.
It’s absurd.
The book would have been ten times better if the author had condensed the “profound thoughts” and movement nonsense (don’t get me started) and had it conveyed by Renée, giving the other perspective to Kakuro. This would have reduced waste and actually made us care for the characters, while strengthening the idea of “the love of one’s friends and the possibility of romantic love” that the godforsaken Huffington Post seems to be raving about.
The entire second half of the book was wasted because the author was too lazy and/or shortsighted to flesh out the relationship between Renée and Paloma. The real story was in the former, with the latter mainly consisting of unnecessary philosophizing and details, not to mention an utter moral vacuum.
The real opportunity for a decent book was in Kakuro, but Barbery seems to have failed to realize this. I am sorely disappointed. How can you even call yourself a writer if you refuse to explain how the two main characters of the book- the relationship of whom the entire book, theme, and ending is based on- become close?
From what we see, they barely spend any time together, have only one meaningful discussion, and experience some weird conflict where Renée feels betrayed and then immediately forgets about it. And yet we’re expected to believe that Paloma put her madwoman plans aside for her, dedicating the rest of her life to her, and personally grieving for her? No. That’s frustratingly idiotic. This “author” is not an author; she’s a pretentious philosopher who happens to be literate.
This book was entirely ruined for me due to the confusion caused by the complete lack of development by the supposed supreme friendship that the book supposedly rotates around.
In reality, this book is one long, pompous, philosophical tangent, with short scraps of plot haphazardly mixed in throughout, and lots and lots and lots of lost potential.
I do not care about Renée and Paloma’s “relationship”. It barely exists. They had spent nowhere near enough time that was nowhere near meaningful enough to warrant Paloma’s reaction to her death, or for Renée to act like Paloma was some sort of genius angel-savior for her.
They were acquaintances, at most. All they even had in common was their absolute certainty in their superiority to everyone who wasn’t exactly like them in intellectual and cultural conviction.
This book fails even at redeeming the reputation of impoverished people. The main message in this respect seems to be the following: “You should evaluate whether a poor person is or isn’t more intelligent and/or cultured than you before you treat them badly or carelessly”.
There is no effort made to provide dignity to people of low classes who aren’t innately smart or artistic or “aristocratic” (Manuela, what?). The only one represented here, in fact, was portrayed as a drunken lunatic who raves about and sends our “beloved, genius, underprivileged-but-still-great” main character to her death. This same main character actually insults the aforementioned impoverished man every time she encounters him. At best, we could expect her to treat him with a sort of elitist whimsy.
“Poor soul, he’s so much less valuable than her. It’s really quite pitiful how deranged he is.”
I hate this book. It’s terribly written with terrible characters and terrible themes.
Renée is a thief. She goes on and on about how immoral it is to wear a dead woman’s dress, even with the consent of the dressmaker and relative of the woman, only to go on to steal a living person’s dress for no reason, with no hesitation or guilt. To be quite honest, it’s a tad satisfying that she was hit by a truck from the same dry cleaner’s she stole it from. I feel bad for the person whose dress was taken by such a loathsome beast.
Paloma seems to have a complex. She clearly thinks she’s a god amongst men, and that everyone she doesn’t like or agree with is a hopeless case, and desires to punish them for daring to be what she perceives as inferior to her. She has zero redeeming qualities. I hate her, and quite unabashedly. She’s a murderous, pretentious cretin with no regard for anyone but herself and models of herself.
The “author”, herself, is also worth discussing here. In her book, she creates a comically moronic standard of a good person by making all of her protagonists basically the same. Intelligent pariahs with the same ideas and though processes. Renée attributes her synchronicity with Kakuro, Manuela, and Paloma to their compatibility with each other, but I choose to chalk it up to bad, misguided writing.
No good book almost exclusively contains protagonists that are replicas of each other (with not-so-clever rebranding in each one).
If you diverge even slightly from this formula, you are automatically a bad, stupid, uncultured swine who is worthless, pitiful, and hopeless.
So.
This is not a very good book.
I didn’t really like it.
I hate to say that, while still reading it, I thought I would end up comparing it to a worse version of Life of Pi in my review. Both philosophical books, a bit slow and tiring at times, but ultimately fulfilling and interesting.
This was an egregious sin on my part, and I sincerely repent to the likes of Richard Parker, Pi Patel, and Yann Martel. Life of Pi is a good book, dare I say, a great one. This book...much less so. I honestly liked the hyena that killed almost everyone in the boat more than I liked any of the characters in this book. It was far more faceted and sympathetic than, say, Renée or Pavlova or Palm Oil or whatever her name is, I don’t care anymore, I just hate her.
Life of Pi is to The Elegance of the Hedgehog as a Strad is to a broken, dentist’s-office-prize-chest kazoo (all love and goodwill to hygienists).
Also, the translation was less than ideal. I remember that at one point, when Soap Cake is whining about her sister’s excessive cleanliness, it said “washes her hands three times a day” when it meant “showers three times a day”. The former disproves the point, the latter reinforces it.
Also, one particularly ironic error was present just as Rat Face is whining about a minor grammatical violation made by someone in conversation:
“All we need to do is wait for Madame Rosen to tire and I shall be able to repair to my bed.”
(“Retire” was most likely intended here.)
This is barely a story: it mainly consists of long, philosophical tirades mixed in with short anecdotes that sort-of connect to each other. The relationships and characters were woefully flawed and underdeveloped, with almost laughably bad writing throughout.
As the main-main character is in her death throes, reflecting on her life and each important person in it, it seemed so over-the-top and exaggerated that I was unsure if wasn’t just a joke on the author’s part, mocking Renée’s excessive drama. I barely cared for Paloma’s mourning in the last chapter, after she did die; if anything, it puzzled me.
Their relationship was not fleshed out at all. It went from Renée thinking “oh, a nice, smart girl, yes, I would like her company” to her sobbing out the story of her dead sister and considering Paloma to be some sort of pink-clad angel. No clues were given as to how they came to care so much for each other, and it really annoyed me, because the person who forms a real, fleshed-out relationship with the lord of half the book was treated with much less esteem by the author. There is absolutely no connection between Paloma and Renée. They go straight from barely knowing each other to apparently being each other’s guardian angel. Meanwhile Kakuro, a character who is actually meaningful to Renée (and vice versa), is left to rot like a dead fish.
I couldn’t care less about Paloma. Her only personality trait is that she thinks she’s better than everyone around her and wants to punish them for being inferior to her. And yet she gets half the book, with a few pages being devoted to her actual relationship with the other half.
It’s absurd.
The book would have been ten times better if the author had condensed the “profound thoughts” and movement nonsense (don’t get me started) and had it conveyed by Renée, giving the other perspective to Kakuro. This would have reduced waste and actually made us care for the characters, while strengthening the idea of “the love of one’s friends and the possibility of romantic love” that the godforsaken Huffington Post seems to be raving about.
The entire second half of the book was wasted because the author was too lazy and/or shortsighted to flesh out the relationship between Renée and Paloma. The real story was in the former, with the latter mainly consisting of unnecessary philosophizing and details, not to mention an utter moral vacuum.
The real opportunity for a decent book was in Kakuro, but Barbery seems to have failed to realize this. I am sorely disappointed. How can you even call yourself a writer if you refuse to explain how the two main characters of the book- the relationship of whom the entire book, theme, and ending is based on- become close?
From what we see, they barely spend any time together, have only one meaningful discussion, and experience some weird conflict where Renée feels betrayed and then immediately forgets about it. And yet we’re expected to believe that Paloma put her madwoman plans aside for her, dedicating the rest of her life to her, and personally grieving for her? No. That’s frustratingly idiotic. This “author” is not an author; she’s a pretentious philosopher who happens to be literate.
This book was entirely ruined for me due to the confusion caused by the complete lack of development by the supposed supreme friendship that the book supposedly rotates around.
In reality, this book is one long, pompous, philosophical tangent, with short scraps of plot haphazardly mixed in throughout, and lots and lots and lots of lost potential.
I do not care about Renée and Paloma’s “relationship”. It barely exists. They had spent nowhere near enough time that was nowhere near meaningful enough to warrant Paloma’s reaction to her death, or for Renée to act like Paloma was some sort of genius angel-savior for her.
They were acquaintances, at most. All they even had in common was their absolute certainty in their superiority to everyone who wasn’t exactly like them in intellectual and cultural conviction.
This book fails even at redeeming the reputation of impoverished people. The main message in this respect seems to be the following: “You should evaluate whether a poor person is or isn’t more intelligent and/or cultured than you before you treat them badly or carelessly”.
There is no effort made to provide dignity to people of low classes who aren’t innately smart or artistic or “aristocratic” (Manuela, what?). The only one represented here, in fact, was portrayed as a drunken lunatic who raves about and sends our “beloved, genius, underprivileged-but-still-great” main character to her death. This same main character actually insults the aforementioned impoverished man every time she encounters him. At best, we could expect her to treat him with a sort of elitist whimsy.
“Poor soul, he’s so much less valuable than her. It’s really quite pitiful how deranged he is.”
I hate this book. It’s terribly written with terrible characters and terrible themes.
Renée is a thief. She goes on and on about how immoral it is to wear a dead woman’s dress, even with the consent of the dressmaker and relative of the woman, only to go on to steal a living person’s dress for no reason, with no hesitation or guilt. To be quite honest, it’s a tad satisfying that she was hit by a truck from the same dry cleaner’s she stole it from. I feel bad for the person whose dress was taken by such a loathsome beast.
Paloma seems to have a complex. She clearly thinks she’s a god amongst men, and that everyone she doesn’t like or agree with is a hopeless case, and desires to punish them for daring to be what she perceives as inferior to her. She has zero redeeming qualities. I hate her, and quite unabashedly. She’s a murderous, pretentious cretin with no regard for anyone but herself and models of herself.
The “author”, herself, is also worth discussing here. In her book, she creates a comically moronic standard of a good person by making all of her protagonists basically the same. Intelligent pariahs with the same ideas and though processes. Renée attributes her synchronicity with Kakuro, Manuela, and Paloma to their compatibility with each other, but I choose to chalk it up to bad, misguided writing.
No good book almost exclusively contains protagonists that are replicas of each other (with not-so-clever rebranding in each one).
If you diverge even slightly from this formula, you are automatically a bad, stupid, uncultured swine who is worthless, pitiful, and hopeless.
So.
This is not a very good book.
I didn’t really like it.
I hate to say that, while still reading it, I thought I would end up comparing it to a worse version of Life of Pi in my review. Both philosophical books, a bit slow and tiring at times, but ultimately fulfilling and interesting.
This was an egregious sin on my part, and I sincerely repent to the likes of Richard Parker, Pi Patel, and Yann Martel. Life of Pi is a good book, dare I say, a great one. This book...much less so. I honestly liked the hyena that killed almost everyone in the boat more than I liked any of the characters in this book. It was far more faceted and sympathetic than, say, Renée or Pavlova or Palm Oil or whatever her name is, I don’t care anymore, I just hate her.
Life of Pi is to The Elegance of the Hedgehog as a Strad is to a broken, dentist’s-office-prize-chest kazoo (all love and goodwill to hygienists).
Also, the translation was less than ideal. I remember that at one point, when Soap Cake is whining about her sister’s excessive cleanliness, it said “washes her hands three times a day” when it meant “showers three times a day”. The former disproves the point, the latter reinforces it.
Also, one particularly ironic error was present just as Rat Face is whining about a minor grammatical violation made by someone in conversation:
“All we need to do is wait for Madame Rosen to tire and I shall be able to repair to my bed.”
(“Retire” was most likely intended here.)
novabird's review
4.0
This absolutely wondrous hedgehog has a simple elegance. Simple elegance is also found in the Japanese word, ‘wabi,’ which means
“The Elegance of the Hedgehog,” is not a plot driven novel, instead it is part character study and part philosophical fiction on how we perceive the world. Primarily it is about learning to see beauty in everything and there is an incredible abundance of beauty within these pages. It is also about moving beyond oneself to a greater engagement with life.
An uplifting read that insists that “it is not all bad.”
Upon returning to this book, I bumped up my rating as it still has left a subtle and lasting impression on me. It truly is a sweet novel that delivers with soft grace in an understated voice, the importance of mutuality.
“an understated form of beauty, a quality of refinement masked by rustic simplicity.
“The Elegance of the Hedgehog,” is not a plot driven novel, instead it is part character study and part philosophical fiction on how we perceive the world. Primarily it is about learning to see beauty in everything and there is an incredible abundance of beauty within these pages. It is also about moving beyond oneself to a greater engagement with life.
An uplifting read that insists that “it is not all bad.”
Upon returning to this book, I bumped up my rating as it still has left a subtle and lasting impression on me. It truly is a sweet novel that delivers with soft grace in an understated voice, the importance of mutuality.
leo_seven's review
emotional
funny
hopeful
reflective
relaxing
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
lilycbarnes's review
5.0
o wow, i’m so sad, n feel so lucky to have gotten to read this beautiful, beautiful book
protopapa's review against another edition
emotional
inspiring
sad
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
5.0
whalecomrades's review
I know i have this book bc the first girl i ever dated recommended it to me. And you know 16 year old bailey would have eaten it up, but the philosophizing felt so pretentious
crazysecondname's review against another edition
reflective
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
2.75
ja also ... es is n buch
auf seit 150 dachte ich eigentlich müsste ich es als dnf markieren. problem is dass ich es zum geburtstag geschenkt bekommen hab und die leute haben mir bisher immer nur gute Bücher geschenkt darum dachte ich so: ok irgendwas gutes wird noch passieren. außerdem war monsieur ozu noch nich da
naja es wurde nicht wirklich besser
das erste mal dass ich paloma nicht scheise anstrengend fand war auf seite 290 oder so
und das ende is auch scheiße und unnötig
also die 10 seiten davor wsren gut da dachte ich noch: oh deswegen habe ich weiter gelesen ich wusste das wendet sich noch
und dann das
also ja ich bin enttäuscht :(
auf seit 150 dachte ich eigentlich müsste ich es als dnf markieren. problem is dass ich es zum geburtstag geschenkt bekommen hab und die leute haben mir bisher immer nur gute Bücher geschenkt darum dachte ich so: ok irgendwas gutes wird noch passieren. außerdem war monsieur ozu noch nich da
naja es wurde nicht wirklich besser
das erste mal dass ich paloma nicht scheise anstrengend fand war auf seite 290 oder so
und das ende is auch scheiße und unnötig
also die 10 seiten davor wsren gut da dachte ich noch: oh deswegen habe ich weiter gelesen ich wusste das wendet sich noch
und dann das
also ja ich bin enttäuscht :(
evelinavilhelmsson's review against another edition
emotional
hopeful
reflective
fast-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
4.0
protoman21's review
4.0
I found this book to be very different. I read a lot of books where big things happen filled with characters constantly in mortal danger or their lives flipped upside down by a big upheaval. I didn't know what to expect at all from The Elegance of the Hedgehog, but this subtle story containing several surprising moments of pure insight that opened my eyes and felt like genuine moments of personal enlightenment was not it. There is not a great deal of plot, and much of the book is spent in quiet contemplation, but the text has a elegant flow to it that keeps you from feeling like it needs to be anything more. Sure some of the pondering goes down paths that doesn't strike a chord with every reader, but I believe there is enough there for anyone to make it worthwhile.