Scan barcode
andjelast8_'s review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
dark
emotional
informative
reflective
tense
fast-paced
4.0
chloe_eags's review against another edition
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.25
vawiskandarrr's review against another edition
challenging
dark
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.25
bole1709's review against another edition
3.0
Ja dok Orvel objašnjava odnos svih crkvi u Engleskoj:
Već od svoje prve knjige, Niko i ništa u Parizu i Londonu, Orvel sebe postavlja kao društvenog kritičara koji će ostati do kraja života gde u svakoj provlači drugi aspekt društva. Svi sastojci onog Orvela koji će, 10-ak godina od ove knjige, napisati 1984. i Životinjsku farmu su i ovde, zanimljive ideje, cinično i satirično posmatranje društva, elementi njegovog života itd, ali ovoj knjizi fali kohezije koja bi je učinila delom vrednog ozbiljnijeg razmatranja. Zato i ne čudi podatak da je Orvel ostavio u amanet da se ova knjiga posle njegove smrti ne štampa.
Doroti, sveštenikova ćerka (ko je to mogao da nasluti iz naslova?), živi teško u relativno malom mestu u Engleskoj. Otac joj je zadrti mizantrop, pa ona održava koliku-toliku vezu sa parohijanima kojih nema mnogo. Tu se provlači ta kritika engleskog društva, a onda Doroti dobije amneziju, niko ne zna šta se sa njom desilo i bum, sad je ona na poljima i bere hmelj. Kad prođe sezona branja, prelazi da bude učiteljica. Poprilično skokovito, bez preteranih poveznica i razvijanja karaktera (tu uključujem i Doroti). Između svega toga se provlači njeno sećanje na pokušaj silovanja sa Vartbartonom, ateistom i njenim suštim antipodom, da bi ona ostala sa njim u nekom čudnom odnosu kojem je izraz kombinacija možda i najpribližniji i koji ostavlja više pitanja nego odgovora. A kako da zaboravim i celo jedno poglavlje u samoj sredini knjige koje je napisano kao drama i nema nikakvu svrhu u priči, već je samo razgovor par beskućnika koji su se našli jedno veče u Londonu.
Zanimljivo delo sa te strane socijalne kritike na koju sam ja posebno slab, ali generalno, ništa preterano vredno spominjanja.
Već od svoje prve knjige, Niko i ništa u Parizu i Londonu, Orvel sebe postavlja kao društvenog kritičara koji će ostati do kraja života gde u svakoj provlači drugi aspekt društva. Svi sastojci onog Orvela koji će, 10-ak godina od ove knjige, napisati 1984. i Životinjsku farmu su i ovde, zanimljive ideje, cinično i satirično posmatranje društva, elementi njegovog života itd, ali ovoj knjizi fali kohezije koja bi je učinila delom vrednog ozbiljnijeg razmatranja. Zato i ne čudi podatak da je Orvel ostavio u amanet da se ova knjiga posle njegove smrti ne štampa.
Doroti, sveštenikova ćerka (ko je to mogao da nasluti iz naslova?), živi teško u relativno malom mestu u Engleskoj. Otac joj je zadrti mizantrop, pa ona održava koliku-toliku vezu sa parohijanima kojih nema mnogo. Tu se provlači ta kritika engleskog društva, a onda Doroti dobije amneziju, niko ne zna šta se sa njom desilo i bum, sad je ona na poljima i bere hmelj. Kad prođe sezona branja, prelazi da bude učiteljica. Poprilično skokovito, bez preteranih poveznica i razvijanja karaktera (tu uključujem i Doroti). Između svega toga se provlači njeno sećanje na pokušaj silovanja sa Vartbartonom, ateistom i njenim suštim antipodom, da bi ona ostala sa njim u nekom čudnom odnosu kojem je izraz kombinacija možda i najpribližniji i koji ostavlja više pitanja nego odgovora. A kako da zaboravim i celo jedno poglavlje u samoj sredini knjige koje je napisano kao drama i nema nikakvu svrhu u priči, već je samo razgovor par beskućnika koji su se našli jedno veče u Londonu.
Zanimljivo delo sa te strane socijalne kritike na koju sam ja posebno slab, ali generalno, ništa preterano vredno spominjanja.
fq3i0's review against another edition
adventurous
informative
reflective
medium-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
4.0
kevin_shepherd's review against another edition
4.0
“It is a mysterious thing, the loss of faith …as mysterious as faith itself. Like faith, it is ultimately not rooted in logic; it is a change in the climate of the mind”
Stifled by the smallness and narrow minded constraints of her father’s religious vocation and its associated life-smothering procedurals, Dorothy Hare, our title character and chief protagonist, experiences a disquieting and amnesiac mental breakdown.
Through narrative fiction, Orwell takes on religion, systemic poverty and the degradation and corruption of privately funded education (England, circa 1935). Somewhat experimental in nature—one chapter reads as though it were lifted from Joyce’s Ulysses—this was, by all accounts, Orwell’s least favorite novel. He even went so far as to call it “tripe!” and “bollocks!” Personally, I rather enjoyed it.
Stifled by the smallness and narrow minded constraints of her father’s religious vocation and its associated life-smothering procedurals, Dorothy Hare, our title character and chief protagonist, experiences a disquieting and amnesiac mental breakdown.
Through narrative fiction, Orwell takes on religion, systemic poverty and the degradation and corruption of privately funded education (England, circa 1935). Somewhat experimental in nature—one chapter reads as though it were lifted from Joyce’s Ulysses—this was, by all accounts, Orwell’s least favorite novel. He even went so far as to call it “tripe!” and “bollocks!” Personally, I rather enjoyed it.
ed_moore's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
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
3.25
‘A Clergyman’s Daughter’ is the first book of Orwell’s that I have read and not been utterly captivated by. It was a story about a loss of faith and shaped to be a promising criticism of organised religion in its opening, and as it progressed did succeed in recounting the hardships of poverty and the lower classes in typical Orwellian fashion, whereas these themes were much more fractured and far less impactful than I am used to with Orwell.
The book follows Dorothy, the daughter of a rector in the small village of Knypes Hill, and her loss of memory resulting in her existing in poverty as a hop-picker, on the streets in London and in a small private girls school. This also opened some criticisms of the private education system in the early 20th century, whereas there were too many issues raised across one book to the point where no single criticism was fully explored. I would’ve much preferred a designated focus on its initial staging to attack organised religion, for we have seen plenty about destitution from Orwell. There was also a mention of a dog called Toto in the opening chapters though I don’t think the book was particularly linked to ‘The Wizard of Oz in any way’! Orwell has faced backlash for his presentation of female characters, and in most cases I can look beyond this as the individuals are never the primary focus in Orwell’s writing and messages, though in the case of ‘A Clergyman’s Daughter’ I don’t believe Orwell did an awful job. Dorothy as a character was strong willed, broke away from patriarchal systems and expressed agency, though a lot of this was ultimately futile but I shan’t spoil such with details.
I didn’t much like Orwell’s chapter spacing and the structure of this book. Each of the five chapters takes a completely different circumstance and setting, which are each only partially linked to one another, and the third one breaks style completely and is written as a script with a huge cast of characters whom very few of had been introduced prior. Also the main catalyst for Dorothy’s fall into poverty, her memory loss, is left completely unexplained which created major plot holes. It was a fine book, but only fine. With how amazing an author I know Orwell can be I expected an awful lot more from it.
The book follows Dorothy, the daughter of a rector in the small village of Knypes Hill, and her loss of memory resulting in her existing in poverty as a hop-picker, on the streets in London and in a small private girls school. This also opened some criticisms of the private education system in the early 20th century, whereas there were too many issues raised across one book to the point where no single criticism was fully explored. I would’ve much preferred a designated focus on its initial staging to attack organised religion, for we have seen plenty about destitution from Orwell. There was also a mention of a dog called Toto in the opening chapters though I don’t think the book was particularly linked to ‘The Wizard of Oz in any way’! Orwell has faced backlash for his presentation of female characters, and in most cases I can look beyond this as the individuals are never the primary focus in Orwell’s writing and messages, though in the case of ‘A Clergyman’s Daughter’ I don’t believe Orwell did an awful job. Dorothy as a character was strong willed, broke away from patriarchal systems and expressed agency, though a lot of this was ultimately futile but I shan’t spoil such with details.
I didn’t much like Orwell’s chapter spacing and the structure of this book. Each of the five chapters takes a completely different circumstance and setting, which are each only partially linked to one another, and the third one breaks style completely and is written as a script with a huge cast of characters whom very few of had been introduced prior. Also the main catalyst for Dorothy’s fall into poverty, her memory loss, is left completely unexplained which created major plot holes. It was a fine book, but only fine. With how amazing an author I know Orwell can be I expected an awful lot more from it.
katieahalliday's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
informative
reflective
sad
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
3.25
mrwcc's review against another edition
5.0
The book is a weird product of intent and execution.
The intent is good, it is of turmoil and self-discovery in adversity, Sturm & Drang and as is usual for Orwell, Roman à Clef peppered throughout.
As far as execution goes...The jury is still out. This particular edition was littered with spelling issues that any editor should have sorted. I understand and appreciate the vertu Orwell has attained and people don't wish to mess with someone's oeuvre, however, a spelling mistake is still a mistake.
Am still awaiting response in regards to this particular edition being (if my assumption is right) detrimentally verbatim (have asked it to the hive-mind here on Goodreads, however, do not know if question will only show up on this edition or all - this edition I believe is fairly rare outside of Blair-Buffs.)
I would recommend to anyone wanting a further hit of Orwell or a different hit of Orwell. The comparison that he is the 20th C Dickens is well founded and evidenced by this novel.
The intent is good, it is of turmoil and self-discovery in adversity, Sturm & Drang and as is usual for Orwell, Roman à Clef peppered throughout.
As far as execution goes...The jury is still out. This particular edition was littered with spelling issues that any editor should have sorted. I understand and appreciate the vertu Orwell has attained and people don't wish to mess with someone's oeuvre, however, a spelling mistake is still a mistake.
Am still awaiting response in regards to this particular edition being (if my assumption is right) detrimentally verbatim (have asked it to the hive-mind here on Goodreads, however, do not know if question will only show up on this edition or all - this edition I believe is fairly rare outside of Blair-Buffs.)
I would recommend to anyone wanting a further hit of Orwell or a different hit of Orwell. The comparison that he is the 20th C Dickens is well founded and evidenced by this novel.