Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.04 AVERAGE
4.04 AVERAGE
This book was so cute and funny, it made me laugh out loud!
I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to start reading classics or who is looking for a light classic read! Looking back on this book, nothing really happens. But I was entertained nonetheless! It's really nice and refreshing to read a book where there isn't a whole world that needs to be build and thousands of characters introduced. This book is simply about Judy, her letters about her life during the four years of college that she sends to Daddy-Long-Legs. Even though this book was written over 100 years ago I could recognise some things that happened and shaped Judy into the person she becomes in this book.
If you enjoyed this book (or if you enjoyed the book that I'm going to mention) I recommend you to pick up A Little Princess by Frances Hodgson Burnett.
I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to start reading classics or who is looking for a light classic read! Looking back on this book, nothing really happens. But I was entertained nonetheless! It's really nice and refreshing to read a book where there isn't a whole world that needs to be build and thousands of characters introduced. This book is simply about Judy, her letters about her life during the four years of college that she sends to Daddy-Long-Legs. Even though this book was written over 100 years ago I could recognise some things that happened and shaped Judy into the person she becomes in this book.
If you enjoyed this book (or if you enjoyed the book that I'm going to mention) I recommend you to pick up A Little Princess by Frances Hodgson Burnett.
A sweet lovely funny feel-good kinda book!
I absolutely adore it.
Does the fact that when i was little a cartoon adaptation was shown on tv and i loved it so much but failed to watch all the episodes and never knew the end has something to do with me loving it because the element of nostalgia? Yeah, maybe. But it's so darn cute!
And I love Judy, she's innocent, smart and hilarious.
It's such a fast read too, i could have finished it in one sitting.
I have a strong feeling that I'll be rereading it soon.
I absolutely adore it.
Does the fact that when i was little a cartoon adaptation was shown on tv and i loved it so much but failed to watch all the episodes and never knew the end has something to do with me loving it because the element of nostalgia? Yeah, maybe. But it's so darn cute!
And I love Judy, she's innocent, smart and hilarious.
It's such a fast read too, i could have finished it in one sitting.
I have a strong feeling that I'll be rereading it soon.
The letters are cute, and I love Judy. But, well, the big reveal of Daddy Long-Legs at the end... that's a bit weird.
This is a hot take because so many people love this book! I enjoyed this book overall, but I wish that it was written in a different style. The beginning of the novel is a third-person narration, following Judy at the orphanage and being allowed to go to college by a secret benefactor, she has to write to him every week and she will only ever receive responses from his secretary. The rest of the novel is epistolary, which works until the very end.
I am going to do my best to not spoil this part, but I wish that the revelation of Daddy-Long-Legs was changed back to third-person, I wish we got to see Judy realize who her benefactor is through this narration rather than in letters to him. I was a little disappointed, but it was an enjoyable read.
I am going to do my best to not spoil this part, but I wish that the revelation of Daddy-Long-Legs was changed back to third-person, I wish we got to see Judy realize who her benefactor is through this narration rather than in letters to him. I was a little disappointed, but it was an enjoyable read.
This is just cute, rather predictable, fun fluff. I love light fiction from this era!
Holy creepballs. I'm working my way through a bunch of Project Gutenberg works, and I find myself with no words after finishing this.
Ok... Some words. The plot is very similar to the Shirley Temple film where she sings about animal crackers. In fact, that movie could very well be based on this book. I don't know.
Let’s leave aside the troubling classism of the "orphan with wealthy benefactor becomes 'civilized' but doesn't lose her humble and cheerful attitude" plot. And all the stuff about how girls just really love clothes (that may be true, at least in my experience).
Without spoiling the plot (though come on, it doesn't take a genius to see where the story is going) all I could think of was that Always Sunny in Philadelphia episode with the boat. You know... She can't say no... because of the implication.
As far as turn of the century YA for girls goes, I Capture the Castle was far better.
So. I'm now off to read Jane Eyre. Definitely not ANY creepy moments in that book. No sir.
Ok... Some words. The plot is very similar to the Shirley Temple film where she sings about animal crackers. In fact, that movie could very well be based on this book. I don't know.
Let’s leave aside the troubling classism of the "orphan with wealthy benefactor becomes 'civilized' but doesn't lose her humble and cheerful attitude" plot. And all the stuff about how girls just really love clothes (that may be true, at least in my experience).
Without spoiling the plot (though come on, it doesn't take a genius to see where the story is going) all I could think of was that Always Sunny in Philadelphia episode with the boat. You know... She can't say no... because of the implication.
As far as turn of the century YA for girls goes, I Capture the Castle was far better.
So. I'm now off to read Jane Eyre. Definitely not ANY creepy moments in that book. No sir.
I am conflicted in many ways about this delightful little novel.
On the one hand, who does not like the trope of "and the secret benefactor was her friend the WHOLE TIME"? It's just Belle, sitting with the sheep at the fountain, singing about "here's where she meets Prince Charming, but she won't discover that it's him 'til chapter three". We all love the "he falls in love with her despite himself, it's a secret shh".
On the other hand, the imbalance of power and age is so obvious and a tad icky, even as a kid I picked up on that. Sure, as I get older the difference isn't so bad. Jervis Pendleton is mid-thirties, young and handsome and wealthy, and Judy is 18-21 throughout the novel. She doesn't come to his attention until she is 18 and an essay of hers is read during a trustee meeting. He wants nothing to do with her personally, until her letters charm him out of the trees. He doesn't try to romantically entangle her until she starts getting some measure of independence. He doesn't reveal himself until disguise reaches the foolish stage. But her writing to "Daddy" while this sophisticated man of the world starts manipulating family and friends to keep her in his sphere is on the knife's edge of "aww romantic" and "eww creepy".
In another source of conflict, while Jean Webster's writing is uniformly charming, she goes out of her way to make every single Christian out of touch or intellectually backward. Clergy are elitist and stodgy, and even the sweet kind people who go to church must be forgiven for their regrettable religious leanings. Oh no, anything good is in spite of Christianity, not possibly because of.
I find it very interesting how the 1950s movie sidestepped all the religious and social issues addressed by the young Judy and instead doubled down on the age gap--poor Leslie Caron is dancing around with a positively antediluvian Fred Astaire. The poor guy was reeling from his own wife dying just previously. All in all, I really enjoyed the musical but the casting of Jervis Pendleton makes me cringe, Fred's perennially boyish charm notwithstanding. When it gets to a certain point, it's just not what I want to see. Gene Kelly for Leslie in "American in Paris" was old enough.
On the one hand, who does not like the trope of "and the secret benefactor was her friend the WHOLE TIME"? It's just Belle, sitting with the sheep at the fountain, singing about "here's where she meets Prince Charming, but she won't discover that it's him 'til chapter three". We all love the "he falls in love with her despite himself, it's a secret shh".
On the other hand, the imbalance of power and age is so obvious and a tad icky, even as a kid I picked up on that. Sure, as I get older the difference isn't so bad. Jervis Pendleton is mid-thirties, young and handsome and wealthy, and Judy is 18-21 throughout the novel. She doesn't come to his attention until she is 18 and an essay of hers is read during a trustee meeting. He wants nothing to do with her personally, until her letters charm him out of the trees. He doesn't try to romantically entangle her until she starts getting some measure of independence. He doesn't reveal himself until disguise reaches the foolish stage. But her writing to "Daddy" while this sophisticated man of the world starts manipulating family and friends to keep her in his sphere is on the knife's edge of "aww romantic" and "eww creepy".
In another source of conflict, while Jean Webster's writing is uniformly charming, she goes out of her way to make every single Christian out of touch or intellectually backward. Clergy are elitist and stodgy, and even the sweet kind people who go to church must be forgiven for their regrettable religious leanings. Oh no, anything good is in spite of Christianity, not possibly because of.
I find it very interesting how the 1950s movie sidestepped all the religious and social issues addressed by the young Judy and instead doubled down on the age gap--poor Leslie Caron is dancing around with a positively antediluvian Fred Astaire. The poor guy was reeling from his own wife dying just previously. All in all, I really enjoyed the musical but the casting of Jervis Pendleton makes me cringe, Fred's perennially boyish charm notwithstanding. When it gets to a certain point, it's just not what I want to see. Gene Kelly for Leslie in "American in Paris" was old enough.