Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.7 AVERAGE
3.7 AVERAGE
I read this book while in highschool and did not really like it. I could not see the point in it. Since it is a classic and won a Pulitzer Prize in 1928, I thought I would tackle it again 40 years later.
I found myself not really like it too much again, but this time I got the point, but not until the very end. It was still a bit depressing as it delved into the lives of 5 people who died while crossing a bridge that snapped. Why them is the premise of the book. The characters were all a bit depressing in themselves. But in the end, it is all about love.
I found myself not really like it too much again, but this time I got the point, but not until the very end. It was still a bit depressing as it delved into the lives of 5 people who died while crossing a bridge that snapped. Why them is the premise of the book. The characters were all a bit depressing in themselves. But in the end, it is all about love.
This was just painfully dull from start to finish. I don't understand the point of the book, or the plot, or of any of the characters. Who could possibly care about this? Maybe it's just a difference in era?
dark
emotional
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
emotional
reflective
sad
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
This book follows the lives of several individuals, splitting up the book, while also connecting their lives as they approach their death all on the same day. It is tragic, yet its description of love is one of the most well-versed depictions I've ever read. It questioned the duty of the historian, while also encompassing the immense pressure of such a duty. Only 140 pages and worth reading again, as all its characters are complex and its message of faith and fact are worth examining more than once.
I listened to Sam Waterson’s gentle narration of this book. I’m not the best audio listener but was struck by the simple beautiful observations on mortality, and on personal story. One day I’ll pick up a copy, there are lines I would like to underline in the hopes of remembering.
challenging
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
I would've given it another star, except for the ending sentence, which seemed too pat of a conclusion. Too much of an epigram and not enough behind it to illustrate it.
inspiring
reflective
sad
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
"The discrepancy between faith and the facts is greater than is generally assumed.”
Forty years ago, a childhood friend of mine, almost ecstatic, pointed out the ingenious beauty of this small book from 1927, which he saw as the stylistic and philosophical pinnacle of American literature. For some reason I never got around to reading it myself, until now. My reading experience can be summarized in one sentence: fascination after the opening chapter, slight confusion after the subsequent life stories, and finally frustration with the unwinding of the story.
Thornton Wilder (1897-1975) does indeed tell a very concise story with a fascinating intrigue: was it the hand of God that made collapse a rope bridge in Peru, in the early 18th century, and caused the death of 5 people, or was this pure coincidence? It is the classic philosophical-religious dilemma of divine providence, blind destiny, and human free will. Curiously, in the story it is a Franciscan friar, Brother Jupiner, who uses the disaster to solve this eternal problem once and for all by systematically mapping the characteristics of the victims and weighing them up in quantitative terms. “Nice approach”, I thought, because with this Wilder seemed to illustrate the classic Western scientific method on this dilemma, “I wonder how that will end”.
But then Brother Jupiner disappears from the scene, and Wilder himself briefly sketches the life stories of some (not all) of the victims. They turn out to be ingeniously intertwined; they also share being stuck in life, solitary and lonely, even bitter; and fate (the collapsing bridge) appears to strike just when a turning point in their lives was in view. In the end Jupiner pops up again, with his systematic-scientific method, but he has to conclude that he too has found no satisfying answer to the philosophical dilemma. On the contrary, because of his investigations, he gets into trouble with the Inquisition. In fact, you could not expect otherwise, Wilder too must leave open the question of divine providence, blind destiny or human free will; but he does this in a very sarcastic way.
But then there is that famous closing paragraph, an ode to love: “There is a land of the living and a land of the dead and the bridge is love, the only survival, the only meaning.” I am not going to haggle on this wonderful quote, but someone should explain to me where this element is incorporated in the previous stories? I didn’t see it, on the contrary, Wilder gave a very sarcastic touch to the lives of his characters, with hardly any place for love. So I think Wilder could have made so much more of this booklet. He wrote a nice little novel, with a lot of potential and with some nice oneliners, but also a missed opportunity.
Forty years ago, a childhood friend of mine, almost ecstatic, pointed out the ingenious beauty of this small book from 1927, which he saw as the stylistic and philosophical pinnacle of American literature. For some reason I never got around to reading it myself, until now. My reading experience can be summarized in one sentence: fascination after the opening chapter, slight confusion after the subsequent life stories, and finally frustration with the unwinding of the story.
Thornton Wilder (1897-1975) does indeed tell a very concise story with a fascinating intrigue: was it the hand of God that made collapse a rope bridge in Peru, in the early 18th century, and caused the death of 5 people, or was this pure coincidence? It is the classic philosophical-religious dilemma of divine providence, blind destiny, and human free will. Curiously, in the story it is a Franciscan friar, Brother Jupiner, who uses the disaster to solve this eternal problem once and for all by systematically mapping the characteristics of the victims and weighing them up in quantitative terms. “Nice approach”, I thought, because with this Wilder seemed to illustrate the classic Western scientific method on this dilemma, “I wonder how that will end”.
But then Brother Jupiner disappears from the scene, and Wilder himself briefly sketches the life stories of some (not all) of the victims. They turn out to be ingeniously intertwined; they also share being stuck in life, solitary and lonely, even bitter; and fate (the collapsing bridge) appears to strike just when a turning point in their lives was in view. In the end Jupiner pops up again, with his systematic-scientific method, but he has to conclude that he too has found no satisfying answer to the philosophical dilemma. On the contrary, because of his investigations, he gets into trouble with the Inquisition. In fact, you could not expect otherwise, Wilder too must leave open the question of divine providence, blind destiny or human free will; but he does this in a very sarcastic way.
But then there is that famous closing paragraph, an ode to love: “There is a land of the living and a land of the dead and the bridge is love, the only survival, the only meaning.” I am not going to haggle on this wonderful quote, but someone should explain to me where this element is incorporated in the previous stories? I didn’t see it, on the contrary, Wilder gave a very sarcastic touch to the lives of his characters, with hardly any place for love. So I think Wilder could have made so much more of this booklet. He wrote a nice little novel, with a lot of potential and with some nice oneliners, but also a missed opportunity.