You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.96 AVERAGE
3.96 AVERAGE
challenging
hopeful
reflective
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
I really enjoyed the journey this book took me on, and I think it was a very impactful peek into the lives of the characters without overexposing the story. As a lesbian, I found myself relating to Therese mostly in her moments of listlessness, self doubt, and eventual perseverance, rather than her "wait am I a lesbian?" moments. I related to Carol's struggle between her identity and her role in her family. I can even relate to the side characters' concern for their loved ones risking their safety. I think some might have found the plot disjointed and vague, but I think the point of the book was not necessarily about the events of Therese's coming out via Carol, but instead it's a look into the inner battles of two gay characters trying to reconcile their identities with their other values, and those of their loved ones. I think this is a much more useful avenue to discuss the queer experience in a way that avoids both alienating straight readers or falling back on shock value homophobia.
dark
tense
medium-paced
had to reread the ending. like the characters and the subtlty
emotional
reflective
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
DNF - Ik heb het halve boek gelezen maar kan nog steeds niet in het verhaal komen. Het interesseert me niet genoeg.
It is hard reading this book through the lenses of someone in 2016 to think about what this book might have meant to people when it was initially published in the 1950s. While the ideas in this book seem dated now, it's not a stretch that there are still parts of the world and even parts of the United States where the barriers that Carol and Therese face are still a problem.
I found the first half of the book to be very slow and it was difficult for me to get into it. Overall the pace of the book seemed quite choppy to me. Despite this, it was well written and interesting, and so I'm going with 4 stars. I'm glad that we read this for my book club so that I stuck with it until the end.
I found the first half of the book to be very slow and it was difficult for me to get into it. Overall the pace of the book seemed quite choppy to me. Despite this, it was well written and interesting, and so I'm going with 4 stars. I'm glad that we read this for my book club so that I stuck with it until the end.
Dull and insufferable. Not as bad as pouring salt in my eyes, but close.
Therese lives in New York City in the 1950s. She lives alone and works part time. She doesn't love her boyfriend, Richard, and she is entranced by a beautiful blonde woman at a department store, Carol. She writes Carol a letter, and the two strike up a friendship and, later, more.
For about 200 pages, Carol vacillates between being warm and affectionate and an asshole. She goes from being playful and teasing, to simply cruel. It's a toxic relationship that I couldn't really root for.
I did like some of Therese's inner monologue, which is about 85% of the novel. She builds sets for plays in her spare time, and hasn't really traveled. Without personal experience, without seeing the world, how can she know what love is? Carol argues that her sets are dull because she has no real life experience. Those discussions are interesting, but the symbolism is either simplistic (hot vs. cold being a prominent motif) or over-wrought (omg they talk about the goddamn sets forever and it serves no plot purpose, it is entirely symbolic). And that boyfriend she doesn't love? Richard? In other words, she doesn't love Dick.
One interesting part about reading this book 60 years after it was published is to see how the subject of lesbianism was treated differently in the 1950s. The novel doesn't handle that well. Carol and Therese hide their affair, and briefly mention that society as a whole would not approve. Yet the main conflict comes from Carol's soon-to-be-ex husband, who threatens to blackmail Carol with evidence of her Sapphic affair. However, the husband would likely do this even if Carol was having an affair with a man, so that doesn't provide us with good context. Also, it's amusing that Therese can just not work for three months and be fine. Everyone just reads like a bored upper-middle class person, even Therese, who simply gets everything paid for by Carol.
The more I read this book, the more I wondered how autobiographical this novel was. Maybe because it's so self-absorbed. Usually, the more autobiographical a novel, the worse it is. Authors feel the need to validate their own experiences instead of telling a good story. I made the assumption this novel was autobiographical and I was grateful that I never had to meet Patricia Highsmith. If my assumption was correct, she seemed like a foul person.
And she is, according to this article in The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/may/13/patricia-highsmith-film-adaptation-carol-only-openly-lesbian-novel-cannes-cate-blanchett "Two biographies (by Andrew Wilson and Joan Schenkar) depict Highsmith as troubled, obsessive and in many ways unsavoury. They chart her alcoholism, her rudeness, her meanness."
That is these characters. Rude. Mean. Some may sympathize with their struggle for happiness, but I wonder if they are even capable of it, and I do not care to find out.
Therese lives in New York City in the 1950s. She lives alone and works part time. She doesn't love her boyfriend, Richard, and she is entranced by a beautiful blonde woman at a department store, Carol. She writes Carol a letter, and the two strike up a friendship and, later, more.
For about 200 pages, Carol vacillates between being warm and affectionate and an asshole. She goes from being playful and teasing, to simply cruel. It's a toxic relationship that I couldn't really root for.
I did like some of Therese's inner monologue, which is about 85% of the novel. She builds sets for plays in her spare time, and hasn't really traveled. Without personal experience, without seeing the world, how can she know what love is? Carol argues that her sets are dull because she has no real life experience. Those discussions are interesting, but the symbolism is either simplistic (hot vs. cold being a prominent motif) or over-wrought (omg they talk about the goddamn sets forever and it serves no plot purpose, it is entirely symbolic). And that boyfriend she doesn't love? Richard? In other words, she doesn't love Dick.
One interesting part about reading this book 60 years after it was published is to see how the subject of lesbianism was treated differently in the 1950s. The novel doesn't handle that well. Carol and Therese hide their affair, and briefly mention that society as a whole would not approve. Yet the main conflict comes from Carol's soon-to-be-ex husband, who threatens to blackmail Carol with evidence of her Sapphic affair. However, the husband would likely do this even if Carol was having an affair with a man, so that doesn't provide us with good context. Also, it's amusing that Therese can just not work for three months and be fine. Everyone just reads like a bored upper-middle class person, even Therese, who simply gets everything paid for by Carol.
The more I read this book, the more I wondered how autobiographical this novel was. Maybe because it's so self-absorbed. Usually, the more autobiographical a novel, the worse it is. Authors feel the need to validate their own experiences instead of telling a good story. I made the assumption this novel was autobiographical and I was grateful that I never had to meet Patricia Highsmith. If my assumption was correct, she seemed like a foul person.
And she is, according to this article in The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/may/13/patricia-highsmith-film-adaptation-carol-only-openly-lesbian-novel-cannes-cate-blanchett "Two biographies (by Andrew Wilson and Joan Schenkar) depict Highsmith as troubled, obsessive and in many ways unsavoury. They chart her alcoholism, her rudeness, her meanness."
That is these characters. Rude. Mean. Some may sympathize with their struggle for happiness, but I wonder if they are even capable of it, and I do not care to find out.
Høyrte denne som ljodbok.
Eg kan ikkje presisere kor mykje eg /elskar/ filmen som baserer seg på boka, så å endeleg lese/høyre boka var ei fryd. Verkeleg ei fantastisk bok med ein fantastisk historie.
Eg kan ikkje presisere kor mykje eg /elskar/ filmen som baserer seg på boka, så å endeleg lese/høyre boka var ei fryd. Verkeleg ei fantastisk bok med ein fantastisk historie.
challenging
emotional
hopeful
reflective
sad
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
relaxing
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes