Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.63 AVERAGE
3.63 AVERAGE
This was so, so good. As with all of Hardy’s novels (that I’ve read), the story begins somewhat slowly and conventionally, only to suddenly take off and become super engrossing.
Additionally, I love the way in which all his female heroines appear traditional but are secretly subverting or at least challenging the status quo.
That whole scene with Elfride and Knight on the cliffs? Brilliant.
Hardy never disappoints, even 150 years later.
Additionally, I love the way in which all his female heroines appear traditional but are secretly subverting or at least challenging the status quo.
That whole scene with Elfride and Knight on the cliffs? Brilliant.
Hardy never disappoints, even 150 years later.
Clearing out my shelves and found a copy of this. I obviously liked it enough to be in the middle of a second read, but ultimately got distracted by other things so I'm guessing my rating would have been something like 3.5 stars.
[outdated reviews from the great purge of 2018]
[outdated reviews from the great purge of 2018]
emotional
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
sad
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
I thought this was gonna be a light read - but it’s Hardy - I should’ve known better!
This is essentially the story of a young woman called Elfriede, loosely based on Hardy’s own wife, and her romantic entanglements with the young aspiring architect Stephen Smith and the older, more educated Henry Knight (Stephen’s friend and mentor).
As in most of Hardy’s work the novel showcases how the strict morality of the time often has tragic results.
In particular, it deals with the unrealistic expectations of purity placed on (middle to upper class women) at the time and how premarital affairs could alter the course of their lives (& reputations) forever, or rather that womanly (justified) fear of “making a scandal”… It’s also about the mingling of social classes, and how frowned upon that still was back then.
The irony here is that Elfriede runs away with her first love Stephen (whom her father doesn’t approve of) to secretly get married. She gets cold feet and after a night together in trains and stations returns unmarried. All these two then ever exchange are a few awkward kisses and letters that could easily be dismissed as immature attempts at love. However, the standards of her time have convinced Elfriede to view her escapade as a terrible sin which then causes her and Knight - who are truly in love, as Hardy exerts himself to prove - to break up. What I really liked is how Hardy shows how harmful these strict conventions are for men too: When Knight learns the truth about Elfriede whom he thought to be “untouched” (as most men would expect their fiancés to be) he breaks up with her, but the reader senses: more so out of a sense of duty (as a man) than because he is revolted. He doesn’t want to be parted from her but societal norms and his own (rather surprising) inexperience in love have convinced him that he ought to leave her. What follows is classic Hardy style: the world goes on, Elfriede marries the next best man because his kids “need a mother”, Knight travels through Europe in an attempt to forget Elfriede and Stephen starts to entertain hopes that Elfriede is still in love with him as soon as he learns she did not marry Knight. In short: everyone is unhappy. And all the more so when they learn that Elfriede has died in their absence, presumably from unhappiness (and a fever).
I love Hardy’s psychological insights to men and women. Not that I necessarily agree with them, but they’re so much food for thought. A big debate lies in why Elfriede fell out of love with Stephen Smith. Is it merely his absence? It’s important to note that throughout the novel Stephen is always characterised as “still a boy” - just the fact that although he may have risen in society and grown older he is always called “Stephen” whereas Knight is nearly always alluded to by his surname.
And although Stephen may have matured during his time in India, the only Stephen Elfriede knows is the boy she met when she herself was still a girl. That makes the contrast even greater when Knight comes into her life, 12 years older, a lot more educated than Stephen, but most importantly (imo): more confident and assertive. Here is a little scene which is of more consequence than the reader might suspect: When Elfriede gets cold feet the day she and Stephen set out to marry, Stephen is not dominant enough to go through with it anyway, but needs no convincing whatsoever to accompany her back home. Although this was ultimately the right decision for her (what Hardy and I would call female intuition), the narrator hints that paradoxically this “giving in” made Stephen less attractive in Elfriede’s eyes (without her even realising it).
Hardy also stresses the importance of honesty in relationships - something far more important than obliging to society’s sense of morality. When Elfriede tells Knight about her relationship to Stephen, one senses that what vexes Knight most is actually not so much the fact that there was another man before him but more so that Elfriede didn’t deem it necessary to tell him. The same goes with Stephen Smith and Elfriede’s father: Maybe things would’ve taken a different turn if he had told him right away of his humble origins.
Here comes however another theme in Hardy’s novel: that of social class (and how ridiculous it can all be). Mr Swancourt (Elfriede’s father) is perfectly content with Stephen’s character and even views him a good match for his daughter. It is no change in character and manners but only the fact that he learns Stephen is actually the mason’s son that makes him furious at Stephen’s infatuation with his daughter. With that Hardy proves how superficial these worries about what people falsely called “respectability” actually are.
This is just a snippet of the rich variety of themes there a to discover in the novel. As one of Hardy’s first novels it is maybe not as advanced in style as some of his others, but definitely a good one for Hardy-newbies. The cliff-hanging episode provides an unusual amount of thrill, but all in all this is a classic Hardy: Slow and steady, realistic and mostly: human.
This is essentially the story of a young woman called Elfriede, loosely based on Hardy’s own wife, and her romantic entanglements with the young aspiring architect Stephen Smith and the older, more educated Henry Knight (Stephen’s friend and mentor).
As in most of Hardy’s work the novel showcases how the strict morality of the time often has tragic results.
In particular, it deals with the unrealistic expectations of purity placed on (middle to upper class women) at the time and how premarital affairs could alter the course of their lives (& reputations) forever, or rather that womanly (justified) fear of “making a scandal”… It’s also about the mingling of social classes, and how frowned upon that still was back then.
The irony here is that Elfriede runs away with her first love Stephen (whom her father doesn’t approve of) to secretly get married. She gets cold feet and after a night together in trains and stations returns unmarried. All these two then ever exchange are a few awkward kisses and letters that could easily be dismissed as immature attempts at love. However, the standards of her time have convinced Elfriede to view her escapade as a terrible sin which then causes her and Knight - who are truly in love, as Hardy exerts himself to prove - to break up. What I really liked is how Hardy shows how harmful these strict conventions are for men too: When Knight learns the truth about Elfriede whom he thought to be “untouched” (as most men would expect their fiancés to be) he breaks up with her, but the reader senses: more so out of a sense of duty (as a man) than because he is revolted. He doesn’t want to be parted from her but societal norms and his own (rather surprising) inexperience in love have convinced him that he ought to leave her. What follows is classic Hardy style: the world goes on, Elfriede marries the next best man because his kids “need a mother”, Knight travels through Europe in an attempt to forget Elfriede and Stephen starts to entertain hopes that Elfriede is still in love with him as soon as he learns she did not marry Knight. In short: everyone is unhappy. And all the more so when they learn that Elfriede has died in their absence, presumably from unhappiness (and a fever).
I love Hardy’s psychological insights to men and women. Not that I necessarily agree with them, but they’re so much food for thought. A big debate lies in why Elfriede fell out of love with Stephen Smith. Is it merely his absence? It’s important to note that throughout the novel Stephen is always characterised as “still a boy” - just the fact that although he may have risen in society and grown older he is always called “Stephen” whereas Knight is nearly always alluded to by his surname.
And although Stephen may have matured during his time in India, the only Stephen Elfriede knows is the boy she met when she herself was still a girl. That makes the contrast even greater when Knight comes into her life, 12 years older, a lot more educated than Stephen, but most importantly (imo): more confident and assertive. Here is a little scene which is of more consequence than the reader might suspect: When Elfriede gets cold feet the day she and Stephen set out to marry, Stephen is not dominant enough to go through with it anyway, but needs no convincing whatsoever to accompany her back home. Although this was ultimately the right decision for her (what Hardy and I would call female intuition), the narrator hints that paradoxically this “giving in” made Stephen less attractive in Elfriede’s eyes (without her even realising it).
Hardy also stresses the importance of honesty in relationships - something far more important than obliging to society’s sense of morality. When Elfriede tells Knight about her relationship to Stephen, one senses that what vexes Knight most is actually not so much the fact that there was another man before him but more so that Elfriede didn’t deem it necessary to tell him. The same goes with Stephen Smith and Elfriede’s father: Maybe things would’ve taken a different turn if he had told him right away of his humble origins.
Here comes however another theme in Hardy’s novel: that of social class (and how ridiculous it can all be). Mr Swancourt (Elfriede’s father) is perfectly content with Stephen’s character and even views him a good match for his daughter. It is no change in character and manners but only the fact that he learns Stephen is actually the mason’s son that makes him furious at Stephen’s infatuation with his daughter. With that Hardy proves how superficial these worries about what people falsely called “respectability” actually are.
This is just a snippet of the rich variety of themes there a to discover in the novel. As one of Hardy’s first novels it is maybe not as advanced in style as some of his others, but definitely a good one for Hardy-newbies. The cliff-hanging episode provides an unusual amount of thrill, but all in all this is a classic Hardy: Slow and steady, realistic and mostly: human.
emotional
hopeful
lighthearted
sad
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
reflective
tense
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Not as great as Far From the Madding Crowd or as charming as Under the Greenwood Tree, but enjoyable. It's just that I think the cover blurbs on editions of this novel can give a misleading impression.
The disturbing aspect of this novel is something only hinted at in Under the Greenwood Tree: the English clergy's utter hypocrisy and lack of interest in the spiritual matters that should be thair raison d'etre; and their class consciousness. The heroine's father is a parson in the Church of England. However, the narrator bluntly says that Elfride writes his sermons for him; and his only display of interest in his church concerns the building, not the congregation--the parson is keen to replace one of the ancient church's crumbling towers. At no time is he depicted giving any sort of pastoral care to his parishioners. Also, he refuses to allow his daughter to marry one of the suitors because he is in a class beneath them. Horrible.
Spoiler
This edition's blurb strongly implies the conflict is that the heroine loves two suitors equally and is torn between them. No, not really. She clearly loves one man more than the other, and does not suffer any particular difficulty in choosing. The conflict is a different problem.The disturbing aspect of this novel is something only hinted at in Under the Greenwood Tree: the English clergy's utter hypocrisy and lack of interest in the spiritual matters that should be thair raison d'etre; and their class consciousness. The heroine's father is a parson in the Church of England. However, the narrator bluntly says that Elfride writes his sermons for him; and his only display of interest in his church concerns the building, not the congregation--the parson is keen to replace one of the ancient church's crumbling towers. At no time is he depicted giving any sort of pastoral care to his parishioners. Also, he refuses to allow his daughter to marry one of the suitors because he is in a class beneath them. Horrible.