Scan barcode
ruby4sure's review against another edition
3.0
Normally of the philosophy that life is too short to read a bad book (or one you just don't like). Made the rare decision to persevere with this one after the first third, which starts out fleshing out the main character (Roland) and his insecurities through exploring his relationships with others (also the cat piss soaked flat was so viscerally described and hit too close to home after flat hunting in London a month before...). Once the story centred on Maud and Roland started to lose interest a bit, I honestly didn't even realise they fancied eachother until reading a 'best of AS Byatt' obituary - there were a couple of lovely scenes that showed their specific brand of romance (like when they are on the ferry and Roland is just aware that Maud is in the same bunk bed as him - no weirdness, just aware). Overall an interesting story and take on the detective novel structure, with some standout bits of writing - personally am a girl who needs either at least a complex story or characters to give substance to the aesthetic of the book (I also just do not get poetry unless it's Christina Rossetti and skipped most (all) of the poems). On the former, the plot is summarised in the final chapter in less than a page, and on the former already said about the first third being my favourite bit. The aesthetic was lovely however (minus points for the whacky ending of exhuming a body during a hurricane).
jovotestargaryen's review
challenging
mysterious
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.5
sidharthvardhan's review against another edition
2.0
To be honest, the fault is probably mine. I'm unable to care about things owned by people who died long ago even if they were great artists. I might make an exception for someone like Kafka, I might read his letters some day because they are already published and wanting to know the author more, I don't think I would spend even my lunch money to get possession of original letters, leave alone care about his toothbrush (except maybe with purpose of making money by auctioning them). I just can't understand people caring about possessions of others that way - I can't myself even for those of my dead family members. It is thus doubly difficult for me to care about Ash, who is not only imaginary but also dead long ago within the world of imagination.
Moreover, it seems strangely limiting to critic a work based on life of its author. At best, it offers one of many lenses through which you can look at a book and it is never the most important lens. I have read Milan Kundera and Nabhokov voice similar opinions too. And Flaubert basically wanted to ensure that people won't scavenge his belongings the way they did with Dickens. And if author wanted a book to be analyzed in light of something that happened in their lives, they should enter that detail in their work. Now Byatt really doesn't have to agree with me, but she should be able to sell me her perspective at least a little after hundreds of pages.
There is a class of literary critics who make a living of such trivia. This book is about such scholars. The whole thing stinks of nacromania and, really, the highlight of the book for me was the moment when they all decided in the end that it was okay to dig grave of a centuries old couple just to appease their curiosity.
The thing about ad-author interpretation is that even if you avoid it while reading a single work, you can't help it when you are reading multiple works of same author. After a few works, you develop a particular notion of mind of the author - their values, their tastes etc. If nothing else you start noticing repeated motifs, themes etc. In the beginning of Possession, Roland discovers letters of Ash in the beginning and they bothered him because he thought he already understood perfectly how Ash's mind worked and now here were letters contradicting his understanding. In this far, I could have related to him. But then, instead of screaming and announcing his surprise to the world like any genuine literature lover would, he instead decided to play detective about it.
I think most of us would be shocked if we actually met writers we admired most like Roland was after his discovery. It's probably true for all scholars of literature too. So exactly how would you analyze a thesis on authors? Val's thesis which in light of discoveries made within the book would seem most insightful was rejected while others were accepted. This turned Val into a bit of cynic so I liked her (the only character I did) as you know I have a thing for sick, cynic and psychopaths.
I didn't like the verses in the novel much either, so couldn't relate to the characters who admired the two poets so much. That maybe another reason why I failed to enjoy the work.
Moreover, it seems strangely limiting to critic a work based on life of its author. At best, it offers one of many lenses through which you can look at a book and it is never the most important lens. I have read Milan Kundera and Nabhokov voice similar opinions too. And Flaubert basically wanted to ensure that people won't scavenge his belongings the way they did with Dickens. And if author wanted a book to be analyzed in light of something that happened in their lives, they should enter that detail in their work. Now Byatt really doesn't have to agree with me, but she should be able to sell me her perspective at least a little after hundreds of pages.
There is a class of literary critics who make a living of such trivia. This book is about such scholars. The whole thing stinks of nacromania and, really, the highlight of the book for me was the moment when they all decided in the end that it was okay to dig grave of a centuries old couple just to appease their curiosity.
The thing about ad-author interpretation is that even if you avoid it while reading a single work, you can't help it when you are reading multiple works of same author. After a few works, you develop a particular notion of mind of the author - their values, their tastes etc. If nothing else you start noticing repeated motifs, themes etc. In the beginning of Possession, Roland discovers letters of Ash in the beginning and they bothered him because he thought he already understood perfectly how Ash's mind worked and now here were letters contradicting his understanding. In this far, I could have related to him. But then, instead of screaming and announcing his surprise to the world like any genuine literature lover would, he instead decided to play detective about it.
I think most of us would be shocked if we actually met writers we admired most like Roland was after his discovery. It's probably true for all scholars of literature too. So exactly how would you analyze a thesis on authors? Val's thesis which in light of discoveries made within the book would seem most insightful was rejected while others were accepted. This turned Val into a bit of cynic so I liked her (the only character I did) as you know I have a thing for sick, cynic and psychopaths.
I didn't like the verses in the novel much either, so couldn't relate to the characters who admired the two poets so much. That maybe another reason why I failed to enjoy the work.
ariannatavaglione's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
emotional
mysterious
tense
slow-paced
3.0
adholmes3's review against another edition
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
2.75
savaging's review
4.0
Seeing me reading this, my friend recalled what her English teacher said about it:
Life's too short to read books that are only about good writing.
And I see what that teacher means -- how so much of the delight of this book is just the pleasure of words. The luxurious waste of time of sinking into writing about writers writing.
But I also believe this book is about something. I think it's saying some crucial things about possession -- owning things and others, and how everything and everyone can make themselves slip through other people's grasp. It's about gender, and the ambiguous nature of romance. It's about being possessed -- when the thing you 'own' actually owns you, about being driven by some kind of demon possession to behave in unusual ways.
Now that I'm done with the book I miss it, even though it was such a slow and literary slog much of the time.
Life's too short to read books that are only about good writing.
And I see what that teacher means -- how so much of the delight of this book is just the pleasure of words. The luxurious waste of time of sinking into writing about writers writing.
But I also believe this book is about something. I think it's saying some crucial things about possession -- owning things and others, and how everything and everyone can make themselves slip through other people's grasp. It's about gender, and the ambiguous nature of romance. It's about being possessed -- when the thing you 'own' actually owns you, about being driven by some kind of demon possession to behave in unusual ways.
Now that I'm done with the book I miss it, even though it was such a slow and literary slog much of the time.
chlo_23's review against another edition
emotional
mysterious
reflective
sad
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? N/A
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.0
allieoakesreads's review against another edition
Too long. I loved it so I’m going to try another time
muuske's review against another edition
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
2.5