Scan barcode
traceymc's review
emotional
informative
reflective
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.75
wybohoukes's review
adventurous
emotional
funny
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
2.5
alisynamant's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
emotional
funny
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
sad
tense
medium-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
5.0
sunseeker's review
adventurous
challenging
informative
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.5
woogafolgawomp's review
emotional
medium-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? It's complicated
3.0
absolutely SPELLBINDING
barbara_mills's review
Nothing about the story line or characters could keep my interest. After 160 pages I had enough of boring characters, ridiculous plot and complete lack of entertainment. This story just did not work for me.
eliathereader's review against another edition
3.0
Kitabın edebiyat açısından büyük bir önemi var ve yer yer gerçekten çok beğendim ama bazı kısımları vardı ki resmen içim bunaldı. Beni en çok etkileyen kısım vebanın anlatıladığı kısımlar oldu bir de Adsız'ın dönüşümünü okurken biraz gerçekten uzak bulmuş ancak yine de etkilenmiştim sonrasında yazarın da hayatında buna benzer bir dönüşüm yaşadığını ve bunu aktarmaya çalıştığını öğrenince şaşırdım.
fedecato's review
4.0
It's the first example of modern italian, it's a bit boring, but at the same time is incredibly modern and interesting. It is not easy to read without having in mind the social and historic context and Manzoni's story. Anyway, this the cornerstone of the italian literature.
heyimaghost's review
4.0
I feel like this book took too long to read. It's not so much that it's not an enjoyable book or a good piece of literature, but that's it's so broken in the speed and storytelling. There were times when I would sit down and read an hundred pages, and other days it was all could do to get through a twenty page chapter, especially towards the end.
Let me just be clear: I love history. I read history books quite frequently, but I know very little about the 17th and 18th century (something I've been working on) and I especially know very little of the history of Italy outside some pockets (mid-13th to mid-14th century, and some elements of Roman history). This book takes place in the 1620's, so when he spends thirty pages discussing the politics of war in the Duchy of Milan, name dropping all sorts of cardinals and dukes, I'm completely lost. I'm not the type to just read through: I have to find out who the Duke of Nevers was in 1629 or figure out the details of the siege of Casale. So what should be a quick read turns into a couple days ordeal. And he has several chapters of detours. It's frustrating.
The other thing Manzoni does quite frequently is break off into tangents. If you have read books from, say, the 16th to mid-18th century, you’ll notice a trend: telling stories within a story. You’ll find it in some early 19th century novels, but the trend mostly goes out of style by then. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Don Quixote is one of my favorite novels, and is a huge culprit of the story-within-a-story trope, at least in the the first part. Even Charles Dickens did it in The Pickwick Papers quite often. (He started to do it in some other works, but I think he got distracted by his actual story.) So it’s not to say I dislike this trope, but it can break up a story. For example, we spend a couple chapters discussing La Signora (the Nun of Monza), but after hearing the whole backstory, she’s entirely left behind. I didn’t need to know all that information, interesting as it was. At least The Unnamed plays a far more important role, even after we thought we left him behind. She's important to the plot, but I didn't need to know her childhood. Also, I don’t think we needed all that gushing over Federigo Barromeo. As good of a man as he might of been, I felt it was unnecessary. In that regard, I think he fell into the trap of saying and not showing.
The story, without these tangents and historical explanations, is interesting. He does have a way of making the novel feel older than it is. He used the concept of the ‘false document,’ which is when an author claims his work is based on an historical document that is actually made up by said author. He intersperses the novel with quotes from the ‘original’ author, but also with quotes from authors from that period, which lends an authenticity to his false author. And in that way, it felt like I was reading about people who actually existed. Unlike, say, Walter Scott, another author writing historical fiction at the time, his characters feel like they belong to the period. Renzo doesn’t act like a 19th century hero, but like a 17th century hero. Take Ivanhoe for example: Ivanhoe doesn’t feel like a Medieval knight, but more like a 19th century gentleman. But Thackeray already satirized that novel enough that I shouldn’t throw my hat into that ring.
The story is essentially a Catholic story of forgiveness and trusting in God. It’s a morality novel, but I think one doesn’t need to be Catholic, Christian, or otherwise religious to appreciate the concepts of patience or forgiveness that he pushes throughout the novel; and I especially think those titles are not necessary to find satisfaction in the happy resolution at the end.
I will say this for the historical tangents: more than authenticity, they show how grand moments in history sweep along the common man. These characters are not major players in the historical events that happen, but just like those major players, they are moved by them nonetheless. Yes, towards the end, I found the historical explanations frustrating, but mostly because Manzoni had made me invested in the characters of Renzo and Lucia. I didn’t care so much about the politics of the war or the plague, but I certainly cared how those things affected the main characters. And in that sense, I think the novel succeeds, because while there are backstories to characters that we really didn’t need to know and historical tangents that perhaps go into too much detail, there was never a moment when I wasn’t still wondering how these things affected Renzo and Lucia.
Let me just be clear: I love history. I read history books quite frequently, but I know very little about the 17th and 18th century (something I've been working on) and I especially know very little of the history of Italy outside some pockets (mid-13th to mid-14th century, and some elements of Roman history). This book takes place in the 1620's, so when he spends thirty pages discussing the politics of war in the Duchy of Milan, name dropping all sorts of cardinals and dukes, I'm completely lost. I'm not the type to just read through: I have to find out who the Duke of Nevers was in 1629 or figure out the details of the siege of Casale. So what should be a quick read turns into a couple days ordeal. And he has several chapters of detours. It's frustrating.
The other thing Manzoni does quite frequently is break off into tangents. If you have read books from, say, the 16th to mid-18th century, you’ll notice a trend: telling stories within a story. You’ll find it in some early 19th century novels, but the trend mostly goes out of style by then. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Don Quixote is one of my favorite novels, and is a huge culprit of the story-within-a-story trope, at least in the the first part. Even Charles Dickens did it in The Pickwick Papers quite often. (He started to do it in some other works, but I think he got distracted by his actual story.) So it’s not to say I dislike this trope, but it can break up a story. For example, we spend a couple chapters discussing La Signora (the Nun of Monza), but after hearing the whole backstory, she’s entirely left behind. I didn’t need to know all that information, interesting as it was. At least The Unnamed plays a far more important role, even after we thought we left him behind. She's important to the plot, but I didn't need to know her childhood. Also, I don’t think we needed all that gushing over Federigo Barromeo. As good of a man as he might of been, I felt it was unnecessary. In that regard, I think he fell into the trap of saying and not showing.
The story, without these tangents and historical explanations, is interesting. He does have a way of making the novel feel older than it is. He used the concept of the ‘false document,’ which is when an author claims his work is based on an historical document that is actually made up by said author. He intersperses the novel with quotes from the ‘original’ author, but also with quotes from authors from that period, which lends an authenticity to his false author. And in that way, it felt like I was reading about people who actually existed. Unlike, say, Walter Scott, another author writing historical fiction at the time, his characters feel like they belong to the period. Renzo doesn’t act like a 19th century hero, but like a 17th century hero. Take Ivanhoe for example: Ivanhoe doesn’t feel like a Medieval knight, but more like a 19th century gentleman. But Thackeray already satirized that novel enough that I shouldn’t throw my hat into that ring.
The story is essentially a Catholic story of forgiveness and trusting in God. It’s a morality novel, but I think one doesn’t need to be Catholic, Christian, or otherwise religious to appreciate the concepts of patience or forgiveness that he pushes throughout the novel; and I especially think those titles are not necessary to find satisfaction in the happy resolution at the end.
I will say this for the historical tangents: more than authenticity, they show how grand moments in history sweep along the common man. These characters are not major players in the historical events that happen, but just like those major players, they are moved by them nonetheless. Yes, towards the end, I found the historical explanations frustrating, but mostly because Manzoni had made me invested in the characters of Renzo and Lucia. I didn’t care so much about the politics of the war or the plague, but I certainly cared how those things affected the main characters. And in that sense, I think the novel succeeds, because while there are backstories to characters that we really didn’t need to know and historical tangents that perhaps go into too much detail, there was never a moment when I wasn’t still wondering how these things affected Renzo and Lucia.