You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.68 AVERAGE
3.68 AVERAGE
another good Irving book. not my favorite but still very compelling read. my main complaint is that (even as a lesbian myself) there are far too many mentions of women’s boobs. WE GET IT, she has nice boobs! get over it already
At first I felt this book contained too much detail on the sordid lives of the characters, but when I finished, it made me cry. It's message is definitely a condemnation of promiscuity, but goes about it in a very unique way. A lot of food for thought (or for a book discussion group!)
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
dark
emotional
sad
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
dark
emotional
reflective
sad
medium-paced
I finished this one today. It was long, but I really enjoyed the uniqueness of it. So much goes on through the course of the book, and each character experiences a ton. I like that it's all action-based; despite how long it is, there's not a lot of summary.
I didn't really LIKE any of the characters, except Eduardo, who only had a bit part. And the first section is so dramatic and real, then afterwards everyone turns two-dimensional and just sort of drifts along.
I thought it was cool that Irving showed "samples" of the characters' writing, though I was bored by the long descriptions of it.
More than anything, I appreciate the sheer imagination behind this. I'd definitely read more by Irving.
I didn't really LIKE any of the characters, except Eduardo, who only had a bit part. And the first section is so dramatic and real, then afterwards everyone turns two-dimensional and just sort of drifts along.
I thought it was cool that Irving showed "samples" of the characters' writing, though I was bored by the long descriptions of it.
More than anything, I appreciate the sheer imagination behind this. I'd definitely read more by Irving.
I haven’t read a great deal of Irving’s work, but I know it’s held in high esteem.
I did enjoy the novel and the evolving plot very much. As the accusation of ill written and unbelievable female characters? Yes, I speak as a male reader but I certainly see variations in his portrayal of the various women in this book.
I did enjoy the novel and the evolving plot very much. As the accusation of ill written and unbelievable female characters? Yes, I speak as a male reader but I certainly see variations in his portrayal of the various women in this book.
Writers Writing About Writers Writing
Ruth thought of a novel as a great, untidy house, a disorderly mansion; her job was to make the place fit to live in, to give it at least the semblance of order. Only when she wrote was she unafraid.
How many writers in one book are too many writers? Read A Widow for One Year by John Irving to find out. Jokes aside, I really do enjoy books about authors, books about everything related to books. I generally find them charming. But, almost every main character in this book is a writer. The one character that wasn’t a writer was a journalist. A print journalist. It all got a little too much for me.
The premise of this book sounded right up my alley. A Widow For One Year tells the story of Ruth Cole, a critically-acclaimed and popular fiction writer and picks up at important moments in her life. The first time is when she is four and walks in on her mother having sex with her father’s writing assistant. The second is when she is 36 and witnesses an event she should not have while on tour for her third book. Finally, the third time that the story picks up is when Ruth has just lost her husband. A story that chronicles the life story of a woman and writer sounds like a definite hit in my books. But this is where Irving’s writing came into play.
Everyone has read those memes about how male characters take extra measures to ensure that the readers get an uncomfortable amount of details about the female character's appearance, right? Well, Irving is guilty of doing just that. At first it is forgivable as we are introduced to Marion Cole (also a writer), Ruth’s mother who never recovers from the death of her two teenage sons, through the eyes of the teenaged boy, Eddie (also a writer), in love with her. In-depth descriptions of her beauty, sex appeal and body though out of place, are understandable.
But who can distinguish between falling in love and imagining falling in love? Even genuinely falling in love is an act of the imagination.
But then the post-Marion scenes somehow become worse. The sheer number of times that Irving reiterates that Ruth has ‘great breasts’ goes from being funny to being downright annoying really quick. So much so that there is an entire scene dedicated to Ruth complaining about the fact that there is a man staring at her breasts. The scene is three pages long. Nothing of any importance happens during those three pages.
Rom-coms have introduced modern audiences to the character of the best friend. The supportive, bitchy, witty and dependable foil to the main character, often introduced for some forced diversity. Irving uses this stereotype to give us Hannah (a journalist) Ruth’s best friend, or at least that’s what we are told even though nothing about the way Ruth talks about Hannah would hint at them being friends. From slut-shaming to jealousy, Irving does everything to make the relationship between Ruth and Hannah everything but friendly.
The only redeemable qualities about this book, in my opinion, are the comic scenes. The gardener and the mistress dealing with Ruth’s father Ted Cole (also a writer) scenes, in the beginning, Eddie’s attempts to make it for the book reading on time and Ruth’s encounter with a man she absolutely did not have an affair with were great scenes. Irving writes some really interesting things about autobiographical writing, dealing with grief and the use of the semicolon in modern English. The manner in which the different stories by the various writers in the book are interspersed with the original story is done exceptionally well.
The first quarter of the book is actually a pretty good read and I could understand why Irving’s writing is praised so often but then the latter part of the book just kept going downhill. All the characters do completely unforgivable things that make the readers dislike them, they find themselves in horrible situations where they make the worst decisions and they have particularly strange definitions of ‘love’. It is surprising that there is so much I have to complain about a book that in theory seems like five-star read for me.
There are moments when time does stop. We must be alert enough to notice such moments.
Ruth thought of a novel as a great, untidy house, a disorderly mansion; her job was to make the place fit to live in, to give it at least the semblance of order. Only when she wrote was she unafraid.
How many writers in one book are too many writers? Read A Widow for One Year by John Irving to find out. Jokes aside, I really do enjoy books about authors, books about everything related to books. I generally find them charming. But, almost every main character in this book is a writer. The one character that wasn’t a writer was a journalist. A print journalist. It all got a little too much for me.
The premise of this book sounded right up my alley. A Widow For One Year tells the story of Ruth Cole, a critically-acclaimed and popular fiction writer and picks up at important moments in her life. The first time is when she is four and walks in on her mother having sex with her father’s writing assistant. The second is when she is 36 and witnesses an event she should not have while on tour for her third book. Finally, the third time that the story picks up is when Ruth has just lost her husband. A story that chronicles the life story of a woman and writer sounds like a definite hit in my books. But this is where Irving’s writing came into play.
Everyone has read those memes about how male characters take extra measures to ensure that the readers get an uncomfortable amount of details about the female character's appearance, right? Well, Irving is guilty of doing just that. At first it is forgivable as we are introduced to Marion Cole (also a writer), Ruth’s mother who never recovers from the death of her two teenage sons, through the eyes of the teenaged boy, Eddie (also a writer), in love with her. In-depth descriptions of her beauty, sex appeal and body though out of place, are understandable.
But who can distinguish between falling in love and imagining falling in love? Even genuinely falling in love is an act of the imagination.
But then the post-Marion scenes somehow become worse. The sheer number of times that Irving reiterates that Ruth has ‘great breasts’ goes from being funny to being downright annoying really quick. So much so that there is an entire scene dedicated to Ruth complaining about the fact that there is a man staring at her breasts. The scene is three pages long. Nothing of any importance happens during those three pages.
Rom-coms have introduced modern audiences to the character of the best friend. The supportive, bitchy, witty and dependable foil to the main character, often introduced for some forced diversity. Irving uses this stereotype to give us Hannah (a journalist) Ruth’s best friend, or at least that’s what we are told even though nothing about the way Ruth talks about Hannah would hint at them being friends. From slut-shaming to jealousy, Irving does everything to make the relationship between Ruth and Hannah everything but friendly.
The only redeemable qualities about this book, in my opinion, are the comic scenes. The gardener and the mistress dealing with Ruth’s father Ted Cole (also a writer) scenes, in the beginning, Eddie’s attempts to make it for the book reading on time and Ruth’s encounter with a man she absolutely did not have an affair with were great scenes. Irving writes some really interesting things about autobiographical writing, dealing with grief and the use of the semicolon in modern English. The manner in which the different stories by the various writers in the book are interspersed with the original story is done exceptionally well.
The first quarter of the book is actually a pretty good read and I could understand why Irving’s writing is praised so often but then the latter part of the book just kept going downhill. All the characters do completely unforgivable things that make the readers dislike them, they find themselves in horrible situations where they make the worst decisions and they have particularly strange definitions of ‘love’. It is surprising that there is so much I have to complain about a book that in theory seems like five-star read for me.
There are moments when time does stop. We must be alert enough to notice such moments.
challenging
dark
funny
reflective
sad
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
I went through a real John Irving phase in my early twenties (courtesy of my dad who is a big fan) and then sort of lost impetus. This was like enjoying a hot bath - it's a long book, and you have to just sort of soak up the atmosphere and get lost in it. It's so well described, I almost feel like I know New England college towns now. As always, it's complicated and unpleasant, horrible things happen to reasonably OK people, children die, there's a lot of really tricky grief and dysfunction and it sometimes feels like being made to face up to some really ugly human instincts. I always feel like that with Irving - no one's ego is being stroked, no punches are being pulled. But it's also frequently very funny, both in a weird way and just an outright comical way. I loved that in the little interview at the back of my paperpack copy, he said he really wanted to write a four-year old, partly because four is when you start having real memories (which I agree with as I do) and partly because he had a four-year old at the time and could accurately describe how they talk - it does feel really accurate. And, of course, all the complicated little threads throughout are pulled together right at the end into a really satisfying knot. Not for the faint-hearted, perhaps, but I still think it's one of his best.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Child death, Infidelity, Sexual content, Toxic relationship
Moderate: Alcoholism