Scan barcode
barrypierce's review against another edition
1.0
Isherwood has been a hit and miss author for me. All the Conspirators (1928) was his first novel and a big miss. The novel follows these siblings who basically just do everything in their power to reject their mother. This novel was written in the 1920s for a 1920s audience. It is just so utterly boring. Nothing happens. It is plotless. It’s your typical inter-generational class war novel. All the Conspirators reads like all the worst chapters of Forster filled with characters that Wodehouse would have a field day with.
maccymacd's review against another edition
2.0
"I saw quite enough of Cambridge, last time. It's the most vilely overrated place in the Kingdom. Never shall I forget my disappointment when Victor took us to the Backs."
There is a strange naivety to this, Isherwood's first novel. He skips backwards and forwards in a rambling stream of consciousness, much like Virginia Woolf chose to do. I personally really dislike this way of writing. I find it difficult to keep up and understand one page from the next and I find if anything, that writing "straight from your head" instead of taking time to form normal sentences makes everything more complicated.
The lead characters are all pretty unlikeable too.
We have Phil, who comes back home to Kensington from his travels with the bombshell that he has quit his job to become a full time painter and writer. All he needs is 6 months of his mother's money and he will be on his way to better things. His mother is an embarassing creature, utterly fixated on her children and the wrong that they have done her, and Phil's sister Joan is an unpleasant person who treats her love interest Victor with distain and bosses him around repeatedly.
From the blurb on the back, I picked out "Kensington" and "1920s" and that was enough to suck me in, but there wasn't a lot to like here. It was clear Isherwood was trying to find his feet, and his style, and I know that he goes on to write a lot more coherently in his later works, but I just can't bring myself to rate this highly, because I didn't enjoy it in the slightest. And the way Phil talks so negatively about Cambridge and its May Balls had me almost in tears!!
There is a strange naivety to this, Isherwood's first novel. He skips backwards and forwards in a rambling stream of consciousness, much like Virginia Woolf chose to do. I personally really dislike this way of writing. I find it difficult to keep up and understand one page from the next and I find if anything, that writing "straight from your head" instead of taking time to form normal sentences makes everything more complicated.
The lead characters are all pretty unlikeable too.
We have Phil, who comes back home to Kensington from his travels with the bombshell that he has quit his job to become a full time painter and writer. All he needs is 6 months of his mother's money and he will be on his way to better things. His mother is an embarassing creature, utterly fixated on her children and the wrong that they have done her, and Phil's sister Joan is an unpleasant person who treats her love interest Victor with distain and bosses him around repeatedly.
From the blurb on the back, I picked out "Kensington" and "1920s" and that was enough to suck me in, but there wasn't a lot to like here. It was clear Isherwood was trying to find his feet, and his style, and I know that he goes on to write a lot more coherently in his later works, but I just can't bring myself to rate this highly, because I didn't enjoy it in the slightest. And the way Phil talks so negatively about Cambridge and its May Balls had me almost in tears!!
mvdp's review against another edition
challenging
reflective
sad
slow-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
3.5
j07rose's review against another edition
4.0
A definite coming of age piece. Not Isherwoods best but as a first novel, not bad.
More...