Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.7 AVERAGE
3.7 AVERAGE
Great read. It’s theme, the conflict between modern desires and the backlash of tradition is as true today as it was in 1895
I visited England for the first time this summer, and the countryside felt oddly nostalgic. It was just as Hardy described it in his books! I especially appreciated the layman’s take of Oxford in this one because it seems to follow the reality of failed dreams. The story felt like an ode to pagan religion and the Bible (which I have little knowledge of), as characters are often found quoting it. I’m not sure I agree with the notion of gender roles and marriage, but Hardy makes his point clearly. I love the writing style! And my experiences in Oxford only deepen my appreciation for Hardy’s characterization of them, and how one often lusts for abstract/physical elements.
This book was... different.
I came to it cold, so to speak, with no foreknowledge of the contents.
It is undoubtedly well written. It is also determinedly depressing.
This is probably better read in a classroom setting?
I came to it cold, so to speak, with no foreknowledge of the contents.
It is undoubtedly well written. It is also determinedly depressing.
This is probably better read in a classroom setting?
Very overwrought. Did not really find this enjoyable. The characters were not especially sympathetic.
If we are happy as we are, what does it matter to anybody?
I had such high hopes during a large portion of this book.
Their lives were ruined, he thought; ruined by the fundamental error of their matrimonial union: that of having based a permanent contract on a temporary feeling which had no necessary connection with affinities that alone render a lifelong comradeship tolerable.
Hardy lays out, in proper Victorian form, many of my own arguments against marriage. Why agree to "love forever" based on a momentary feeling? Why doom love to die by trying to formalize it? Is that promise to love each other no matter what not just an excuse to stop trying, stop striving?
...it is foreign to a man's nature to go on loving a person when he is told that he must and shall be that person's lover. There would be a much likelier chance of his doing it if he were told not to love. If the marriage ceremony consisted in an oath and signed contract between the parties to cease loving from that day forward, in consideration of personal possession being given, and to avoid each other's society as much as possible in public, there would be more loving couples than there are now. Fancy the secret meetings between the perjuring husband and wife, the denials of having seen each other, the clambering in at bedroom windows, and the hiding in closets! There'd be little cooling then.
Fortunately, the rejection of marriage is no longer such radical talk as when this book was published 100+ years ago (though it's still seen as unusual). And thank goodness, because this novel paints a bleak picture of life otherwise.
Unfortunately for my enjoyment of this book, both Jude and Sue only become more annoying as it goes on. Jude rankles me with his "nice guy" talk ("she doesn't know what she's doing", "she'll never be happy with anyone but me", etc.). And even worse is that he's right, and Sue comes across as flighty, inconsiderate, and downright stupid at times. She starts out a potential feminist icon, and I really hoped she would counter Jude's misery and "nice guy" rhetoric by actually making smart choices and being happy in her own marriage, but no - she ends up little more than an echo of Jude's plot, rather than retaining her own story and motivations.
challenging
emotional
reflective
sad
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
as i’ve said repeatedly, this book has made me a woman hater gn
To be honest, I listened to the podcast, Obscure, wherein Michael Ian Black reads this out loud and comments on it as he goes. Brilliant. I want more like that!!
Book was a 3; podcast was a 5.
Book was a 3; podcast was a 5.
