Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.7 AVERAGE
3.7 AVERAGE
I knew before I started reading a Hardy novel it would be depressing, as they are all depressing. I prefer my novels to have trials and tribulation along the way, but everything nice and happy at the end. But oh no, Thomas Hardy didn’t think like that. He prefers to pile misery on misery in an unremitting orgy of unhappiness. No butterflies and fluffy kittens here obviously.
So you must gird your loins before you start and think things might not work out altogether well for poor Jude. He dreams of being a student in a far-away Christminster, but is thwarted by his social class and own impractical nature. He meets Sue Bridehead, his cousin and an airhead if there ever was one, and falls in love, but that doesn’t work out too happily either…
I suppose I love Hardy most for his descriptions of the South Downs, there is a strong element of geography to Hardy’s novels. So you can follow Jude’s progress from Christminster (Oxford) to Melchester (Salisbury) to Aldbrickham (Reading). It proves that if Hardy was correct, the Victorians were much more mobile than you imagine. Albrickham is extraordinary – I mean, I know Reading a little and it is nothing like Aldbrickham now! A lot of southern England has irrevocably changed, so Hardy’s novels allow you to imagine for a little while a lost landscape. An indulgent pleasure and worth putting up with the misery.
So you must gird your loins before you start and think things might not work out altogether well for poor Jude. He dreams of being a student in a far-away Christminster, but is thwarted by his social class and own impractical nature. He meets Sue Bridehead, his cousin and an airhead if there ever was one, and falls in love, but that doesn’t work out too happily either…
I suppose I love Hardy most for his descriptions of the South Downs, there is a strong element of geography to Hardy’s novels. So you can follow Jude’s progress from Christminster (Oxford) to Melchester (Salisbury) to Aldbrickham (Reading). It proves that if Hardy was correct, the Victorians were much more mobile than you imagine. Albrickham is extraordinary – I mean, I know Reading a little and it is nothing like Aldbrickham now! A lot of southern England has irrevocably changed, so Hardy’s novels allow you to imagine for a little while a lost landscape. An indulgent pleasure and worth putting up with the misery.
I really wanted to love this book, and there were times I really did. But it's so incredibly boring and grim! Still love Hardy. Hasn't put me off him. Would still rather him over Dickens any day.
Casi tenía miedo de leer Jude porque me habían vendido esta historia como un DRAMA SIN FIN, y no sé si es que me he hecho ya al estilo Hardy, pero no me ha parecido para tanto. Es cierto que resulta impactante por una serie de acontecimientos del desenlace pero no me gustaría quedarme solo con eso.
Me ha parecido una novela muy crítica con la sociedad victoriana en muchísimos aspectos, con personajes muy complejos encerrados en una época en la que son incapaces de ser felices por culpa de las convenciones sociales, siendo ellos muy adelantados a su época o su país. He disfrutado de cada página por el estilo tan especial del autor y hay personajes como Sue y Arabella que me han fascinado.
***Sigo recomendando encarecidamente empezar con este autor por 'Lejos del mundanal ruido'
Me ha parecido una novela muy crítica con la sociedad victoriana en muchísimos aspectos, con personajes muy complejos encerrados en una época en la que son incapaces de ser felices por culpa de las convenciones sociales, siendo ellos muy adelantados a su época o su país. He disfrutado de cada página por el estilo tan especial del autor y hay personajes como Sue y Arabella que me han fascinado.
***Sigo recomendando encarecidamente empezar con este autor por 'Lejos del mundanal ruido'
I am shocked that I am giving this book 4 stars. I don't like Hardy (having read both Tess and Madding Crowd); I find him to be depressing, judge-y, and tedious. And in many ways, this book aligns with my previous opinion of Hardy- especially the depressing bit. And honestly, the plot often just serves as 'set pieces' for Hardy to move his characters from place to place, so they can react and expound on their philosophies and there are some pretty unrealistic events (i.e., the children's deaths). But. Those philosophies that Jude, Sue, and (to a lesser extent) Richard are expounding? Dang. Jude the Obscure is basically a book-long treatise demonstrating how marriage is a broken institution, and how many of the laws and attitudes of the time are downright inhumane. Published in 1895, this book is decades ahead of its time. Jude and Sue live according to their consciences, in both the religious and moral sense as well as by defying laws and norms (specifically in terms of marriage, divorce, and 'living in sin'). They find some happiness, but ultimately suffer gravely for questioning societal norms. As a novel, I found a lot of the storytelling a bit pat and some of the characters (Arabella - oy! She is a caricature at best) unrealistic, but I loved what Hardy was saying so much that I have massive respect for this book. A surprising thumbs up from me!
challenging
dark
emotional
sad
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
challenging
dark
emotional
reflective
sad
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
N/A
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
dark
emotional
reflective
sad
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
3/5 stars
Minor spoilers follow, I guess.
Moral of the story: Do not cheat on your spouse with your first cousin. Rolle Ye Olde Tyde.
In seriousness, I have major issues with this story. It’s a Greek tragedy set in Victorian England. The actual story is wonderful. The disintegration of the aptly-named Fawley (Folly) family is something that might come straight out of Shakespeare. Unfortunately, it is mixed with a lot of social commentary which brought down the experience for me.
The novel critiques Victorian ideals of marriage, divorce, sex, adultery, and religion. This was extremely well-done up until the very end of the book, when Sue mysteriously changes her mind and everything the novel said about marriage is reversed. Perhaps that’s part of the grand tragedy of the novel; the characters were so close to egalitarianism before being crushed by their circumstances and reverting back to socially acceptable behavior. On the other hand, it could also be read as tacit support for the pharisaical attitudes of Victorian England, so I got mixed messages.
Additionally, for a novel that professes a modern-day view of gender relations, the characterization was quite sexist. Jude and Richard are noble men whose tragedies come about solely because of the women in their lives. Every female character is either a walking exposition, a harlot seeking to entrap men, or a shrinking violet whose major behavioral characteristic is inconsistency. There’s nothing wrong with having an amoral female character, but when *every* woman in the book acts this way, there’s something wrong.
Overall, the wonderful plot is marred considerably by the inconsistency of the morality tale. I understand why it was controversial and relevant when it was published, but I’m not sure that it is still necessary to read today.
Minor spoilers follow, I guess.
Moral of the story: Do not cheat on your spouse with your first cousin. Rolle Ye Olde Tyde.
In seriousness, I have major issues with this story. It’s a Greek tragedy set in Victorian England. The actual story is wonderful. The disintegration of the aptly-named Fawley (Folly) family is something that might come straight out of Shakespeare. Unfortunately, it is mixed with a lot of social commentary which brought down the experience for me.
The novel critiques Victorian ideals of marriage, divorce, sex, adultery, and religion. This was extremely well-done up until the very end of the book, when Sue mysteriously changes her mind and everything the novel said about marriage is reversed. Perhaps that’s part of the grand tragedy of the novel; the characters were so close to egalitarianism before being crushed by their circumstances and reverting back to socially acceptable behavior. On the other hand, it could also be read as tacit support for the pharisaical attitudes of Victorian England, so I got mixed messages.
Additionally, for a novel that professes a modern-day view of gender relations, the characterization was quite sexist. Jude and Richard are noble men whose tragedies come about solely because of the women in their lives. Every female character is either a walking exposition, a harlot seeking to entrap men, or a shrinking violet whose major behavioral characteristic is inconsistency. There’s nothing wrong with having an amoral female character, but when *every* woman in the book acts this way, there’s something wrong.
Overall, the wonderful plot is marred considerably by the inconsistency of the morality tale. I understand why it was controversial and relevant when it was published, but I’m not sure that it is still necessary to read today.